Why Harris and Trump are debating the F-word

The energy feud between Republican nominee Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is reviving a nearly two-decade-old debate over fracking — the technology that set off today’s U.S. oil and gas boom.

The argument about the technology itself is largely symbolic: As president, Harris would most likely be unable to enact a national ban on fracking, despite her pledges to do so five years ago. In any case, she says she no longer wants to.

But that 2019 promise has become a regular feature of Trump’s stump speeches anyway, a core plank of his effort to paint the Biden-Harris administration as anti-fossil-fuel, despite the record energy production occurring on their watch. And underlying that fight is a larger, fundamental debate about inflation and the effort to take on climate change — with important implications for the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania.

Here’s a primer on what the candidates are saying, and what they’re really fighting about.

Q: What is fracking, anyway?

A: Short for “hydraulic fracturing,” fracking is a technology that first took off in natural gas production in the mid-2000s before spreading to the oil industry. Producers use advanced drilling techniques to tap into shale rock layers thousands of feet underground and then pump in millions of gallons of water, chemicals and sand to crack open fissures that release oil, natural gas or other fluids.

In essence, it’s a way to unearth vast amounts of once-inaccessible fuel. And what started as a niche production method quickly set off a scramble in the industry, spawning energy booms in places like Pennsylvania, North Dakota and West Texas — and turning the U.S. into the world’s top oil and gas producer.

Fracking is now by far the most common way to produce both oil and gas in the United States. It has also made natural gas so inexpensive that the fuel has become the nation’s most commonly used source for electric power, eclipsing once-mighty coal.

Fun fact: Fracking can also produce geothermal energy, a clean energy source Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has strongly supported.

Q: Why, fracking sounds lovely. Why would anyone want to ban it?

A: Reasons include pollution and climate change.

A decade ago, the most-publicized controversies surrounding fracking focused on dangers posed by the injecting-and-fracturing process itself — including worries that the injected chemicals could leak into nearby groundwater supplies. The Oscar-nominated 2010 documentary GasLand dramatized these concerns with a scene that showed residents near a Pennsylvania shale field lighting their drinking water on fire.

Another issue relates to the millions of gallons of “produced water” left over from the fracking process, which is often both toxic and radioactive and has to be disposed of somehow. Studies about whether fracking harms underground water supplies are still ongoing, but evidence shows that living close to fracked wells can complicate pregnancies and worsen asthma. Some studies have also linked fracking to earthquakes.

But for many green groups, a much bigger concern is what the fracking-induced oil and gas boom means for the Earth’s climate.

The surge in oil and gas output contributes to greenhouse gas pollution, the major cause of the planetary warming that has pushed temperatures to record levels and fueled stronger hurricanes and wildfires. Methane, a potent climate pollutant and the primary component of natural gas, often leaks from wellheads, pipelines and storage tanks. When burned, methane also converts to carbon dioxide, which can remain in the atmosphere for centuries.

Fracking’s defenders counter that it has helped cut the United States’ carbon dioxide output because the rise of natural gas as the nation’s prime source of electricity has pushed so many coal plants into retirement. But climate activists say the only real solution to the crisis is to stop producing and burning all kinds of fossil fuel — and instead, “keep it in the ground.”

Q: Got it. Can lawmakers ban fracking? Have lawmakers tried to ban it before?

A: Vermont, Washington and Maryland have banned fracking, though none of those states are major energy producers. New York state has banned new fracked wells, and California, which used to be a major oil producer, looks likely to follow suit in October. In Pennsylvania, the multistate commission that regulates the Delaware River basin in the state’s eastern portion prohibited fracking three years ago, as have some local governments.

The federal government has not attempted to ban fracking, and there are questions as to whether it legally could, in part because of a George W. Bush-era legal change known as the "Halliburton loophole" that restricts the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to even regulate the practice.

The Obama administration attempted to pass a rule forcing companies to publicly disclose the chemicals they were using in their fracking “cocktails” and have the Interior Department more tightly regulate fracking on federal land. But a federal court struck down both those attempts, saying Congress had not given the department that authority.

Q: So why did Harris say she would ban fracking in 2019?

A: Environmental groups in the lead-up to the 2020 election pushed for Democrats to ban fracking as a way to fight climate change. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) led the calls for a national fracking ban during their runs for the Democratic presidential nomination — and Harris, seeking to carve out a lane in a crowded primary field, said she too would bar the practice.

“There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking," Harris said during a CNN forum on climate change in 2019.

But then-Democratic front-runner Joe Biden refused to go along with the calls for a ban, saying instead he wanted to invest in clean energy to move the country away from fossil fuels. Harris changed her own tune soon after joining Biden’s campaign in 2020, repeatedly insisting that his administration would not ban fracking. Harris has adopted that as her own position during this year’s White House race, saying on CNN last month that “as president I will not ban fracking.”

Seeking to explain her change of mind, Harris pointed to the $1 trillion-plus that the Biden administration has invested in clean energy and infrastructure, adding: “What I have seen is that we can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking.”

Environmental groups have given Harris room to breathe on the subject, saying Trump would be worse for the environment.

Q: This was all ages ago. Why are we talking about it now?

A: Basically, Pennsylvania — this year’s must-win swing state.

Polls show Harris and Trump locked in a statistical dead heat over the state’s 19 electoral college votes. The state is the No. 2 producer of natural gas in the United States, largely thanks to fracking in its southwest and northern regions, and Trump has made much ado about Harris’ support for a ban in 2019.

“Your state’s going to be ruined,” Trump told a crowd during an August rally in Wilkes-Barre. “She’s totally anti-fracking. She’s been anti-fracking and anti-drilling and anti-oil and gas practically since the day she was born.”

The Trump campaign has said it believes Harris’ reversal is disingenuous. The campaign has tried to blame the Biden administration’s energy policy for inflation, despite the Interior Department approving a record number of drilling permits and oil production hitting an all-time high during Biden’s term in office.

“Like most politicians, Kamala is trying to lie about her fracking position to get elected because her advisers know supporting a fracking ban is a death sentence to her electoral chances,” Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said in an email. “A ban on fracking would drive energy bills, gas prices, and the cost of groceries through the roof.”

Q: Could a President Kamala Harris ban fracking if she wanted to?

A: Nope. No president as of now has a direct way to regulate drilling on private land, where the vast majority of oil production takes place, said Wayne D’Angelo, lawyer at law firm Kelley Drye. And as former President Barack Obama found out, courts have said Congress would need to give the executive branch more power before it could be able to directly regulate fracking.

“A president cannot issue an outright ban on fracking,” D’Angelo said. “In authorizing the executive to manage federal lands, Congress statutorily required that federal lands be managed in a manner that allows for a mix of uses, including resource extraction. Executive agencies can and do regulate activities on federal land, including oil and gas activities, but that regulatory activity is also statutorily limited.”

Q: How many Pennsylvanians even care about fracking?

A: Fewer than a decade ago, according to public policy analysts, noting that the fight over fracking technology has largely disappeared even in Pennsylvania.

While natural gas production is still a big industry in the state, its footprint has shrunk since its heyday. The state approved 1,044 drilling permits in 2022, less than half the number in 2017, according to the latest data available from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The oil and gas industry has shed thousands of workers in the state since 2019 and the number of wells producing natural gas has also fallen from its peak, according to government data.

Fracking itself is little discussed even among state lawmakers during local campaigns, said Chris Borick, director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Allentown.

“The perception is that Pennsylvanians talk about fracking all the time,” Borick said in an interview. “The reality is it’s just not true.”

What Pennsylvanian’s do talk about is inflation, Borick said. And while the price of gasoline has fallen sharply from the record high set in June 2021, the ghost of higher energy prices caused by the post-Covid supply crunch and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine still haunts the state’s voters. So Republicans bring up Harris’ past statements as a way to try to convince voters that she’s a flip-flopper who would outlaw the main method the United States produces oil and gas — something that would drive up energy costs.

““Those experiences and deep negative feelings about energy prices, [Republicans] want those to be front and center on voters’ minds,” Borick said. “Fracking might be an avenue to bring those issues to life.”

Q: So what is Harris’ energy policy?

A: Her campaign has not laid out details yet. A spokesperson responded to questions from POLITICO for this article by referring back to Harris’ CNN interview.

In that interview, Harris touted the Inflation Reduction Act, the Democrat’s landmark legislation that provided hundreds of billions of dollars for clean energy development, noting that she had cast the deciding vote for it in the Senate.

Harris’ support for the IRA and her backing away from a fracking ban indicates that she’ll likely continue Biden’s policy, said Kevin Book, director at the energy consulting firm ClearView Energy. That policy in a nutshell: Continue investing in clean energy development, defend regulations forcing companies to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, raise the cost of producing fossil fuels on federal land and let the market do the rest.

But Harris is unlikely to do anything that could cause a politically damaging increase in gasoline prices, Book added.

“The dirty secret is one of the things that enabled Biden to campaign on the greenest platform in presidential history was the low energy price supported by domestic production,” Book said. “What the Biden administration discovered was that it was not going to be easy to transition to a clean energy economy without continuing oil and gas production. Price concerns are a significant source of political pushback.”