Comparing the candidates on oil and gas policies

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, industry leaders are expressing surprisingly muted concerns about potential policy differences between former President Trump and Vice President Harris, with many suggesting the gap between candidates' energy policies may be narrower than rhetoric suggests. This shift reflects both the Biden-Harris administration's tacit support for record domestic production and growing recognition of oil and gas's critical role in energy security.

Despite Trump's "drill baby drill" messaging, industry experts note that presidential influence over production levels is limited, particularly given current market dynamics where OPEC+ maintains significant control over global prices. Harris's newly proclaimed pro-fracking stance, coupled with the current administration's oversight of soaring U.S. production to over 13 million barrels per day, suggests continuity, rather than disruption, may be the most likely outcome, regardless of the election winner.

The key policy battlegrounds are likely to center on permitting and regulatory frameworks rather than fundamental industry operations. Industry leaders particularly highlight LNG export permits, methane regulations, and federal land access as critical areas where administrative policies could impact sector economics. However, the Supreme Court's recent Chevron decision may constrain executive regulatory authority regardless of who wins the White House.

Infrastructure emerges as a critical shared challenge, with both candidates facing pressure to address pipeline capacity constraints and power grid modernization needs. The Energy Permitting Reform Act, enjoying bipartisan support, signals growing recognition that regulatory streamlining is essential for both traditional and renewable energy development, though approaches to implementation may differ between administrations.

Industry executives express particular concern about regulatory stability and certainty rather than specific policy positions. The American Petroleum Institute and other industry groups emphasize that recent production growth occurred despite, not because of, federal policy, suggesting that market fundamentals rather than administrative actions will likely drive sector performance. The growing focus on U.S. energy security and LNG exports to allies may also constrain dramatic policy shifts under either administration.

State-level policies and regulations may ultimately prove more consequential than federal actions, with Texas and other key producing states maintaining generally supportive frameworks regardless of the presidential outcome. Industry leaders suggest focusing on collaborating with either administration to develop pragmatic policies that balance energy security, economic, and environmental considerations, rather than anticipating dramatic shifts based on election results.