Last year, Katie Hobbs, by executive order, established a “task force” headed by her Office of “Sustainability” to develop a report on energy affordability and reliability. This month, her task force submitted their plan which would do the opposite of that: make energy more expensive and less reliable. This shouldn’t come as a surprise considering the “task force” called by Hobbs is made up of solar special interests, environmental activists, her own agencies, and utilities that have all committed to going Net Zero anyway.
Instead of reading 81 pages that brings nothing new to the table, the only questions that need to be asked (and answered) about the report are below.
Does it call for new natural gas generation? Not really.
Does it call on utilities to keep our coal plants open? No, they want to shut them down and “repower” them to “clean” energy.
Does it pave the way for new nuclear? Not until the mid-2040s, at the earliest.
What, then, does it advocate doing? Subsize special interests by blanketing state trust land and government buildings with even more solar, wind, and battery storage. The very thing causing utility rates to increase and leading to blackouts…
As the end of 2025 nears, the question arises: What can Americans expect in the world of energy policy in 2026?
Predicting future events where energy is concerned is always a risky enterprise. After all, if anyone could accurately foresee where, say, the Brent price for crude oil would sit a week from today, that person would soon become fabulously wealthy and never have to work another day in his or her life. But no one can actually do that because too many widely disparate factors impact where prices will head on a daily basis. This overarching theme holds true in most areas of the widely diverse energy space.
Still, just as energy details like exact future oil prices or rig count levels are impossible to know with certainty, some overarching trends are entirely foreseeable. As an example, it was entirely predictable a year ago that 2025 would become a year in which an energy policy revolution would take place. Donald Trump had been elected to a second term and was in the process of naming cabinet nominees who would lead an effort to reverse the onerous regulations and economically ruinous subsidy spending of the Biden years.
A policy revolution was entirely predictable, even though, as I wrote at the time, it would take a somewhat different form than many were expecting. There would be no replay of the “Drill, Baby, Drill” agenda of Trump’s first term mainly due to a series of intractable economic factors. Instead, we’d have a “Build, Baby, Build” revolution in which policy changes have focused on setting the conditions for a boom in energy infrastructure like pipelines, LNG export facilities, baseload power generation, major transmission projects, new and expanded mining operations, and more into place.
With business-oriented cabinet officials like Chris Wright at the Energy Department and Doug Burgum at Interior leading the way, it was easy to predict that the second Trumpian energy revolution would focus on measures that allow markets, not the dictates of central government planners, to lead the charge. The command-and-control schemes, crony capitalism, and green subsidies would be repealed or phased away. Banks and investment houses would be put on notice that their discriminatory, ESG-focused lending practices would be policed. Rather than focus their personal energy on finding ways to punish disfavored energy players, administration officials would spend their days finding ways to speed up permitting processes.
Those things and more all came about in Year One of this second Trump presidency. It has been a true policy-driven revolution.
Now, as the dawn of 2026 nears, the direction of the administration’s Year Two agenda becomes equally predictable: Consolidation of the gains made in 2025.
The ending/phasing out of the green subsidies must be maintained since they distort markets by encouraging irrational allocations of capital. The capital thrown at wind and solar will be more productively allocated to building new natural gas and nuclear baseload plants and ensuring existing coal plants stay up and running to keep America’s lights on. The capital misallocated by legacy carmakers – like Ford and GM – to their foundering EV dreams must be reallocated to making cars American consumers can afford and actually desire to own.
With global markets creating rapidly rising demand for U.S. LNG, it’s time to “Build, Baby, Build” those needed new export facilities and the pipelines needed to feed the gas into them. Those energy gains can’t be consolidated without driving into action the streamlined processes to issue the needed permits.
And then there are the mines. Regardless of how quickly their permits can be issued, America can’t have any of the pipelines, LNG facilities, power plants, AI datacenters, or transmission lines without the raw mineral materials that make them work. America can no longer afford to be held hostage to supply chains for these materials dominated by China. That means more mines, and lots of them.
The President and his people have worked overtime throughout 2025 to ensure the executive branch’s side of this policy revolution is in place. Now, Congress must act to enshrine it permanently in law. Getting that done, consolidating the gains made in 2025 into action and statutes, will dominate the energy policy agenda throughout 2026. It’s all very predictable.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs is pressing House Republican leadership to move quickly on a sweeping market-based overhaul of federal health-care policy, as enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies approach their scheduled expiration at the end of 2025.
In a letter co-signed by House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD) and Reps. Eric Burlison (R-MO), Clay Higgins (R-LA), and Eli Crane (R-AZ-02), Biggs wrote, “Republicans have solutions, and it’s time to implement them.”
The proposal outlined by Biggs is designed as a free-market alternative to Obamacare and reflects key elements of President Donald Trump’s healthcare agenda. Supporters argue the framework would shift federal policy away from government subsidies and toward consumer-driven healthcare.
“The time for half measures is over,” Biggs wrote to Speaker Johnson. “The American people deserve healthcare reform built on freedom, affordability, flexibility, and choice—not more subsidies, red tape, or handouts for insurance companies.”
🚨ICYMI: I’m leading the push for comprehensive healthcare reform.
Republicans have solutions, and it’s time to implement them.
Under the proposal, conservatives would allow the expanded ACA premium tax credits to expire, arguing the subsidies have inflated healthcare costs, expanded federal dependency, and funneled taxpayer dollars through insurance companies rather than directly to patients. As Breitbart News noted, the framework draws on nine Republican proposals, including those of Reps. Greg Steube (R-FL), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Kevin Hern (R-OK), Bob Onder (R-MO), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Gary Palmer (R-AL), and Chip Roy (R-TX), as well as Senator Rick Scott (R-FL), and Rep. Andy Biggs’s own Health Savings Accounts for All Act.
The framework emphasizes expanded Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), allowing individuals to use tax-advantaged dollars for insurance premiums, prescriptions, and other medical expenses. It also promotes interstate insurance competition and expanded access through Association Health Plans; reforms aimed at lowering costs through market competition.
Biggs and his fellow conservatives argue that Obamacare’s structure relies too heavily on mandates, subsidies, and centralized control, which they say have driven up premiums while limiting consumer choice, particularly for self-employed individuals and those in the gig economy.
The plan also includes provisions to codify restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortion and reinforce conscience protections for healthcare providers, aligning with longstanding conservative policy priorities.
For Arizona, the debate carries direct implications for large numbers of independent contractors, small-business owners, and self-employed workers who often face high ACA marketplace premiums and limited plan options. Expanded HSAs and portable insurance plans could offer greater flexibility for those groups.
“This is a clear blueprint,” Biggs added in his letter to Speaker Johnson, “Americans should be able to take cost-sharing reduction payments and underlying Obamacare subsidies straight into their pockets, giving them control instead of funneling money through insurers.”
At the same time, thousands of Arizonans currently rely on ACA subsidies to offset insurance costs. If Congress allows those enhanced credits to expire without a complete replacement, some households could see premiums rise sharply in the short term.
The framework is not a single bill, but a coordinated package of existing legislative proposals intended to serve as the backbone of a broader GOP healthcare overhaul. With subsidies set to sunset in 2025, and 2026 midterm elections looming, Republican lawmakers face growing pressure to either replace the current system or risk widespread premium increases ahead of the 2026 election cycle.
Fellow Arizona Congressman Eli Crane, who co-signed the letter, amplified the effort on X, writing, “Let’s get it done.”
Biggs concluded his call-to-action writing, “The House must act with clarity and conviction. These reforms should be brought to the floor without delay. If we plant our flag now, we can rebuild a healthcare system that reflects true conservative principles and puts power back where it belongs, in the hands of patients, not bureaucrats or insurance companies.”
Biggs’ push effectively forces the debate into the open. It will compel Congressional Republicans to publicly choose between pursuing a complete market-based reset of federal healthcare policy or seeking a more limited adjustment to the existing ACA structure.
America’s carmakers face an uncertain future in the wake of President Donald Trump’s signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) into law on July 4.
The new law ends the $7,500 credit for new electric vehicles ($4,000 for used units) which was enacted as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act as of September 30, seven years earlier than originally planned.
The promise of that big credit lasting for a full decade did not just improve finances for Tesla and other pure-play EV companies: It also served as a major motivator for integrated carmakers like Ford, GM, and Stellantis to invest billions of dollars in capital into new, EV-specific plants, equipment, and supply chains, and expand their EV model offerings. But now, with the big subsidy about to expire, the question becomes whether the U.S. EV business can survive in an unsubsidized market? Carmakers across the EV spectrum are about to find out, and the outlook for most will not be rosy.
These carmakers will be entering into a brave new world in which the market for their cars had already turned somewhat sour even with the subsidies in place. Sales of EVs stalled during the fourth quarter of 2024 and then collapsed by more than 18% from December to January. Tesla, already negatively impacted by founder and CEO Elon Musk’s increased political activities in addition to the stagnant market, decided to slash prices in an attempt to maintain sales momentum, forcing its competitors to follow suit.
But the record number of EV-specific incentives now being offered by U.S. dealers has done little to halt the drop in sales, as the Wall Street Journal reports that the most recent data shows EV sales falling in each of the three months from April through June. Ford said its own sales had fallen by more than 30% across those three months, with Hyundai and Kia also reporting big drops. GM was the big winner in the second quarter, overtaking Ford and moving into 2nd place behind Tesla in total sales. But its ability to continue such growth absent the big subsidy edge over traditional ICE cars now falls into doubt.
The removal of the per-unit subsidies also calls into question whether the buildout of new public charging infrastructure, which has accelerated dramatically in the past three years, will continue as the market moves into a time of uncertainty. Recognizing that consumer concern, Ford, Hyundai, BMW and others included free home charging kits as part of their current suites of incentives. But of course, that only works if the buyer owns a home with a garage and is willing to pay the higher cost of insurance that now often comes with parking an EV inside.
Decisions, decisions.
As the year dawned, few really expected the narrow Republican congressional majorities would show the political will and unity to move so aggressively to cancel the big IRA EV subsidies. But, as awareness rose in Congress about the true magnitude of the budgetary cost of those provisions over the next 10 years, the benefit of getting rid of them ultimately subsumed concerns about the possible political cost of doing so.
So now, here we are, with an EV industry that seems largely unprepared to survive in a market with a levelized playing field. Even Tesla, which remains far and away the leader in total EV sales despite its recent struggles, seems caught more than a little off-guard despite Musk’s having been heavily involved in the early months of the second Trump presidency.
Musk’s response to his disapproval of the OBBBA was to announce the creation of a third political party he dubbed the American Party. It seems doubtful this new vanity project was the response to a looming challenge that members of Tesla’s board of directors would have preferred. But it does seem appropriately emblematic of an industry that is undeniably limping into uncharted territory with no clear plan for how to escape from existential danger.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
When electric vehicle subsidies were introduced around 2010, they were sold as a short-term fix to allow the undeveloped EV market to get its legs and compete with Internal Combustion Engines (ICE). The subsidies were justified on the basis that EVs, emitting no tail pipe emissions, would reduce global warming, later to be known as climate change.
Fifteen years later, far longer than any normal probation period, the experiment has clearly not worked. According to the Expedia Automotive Trend Report, only 7.9% of new car registrations in 2024 were for EVs. Just 9.3% of the 286 million cars on the road were EVs, paltry numbers indeed considering the strenuous efforts of the federal government to stoke their success.
Purchasers of new EVs are provided with a $7,500 federal subsidy, plus state subsidies where available. Used cars can pull down up to $4,000 in purchasing aid. Commercial vehicles over 14,000 pounds can receive $40,000. Home chargers are eligible for $1,000.
Even though the fuels of ICE cars are heavily taxed, the charging stations for EVs are subsidized too. Battery factories get subsidized. Then there is the whole sorry history of boondoggle giveaways subsidizing EV production and failed loans beginning with the notorious Solyndra debacle.
Canoo lost $900 million and produced 122 cars. Taxpayers got stuck with hundreds of millions of dollars in failed loans from Lordstown Motors, which manufactured 56 vehicles total.
EV drivers don’t have to chip in for road construction and maintenance costs, since they don’t pay gas tax or any fuel-based funding source. On the contrary, theirs is heavily subsidized. Their out-of-pocket cost is equivalent to $1.21 per gallon, but direct and indirect subsidies from government and utilities push the true cost to $17.33 per gallon, according to the Heritage Foundation.
EVs require a lot of juice to operate. Even though the EV market has failed to develop as expected, many major utility companies are already struggling to meet the increased demand. They warn that future EV mandates will require greatly expanded infrastructure for electricity generation and charging stations.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation calculates EV cars would cost $48,688 more without the production and purchase subsidies alone. Maybe all this public expense would be justified if EVs substantially reduced hydrocarbon emissions, but they don’t.
These calculations are tricky because net operating emissions obviously depend on the fuels used to produce the electricity. The disappointing failure of solar and wind to supply abundant, reliable energy and our still-limited access to nuclear energy have resulted in fossil fuels producing most of the electricity used to propel these “emission free” cars.
Moreover, the battery manufacturing and disposal processes are intensely energy consuming. Most studies show little, if any, overall benefit from switching to EVs. Yet the overwhelming evidence that EVs cost a ton and do’’t do much good have so far not deterred the ambitions of government and the enviros to force all or most Americans into them.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas emission standards still require that 32% of new automobile sales be EVs or hybrid by 2027, a fourfold increase in two years from now! By 2032, 70% of sales must be electric. By 2050, we must be emitting no carbon at all.
Here’s a newsflash. That is’’t going to happen. The world’s biggest polluters (China and India) aren’t on board and even in the West, citizens are clearly not willing to crater their economy for a dubious ideological goal with better solutions available.
Meanwhile, government continues mandating that car companies sell EVs to customers who simply do’’t want them even with the massive incentives. What could go wrong?
Companies that can are fleeing the market. Ford projects that it will lose $5.5 billion on EVs this year, which they are forced to produce to meet the EV fleet mandates. That’s $60,000 per car sold, an amount they seemingly anticipate will eventually be bailed out by government.
Look, it’s America. EVs are actually cool and fun to drive. People who want them and can afford them should have them. But there is no reason that the rest of us, who derive no benefit, should have to pay for them.
Let the bubble burst.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
