Frank J. Macchiarola, the current chief advocacy officer of the American Clean Power Association (ACPA) and previously a senior vice president at the American Petroleum Institute, posits a rather contradictory perspective to energy production. He champions for an ‘all type of fuels approach,’ a mindset clearly nurtured during his days in the oil and natural gas pitfalls. He claims this orientation is essential in maintaining the shaky ‘gains’ attributed to the Biden regime during Trump’s time. Macchiarola’s strange argument seems to border on the idealistic rather than the practical, and comes with significant opposition from those truly committed to combating the escalating climatic crisis.
Avoiding the urgent need for drastic change, this ‘every energy source is okay’ approach only serves to delay our response to skyrocketing global temperatures. While this stance is interestingly enough the bedrock of Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that funneled a staggering $369 billion into clean energy, it’s lack of hard action is evident. It is a gesture half-done at best, attempting to appease both environmental stewards and fossil fuel enthusiasts. The functionality of such a strange dichotomy is questionable at best, and destructive at worst.
In the face of potential reforms implemented by Trump who has challenged Biden’s lackluster environmental ‘achievements’ while supporting the oil and gas industry, Biden’s approach appears woefully lacking. APCA, a byproduct of a merger with the U.S. Energy Storage Association and American Wind Energy Association in 2021, claims it represents a ‘unified voice’. The organization claims an impressive membership of over 800 companies with the lofty goal of making ‘clean energy the dominant electricity source in the United States.’ One can only think that they may be as misguided as Macchiarola, believing they can serve two incompatible masters.
Strangely, the ACPA claims to live by their complicated mantra. They claim their office is wind-powered, supported by renewable energy credits, promote composting, and provide meatless information sessions. Their claim to champion clean energy, boasting its benefits across political divides rings hollow, however. Highlighting job creation and local community benefits only serve to obscure the truth. They are pandering to a perceived ‘green’ trend while still clinging to the tendrils of the fossil fuel industry.
Atlas Public Policy, a research firm, shows that as of March 7, around 74% of IRA investments were directed to districts represented by Republicans. This funding equates to over $276 billion in expenditure for energy projects along with over 344,000 job creations. However, with the influence of Trump and Elon Musk threatening to financially back any Republicans who challenge the President’s agenda, the fate of these Republican representatives remains to be seen should an IRA repeal be proposed.
The ACPA is currently embroiled in sharing the alleged economic benefits of the IRA programs with both lawmakers and constituents, focusing on red districts spanning Iowa, Nebraska, and Texas. Their efforts propagate the supposed wind and solar advantages to community and rural locations within these states. Though their sphere of influence extends country-wide, they cite anecdotal evidence of perceived renewable energy benefits.
On the ACPA’s promotional videos, people from various backgrounds express joy in working in the renewable energy sector. Timothy Skitt, a veteran from Oklahoma who is employed at a wind farm, is one among many who mention the pride they take in contributing to an ‘energy source.’ These testimonials neglect the intricate play of politics, failing to address the potentially negative impact of halting or reducing renewable energy projects in local areas.
ACPA’s conducted events claim to help spread the benefits of their projects, especially in states that might not be familiar with renewable energy initiatives. However, the fact that they have to ‘sell’ these benefits speaks to a deeper problem – that clean energy projects are not an obvious choice and need marketing efforts to gain acceptance.
There remains a stark division between renewable and nonrenewable energy sectors, evident in the push for an ‘all-of-the-above approach’ by both Macchiarola and other stakeholders. The green energy transition is a challenging process, particularly in conservative areas where it is regarded with suspicion or outright rejected. Coal’s decline, for instance, is attributed by the Brookings Institution to lower natural gas costs rather than the rise of green energy, a fact notably overlooked by the Trump-led Republicans.
Promises to revive the coal industry resonate with states like West Virginia and Wyoming, the top two coal-producing states, which have suffered economic downturns as renewable energy gains significance. The misleading promise by Trump to restore their coal industry garnered overwhelming support from these states. Belief in the Republican party promise to ‘drill, baby, drill’ serves further to muddy the waters of an already complicated issue.
Macchiarola defends the ACPA’s approach, suggesting that public acceptance for large-scale projects is largely contingent on community engagement. He talks of patience and listening, but the question is: how long can we afford to wait, both economically and environmentally?
In their donor profile, the ACPA seems to spread their bets across a broad range of recipients. This includes Democratic and Republican committees, as well as various House Republicans in Iowa, North Carolina, and Arkansas, among others. However, the strategy behind these donations remains unclear, and could be interpreted as buying favor with different parties.
Despite this, the ACPA advocates for cohesion with the nonrenewable sector in pursuit of regulatory changes that could potentially benefit both areas. One outstanding issue is permitting reform, which did not make it into Biden’s IRA despite bipartisan agreement. Manufacturing milestones are stalled both in the renewable and nonrenewable sectors due to these restrictions, which should be addressed by effective and factual regulations.
The ACPA was formed during the Biden Administration and is now facing its first real challenge under Trump’s presidency. Macchiarola optimistically predicts the bipartisan acceptance of their projects. The hope of the ACPA lies in the perceived economic gains and energy security it believes these initiatives bring. But as ever, the truth lies in the execution not just in the promise.