The impact: Although the Trump administration wants to curb OPEC’s power, the organization's presence in recent years has brought price and trade stability to one of the world’s most valuable and strategic commodities.

• Targeting OPEC with U.S. legal action could cause OPEC and non–OPEC oil-producing states (such as Russia and Azerbaijan) to retaliate. With OPEC accounting for over 40% of world oil output and with G-20 powers as key international oil consumers, the U.S. could face backlash from other consumer allies in Europe and Asia if NOPEC is seen as destabilizing oil markets and commodities prices.
• Price volatility could be especially detrimental to U.S. oil producers, now the number one source of global oil supply and a driving force behind American economic growth.

Where it stands: OPEC has announced that it won’t meet in April and will observe how market reacts to U.S. sanctions on Iran and the crisis in Venezuela. This implies OPEC might consider increasing oil output to maintain price stability.

• If NOPEC were to become law during that period, any cooperation with the U.S. to maintain stable oil prices would be unlikely and could limit collaboration in the foreign policy realm as well.

What to watch: The U.S. could influence OPEC by increasing oil and natural gas exports, as noted by Brookings Institution researchers, who argue that market solutions are available to stabilize prices.

The bottom line: NOPEC threatens to undermine economic growth, undercut U.S. commitments to international law and alienate trade partners. Increasing American oil infrastructure and exploration capacity would offer a sounder path toward energy dominance.

Richard D. Kauzlarich is a former U.S. ambassador and the co-director of the Center for Energy Science and Policy at George Mason University.

Details: Coal consumption, 82% of which stems from electricity generation in coal-fired power plants, has fallen to its lowest point in four decades. Spurring on the decline is a nationwide retreat by power providers from coal-fired electricity generation, which fell by a near-record 14.3 gigawatts last year.

• While the coal industry has claimed that regulation is a major driver of coal’s decline, official projections show that U.S. coal production is now expected to fall at a greater rate than it would have under the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan.

Be smart: The Trump administration's failed attempt to block the closure of the remaining coal-fired unit in the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Paradise Fossil Plant made little economic sense. After shutting down two other coal-fired units in the Paradise location in 2017 and replacing them with more efficient gas power generators, the TVA officially voted to close the third on Thursday. This is a trend grounded in the need for efficiency and lower operations and maintenance costs associated with coal units.

What to watch: Now at just 691 million tons, U.S. coal consumption is expected to continue declining, down from 29% to 2% of total electricity production by 2035. This generating capacity will be replaced mostly by less expensive natural gas power plants, whose share is expected to rise from 30% to 37% over the same time period.

The bottom line: With electricity power providers seeking cleaner, more cost-competitive options and the shale revolution unlocking new natural gas reserves, the market — if left alone — will continue to replace coal with natural gas as the dominant fuel source for U.S. electricity.

Richard D. Kauzlarich is a former U.S. ambassador and the co-director of the Center for Energy Science and Policy at George Mason University.

The importance of establishing a long-term bilateral agreement between China and the U.S. is difficult to overstate under such circumstances.

• U.S.–Chinese trade in goods accounted for more than $635 billion (of $3.9 trillion) in overall U.S. goods trade in 2017.
• China was the third-largest export market for American goods and also the U.S.' largest import market.

The risks for energy trade are particularly great. As trade conflict with China increased, Chinese energy imports from the U.S. fell to nearly zero at the end of 2018, which affected the U.S. tanker shipping industry and oil producers. Even if the trade war threat diminishes, it will be difficult to recoup lost market share in the face of competition from Russia and elsewhere.

• By escalating the tit-for-tat trade war, President Trump has worked against America’s energy interests, leaving domestic energy firms to struggle with a glut of oil and gas at home.

What to watch: A high-level meeting between Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has been scheduled for Jan. 30–31. These talks are critical to avoiding the imposition of additional U.S. tariffs on March 1.

The bottom line: As the Trump administration looks ahead to the high-level negotiations, its team will need to focus on advancing a new bilateral agreement. Settling this bilateral trade dispute would also enhance the Trump administration's policy of energy dominance and benefit U.S. oil and gas producers that need the Chinese market to absorb excess domestic energy production.

Richard D. Kauzlarich is a former U.S. ambassador and the co-director of the Center for Energy Science and Policy at George Mason University.