Transportation
What Explains Trump’s Energy Policy?
There’s no plausible economic explanation. It’s all about politics.
Trump’s energy policy rests on promotion of U.S. fossil fuel production and use. The instruments include orders forcing coal-fired generators to keep operating, relaxed air pollution standards for power plants, and repeal of as many energy efficiency standards as possible. Trump’s overall economic policy centers on mercantilism, the belief that countries get rich by exporting more than they import. That fits pieces of his energy policy but not others. There’s also some rhetoric about free choice by consumers, but Trump clearly is not a believer in free markets as a matter of principle.
CONTINUE READINGThe Dim Outlook for Trump Energy Dominance
About the best he can hope for in the long run is to maintain the status quo.
U.S. oil is seeing a future of declining U.S. and global demand for gasoline and diesel, with U.S. production also remaining stagnant. The future for natural gas production is looking rosier given increasing energy demand and possible growth in U.S. exports. From the perspective of the oil industry, this is probably an optimistic forecast. It assumes that there are no major advances in battery technology that would further accelerate adoption of EVs or sharp decreases in the price of solar. It also assumes that nuclear power doesn’t expand globally, and that other countries are willing to trust the U.S. as a source of a vital energy resources.
CONTINUE READINGWord on The Street
The Wall Street Journal’s news coverage of EVs is surprisingly positive.
You might expect the Wall Street Journal to take a dim view of electric vehicles, given the paper’s conservative slant. You’d be wrong. The Journal’s news coverage, which is less ideological than the opinion page, tells us something important. In a newspaper designed for businesspeople, electric vehicles are taken very seriously. That’s good news for the industry.
CONTINUE READINGWhat We Know About Trump’s Impact on Clean Energy
U.S. clean energy has taken a major hit but not a fatal one.
Biden’s climate legacy has taken serious hits but more has survived then we feared. There’s a general impression that Trump has wiped out Biden’s ambitious climate statute and with it brought the energy transition to a halt. It’s become clear that the situation is a lot more complicated than that. Politico has unearthed new evidence about funding under Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. That new evidence complements some of the other pieces of the puzzle. Here’s what we know at this point.
CONTINUE READINGConsumer Clean-Energy Sovereignty
Consumers seem to be voting with their wallets for clean energy.
In the second quarter (Q2) of 2026, “clean energy and transportation investment in the United States totaled $75 billion, a 22% increase from Q1 2026 and a 4% jump from Q2 2025.” Considering Trump’s effort to summon all the power of the federal government to destroy clean energy, that’s not bad. One surprise: consumer spending accounted for more than half the total.
CONTINUE READINGInterpreting the Clean Air Act After Chevron’s Demise
A recent Ninth Circuit case requires states to do more to achieve clean air goals.
Last week, the Ninth Circuit decided Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, which is both a significant air pollution case and an interesting case study in how the Supreme Court has changed judicial review of agency actions. Applying what it considered to be the best interpretation of an ambiguous statute, the Court required tougher air pollution controls for the San Joaquin Valley. The dissent argued that the decision would be a disaster in terms of policy. But is that even relevant under the Loper Bright ruling?
Strategies for the 2030s
We lost the Battle of 2025. But we haven’t last the fight for sustainability.
Two recent models have some welcome news: Trump’s rollbacks and assault on the Inflation Reduction Act have not been as cataclysmic as feared. At least not yet. The models come from different sources — an MIT researcher and the Rhodium firm — using different methodologies. The models also have implications about the next steps in climate policy. Both models highlight the critical need to rip down barriers to clean energy and transmission build out.
CONTINUE READINGThe Sting in the Tail of the Clean Air Act
Weakening restrictions on polluters can trigger different restrictions.
Some of Trump’s most important anti-environmental moves involve unleashing air polluters. There’s a problem with this strategy, however. Doing so raises air pollution levels, which can bring states into collision with other Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. Thus, the effect could be much tighter restrictions on other sources to compensate for looser standards on some. Worse, this effect isn’t limited to the most directly affected states. They may turn around and demand that upwind states reduce their own emissions to help the downstream states meet federal standards. Even when this isn’t true, and where the state that suffers may be Democratic-leaning and thus of no concern to Trump, there could be economic repercussions in other states.
Two notable examples of this problem involve coal generators and vehicle regulation. The first example involves coal. Trump has exempted coal-fired power plants from pollution limits to allow them to remain open longer. According to E&E News, “Air pollution from coal-fired power plants spiked in 2025, a striking reversal of long-term progress in air quality as the Trump administration boosted coal use. The emission increases were among the largest in at least a quarter-century, on a percentage basis, as the bulk of about 210 power plants registered increased sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions,” Power plant sulfur-dioxide emissions were up 18% and nitrogen oxides were up 12%. This is contrary to a strong long-term declining trend.
The second example involves vehicle emissions. Under the CAA, state laws regulating vehicle emissions are generally preempted, but California can apply for a preemption waiver if it needs stricter regulations, and other states can piggyback on California’s standards. California’s ability to seek a waiver has been more limited since, at Trump’s instigation, Congress overturned EPA’s approval of several California waiver requests. The Trump Administration has independently taken the view that California can’t require manufacturers to sell more EVs as a way to meet standards. Although Republicans were mostly targeting California’s standards for greenhouse gases, they have also hampered California’s ability to get waivers for smog and particulates.
The problem arises because stopping a state from regulating some polluters may legally require it to tighten other regulations. Under CAA section 110, states must have state implementation plans that will achieve national air quality standards set by EPA. If one type of source pollutes more, other sources must offset the increased pollution by polluting less. Other CAA provisions put the screws on states that exceed the national standards. As a result, if the Feds exempt one source of nitrogen oxides (perhaps by repealing California waiver), states that had adopted the California standard will need to tighten regulations of other sources. Thus, exempting nitrogen oxides from trucks or cars, or from coal power plants, might require stricter controls on other sources such as natural gas power plants. Moreover, if a state is unable to achieve the national air quality standard, the so-called “Good Neighbor” provision allows it to demand emission reductions from upwind states.
In other words, exempting some sources increases the regulatory burden on others. The exemption may even increase the total regulatory burden, if pollution from those other sources is more expensive to control than pollution from the exempted sources. Here’s why.
CONTINUE READINGChina’s Climate Policies: A Timeline
How has China has gone from climate action’s problem child to a promoter of clean energy?
China has long been the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases, making its climate and energy policies crucial for the rest of the world. It initially took the position that Westerners had caused the problem and should carry the entire burden of fixing it. Over time, however, it has shifted into a position of leadership in clean technology and cooperation on climate issues.
CONTINUE READINGWhat’s the Long-Term Plan to Decarbonize Aviation?
New CLEE Report on How to Deploy More Carbon-Neutral Electrofuels or “E-Fuels”
How can we decarbonize airplane flights? It’s a “hard to abate” sector of the economy, given that the usual transportation solutions like hydrogen or batteries will likely not work for long-distance flights, given their physics. Instead, some advocates and policymakers are betting on carbon-neutral electrofuels (or “e-fuels”) as an alternative to fossil jet fuel. E-fuels …
Continue reading “What’s the Long-Term Plan to Decarbonize Aviation?”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
The Drain is a roundup of climate and environmental news from Legal Planet delivered to your Inbox once a week.
