Customers pull their cars into a gas station in the Bronx on June 1, 2018. Photo: Don Emmert/AFP via Getty Images

A key historic pattern that has traditionally shaped dynamics around U.S. energy policy and elections has all but disappeared heading into this year’s midterms. Robust U.S. shale gas and shale-oil production have greatly diminished voter concerns about energy availability and affordability — although a gasoline price spike could quickly rekindle them.

Why it matters: At the same time as voter focus on energy has declined, the two major parties have also developed a deeply polarized gap on climate policy, with only 18% of Republicans concerned a “great deal” about global warming compared to 66% of Democrats. These two factors together mean that the energy policy dynamic has now shifted firmly from Congressional production of complex and broad energy legislation — such as the comprehensive, “something for everyone” bills in 2005 and 2007 — to an increasingly complex, unpredictable and partisan dance between the executive branch, regulators, states and courts. This means that while the midterms won’t have a huge impact on the U.S. energy policy outlook, it will be at stake in 2020.

A change in Congress (particularly if limited to a Democrat House takeover) is unlikely to change the pro-fossil fuel and energy-dominant direction set by the Trump administration, since the constraints on Trump come much more from courts and regulators than from Congress. The 2020 election will therefore be much more decisive.

Democrats will almost certainly nominate a candidate whose energy posture combines second-term Obama climate-centric policy and California-style renewables support. Fracking will be a tricky issue given its importance in battleground states such as Colorado and Pennsylvania. For a preview of how Democrats might navigate the issue, look to this November’s ballot initiative in Colorado on drilling setbacks for oil and gas production. It’s less tricky for Republicans who universally support fracking.

The bottom line: A Democratic take-back of the House (likely) or even both chambers (less likely) will probably not disrupt the U.S. energy policy outlook. But a Democratic presidential victory in 2020 would re-open the fracking debate and provide a tailwind for climate- and renewables-friendly policy. But even there the next President will likely face the same legal and state-level constraints that President Trump faces on pipeline approvals and fuel-efficiency standards.

Robert Johnston is CEO of Eurasia Group and a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center.

Go deeper

Senate to vote on Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation on Oct. 26

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in the Capitol on Oct. 20. Photo: Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images

The Senate will vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court next Monday, Oct. 26, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced Tuesday.

The big picture: The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote this Thursday to advance Barrett's nomination to the full Senate floor. Democrats have acknowledged that there's nothing procedurally that they can do to stop Barrett's confirmation, which will take place just one week out from Election Day.

Updated 1 hour ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

  1. Politics: Americans feel Trump's sickness makes him harder to trustFlorida breaks record for in-person early voting.
  2. Health: The next wave is gaining steam.
  3. Education: Schools haven't become hotspots.
  4. World: Ireland moving back into lockdown — Argentina becomes 5th country to report 1 million infections.

Meadows confirms Trump's tweets "declassifying" Russia documents were false

Photo: Tom Williams-Pool/Getty Images

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows confirmed in court on Tuesday that President Trump's tweets authorizing the disclosure of documents related to the Russia investigation and Hillary Clinton's emails "were not self-executing declassification orders," after a federal judge demanded that Trump be asked about his intentions.

Why it matters: BuzzFeed News reporter Jason Leopold cited the tweets in an emergency motion seeking to gain access to special counsel Robert Mueller's unredacted report as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. This is the first time Trump himself has indicated, according to Meadows, that his tweets are not official directives.

Get Axios AM in your inbox

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!