Kamala Harris’s energy policies could be her Achilles’ heel

Open this photo in gallery:

U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris is riding a mid-summer wave of enthusiasm. But as the presidential campaign wears on and some of the initial glow inevitably wears off, it will help if the presumptive Democrat nominee can show voters she’s not the radical leftist that Republicans say she is.

One part of the line of attack: Her past positions on energy and climate. These issues, which hold special relevance to Canada, are potential stumbling blocks in her run for the presidency. You could even describe it as a Pennsylvania problem in reference to the crucial swing state that produces almost as much natural gas as Texas.

It’s an era of conflicting priorities. Many people are terrified by the pace of climate change, but the daily grind of paying bills often takes centre stage. There is a new focus on energy security and recognition that demand is going to increase across the board. A push in the Senate to speed up permitting for project approvals for electricity grids, renewables and even fossil fuel pipelines – a bill Politico describes as “legislation that everyone hates a little bit” – underscores this tension.

In this context, Ms. Harris needs to put some distance between her and her past unrealistic climate policies. As senator, she co-sponsored the 2019 push for a Green New Deal, which called for exclusive use of renewable electricity by 2030, and had around the same time called for a ban on fracking.

These past positions are both in the category of not happening, and are viable lines of attack for Republicans. And to those who would disagree, you need only to look at how outgoing President Joe Biden behaved once in office.

During his years as president, Mr. Biden was mugged by the reality of his country’s dependence on fossil fuels. He went to great lengths to keep gasoline prices on an even keel by releasing barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and compromised his foreign policy. Even with climate as his key priority, Mr. Biden has presided over the U.S. becoming the biggest oil producer in the world and is far from the candidate who, in a debate four years ago with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, called for “no new fracking.”

It’s not just a vast forest burning – Jasper is one of the most beautiful spots on the planet

Ms. Harris will inherit this past, and the position Mr. Biden was forced to adopt. The Harris campaign team said she’s now not in favour of a hydraulic fracturing ban. The technique is controversial but widespread, and also is the very reason the U.S. can produce increasing amounts of oil and natural gas and have the relative energy independence it does. Her team says now her focus would be on enacting the provisions of the climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The policies of a second Trump administration are far more difficult to predict, although it would certainly be friendly to the oil and gas industry.

That could include shipments from north of the border. The U.S. buys near four million barrels of oil from Canada every day, and Donald Trump has said – not unconvincingly – he will slap a 10-per-cent tariff on all imported goods. But it’s hard to envision his protectionist policies applying here, as many Republicans view our industry as so integrated with theirs, it’s almost domestic.

Given that close relationship, Canada’s energy industry was dismayed in January when the Biden administration paused new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals. Canada doesn’t have any export facilities of its own, yet, and U.S. facilities have been key for producers here who want to participate in the global export market. Mr. Trump has said if re-elected, he would approve new LNG terminals on his first day in office, an echo of his quick work on the doomed Keystone XL project, whereas Ms. Harris is much more likely to keep the pause.

Still, differences in other areas might not be stark. It’s unlikely Mr. Trump will back away from all the money to be distributed through the IRA and accompanying provisions. The US$7-billion allocated to create regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, for example, will benefit Blue states like California, but also Red states and swing states, where voting will determine the outcome of this year’s presidential election.

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

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