Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

Trump’s All-Out War on Renewables

The new president is annihilating his predecessor’s energy policy.

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Every time the White House changes hands from one party to another, some policies toggle back to what they were before, a reset meant to restore the status quo ante. The best-known example may be the Mexico City policy, which forbids U.S. foreign aid funds from going to any organization that performs or even gives information about abortions; since it was first instituted under Ronald Reagan, every Democratic president has revoked it and every Republican president has reestablished it. The change is as predictable as the sunrise.

But presidents also hope that even if their party loses the next election, they will have created more durable policy change. If the outgoing president has been clever enough at creating smart design, administrative momentum, and political reality, even a hostile new president may find it difficult to roll back everything their predecessor did. That was certainly the Biden administration’s goal when it came to climate policy. Some even hoped that President Trump would just be too preoccupied with the things he cares more about — especially deporting immigrants and imposing tariffs — to devote too much time and effort to undoing the progress that has been made on climate.

In other words, Trump could have taken much the same approach as Biden, except with the favored industries reversed. Biden worked hard to boost renewable energy, but apart from a few high-profile moves like the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and a temporary suspension of approvals for new liquified natural gas export facilities, he mostly left the fossil fuel industry alone. The result was a boom time for oil and gas, with record production and almost limitless profits. Turn it upside down, and you’d have an administration that gives fossil fuel companies what they want — relaxed regulations, speeded-up permits, the opening of federal lands for more drilling — without a frontal assault on renewables.

Unfortunately, Trump has not chosen that mirror-image course. Instead, he seems determined to undermine, roll back, and impair the transition to clean energy in almost every way his administration can think of. As it has in one area after another, the Trump government is acting with a head-spinning speed and ambition, as though it will count itself as successful only if the entire renewables industry lies in ruins by the end of its term.

This is a strange approach to take if Trump actually believes there is an “energy emergency” that demands a mobilization to produce dramatically more power, as he declared in an executive order he signed on his first day in office. But that order made clear the administration’s belief that wind and solar are literally not energy; it states that “The term ‘energy’ or ‘energy resources’ means crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals.”

Trump didn’t write the order himself, but it certainly reflects the sweeping policy moves his administration has made against renewable energy and environmental enforcement, including the following:

  • Cutting off funding to community solar projects already under contract through the Solar for All program established by the Inflation Reduction Act;
  • Halting offshore wind leases and suspending the issuance of new permits for all wind projects both offshore and onshore;
  • Suspending “renewable energy authorization, including but not limited to a lease, amendment to a lease, right of way, amendment to a right of way, contract, or any other agreement required to allow for renewable energy development” on public land;
  • Announcing its intention to eliminate “unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies;”
  • Effectively killing (at least for now) the program under which the federal government gives states money to build out a national electric vehicle charging network;
  • Announcing a plan to shutter the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights and place its 168 employees on administrative leave;
  • Closing the Justice Department’s Office of Environmental Justice, which was created under the Biden administration to enforce environmental laws whose violation affected underserved communities;
  • And most recently, ordering the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to search its grants for climate-related keywords, leading to suspicion that those grants will be targeted for cutbacks or revocation.

All that is in addition to the expected policy reversals, such as withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, which Trump abandoned in his first term and Biden rejoined. Even including those, it’s still not a comprehensive list.

For years, Republicans (including Trump) have described their approach to energy as “all of the above,” i.e. that every kind of energy, including fossil fuels, should be developed as much as possible. That phrase is clearly no longer operative, as the administration is showing an unmitigated hostility to solar and wind power. The administration also seems determined to arrest the growth of the electric vehicle industry, which raises the question of how one particular interested party — Elon Musk — may be reacting to these moves.

Whether or not you think this question has already been settled depends on how much you trust Musk as a reliable exponent of his own true beliefs. On the campaign trail, he boasted that killing the $7,500 EV tax credits would only help Tesla by damaging its competition. After the election, when asked about the tax credit during a visit to Capitol Hill, Musk told reporters, “I think we should get rid of all credits.” But there are other EV-related policies Trump has trained his crosshairs on, including California’s ability to set more stringent fuel efficiency standards than the federal government, granted under a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency. The law allows companies to buy and sell credits in order to meet the required mix, and as a maker of entirely zero-emission vehicles, Tesla has plenty of credits to sell. As of last November, selling those credits accounted for more than 40% of Tesla’s net income for the year to date.

So far, Musk hasn’t commented on the subject, but it isn’t hard to imagine that if he tried to convince Trump to reverse some of these decisions and pursue a true “all of the above” strategy, Trump would be highly persuadable. But Musk is no longer an ally of the renewables industry, and his interest in the electrification of the nation’s auto fleet begins and ends with his own company.

Part of the theory underlying Biden’s limited moves against the fossil fuel industry was that the energy transition has so much momentum that it can’t be stopped — that, while every day we continue burning oil and gas makes climate change worse, the eventual arrival of a net-zero-emissions future is inevitable. That reality hasn’t changed, but the Trump administration is determined to delay it as long as possible. And in order to do so, it’s bringing the same commitment to rapid, aggressive, destructive policy change it’s deploying across the entire federal government.

Blue

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe to access Heatmap’s expert analysis of energy, climate change, and sustainability, including coverage of our regular survey research. Save $57 on an annual subscription, just $156 $99/year.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Energy

New Englanders Will Pay Through the Nose to Stay Warm This Winter

Even the hardiest are shivering at the price of heating oil.

Heating oil and money.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

As leaves begin to turn from green to autumn hues of amber, gold, and brown, New England is preparing for an expensive winter.

While most of the country heats their homes with natural gas or electricity, about 5 million households — overwhelmingly located in the Northeast — use oil. Like diesel and gasoline (both of which have set price records recently) home heating oil is distilled from crude oil, which is currently trading at prices not seen since the early months of the war between the United States, Israel, and Iran.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Q&A

Why a Climate Law Expert Sees ‘Small Glimmers of Hope’

Talking about the data center backlash, the midterm elections, and the future of renewables with Columbia Law School’s Romany Webb.

Romany Webb.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This week’s conversation is a quick catch-up with our friends at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. I hopped on the phone with the center’s deputy director Romany Webb to chat about recent updates they published to anti-renewables opposition analysis. I wanted to dig into their research beyond the toplines — what should people care about in the coming election? How have data centers come up in their research? Or the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act?

The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

All the Data Center News That’s Fit to Print

A developer sues an Arkansas paper, plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Pulaski County, Arkansas – A major utility sued the biggest newspaper in Arkansas over reporting on a data center energy deal. It’s a crucial case to follow.

  • The lawsuit Entergy filed last week against the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette centers on whether the newspaper was legally able to publish about an Entergy deal with Google around payments for a large solar farm to power a data center. It claims the information reported was a trade secret accidentally released by the state public services commission.
  • In a statement to a local ABC station, the utility claimed Google’s “electricity contract may be confidential to newspapers,” and that the publication also erroneously reported on the solar farm financing. Entergy is seeking a temporary restraining order blocking the publication from reporting any more information in its possession that would qualify as theirs or Google’s trade secrets, and claims they believe more information is in the publication’s possession that may be reported in the future, according to federal court filings.
  • So far, the utility has been unable to win the stoppage and U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky rejected their request on Wednesday. The case is proceeding and I will be checking in regularly for you on this one.
  • Why is this case so important? This is easily the most aggressive communications response to public reporting on a previously-unknown deal related to a data center. At a time when non-disclosure agreements are a profound liability for the sector, I am surprised to see a utility go as far as a federal court challenge.

2. Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania – Speaking of hardcore legal strategies, have you ever heard of a data center developer asking every local official to recuse themselves?

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow