Opinion: Kamala Harris’ Energy Policy Could Be Her Achilles Heel

US Vice President Kamala Harris is riding a wave of midsummer enthusiasm. But as the presidential campaign drags on and some of the early glow inevitably fades, it would help if the presumptive Democratic nominee showed voters that she is not the radical leftist Republicans believe she is.

One part of the attack line: Her past positions on energy and climate. These issues, which have particular significance for Canada, are potential obstacles in her presidential race. It could even be described as a Pennsylvania problem, in a key swing state that produces almost as much natural gas as Texas.

This is an era of competing priorities. Many people are terrified by the pace of climate change, but the daily grind of paying the bills often takes center stage. There’s a new focus on energy security and a recognition that demand will grow across the board. The push in the Senate to speed up permitting for power grid projects, renewables and even fossil fuel pipelines — a bill Politico describes as “the legislation everyone kind of hates” — underscores that tension.

In this context, Mr. Harris needs to distance herself from her earlier unrealistic climate policies. As a senator, she co-sponsored the Green New Deal in 2019, which called for the exclusive use of renewable energy by 2030, and around the same time called for a ban on fracking.

Those previous positions fall into the category of nonexistent and are real lines of attack for Republicans. And for those who disagree, just look at how outgoing President Joe Biden conducted himself once he took office.

During his presidency, Mr. Biden has been battered by the reality of his country’s dependence on fossil fuels. He has gone to great lengths to keep gasoline prices in check, releasing barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and compromising his foreign policy. Even with climate as a key priority, Mr. Biden has led the United States into the world’s largest oil producer, a far cry from the candidate who called for “no new fracking” in a debate with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders four years ago.

It’s not just a huge forest fire – Jasper is one of the most beautiful places on the planet

Ms. Harris will inherit that past and the positions that Mr. Biden was forced to take. Ms. Harris’ campaign team has said she is not now in favor of banning hydraulic fracturing. The technique is controversial but widespread, and it is also a reason the United States can produce increasing amounts of oil and natural gas and have the relative energy independence that it does. Her team says she will now focus on passing climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

It is much harder to predict the policies of a second Trump administration, although they will certainly be friendly to the oil and gas industry.

That could include shipments from north of the border. The U.S. buys nearly four million barrels of crude oil from Canada each day, and Donald Trump has said — not without conviction — that he will impose a 10 percent tariff on all imports. But it’s hard to imagine his protectionist policies applying here, since many Republicans see our industry as so integrated with theirs that it’s almost domestic.

Given that close relationship, the Canadian energy industry was alarmed in January when the Biden administration halted new export terminals for liquefied natural gas (LNG). Canada does not yet have any export facilities of its own, and the U.S. facilities were crucial for producers looking to participate in the global export market. Mr. Trump has said that if reelected, he would approve new LNG terminals on his first day in office, echoing his rapid work on the doomed Keystone XL project, while Ms. Harris has been much more willing to halt work.

But the differences in other areas may not be as big. It is unlikely that Mr. Trump will withdraw all the money that is to be distributed through the IRA and its accompanying provisions. For example, the $7 billion earmarked for the creation of regional clean hydrogen hubs will benefit blue states like California, but also red states and swing states where the vote will decide the outcome of this year’s presidential election.

These competitive states, including Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and especially Pennsylvania, will shape the US presidential race. Mr Biden’s home state is one that understands the health and environmental consequences of fracking firsthand, but also sees the economic value of providing much of the natural gas used on the US East Coast.

The answer to Pennsylvania’s problem is the way Ms. Harris embraces this duality: the climate policies she wants and the reality of the situation today.