Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the incoming chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, issued a critical report this week accusing the International Energy Agency of abandoning its foundational mission of ensuring global energy security.
Established in 1974 in response to the Arab Oil Embargo, the IEA was originally tasked with safeguarding the world’s oil supplies through unbiased and policy-neutral energy market analysis.
However, Barrasso’s report asserts that since 2020, the IEA has shifted its priorities to align with international climate goals, focusing on achieving “net zero” emissions by mid-century. This pivot, the report claims, has compromised the IEA’s commitment to energy security, undermining investments in oil and natural gas and creating a precarious energy future.
Central to Barrasso’s critique is the IEA’s abandonment of its “Current Policies Scenario,” a traditional “business-as-usual” reference model. The report alleges that the IEA replaced this with a “Stated Policies Scenario” (STEPS), which is based on hypothetical and unimplemented policies. Barrasso, currently the top Republican on the committee chaired by retiring Sen. Joe Manchin, described the scenario as “grounded in unrealistically optimistic assumptions,” particularly about the adoption of electric vehicles and other decarbonization measures.
This shift, according to the report, led to biased projections in the IEA’s influential World Energy Outlook. These projections, he argues, discourage critical investments in fossil fuels while promoting unattainable climate targets.
The report emphasized that the IEA’s approach jeopardizes global energy security by potentially reducing oil, natural gas, and coal production. It warns that such a reduction would leave energy supplies concentrated in adversarial countries like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and China, which have historically disregarded international security norms.
The IEA’s Executive Director Fatih Birol is on the record saying“there will not be a need for new investments in oil and gas fields.” He has made similar statements on other occasions, most notably, “Looking at the world today or tomorrow, no one can convince me that oil and gas represent safe or secure energy choices for countries and consumers worldwide.”
The IEA’s current trajectory is gambling with the world’s energy security, the report said. If its members act on this advice, the global energy supply chain will be dominated by nations that pose a threat to international stability.
The report also criticized the IEA’s “Net Zero Emissions” scenario, which it labeled as unrealistic and economically unsustainable. The IEA has failed to account for the enormous costs of achieving net zero emissions by 2050, while ignoring its energy security implications.
The report highlighted the Biden administration’s reliance on IEA projections to justify pausing permits for liquefied natural gas exports earlier this year, a move described as shortsighted. Biden’s decision disregarded projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which anticipates strong global demand for natural gas through 2050.
Barrasso’s report called for a comprehensive overhaul of the IEA’s priorities and methodologies. He urged the agency to restore its commitment to producing unbiased, policy-neutral energy scenarios and to focus on the security implications of the global energy transition.
The report outlined specific measures for the upcoming 119th Congress to address the issue, including:
- Requiring the IEA to produce a “business-as-usual” reference case in its World Energy Outlook.
- Ensuring the agency does not endorse ending investments in oil, natural gas, and coal.
- Mandating full transparency of IEA data and methodologies.
- Strengthening the U.S. representation on the IEA Governing Board.
As Barrasso prepares to lead the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, his report signals a push for renewed focus on traditional energy security measures amidst global climate ambitions. He has already called for the repeal of the Democrats’ $7,500 electric vehicle handout.
“The Democrats’ EV subsidies are a bribe to push their unpopular climate agenda, killing American jobs and abusing taxpayer funds. Repealing this subsidy will put Americans back in the driver’s seat,” he said.
“The new Senate Republican Majority begins January 3, 2025. So, our day one starts in three weeks. Republicans will enter the next Congress with a long ‘Fix It’ list on behalf of the American people,” he said.
“At the top of that list is an agenda that lowers costs and restores American energy dominance. Prices today we know, are 20 percent higher than they were 4 years ago. And just this morning, we learned once again that prices have gone up in November,” Barrasso said. “And we know the culprits – the problem behind the high prices: Wasteful Washington Spending. And we’ve seen a lot of it the last four years. The other reason, of course, is the Democrats’ throttling American energy production.”
Promising.
Apparently, the United States funds the IEA at a rate of $6 or 7$ million per year. I just read a column elsewhere wherein the author pleaded that the Trump administration should not defund the IEA. He claims that the IEA produces useful data. Maybe. But stepping back a little, history shows that the USA funds far too many agencies and causes that consistently work against the US, as well as provides lifetime jobs for people that hate us. Senator Barrasso is being too gentle. We do not need to fund anything that does us more harm than good. The IEA produces no energy and confuses investment decisions. Cut the funding now.
Generally agreed – but the IEA does produce something with energy… HOT AIR.
International Energy Agency? Sounds like yet another international organization with too many overpaid bureaucrats = like, for example, WHO and UN. Why does the US waste taxpayer’s money on these stupid organizations? Oh wait, I know why … our country has become just as stupid as the organizations we fund.
Alaska better get its act together or risk being left in the dust. The time to step up is now—let’s just hope we’ve got our ducks in a row for once. The legislative session kicks off the day after Trump takes office, so there’s absolutely no excuse for Alaska to not be leading the charge. This is where the big shots are made and the trailblazers shine—either step up or shut up. Time to put Alaska on the map with Trump at the wheel.
The USA irresponsibly cannot create and comply with a short, medium & long-term energy transition set of goals. Merely examine China’s such policies. Before achieving a “sustainable energy goal”, the USA should, of course, continue usage of “fossil fuel-based energy sources. Due to the American predilection of “taking sides”, being uncompromisable, working together, the USA will likely continue changing its energy goals. The new Energy chief opines correctly. Energy & security go hand-and-glove, and should be ingredient in any global energy plan.
Hope they do what’s stated in this article at the very least.. I agree with Jmark, IEA more than likely is a total waste of money.. shut’em down completely. Also NetZero right now is a dream really.. until they figure out how to build safe and cheap super conductors or figure out a better more practical form of energy storage.. like flywheel energy storage instead of jus batteries Imo is promising.. anyway
The electric car business is a mess.. hybrid half elect. half fuel is more sensible but still extremely expensive. The cost of elect cars are also way too expensive; everything that goes into them comes out of a mine, all the thousands of gallons of oil and diesel fuel for heavy equipment involved goes into the creation of elect vehicle’s totally defeating the purpose of what they say is supposed to be better for the environment, it’s total bs.. the batteries, the copper, every piece of metal comes out of a mine, a standard sized tire takes roughly 7 gallons of oil to produce alone. Point is there’s no getting away from the use of oil.. right now. Imo the only real short term solution is well planned out mass transportation systems like trains.
Thanks Susan.. great article 👍
BlackRock , Carlyle Group , WellsFargo and Vanguard will not loan capital for North Slope drilling projects . This is part of the issue .
Interesting that those Capital giants have our permanent fund invested in their portfolios . Kind of ironic .