For all the failed jokes and campy humor, 1985’s “National Lampoon’s European Vacation” may be an apt illustration of the disconnect between American and European culture.

That extends to energy, as well. But a pratfall may be lurking in the regulations found in Berlin, Rome and Paris, should they cross the Atlantic.

Environmentalist groups often point to Europe as the way forward in fighting climate change, and point to the continent’s policies that limit or restrict fracking and fossil fuels.

The notion of adopting EU-style taxes and regulations won support in 2009 from President Barack Obama the day before his inauguration and, more recently, from Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt.

Leading political candidates are now explicitly supporting government controls in the mold of the EU that would govern energy production and consumption.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that European-style energy policies, taxes and regulations would hurt the oil and gas industry and have drastic repercussions for national and state economies. The chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy examined the impacts of adopting EU-style measures and what it would mean to pay Europe’s energy prices.

Overall, the institute found that EU policies have caused people in member countries to pay significantly higher prices than U.S. consumers for every type of energy consumed.

Grafted onto the U.S., European-style energy policies and prices would cause businesses and people considerable discomfort.

The residential sector would see a $676 billion increase in annual costs, or $1.85 billion per day, the the chamber said. The industrial sector would add an additional $31 billion burden based on 2014 data, the report said.

Prices at the pump would rise from $2.21 per gallon (gal) to $5.24/gal.

During one of the most contentious presidential campaigns in modern history, the chamber is taking candidates and policymakers at their word this election cycle.

The seriousness of environmentalists to hold Democrat Hillary Clinton’s feet to the fire shouldn’t be overlooked, the chamber has said. Republican Donald Trump, trailing Clinton in the polls, is firmly in the fracking camp, with oil and gas CEOs, such as Harold Hamm of Continental Resources Corp. (NYSE: CLR), among his team.

Clinton has publicly waffled on energy, leaning left in her primary battle with Sanders before moving slightly more toward center, particularly on natural gas, during the presidential campaign.

However, oil and gas industry employees have contributed slightly more money to Clinton’s campaign ($114,141) than to Trump’s ($99,302) since July 1, according to a Reuters review of campaign finances.

Talk, Not Energy, Is Cheap

Clinton has vowed to “stop fossil fuels” from being produced on federal lands, and the Democratic platform supports a federal renewable electricity mandate of 50% by 2027.

Such a standard would go beyond any of Obama’s proposals and would also exceed the EU’s renewable energy target of 27% by 2030.

“The types of policies being advocated by leading candidates, such as restricting energy production and imposing new mandates, would drive up energy prices and reduce America’s global competitiveness,” Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the institute that wrote the report, said.

The institute’s report found that European-style polices and prices would also:

  • Increase average U.S. household energy costs by $4,800 annually;
  • Cost 7.7 million jobs;
  • Drain another 273,000 jobs due to increased industrial energy prices; and
  • Claim up to $364 million in labor income tied to residential energy.

The report shows that states most affected by adopting EU-type taxes wouldn’t include major oil and gas producers such as Texas and Pennsylvania. Rather, Florida would see the highest number of job losses and annual GDP reduction.

Units of Measure

Several European nations have imposed regulations with the explicit intent to bar consumption of otherwise lower-cost energy supplies, driving up prices.

Germany, for example, announced plans in 2011 to close all of its nuclear generation capacity by 2022. Replacing this generation with renewable—or even hydrocarbon-derived—energy will have the effect of driving up the delivered price of electricity to end-consumers, the chamber found.

The price impact for various forms of energy would take billions out of businesses and people’s pocketbooks. The report created a price scenario in which the U.S. was forced to use 2014 EU energy prices.

Overall, residential energy expenditures would more than double to $1,220 billion from $583 billion. The poor would be disproportionately affected in such a scenario.

EU member nations also provide more generous subsidies to “uneconomic alternative technologies” than other forms of energy and impose taxes or fees on carbon emissions. Taxes are also higher on energy consumption, while the U.S. levies some of the lowest taxes among developed nations.

Such policies have held back the European economy and given the U.S. a major advantage in the global marketplace, the report said.

“The Energy Institute’s analysis found European electricity, natural gas and motor fuel, and energy prices over the past several years have ranged from between 1.6 times to 2.4 times greater than U.S. prices per unit of energy consumed,” the report said.

Clinton: Frack Frenemy Or Foe?

With the polling winds favoring Clinton on Election Day, her stance on fossil fuels is important, but hard to discern.

After Wikileaks published transcripts of her talks with various banks such as Goldman Sachs, Baird Equity Research dubbed her a “closet frack friend.”

In 2013 and 2014 speeches, she said it was “imperative that we exploit the oil and gas in the most environmentally careful way,” Politico.com reported.

While secretary of state, Clinton supported the export of U.S. natural gas to the EU to combat Russian influence in Europe. She also blamed the Kremlin for “phony environmental groups supported by the Russian government to deter other nations from building fossil-fuel infrastructure,” according to Wikileaks emails.

In February, the Clinton campaign also worked on how to best counteract Sanders’ opposition to fracking to appeal to liberals. In an ad, Sanders touted himself as “the only candidate to oppose fracking.”

Campaign officials weren’t sure what to make of Sanders’ declaration.

“What does that mean? A complete 100% fracking ban? There is no elected Dem, and I believe no [environmental] group, that takes this position. In fact, such an extreme position threatens the progress of common-sense safety measures like frack fluid disclosure and methane capture/air quality regulations,” a campaign official wrote in an email.

Clinton chose to out-Sanders her opponent, telling various outlets she would impose a moratorium on coal, oil and gas leases on federal lands. Asked about extraction on public lands, Clinton said it was a “done deal.”

She added: “That’s where the president is moving: no future extraction. I agree with that.”

In the second presidential debate, however, she shifted toward the center but insisted on making the U.S. the “21st century clean energy superpower.”

Clinton noted that because the price of oil had fallen, oil companies had been damaged.

“We are, however, producing a lot of natural gas, which serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels. And I think that’s an important transition,” she said.

Clinton added that the U.S. must remain energy-independent. “It gives us much more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes on in the Middle East,” she said. “We have enough worries over there without having to worry about that.”

Whatever her intent if elected president, the chamber calls such waffling “cynical.”

“A candidate’s views and the things he or she says and does to win the support of interest groups have a real impact on how policy is shaped and ultimately implemented,” the chamber said. “That is especially true on energy issues today, as groups continue to advance a ‘Keep It In the Ground’ agenda that, if adopted, would force our country to surrender the enormous domestic benefits and clear, global competitive advantages.”

Darren Barbee can be reached at dbarbee@hartenergy.com.