Tag: Defense Production Act (DPA)

California is Running Out of Refineries – And Running Out of Time

With the recent closures of the Valero and Phillips refineries that processed crude oil and the 2023 conversions of Marathon in Martinez and Phillips 66 in Rodeo that are no longer running crude oil, just renewable diesel, California’s remaining six refineries that process crude oil do not have the capacity to produce all that California demands of 58 million gallons of transportation fuel DAILY

From CO2- Coalition- Substack

By Ronald Stein* and Mike Ariza

With no pipelines crossing the Sierra Nevada, California is an energy island, separated from the crude oil supplies and refinery infrastructure of the other continental states. As a result, the state’s transportation fuel needs—for airports, cars, trucks, and ships serving three of America’s busiest ports—must be met by in-state refineries.

With the recent closures of the Valero and Phillips refineries that processed crude oil and the 2023 conversions of Marathon in Martinez and Phillips 66 in Rodeo that are no longer running crude oil, just renewable diesel, California’s remaining six refineries that process crude oil do not have the capacity to produce all that California demands of 58 million gallons of transportation fuel DAILY:

In addition, approximately 5.2 million metric tons of bunker fuel are an annual demand for the ships in three of the busiest Ports in America, located in California.

  • Port of Los Angeles had more than 1,800 vessel arrivals in 2024, which includes cruise and merchant ships.
  • Port of Long Beach handled over 9.6 million container units in 2024, indicating a very high volume of ship activity, plus cruise ships.
  • Port of Oakland, which also handles significant cargo volumes, contributes to the total number of cruise and merchant ships needing fuel.

California policies have reduced the state to six operational crude-oil refineries, forcing it to import 14 to 15 million of the 37 million gallons of gasoline it consumes each day, primarily from Asian countries.

Because of the reduction in transportation fuels being imported to California from Asian refineries, President Trump made the call to waive the Jones Act. This allowed foreign flagged tankers to take fuel receipts from states in the Gulf of America along with the East coast and deliver them via the Panama Canal, to California ports. Normal rules require domestic shipping vessels to be American built, owned, and crewed.

  • A Jones Act waiver is a temporary legal exemption that allows foreign-flagged ships to carry cargo between U.S. ports, i.e., from the Gulf Coast through the Panama Canal, to the West Coast ports in California. Under the Jones Act waiver in the last 3 ½ months foreign flagged tankers have transported more gasoline to California than what has been shipped to the state in the last 15 years combined.
  • The Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts PADD 5 (West Coast) jet fuel inventories normally track between 9 – 11 million barrels on hand. By April 2026 inventories were at 2.6 million and dropping. This was the lowest inventory for that time in more than 23 Years. Then on April 2, 2026, South Korea, California’s largest supplier of jet fuel, announced that they were suspending jet fuel exports. With this announcement and the fact that PADD 5 inventories were getting near historic lows, Southwest Airlines took unprecedented historic action. Southwest chartered a tanker flagged under the Marshall Islands to transport 306,389 barrels of jet fuel from the Valero Pasadena dock in Houston to berths in Los Angeles and Long Beach. In addition to Southwest Airlines’ unprecedented action, in the last 3 ½ months foreign flagged tankers have transported more jet fuel from PADD 1 and PADD 3 to California than the state has received in the last 36 YEARS COMBINED.
  • On August 10, 2026, President Donald Trump approved a 90-day extension of the Jones Act waiver that will allow foreign-flagged vessels to transport critical transportation fuels demanded in California and agricultural commodities between U.S. ports in the Gulf Coast and West Coast from August 17 through mid-November 2026.

California is the 4th largest economy because it has always had sufficient refinery capacity to manufacture the humongous in-state demands for transportation fuels. It is important to note that long term federal waivers will not solve the supply chain of transportation fuels demanded by the 4th largest economy in the world.

The root cause of refineries hemorrhaging out of the state is California state policies. National policy “band aids” cannot provide the long-term solution to a California sponsored hemorrhaging of the in-state refineries needed to manufacture the transportation fuel demands within the state.

With those recent refinery closures of the Phillips in Wilmington and Valero in Benicia and previous conversions of Marathon in Martinez and Phillips 66 in Rodeo that are no longer processing crude oil, just renewable diesel, California must now rely on the importation of transportation fuels that cannot be made in the State, 40% for gasoline demand and 35% for jet fuel and diesel demand.

  1. With the onset of the Iranian war, crude oil supplies being shipped through the strait of Hormuz were cut off to the Asian countries that were supplying California with transportation fuel. This forced the Asian Refineries to reduce their crude oil charge rates. As the crude oil charge rates declined their production rates of the vital fuels for California also declined to the point where they were forced to suspend their shipments to our state. By the first week of April 2026 nearly all outbound fuel shipments were cut off. With transit times across the Pacific Ocean running between 35 – 45 days this set California on a course for a supply shock starting in the last week of May 2026 with subsequent transportation fuel shortages at the terminal and fuel station levels starting in mid to late June 2026.
  2. To help California, Gulf refineries bumped up their production rates from a normal of 95-96% to near 98% of capacity. Some refineries also deferred their scheduled 1st and 2nd quarter maintenance shutdowns known as turnarounds to keep production online. Despite the slight increase in refinery rates most of the fuel that has been supplied to California has come from Petroleum Administration Defense District 1 (PADD 1) from the Gulf Coast and PADD 3 from the East Coast. In essence, California policies have caused the state to tap into other national military reserves. Refineries deferring their scheduled turnarounds is hazardous. Turnarounds are scheduled for a reason. Every day of delay further increases the possibility of extended downtimes due to equipment fouling or uncontrolled shutdowns due to equipment failure.

California State policies and economics have caused most of the in-state refineries to close over the last few decades and cease doing any manufacturing in the State which directly relates to transportation fuel shortages. The remaining seven refineries do not have the capacity to manufacture the supply chain demands for 58 million gallons a day of transportation fuels, and the bunker fuel demands of ships at 3 of the busiest ports in America located in California.

California is continuously increasing its reliance on costly foreign fuel imports from major polluting foreign refineries that ship those fuels long distances for 30 to 45 days across the Pacific Ocean by polluting tankers before reaching California ports. Because California’s unique environmental regulations require highly specialized fuel blends, and the domestic tanker fleet is too thin to fulfill its immense volume requirements, the state will be forced to look abroad. Refiners and marketers like those in the California Fuels & Convenience Alliance will likely pivot to importing replacement components from international markets, leaving California more exposed to global supply shocks and high replacement costs. However, given the current global supply strains, it is unlikely that they will find replacement transportation fuel sources. This will most likely lead to supply shocks within the state and the strong possibility of shortages of the daily transportation fuels that are demanded within the State.

Governor Newsom has received three letters from Chevron, Marathon, and PBF, owners of six of the remaining seven refineries in the state. All three letters state that if California refuses to negotiate with them on the newly proposed Cap and Invest amendments that were drafted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), then they will seriously consider shuttering their operations and leaving the state like Valero did.

California’s Governor, Legislatures, Senators and Representatives must immediately implement plans to support the retention of the 7 remaining refineries. If these refiners shut down, then no amount of waiver tankers will be able to prevent current shortages from becoming humongous catastrophic shortages. These shortages will be of historical proportions. They will affect Nevada, Arizona, and if the ports are shut down, they will reach well into the center of the nation.

California is not proactively supporting the reanimating of the closed Valero Refinery in Benicia or the closed Phillips Refinery in Wilmington. In addition, California government is not making the necessary policy changes to avert the hemorrhaging loss of one or more of the remaining California Refineries.

We strongly encourage the President to immediately invoke the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 which is a United States federal law that gives the President emergency powers to control domestic industries and private businesses. It ensures the nation has enough industrial resources and supplies for national defense, energy infrastructure, and major emergencies.Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

Originally published at America Out Loud, August 24, 2026.

Ronald Stein, P.E., is a CO2 Coalition member, engineer, columnist on energy literacy at America Out Loud NEWS, and advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.” He is also the recipient of an unsolicited Tribute to Ronald Stein from Stephen Heins.

Federal Power Meets California Resistance in Santa Ynez Oil Restart Battle

President Trump issued a Defense Product Act-based executive order to get oil flowing again off the California coast. State judge basically ruled a previous California court injunction against offshore oil drilling superseded that EO.

From Watts Up With That?

From Legal Insurrection

President Trump issued a Defense Product Act-based executive order to get oil flowing again off the California coast. State judge basically ruled a previous California court injunction against offshore oil drilling superseded that EO.

Posted by Leslie Eastman 

Last month, President Donald Trump issued an executive order authorizing the Secretary of the Department of Energy to greenlight Sable Offshore oil company’s ongoing efforts to restart production at the much-fought-over Santa Ynez Unit off the coast near Santa Barbara, California.

Energy Secretary Christ Wright quickly followed up by doing exactly that.

“Today’s order will strengthen America’s oil supply and restore a pipeline system vital to our national security and defense, ensuring that the West Coast military installations have the reliable energy critical to military readiness,” Wright stated.

…Friday’s presidential executive order and action of the Energy Secretary come shortly on the heels of the lengthy Department of Justice legal opinion concluding that the restart of Sable Offshore’s plant falls within the scope and jurisdiction of the Defense Production Act. The restart action flies in the face of opinions rendered by the California Attorney General and the Office of the State Fire Marshal. Last October, the Fire Marshal issued a ruling decreeing that Sable had not yet done enough repair work on a pipeline that spilled 142,000 gallons of crude in a leak in 2015. That spill was due to systemic corrosion to the pipeline.

This basically opened an oil spigot that had been shut off by a California court’s previous order halting oil production in this region.  Sable considered the Defense Production Act-based executive order to have trumped the state’s ruling.

Empowered by this move and in response to escalating gasoline prices (including historic ones in the Golden State high enough to get Democrats to rescind the gas tax), Sable began pumping out 60,000 barrels of oil daily. As an added bonus, 100 jobs were created with more hires slated for the near future.

During an exclusive visit to the newly reopened platforms, where oil is once again flowing through onshore pipelines in Santa Barbara following a Trump executive order, The California Post sat down with the facility’s executive, who offered a pointed but measured response to the Democrat outcry at the decision, which is still facing legal action to shut it down again.

“We have a perfect, safe restart of the pipeline,” J. Caldwell Flores, president and COO of Sable Offshore Corp., told The Post.

“We recognize we’re providing a necessary service to California and the country as a whole.”

About 100 new jobs have already been created, and an additional 200 are expected once all three platforms are fully operational, according to Sable.

However, a state judge has decided she has more power than the President when it comes to the nation’s energy security.

Oil development off Santa Barbara County’s Gaviota Coast has long turned on fine legal margins — interstate versus intrastate, State Fire Marshal versus the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, court orders versus claims of immunity. On Friday morning, in the Santa Barbara courtroom of Judge Donna Geck, one of those margins snapped into focus.

Geck refused to lift the injunction blocking Sable Offshore Corp. from restarting its pipeline system — even as oil continues to flow.

That alone might sound like just procedural sparring, but this time, the ruling did something new: It rejected, for the first time, Sable’s argument that a federal order issued under the Defense Production Act allows it to sidestep state law and the court’s prior orders.

“This is the first time a court has recognized that the Defense Production Act order does not relieve Sable of its requirements under state law,” said Talia Nimmer, staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).

Sable Offshore Corp. plans to fight this ruling vigorously. It also plans to continue pumping oil.

The oil giant vowed to fight the “show-cause” process in court next month and pointed out it had been given the green light to reopen by the president.

Judge Donna Geck of the Santa Barbara Superior Court said last week a state injunction on the gas giant was still in place, blocking it from restarting and handing a win to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Jeffrey Dintzer, attorney for Sable Offshore, told the California Post: “We’re disappointed that the court chose not to rescind the order.

…“The pipeline is still operational, and we are continuing to pump crude through the Santa Ynez system pursuant to the order of Secretary Wright who is authorized by the president.”

Hot Air’s John Sexton has a few thoughts on how this legal battle will continue:

Judge Geck has set a hearing for next month to decide whether to hold the company in contempt of court. Hopefully a higher court will correct Judge Geck on appeal. Then again, it’s possible the emergency, in the form of the war with Iran, will be over before this gets sorted out.

The clash unfolding off the coast of Santa Barbara is more than a regional permitting dispute. It’s more like a live test of whether federal authority on energy security carries any real weight when it collides with California’s regulatory regime. For now, Sable is operating in a legal gray zone where oil is flowing, jobs are materializing, and gasoline relief is tangible, despite a state court insisting none of it should be happening.

Once again, California finds itself in the familiar position of needing the very energy infrastructure its political leadership keeps trying to shut down, and the contradictions are getting harder to ignore.

Biden’s Transformer Blunder: How Ideological Policy Choices Deepened the Grid Crisis

In a detailed report at Green Tape, Charles Yang exposes a critical misstep by the Biden administration that has worsened the ongoing transformer shortage. As the U.S. grid faces increasing strain from rising electricity demand, the previous administration had a rare opportunity to bolster domestic transformer manufacturing using $250 million in Defense Production Act (DPA) funding. Instead, under pressure from climate nonprofits like Rewiring America, the Biden White House chose to direct that money toward heat pump production—despite clear warnings that transformers were becoming a major supply bottleneck

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

https://www.greentape.pub/p/how-biden-traded-transformers-for

In a detailed report at Green Tape, Charles Yang exposes a critical misstep by the Biden administration that has worsened the ongoing transformer shortage. As the U.S. grid faces increasing strain from rising electricity demand, the previous administration had a rare opportunity to bolster domestic transformer manufacturing using $250 million in Defense Production Act (DPA) funding. Instead, under pressure from climate nonprofits like Rewiring America, the Biden White House chose to direct that money toward heat pump production—despite clear warnings that transformers were becoming a major supply bottleneck. This decision has not only deepened the crisis but also ensured that load growth would outpace the grid’s ability to support it​.

The Transformer Crisis: A Problem Decades in the Making

The U.S. power grid is aging. Most transformers in use today are over 30 years old, and demand for replacements has surged due to new industrial projects, increased electrification, and the rise of electric vehicles (EVs). Yet, instead of investing in much-needed grid infrastructure, the administration chose to spend $250 million in Defense Production Act (DPA) funding on heat pump production​.

Transformers play a crucial role in ensuring that electricity generated at power plants can travel long distances efficiently before being stepped down to safer levels for homes and businesses. Without them, the power grid is constrained, unable to add new generation capacity or support increased demand​.

Lead times for transformers have nearly tripled since 2022, while prices have soared, making it harder for utilities to maintain and expand the grid​. The causes of this shortage are many: supply chain disruptions, reliance on foreign electrical steel, and bureaucratic inefficiencies. However, the Biden administration’s decision to prioritize heat pumps over transformers has directly worsened the problem.

Biden’s Decision: A Policy Failure

In 2022, Biden delegated DPA authority to the Department of Energy (DOE) to support domestic production of key energy components, including transformers​. This funding was a rare opportunity to address supply chain issues and bolster domestic production. But instead of using it to ease the transformer shortage, climate nonprofits successfully lobbied the administration to divert the money toward heat pump manufacturing.

Despite clear warnings about the growing backlog of transformer orders, the administration sided with groups that pushed an agenda disconnected from the realities of grid stability​. This decision ignored fundamental supply-side challenges: transformers are a bottleneck in the electrical system, whereas heat pumps merely increase electricity demand. By funding heat pump production instead, the administration ensured that demand would rise while the grid’s ability to support that demand remained constrained.

Why Heat Pumps? A Politically Motivated Decision

Heat pumps are not a critical national security asset. Unlike transformers, which rely on a fragile global supply chain and require specialized materials such as grain-oriented electrical steel (GOES), heat pumps are relatively simple appliances that can be produced domestically without major geopolitical risk​.

The push to subsidize heat pumps over transformers wasn’t rooted in strategic industrial policy but in an ideological commitment to an electrification agenda. The administration effectively prioritized politically favorable technology over essential grid infrastructure.

Even worse, this move came at a time when transformer manufacturers were already struggling due to foreign competition. There is only one U.S. producer of GOES, meaning domestic transformer manufacturing is heavily dependent on imports​. A serious industrial policy would have focused on strengthening transformer supply chains rather than redirecting funds toward an unrelated appliance sector.

The Consequences: A Weaker, Less Reliable Grid

The decision to prioritize heat pumps over transformers has real-world consequences:

  • Longer Wait Times for Grid Expansion – Utilities and power providers now face multi-year delays for transformer procurement, slowing down grid modernization efforts​.
  • Higher Costs for Consumers – Transformer prices have nearly doubled, and utilities will inevitably pass these costs on to ratepayers​.
  • Reduced Grid Reliability – A weak grid can’t handle growing electrification demands, making blackouts and brownouts more likely.
  • Increased Dependence on Foreign Suppliers – Rather than investing in strengthening the domestic transformer supply chain, the U.S. remains reliant on foreign manufacturers, particularly in China​.

What Needs to Happen Next?

Fixing the transformer crisis requires urgent action. Congress and the Trump administration must reverse course and prioritize transformer production over politically motivated spending.

  1. Pass the CIRCUIT Act – This bipartisan bill would provide a 10% tax credit for transformer manufacturing, helping domestic producers compete​.
  2. Redirect Remaining DPA Funds – The administration still has $14 million in unallocated DPA funding. This should go toward transformers, not more heat pumps​.
  3. Standardize Transformer Design – The lack of uniform transformer standards makes manufacturing inefficient. DOE should work with utilities to establish common specifications​.
  4. Invest in Advanced Transformer Technology – Research into solid-state substations and new transformer materials could help alleviate future shortages​.

Conclusion: A Case Study in Misguided Priorities

The transformer crisis is a direct result of the previous administration’s decision to prioritize ideological policies over practical energy infrastructure needs. While certain technologies were favored politically, they did not address the essential requirements of grid stability. Without immediate action to rectify the transformer shortage, the U.S. risks hindering economic growth and compromising energy security.

The new Trump administration has the opportunity to correct this course. By focusing on strengthening domestic transformer manufacturing and supply chains, the administration can enhance grid resilience and support the nation’s energy demands. This approach aligns with President Trump’s broader agenda to revitalize American manufacturing and reduce dependence on foreign imports. Implementing policies that prioritize critical infrastructure over politically driven initiatives will be essential in addressing the current crisis and ensuring long-term energy stability.

Leveraging the Defense Production Act to Stockpile Minerals

On December 3, 2024, China imposed export bans on antimony, gallium, and germanium—three elements with important defense applications. Antimony is used in over 200 munitions of the Department of Defense, ranging from 5.56 mm ammunition to 155 mm artillery rounds. Gallium is used in cutting-edge radar systems like the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense System.

From Watts Up With That?

By Gregory WischerMorgan BazilianJahara Matisek

On December 3, 2024, China imposed export bans on antimony, gallium, and germanium—three elements with important defense applications. Antimony is used in over 200 munitions of the Department of Defense, ranging from 5.56 mm ammunition to 155 mm artillery rounds. Gallium is used in cutting-edge radar systems like the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense System. And germanium is used in infrared lenses for night vision and thermal imaging in naval vessels, combat vehicles, and aircraft. Beyond defense applications, these minerals are also vital for American industry and commercial technology, such as fiber optic cables.

Since the U.S. relies heavily on China for these minerals, China’s new export ban could delay the manufacture of defense platforms and munitions, exacerbating already depleted defense stocks and further undermining America’s warfighting capabilities. The United States depends greatly on China for other minerals, too. For example, for minerals in which the U.S. is more than 50% net import reliant, China—the Pentagon’s “pacing challenge”—is the leading import source for 24 minerals. Critically, China could ban exports of these other minerals, such as bismuth (used in defense alloys) and tungsten (needed for armor-piercing munitions).

As a result, the U.S. government must stockpile strategic minerals to ensure a reliable and resilient supply for the defense industrial base.

Yet, the government’s current mineral stockpile—the U.S. National Defense Stockpile— “is not intended to influence prices in the market or insulate private industry from supply shocks.” This stockpile is only supposed to be tapped “in times of national emergency,” namely war. Stockpile acquisitions and releases from the National Defense Stockpile are also subject to bureaucratic approval by the Strategic and Critical Materials Board of Directors. These strictures are not conducive to protecting the defense industrial base in the global mineral market, which faces risks of supply shocks from China.

Notably, however, the Trump Administration could use the Defense Production Act (DPA) to build a separate mineral stockpile that can function outside of national emergencies and war. This stockpile would be capable of not only selling minerals to the defense industrial base amid supply shortages but also acquiring minerals from domestic mineral producers to incentivize domestic production.

Previous presidential administrations have indeed used the DPA to build sizable mineral inventories. In December 1963, for example, the DPA mineral inventory was $1.5 billion (valued at over $10 billion in 2024 dollars). Administrations have then sold portions of these stockpiled minerals to domestic firms to alleviate supply shortages. In the first half of 1965, the U.S. government released over 20,000 tons of copper from the DPA inventory to domestic firms amid tight global supplies. Multiple administrations have, too, sold DPA inventories to support defense manufacturers facing constrained mineral supplies. For instance, the DPA inventory was authorized in 1963 to release 30,000 tons of titanium sponge for a Navy prime contract, given limited commercial supplies.

Administrations have also used DPA authority to incentivize domestic mineral production. During the Korean War, the U.S. government effectively set a price floor in 1951 for domestic tungsten: it committed to purchase all domestically produced tungsten at $63 per unit for five years or until three million units were stockpiled. U.S. tungsten production then increased from 2,000 tons in 1950 to almost 8,000 tons in 1955, with nearly all of it sent to the national stockpile. The U.S. government applied this same policy with aluminum, and it helped increase U.S. production from about 720,000 tons in 1950 to nearly 1.6 million tons in 1955.

Under the DPA, the incoming Trump Administration has broad unilateral authority to create a new DPA mineral inventory and to acquire and sell those minerals at its discretion. The DPA explicitly includes stockpiling in its “national defense” programs and declares that the U.S. government’s policy must consider stockpiling strategic materials. Under 50 U.S.C. §§4533(a), the president has statutory authority—which has been delegated to agency heads—to purchase or commit to purchasing industrial resources, including materials necessary for the defense industrial base.

Importantly, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993 transferred the DPA inventory to the National Defense Stockpile. However, this transfer only applied to minerals in the inventory as of June 30, 1992, so minerals acquired for a new DPA inventory are not required to be transferred to the National Defense Stockpile.

The Trump Administration could use any of the Defense Production Act’s $1 billion in unobligated funds for stockpiling minerals. Depending on the final defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2025, the incoming administration could tap even more funds, likely an additional $450 million to $900 million.

The Trump Administration can immediately use these funds to purchase or commit to purchasing minerals for the stockpile because current U.S. President Joe Biden has already signed a waiver for DPA purchases concerning critical minerals. This action waives the statutory requirements for a presidential determination, terms of sale, spending limitations, and congressional notifications and authorizations.

This DPA inventory should contain minerals currently used by the defense industrial base, including minerals already in the National Defense Stockpile, as well as those excluded from it, including copper and bismuth. However, the incoming administration should also acquire minerals needed for future Pentagon programs, such as minerals for quantum computing.

When releasing these minerals to domestic firms, the president should sell these minerals to approved domestic manufacturers in critical sectors, prioritizing the defense industrial base. The president could also release these minerals to government consumers, such as Department of Defense labs conducting materials research.

The minerals stockpiled should also be in a form that can be integrated into defense manufacturing with minimal additional steps. For example, instead of tungsten ore and concentrates—which the National Defense Stockpile currently contains—the DPA inventory should contain tungsten metal powder. Importantly, the inventory should exclude materials in overly specialized forms (e.g., aluminum sheets tapered to a specific degree) that have narrow applications and could become obsolete.

Similar to the Cold War, the stockpiled minerals can be stored at various government and commercial facilities, with preference for existing military depots and other government-owned facilities. If additional storage space is necessary, the U.S. government can use DPA funds to lease commercial warehouses.

Just as the Eisenhower Administration stockpiled minerals using DPA funds during the Cold War, the incoming Trump Administration could justifiably do the same amid the U.S.-China mineral war.

Gregory Wischer is a fellow at the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines.

Morgan Bazilian is the director of the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines.

Lt Col Jahara “Franky” Matisek is a military professor in the National Security Affairs department at the US Naval War College and fellow at the Payne Institute for Public Policy. Views are his own.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.