Analysts see Harris walking "energy tightrope"
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Photo illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
My inbox is starting to fill up with analyses of how Kamala Harris might campaign or govern any differently than her boss on energy and climate.
Why it matters: These notes offer an arms-length attempt to game out the Democrats' White House pick.
State of play: Harris ran to Biden's left in her short primary campaign, but don't assume a replay of 2019.
- "The key question now is whether she reclaims her more progressive climate positions in hopes of energizing the progressive base and young voters or stays in the Biden energy and climate swim lanes in order to gain electoral advantage in must-win Rust Belt states like Pennsylvania," RBC Capital Markets analysts said in a note.
- They see Harris walking an "energy tightrope" to keep party unity and turn out voters, "particularly as there appears to be no path to winning the White House without the Keystone State."
The intrigue: There's not much to work with in the new campaign — yet.
- In Wisconsin this week, Harris cast Trump as a tool of "Big Oil" in contrast to her own "people-powered campaign."
- But ClearView Energy Partners say that while she didn't sound like someone trying to woo undecided centrists, her remarks may have been about style as much as policy.
- "Harris ... may have been looking to show her own party her relative vim and vigor, and that she is up to the task of confronting her pugilistic rival," the research firm said in a note.
What we're watching: If Harris wins, the most obvious thing is that she would continue implementing the IRA and other Biden-Harris policies, such as scant offshore oil leasing.
- But TD Cowen analysts predict even more focus on environmental justice, already a priority for the current White House.
- There's "little daylight between Biden and Harris on big ticket policies," but they do see a "re-weighting in stakeholder perspectives — resulting in a greater focus on local EJ impacts (jobs, equity, historic pollution) over national GHG emissions balances."
Friction point: Harris would not govern in a vacuum.
- RBC reminds us that high gasoline prices and Russia's invasion of Ukraine prompted President Biden to push for more oil production and U.S. LNG flows to Europe.
- ClearView offers a similar recent history lesson and riffs on the politics even more, noting "re-election pressures could potentially constrain the green ambitions of Harris' first term the same way they did Biden's."
- "[B]y contrast, a second-term Biden might have been more willing to pinch the oil patch in pursuit of an environmental legacy," they write.
What's next: We'll doubtless revisit all this as the campaign unfolds.
