Expanded use of energy efficiency and demand response could help lower Texas power bills while also boosting grid reliability, according to a May 6 paper from Aurora Energy Research. Electrification, data centers and industrial growth are driving energy demand higher across the U.S., and the trend is particularly evident in Texas. In April, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas published a load forecast that predicted nearly 60 GW of new peak summer demand by 2031. Electricity supplied by the grid is expected to rise from 486 TWh this year to 1,038 TWh in 2031. Retrieved from Electric Reliability Council of Texas. “Texas’s economic momentum is driving a sharp rise in electricity demand, creating both a challenge and an opportunity,” Olivier Beaufils, head of USA Central for Aurora, said in a statement. “For the average Texas household, converting to a heat pump instead of resistance heat can decrease the yearly cost of electricity by $424, approximately 45%,” the Aurora report found. “Increased demand response participation can save industrial consumers $1.9M/yr and residential consumers $225 per year.”  If 7.7 GW of demand side response capacity, including both residential and industrial consumers, is added to the ERCOT system by 2040, it would reduce the need for new gas-fired generation by 1 GW, the report said. Texas has been trying to build more gas plants through a state backed loan program, but the Texas Energy Fund has seen 35% of its proposed dispatchable capacity canceled or withdrawn amid escalating project costs and supply chain challenges. “Energy efficiency and demand response programs provide critical additional levers for Texas to keep pace with the demand while cutting costs for consumers and strengthening the reliability of the grid,” Beaufils said.

Dive Brief: As Republicans work to advance budget legislation that would make deep cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act, members of the House are debating the issue in committee markup hearings, with Democrats arguing that early phaseouts of IRA credits would harm developers and raise energy bills.  The IRA is anticipated to cost taxpayers between $780 billion and $2 trillion over its first ten years, making it an appealing target for Republicans looking to reduce federal spending. However, a large portion of IRA spending has so far benefited Republican districts, and some Republicans have advocated for careful cuts to the legislation – including Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., who warned against a wind down of the 45U nuclear production tax credit during the House Ways and Means Committee markup Tuesday. Dive Insight: “Nuclear power represents nearly a quarter of New York’s electrical supply, and my district in Western and Central New York is home to all four of New York’s reactors,” Tenney said. “Those reactors are critical to the baseload power of our region and our state and should be considered separately from our conversations on renewable energy.” In the House Energy and Commerce Committee markup on Tuesday, Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., proposed an amendment to the committee’s budget that would “delay any provisions in this bill from taking effect until the Energy Information Administration studies the impact of the bill and the actions taken so far by the Trump administration.” “People need to know about this,” she said. “You can’t rush a bill like this, with such a large impact, through without people understanding.” Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, opposed the amendment, saying the “best way to lower energy prices is to expand use of America’s abundant energy resources — gas, oil, coal, hydropower — that provide affordable reliable power and fuels, and

The International Facility Management Association last week called on Congress to step in and stop the Trump administration from ending Energy Star, the federal government’s program for encouraging the manufacture of energy efficient appliances and systems.   “Consumers and businesses alike rely on Energy Star ratings when making informed decisions about appliances and equipment,” Dean Stanberry, immediate past chair of IFMA, said in a statement May 8. “Eliminating this publicly funded resource without consulting the industries and individuals who depend on it is shortsighted and irresponsible.” The administration hasn’t said it wants to eliminate the program, but in its fiscal year 2026 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency, it proposes to eliminate all funding for the Atmospheric Protection Program, which administers Energy Star.  “The Atmospheric Protection Program is an overreach of Government authority that imposes unnecessary and radical climate change regulations on businesses and stifles economic growth,” the administration says in its budget proposal. “By prioritizing climate change over job creation and energy independence, the program has burdened American industries with costly mandates, ultimately hurting consumers and taxpayers. This program is eliminated in the 2026 Budget.” In response to news organizations’ request for clarification on the plan, EPA was noncommittal.   “The EPA is delivering organizational improvements to the personnel structure that will directly benefit the American people and better advance the agency’s core mission, while Powering the Great American Comeback,” the agency told CBS News in an email.  The Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-regulation organization, says the issue isn’t the program’s effectiveness but whether its energy-saving mission is within the proper scope of government. “Green purchasing programs assume the federal government needs to meddle in the marketplace by providing its seal of approval on what it deems to be environmentally satisfactory products,” the organization says in a white paper. “If

In a statement posted on its website this week, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced “the first step in the Energy Department’s largest deregulatory effort in history, proposing the elimination or reduction of 47 regulations”. The statement highlighted that these actions are in accordance with U.S. President Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Zero-Based Regulation to Unleash American Energy”. Once finalized, these actions will cut more than 125,000 words from the Code of Federal Regulations, the statement noted. “While it would normally take years for the Department of Energy to remove just a handful of regulations, the Trump Administration assembled a team working around the clock to reduce costs and deliver results for the American people in just over 110 days,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in the statement. The 47 deregulatory actions include “streamlining administrative procedures with respect to the import and export of natural gas”, “streamlining applications for authorization to transmit electric energy to a foreign country”, and “rescinding reporting requirements, certification, independent verification, and DOE review for voluntary greenhouse gas reporting”, the DOE statement showed. They also include “rescinding the renewable energy production incentive”, “delaying [the] compliance date for federal agencies to meet the clean energy federal building rule”, and “streamlining the procedures for acquisition of petroleum for the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR)”, the statement highlighted. In a statement posted on its site last month, the DOE announced that Strategic Storage Partners LLC had secured a $1.4 billion contract to manage and operate the SPR. In that statement, the DOE noted that the SPR’s mission is to safeguard the United States from significant petroleum supply disruptions through the acquisition, storage, distribution, and management of emergency petroleum stocks, fulfilling U.S. obligations under the International Energy Program. A “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy” Executive Order was

Saudi Arabia and the United States have signed agreements on cooperation on energy – including through refined oil products trading and artificial intelligence (AI) – and critical minerals. The memorandum of understanding (MOU) on energy collaboration and the memorandum of cooperation (MOC) on critical minerals were executed during Donald Trump’s visit to the kingdom, in which the U.S. president secured $600 billion in investment commitments from the Saudis. The MOU was signed between U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman Al Saud while the MOC was signed by Wright and Saudi Industry and Mineral Resources Minister Bandar Alkhorayef. The MOU “explores the potential for innovation, development, deployment of energy infrastructure in the two countries, and providing access to clean cooking solutions in developing countries”, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) said in an online statement Tuesday. “The MOU also highlights the intent to collaborate in various fields including petroleum refining and refined products trading, electricity generation technologies and energy storage systems, and artificial intelligence projects to accelerate deployment of energy-driven innovations. “The two sides also outlined areas for cooperation on civil nuclear energy, including safety, security, and nonproliferation programs; vocational training and workforce development; U.S. Generation III+ advanced large reactor technologies and small modular reactors; uranium exploration, mining, and milling; and safe and secure nuclear waste disposal”. Meanwhile the MOC will create “a framework for cooperation to strengthen and secure supply chains for critical minerals mining and processing”, the DOE said. The two intend to explore joint ventures and investment opportunities, including in refining and processing facilities, and in workforce and research institutions that will ensure continued innovation related to mineral exploration, extraction, and processing”. The White House announced separately on Tuesday that Trump has secured investment pledges totaling $600 billion from Saudi partners. The investments are part of two-way deals that

President Donald Trump appears to prefer US oil prices between $40 and $50 a barrel, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc., citing an in-house analysis of his social-media posts on the topic. Trump “has always been focused on oil and on US energy dominance, having posted nearly 900 times,” analysts including Daan Struyven said in a report. His “inferred preference for WTI appears to be around $40 to $50 a barrel, where his propensity to post about oil prices bottoms,” they said. Oil prices — both global crude benchmark Brent, as well as US counterpart West Texas Intermediate , or WTI — are often buffeted by the president’s prolific social-media commentary, which can reference everything from OPEC policy and US gasoline prices to sanctions against nations including Iran. His administration has favored increased domestic production, as well as a broad push for cheap energy to help bring down inflation. The US leader “tends to call for lower prices (or celebrate falling prices) when WTI is greater than $50,” the analysts said. “In contrast, President Trump has called for higher prices when prices are very low (WTI less than $30) often in the context of supporting US production.” WTI — which last traded just above $63 a barrel — has shed 12% so far this year, hurt by the fallout from Trump’s trade tariffs, as well as a decision by OPEC+ to loosen supply curbs at a faster-than-expected pace. Still, prices have recovered some ground after the US and China scaled back some levies for 90 days, rising from a four-year closing low seen earlier this month. The president’s “inferred preference for relatively low oil prices directionally supports our view that oil prices are likely to edge lower in 2025-2026,” the analysts said, while also noting upside risks to expectations given