On a recent winter morning in Hanover, New Hampshire, the temperature had dropped to -10°F as I took my dog for a walk. Passing by homes with chimneys releasing steady streams of smoke, I was reminded of just how essential reliable energy sources—heating oil, natural gas, and wood—are for survival in harsh conditions. It raised a troubling question: Could renewables ever provide this same level of dependable heat? Given current technology and infrastructure, the answer remains far from certain.
This question isn’t just theoretical—it speaks to a much larger issue in energy policy: the reliability of the data used to shape our decisions. If policymakers and investors are basing energy strategies on flawed or manipulated statistics, the consequences could be severe.
That concern became even more urgent when, on Feb. 4, Reuters reported that OPEC would no longer rely on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), once considered among the world’s most respected sources for energy statistics. Instead, OPEC has turned to third-party data providers, citing concerns over the EIA’s declining accuracy.
This wasn’t an isolated incident. Last August, Reuters highlighted significant discrepancies in EIA reports, particularly in how gasoline demand was measured. The analysis suggested that demand had been understated—potentially to support a narrative that electric vehicles and fuel efficiency improvements were significantly curbing fuel consumption. But if the data itself is unreliable, how can we trust the policies built upon it?
Concerns about flawed energy analysis extend beyond the EIA. Last week, I attended a conference at the U.S. Capitol hosted by the National Center for Energy Analytics (NCEA), where energy experts Mark Mills and Neil Atkinson presented their report, “Energy Delusions: Peak Oil Forecasts – A Critique of Oil “Scenarios” in the IEA World Energy Outlook 2024. Their analysis identified 23 flawed assumptions in the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) projections, which have led to inaccurate forecasts of global energy demand.
One particularly problematic assumption is that China will meet its emissions reduction pledges, despite the fact that it continues to build more coal-fired power plants than any other nation. Another unrealistic assumption is that commercial trucks and airplanes will transition to electrification at scale, despite the absence of viable technology or infrastructure to support such a shift. When energy policies are built on these kinds of miscalculations, they set the stage for misguided investment and unreliable energy planning.
So, what happened to the EIA and IEA? Many analysts believe those agencies have become increasingly influenced by political agendas that prioritize the appearance of a rapid energy transition over the realities of global energy consumption. This is a dangerous trend.
Capital markets, power grid planners, and businesses all rely on objective data to make critical investment decisions. If the data is politically skewed, the very foundation of our economic and energy security is at risk. The Soviet Union’s economic failures were in large part due to centralized planning based on inaccurate data—an outcome we should take great pains to avoid.
Fortunately, newly-confirmed Secretary of Energy Chris Wright is committed to grounding U.S. energy policy in reality. His Bettering Human Lives report highlights the essential role of fossil fuels in improving global living standards, while also acknowledging the need for pragmatic emissions reductions (Bettering Human Lives Report).
He advocates for the continued development of domestically produced natural gas, which has already played a key role in reducing U.S. carbon emissions by displacing dirtier coal and oil. Unlike those who promote unrealistic renewable energy timelines, Wright recognizes that natural gas must serve as a bridge to a future in which nuclear power can deliver the reliable, zero-carbon energy we need.
So, what does this mean for New Hampshire? Our state has the second-highest electricity prices in the country, yet we sit just hours away from one of the world’s largest natural gas reserves—the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania. This abundant, low-cost energy source has the potential to transform New England’s economy and energy security.
However, infrastructure constraints and regulatory barriers have prevented us from fully accessing this resource. A coalition of New England governors should come together to prioritize expanding natural gas infrastructure, ensuring that families and businesses benefit from cleaner, more affordable energy.
The time for energy delusions is over. The stakes—economic stability, national security, and the well-being of our communities—are too high to base policy on wishful thinking rather than hard data.
New England must embrace pragmatic energy solutions that prioritize reliability, affordability, and environmental responsibility. It’s time to move past fantasy and focus on what actually works.
