In the impending US presidential election, the stakes are quite possibly as high as they’ve ever been, and the potential for disruption in the energy sector appears to be, well, as one of the candidate would put it: “yuge”.
Though border security and the fight against terrorism have been major focal points in the battle for the White House, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton have also hinged their platforms on tightly-nuanced energy policy goals in the run up to the 8 November ballot. But will their policies really have long-reaching effects on the energy future in the US, or will the regional policies and the private sector continue to drive projects as has been the case over the past eight years of President Barack Obama’s term?
For the next few moments, let us put aside all the campaign banter about tiny hands, email gaffs, sexually inappropriate behaviour and other mayhem that has littered the campaign trail. In order to really understand the answer to that question and the many others that loom around the energy sector it is necessary to peel back the rhetoric to get to the real meat and potatoes of Clinton’s and Trump’s energy philosophies and what they imply about the next four to eight years of energy policy in the US, and how that will actually affect the various subsectors.
Read the full report here