Key energy choices for Europe: Harris vs. Trump in focus

The United States is a key ally within NATO and a guarantor of energy security for Europeans. The energy crisis triggered by Russia, which preceded the invasion of Ukraine and eventually led to war, forced the EU to drastically change its gas and oil supply directions. The U.S. stepped in, becoming the largest LNG supplier to the European Union.

Some EU countries, have also tied their nuclear energy programs with the United States, a central pillar of their transformation strategies. The U.S. has become a key supplier of technologies and raw materials. What does the choice between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump mean, then?

In 2021, Russia supplied 25 percent of the oil and 45 percent of the natural gas to Europe. The situation changed with the onset of war and sanctions.

These changes opened European markets to new suppliers, including the United States, which became the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas worldwide.

American LNG exports amount to approximately 340 million cubic metres per day. Some of the gas reaches European markets, where it competes with Russian and Qatari LNG. By April, Europe had purchased 12.3 billion cubic metres of gas from the U.S. Today, alongside Norwegian resources, it represents one of the most important supply sources. This is also true for Poland, which in 2018 signed a 20-year contract for the supply of 2 million tonnes of LNG annually from Port Arthur, Texas, with deliveries starting in 2023. In January last year, Orlen signed another contract for 1 million tonnes of liquefied gas annually for 20 years starting from 2027.

Donald Trump emphasized from the start that selling LNG to Europe would be good business for the United States. While in the White House, he urged EU countries to invest in expanding LNG ports and cooperate with the Americans. The agreement signed in Poland in 2018 was one of his successes on the continent.

However, in response to Russian energy blackmail and the war in Ukraine, it was the Biden and Harris administration that seized the opportunity. As part of their support, they proposed increased LNG supplies to Europe, securing an important market.

In the race for re-election, Trump emphasizes his full support for growing production of gas and oil in the United States. According to Tymon Pastucha, an analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs, his re-election, from the perspective of traditional hydrocarbon-based energy, could be beneficial. The Republican candidate promises to increase oil and gas production and export. This will likely impact the market and energy commodity prices. The strong position of the U.S. in the European LNG market poses some risk of Donald Trump trying to impose conditions, but he must also face competition. Europe is diversifying its supply sources, and the number of entities ready to supply gas to the EU market is growing," explains the expert.

He adds that the question remains open on how Trump will approach the issue of sanctions on Russian resources. Any change will depend on the broader context, that is, policy towards Russia. "It's a difficult question because Trump is an unpredictable player," notes Pastucha.

On the other hand, Kamala Harris is seen as more critical of oil companies than Joe Biden. In the past, she took a more restrictive approach to fracking, which has a destructive impact on the environment, and offshore oil production. In this campaign, however, she has significantly softened her stance.

Experts argue that on this front, Europe need not worry about who will sit in the White House. For both candidates, contracts with the EU will be equally important.

Kamala Harris is more of a mystery than an answer. It's hard to say what her stance on the extraction of gas and oil will be. She speaks quite sparingly on this subject, likely not to alienate part of her electorate and the extraction business. Her firm stance from years ago is still remembered, but today's Harris is not the same Harris as five years ago. As vice president, she had to balance her views," says an analyst, Tymon Pastucha.

He predicts that Harris will continue Biden's policies but will place greater emphasis on climate policy and greenhouse gas emissions issues, aligning her with the goals set by Europe. "I don't think a Harris presidency would threaten extraction companies or resource exports. If we check what the Biden and Harris administration says, compared to the number of permits for fracking and extraction, it is higher than during Trump's times. Harris doesn't highlight these issues too much, which climate activists criticize," adds the expert.

The American oil and gas sector is tensely awaiting the election results. As Marianna Sobkiewicz, an analyst, reminds us, 68 percent of U.S. oil and gas industry enterprises feel greater uncertainty regarding oil price fluctuations and extraction conditions.

Studies of this sector in the U.S. indicate the highest skepticism among its representatives since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, with political and environmental risks cited as one of the significant conditions limiting the willingness for further investments.

However, this can also be interpreted as the beginning of the end for a very favourable situation for American oil and gas enterprises, caused by the sharp rise in prices due to the invasion of Ukraine. Currently, the industry is adopting a wait-and-see attitude - most enterprises declare in studies that they do not plan to limit investments, reduce employment, or decrease production," emphasizes Marianna Sobkiewicz.

Not only gas and oil are strategic energy sources from Europe's perspective. Nuclear energy, both large and small reactor technology, also matters. Let's remember that the American company Westinghouse will build a reactor in Poland.

The Americans are also negotiating the construction of two reactors with Bulgaria. The nuclear energy program is expected to be one of the pillars of transformation in the EU.

However, as the expert explained, it is unclear how the elections will affect the development of nuclear energy—this issue has gone unnoticed in this year's campaign.

This is not a polarizing topic for Americans. Support for nuclear energy remains steady in the U.S. at 56 percent. This technology is highly supported in both Democratic and Republican circles. The basic difference is that Harris appears more predictable - her past statements do not indicate an anti-nuclear stance. However, Trump in a recent interview with Joe Rogan (creator of one of the most popular podcasts in the U.S. - ed.) displayed skepticism towards nuclear energy, calling it "too complicated and too expensive," notes the expert.

Will this affect Trump's involvement in European nuclear energy? - He will probably strive for American nuclear energy companies, like Westinghouse, to secure contracts for building new power plants in European countries, including Poland," believes Jakub Wernik from the Kazimierz Pułaski Foundation.

According to Tymon Pastucha, nuclear energy is one of the few things that links Harris and Trump. "Both are for the development of this energy sector's potential and participation in the global race. Both consider nuclear energy as one of the economy's flywheels - Harris for achieving climate neutrality, and Trump as a source of cheap energy and a technological export product," explains the expert.

As experts note, Harris and Trump differ the most on decarbonizing energy through developing renewable energy sources. A Harris presidency would likely mean continuing Biden's climate policy - the Democratic candidate openly calls climate change an "existential threat" - and the development of renewable energy sources.

"- This could result in increased investment in low-emission technologies and deepen cooperation with Europe and Poland in the energy transformation -" asserts Jakub Wiernik, an expert from the Pułaski Foundation. "It could also mean that a Harris administration would support the development of nuclear energy, integrating it into an emission reduction strategy - which aligns with Poland's ambitions to develop in this area," he adds.

In his opinion, Kamala Harris's victory would bring greater support for green energy, and gas and nuclear cooperation would be dependent on alignment with climate goals and more restrictive in terms of environmental protection.

In the case of a Trump presidency, the main problem for the development of clean technologies in the U.S. may be the limitation of public funding. The Republican opposes the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) introduced by the Biden administration, which allocates $369 billion for investments in "clean energy and climate" through tax credits, grants, and loans," reminds Marianna Sobkiewicz.

Trump has announced that he would withdraw unspent IRA funds. "However, such a decision would not be within Trump's competencies and would also have to be approved by Congress," notes the PIE expert.

Jakub Wiernik believes that such a policy could complicate energy cooperation with Europe, especially with countries that are heavily invested in transitioning and developing renewable energy. "The initiative to increase fossil fuel production could weaken the U.S.'s commitment to developing low-emission and renewable energy," believes the expert.