Fassler, J. (2025, October 23). AI’s insatiable need for power is driving an unexpected boom in oil-fracking company stocks. Retrieved January 20, 2025, from https://fortune.com/2025/10/23/ai-data-centers-power-oil-gas-fracking/ 

With oil prices and profits at alarming lows, fracking companies are funneling investment funds into AI initiatives in order to increase demand for power generation to fuel AI data centers. As a result, fracking companies—including Liberty Energy and Halliburton—have seen spikes in their share prices. This is a much-needed surge in investment for fracking companies, who have struggled in recent years due to weak policies and increased efficiency of other extraction methods. Despite oil production being at an all-time high domestically, it is believed to have plateaued, which is why AI companies are turning to natural gas to power their data centers. Natural gas companies are now rushing to partner up with tech giants, like Oracle, and finding ways to expand their energy-producing and storing capabilities. Despite the promising opportunities offered by the AI boom, oil and gas companies are still struggling to profit from the present low prices and high production from OPEC competitors.

The combination of the AI boom and Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order have revived our dependence on fossil fuel energy so significantly that they will probably undo decades of emissions reduction progress. While AI data centers are incredibly energy reliant and dangerous to nearby residents, I actually believe that they are a possible solution to our fossil fuel dependency in the U.S. Few industries in the world have as much capital and influence as the AI industry does today. Despite the lingering stigma of nuclear energy from the Cold War days, I think that the AI industry has enough political and social pull to overpower reservations. They have the ability to switch their operations to nuclear energy without pushback from the government and—if they do so—they could pave the way for nuclear energy powering countless other sectors. Granted, this is all hypothetical as it hinges on AI executives actively shifting their operations to nuclear energy. To make this a reality, the consumers must pressure AI executives to make the switch because economic incentive is usually the only way corporations will listen to the people.

Hurdle, J. (2025, July 31). Activists pledge to resist any federal effort to lift fracking ban in Delaware River Basin. Retrieved January 16, 2025, from https://penncapital-star.com/energy-environment/activists-pledge-to-resist-any-federal-effort-to-lift-fracking-ban-in-delaware-river-basin/

Increasing concerns that Trump will lift a years-long ban on fracking for natural gas in the densely populated Delaware River Basin have resulted in the promotion of a new “Pledge of Resistance and Protection” by environmentalists. These worries come following Trump’s declaration of an “energy emergency” and instructing agencies to roll back policies that interfere with the extraction and identification of domestic energy. Additionally, Pennsylvania congressman Rob Bresnahan recently proposed a bill that would increase federal involvement and oversight in the use of the basin’s resources. If passed, the fracking enabled by the bill could contaminate drinking water for nearly 15 million people, including residents of Philadelphia, PA, and Trenton, NJ. An independent study from the University of Delaware found that, despite pushes from gas and oil companies to lift the fracking ban, the river’s watershed only accounts for 3.3% of the Marcellus shale deposit, and that opening the area to fracking would actually cause significant economic losses due to the contamination of drinking water.

I am thoroughly impressed with the grassroots efforts of activists to jump onto this issue so quickly and anticipate federal action. Going up against the government—especially under Trump—can be daunting so I commend them for holding their ground, even against their own local representatives. As far as Trump is concerned, this move seems especially reckless, even for him. The Delaware Basin serves over 15 million people and a handful of the U.S.’s biggest cities, so I find opening the area up to fracking and its countless health consequences difficult to justify. Even beyond the human impact, I am surprised that Trump cannot recognize the financial recklessness of the situation. The disruptions to drinking water supply and quality will cost the government far more than any business from frackers. In fact, the basin barely accounts for 3% of the total shale deposit so why risk the lives of millions and millions of tax payer dollars on a sliver of a shale reserve.

Carlson, D. (2026, January 12). US frackers were already facing a global oil supply glut. Trump’s Venezuelan dream could make it worse. Retrieved January 16, 2025, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/12/us-oil-producers-global-supply-glut-venezuela

In recent years, the U.S. oil industry has become the main source of oil domestically, accounting for the majority of the country’s crude oil production while also being the world’s largest crude oil producer. This, combined with recent pushes for new forms of oil extraction and greater oil production from non-OPEC countries, has driven down oil barrel prices to ~$50. Now, following the U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, President Trump is pushing to assert U.S. dominance over Venezuelan oil production. With increased oil hitting the market from Venezuela, barrel prices could continue to decline, making it increasingly difficult for oil companies to profit. Still, the existing shale oil in Venezuela is thick and expensive to refine, which could make it less of a threat to U.S. exports on the national stage. Regardless, there are growing concerns that U.S. oil production is peaking and that the industry could face significant challenges as prices lower, production slows, and international competition increases.

It is very rare that I ever side with the interests of oil companies, but this article is one example in which I do. While I don’t think we should be investing so much time and money into ramping up oil production, if we are indeed set on this course, steering toward Venezuela is a terrible financial investment. American oil companies have tried to establish production in Venezuela twice before and in both instances the country underwent severe civil and political unrest which resuted in the oil companies being driven from the nation down billions of dollars. Given the ongoing instability within the country and the erratic nature of the Trump Administration, this is a flagrant financial risk for not only the oil companies but for American taxpayers. Our present influence on the country would be far better spent guiding the nation toward sustainable energy alternatives and implementing firm climate policies. As a nation that is industrializing and sitting on a trove of crude oil, it is important that Venezuela continues growing without becoming dependent on their finite supply of oil.

Bense, K. (2025, December 17). Gas Exports Are Driving Up Americans’ Energy Bills, Report Says. Retrieved January 16, 2025, from https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17122025/liquefied-natural-gas-exports-driving-up-energy-bills/ 

Despite having promised on the campaign trail to lower energy prices by 50% in the first year of his presidency, Trump ended the year with electricity bills up 13% nationwide compared to a year ago. The administration has pushed for the exportation of liquidized natural gas (LNG) as part of their “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, seeing a 22% increase this year. However, in turn, this has brought severe LNG scarcity domestically, raising prices nationwide. Even outside California, Hawaii, and New England states—which typically have high energy prices—more affordable midwestern states like Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Nebraska have seen significant spikes in energy costs. Trump has also made multiple energy deals with entities like the EU and Japan that stipulate they will continue to purchase LNG from the U.S. for the remainder of Trump’s term, ensuring continued LNG scarcity and high energy costs domestically.

This is yet another example of the failures of Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order due to the fact that it sets up no legislative principles or boundaries. So far, this order has angered everyone. As Trump tries to drive down prices, he angers the energy corporations, who see declines in profit. Simultaneously, most of this energy, particularly LNG, gets shipped overseas, which only raises domestic costs. While all of this is horrible for the environment, the damage has already been done. With energy production at all-time highs, I believe we should be making these environmental sacrifices worthwhile by keeping the energy domestic and driving down our own energy costs. In doing so, we limit fossil fuel-based energy going into developing countries, which could incentivize them to explore their own versions of sustainable energy production. Additionally, by alleviating economic stress within the U.S., people will become more open-minded to learning about sustainable alternatives because they aren’t occupied with life-threatening financial concerns.

Smith, H. (2026, January 14). Trump administration sues two California cities over natural gas bans. Retrieved January 16, 2025, from https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2026-01-14/trump-administration-sues-two-california-cities-over-natural-gas-bans

On January 5, the Trump administration filed a lawsuit against the California cities of Morgan Hill and Petaluma for their bans on natural gas usage in new buildings. The basis of the lawsuit stems from Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order which he issued on his first day in office to undo many energy regulations implemented by the Biden administration. The lawsuit argues that federal law trumps the cities’ bans, however both cities claim to not have enforced their ordinances since 2023 when the 9th Circuit of Appeals declared a Berkeley natural gas ban unconstitutional. This lawsuit is one of multiple ways the Trump administration has aimed to undo energy regulations and restrictions within the state of California.

This lawsuit is just one of many examples of the Trump administration looking to target California climate initiatives. While this specific lawsuit will likely stall in the courts and resolve insignificantly, Trump’s actions are making it nearly impossible for California to pioneer sustainability efforts and tow the rest of the country along with it. I worry that these lawsuits will essentially make any natural gas bans implausible in the near future, putting our sustainability efforts back decades. In the wake of this likely possibility, I wonder if cities can turn to incentive structures—like tax breaks or expedited permitting—to persuade builders not to install gas powered appliances. What additionally concerns me though, is the prioritization of an executive order over a state’s environmental policies. If all it takes is for Trump to sign an executive order—not even a passed piece of legislation—then there really is no telling what damage he could do to existing protections.

Reyes-Velarde, A. (2025, June 4). These gas appliances — one of the largest sources of LA’s smog — could be phased out. Retrieved July 29, 2025, from https://calmatters.org/environment/2025/06/gas-appliances-smog-la-south-coast/

Gas-powered water heaters and heater systems could be phased out in the four-county Los Angeles basin under a new draft bill. The proposed legislation would require manufacturers to make a minimum 30% of their heating appliances zero-emission starting in 2027 and would implement $50-$500 fees for manufacturers continuing to sell gas-powered appliances. The proceeds of the fees would go toward paying for heat pumps in lower-income communities. If passed, an estimated 200,000 furnaces and 300,000 water heaters would be replaced annually. However, there is resistance from contractors and some consumers who worry the costs of zero-emission appliances — already thousands of dollars more expensive than gas ones — would be driven up by sudden demand. In the long term, though, consumers would be able to save between $191 million and $250 million annually on utility bills if the phase-out passes.

In Los Angeles, particularly, where air pollution and smog are pressing issues, legislation like this to address air pollution is incredibly important. This proposal is one of the more realistic of recent energy regulations in the state, giving manufacturers and contractors two years to prepare. I especially appreciate how the violation fees would be pumped back into the community to incentivize clean energy use within lower-income communities. Because of the stresses on lower-income groups, they tend to be further behind in the transition to clean energy, though through no fault of their own. This bill would help address that, which is especially valuable given that climate improvement is most effective when it is a collective effort. The economic incentive of the bill is also hard to ignore for the consumer; however, there could be potential consequences to the county if they are no longer receives hundreds of millions from utility bills.

Fausey, C. (2025, July 2). Santa Barbara County Being Eyed for New Oil Drilling and Fracking. Retrieved July 29, 2025, from

https://www.independent.com/2025/07/02/santa-barbara-county-being-eyed-for-new-oil-drilling-and-fracking/

Over 400,000 acres of federal land from Fresno to Ventura counties are being considered for new oil and gas development as part of President Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” campaign. The land is currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management, which has announced a 30-day public comment period to complete an environmental review of the site. While under review, any new leases have been halted and, if the analysis is approved, drilling could begin as soon as 2027. The new lease could support 10 to 40 new oil and gas wells per year. Environmental groups, such as The Sierra Club, have expressed outrage at the decision, claiming it could endanger California’s natural landscape and increase the risk of respiratory disease among nearby residents. The BLM has acknowledged that the proposed development could damage water and air quality, among other potential consequences.

This is an example of another proposal that seems economically appealing; however, it is the last thing the state needs environmentally. Drilling in California is especially dangerous given the state’s location along hundreds of active fault lines. While the immediate reduction in gas prices the bill could provide, the billions in infrastructure and personal damages caused by a possible earthquake draw the benefits of oil drilling into question. Furthermore, this bill has little regard for the actual Californians living nearby, as it puts them in immediate respiratory danger and also endangers the natural resources they depend on. Even given these grievances, the proposal offers no conciliatory measure to the residents or the nearby environment, ultimately proving to me that it would be a net-negative for the state.

Von Kaenel, C. & Nieves, A. (2025, July 29). Sacramento’s crude awakening. Retrieved July 29, 2025, from https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-climate/2025/07/29/sacramentos-crude-awakening-00482966

Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed to ease permitting for in-state drilling in Kern County in anticipation of the closures of two refineries that could drive gas prices up by $1.21 per gallon. Though a recent series of multi-million dollar oil campaigns within the state and rising gas prices have made drilling more appealing, Newsom’s bill still includes certain restrictions. It would ban fracking, require drillers to plug two wells for every new one created, and implement new safety regulations for offshore operations. The bill has drawn support from legislators like State Senator Henry Stern, who believes that domestic oil production rather than foreign imports is better for job creation and the state’s economy. Though environmental activists understand the need for affordable energy, many are outright opposed to oil drilling.

Though I, like many Californians, am opposed to oil drilling and fear the possibility of a spill and intense pollution, this bill appears to be the lesser of two evils. Given the recent influx of proposals to resume oil drilling and gas developments within California under the Trump administration, I think it is inevitable that California undoes some of its zero-emission efforts. With that in mind, though this bill would allow oil drilling to continue, for each drill opened, two wells must be plugged, and it would ban fracking in the county. This two steps forward, one step back dance may not be the kind of progress many Californians wanted, but it is ultimately what we should settle for. It would also provide several economic benefits, including lower gas prices, a stronger state economy, and job creation, striking a fair balance between economic and environmental interests.

Lazo, A. & Kuang, J. (2025, August 6). California cut coal from its energy supply. Why it might plug back into fossil fuels. Retrieved August 8, 2025, from https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/08/western-regional-power-market/ 

With rising electricity costs, the State of California is considering an energy proposal named The Pathways Initiative that would expand its power market into other Western states. The proposal — backed by labor unions — would include both climate-conscious and coal-burning states, marking a shift from California’s requirement to run on 100% clean electricity by 2045. By diversifying the state’s power grid, consumers could have a more reliable energy source, especially given that California is wasting more clean energy than ever. It would also promote the sale of California solar energy to other states, which could lower energy costs, but could also leave the state vulnerable to federal and presidential interference. The proposal is currently stalled in the State Assembly, where lawmakers have until mid-September to act on the bill.

From an economic standpoint, this proposal seems very appealing. It would provide a new, lucrative source of income to help the state fight off its $24 billion budget deficit and could lower gas prices for Californian consumers, all while diversifying our power grid. However, if the bill passes, California would essentially become a compliant bystander to coal-burning. Even though they would not be burning coal directly, in principle, they are enabling it, which is just as detrimental to our air quality and global warming. At a certain point, California needs to recognize that the state will always have some degree of economic instability, but it doesn’t have forever to preserve its environment. Ultimately, instead of looking to other states for emission-heavy energy, I think California would be better served by reducing wasted clean energy and looking for ways to drive down its internal emissions.

Li, T. (2025, July 26). S.F. may soon ban natural gas in homes and businesses undergoing major renovations. Retrieved July 29, 2025, from https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/natural-gas-ban-renovations-20776228.php

On its way to reaching net-zero emissions by 2040, the City of San Francisco is considering banning natural gas in residential and commercial buildings undergoing major renovations. The proposal could reduce emissions by approximately 45,000 metric tons. It defines major renovations as “projects that involve altering walls or ceilings on over two-thirds of the building, or renovating load-bearing elements that support over 30% of the building’s floors or ceilings.” In order to get a permit, renovation plans would need to include plans for replacing gas utilities with all-electric ones. If passed, the bill could face judicial challenges. A similar natural gas ban in Berkeley was repealed because it violated the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which states that only the federal government can set regulations for most gas-powered appliances. Thus, the bill does have an exception for EPCA-regulated appliances, as well as exceptions for affordable housing projects.

Given our extreme dependence on natural gas to power appliances, heating, etc., I think it is only natural that we counteract our reliance with extreme legislation, for the sake of our natural resources and air quality. Especially with the AI boom in San Francisco — which has become incredibly energy-intensive — regulations need to be set, especially among commercial industries. Realistically, I worry that tech companies will try and block the bill because of the financial burden it puts on them. However, regulating natural gas usage in a residential setting can only do so much; it is ultimately the commercial buildings that create the bulk of natural gas emissions and do the least to address the pollution they release. I also worry about the growing number of exceptions in the bill. While the exceptions for affordable housing projects are understandable, exceptions for EPCA appliances essentially exclude the majority of gas appliances on the market. If the city really wants to reach net-zero emissions by 2040, it needs to be firmer about its regulations, because continually adding exceptions renders the bill useless.