Trump’s Energy Policy: A Shift Towards Deregulation
The onset of President Donald Trump’s second term has been characterized by a significant reorientation in U.S. energy policy. His administration is prioritizing energy production, contrasting sharply with the regulatory approach of President Joe Biden, which emphasizes restrictions on energy producers and limits to federal lands.
Key Directives Under “Unleashing American Energy”
Central to Trump’s strategy is his executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy,” which aims to enact substantial changes across various aspects of energy and environmental policy. Notably, the order proposes to:
- Re-evaluate the 2009 endangerment finding related to greenhouse gases.
- Eliminate the “social cost of carbon” framework from federal regulations.
- Revise the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations.
Reassessing the Endangerment Finding
A pivotal focus of Trump’s executive order is the re-examination of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s 2009 endangerment finding, which concluded that greenhouse gas concentrations pose a threat to public health and welfare. This finding has historically formed the basis for regulating emissions from vehicles and power plants.
The 2009 EPA ruling followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which confirmed the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants. Should the Trump administration successfully overturn the endangerment finding, it would facilitate the unwinding of emissions regulations established during Biden’s presidency, enabling more lenient emissions standards for vehicles and power plants.
Legal Implications: Overturning this finding could prompt renewed legal scrutiny of the Massachusetts v. EPA ruling, especially given the Supreme Court’s current composition.
Elimination of the Social Cost of Carbon
Another critical component of the executive order is the dissolution of the Interagency Working Group responsible for calculating the social cost of greenhouse gases. This cost has been a key figure in justifying regulations, as it estimates the economic damages associated with carbon emissions.
The Trump administration critiques the social cost of carbon for being overly speculative and lacking a robust legislative foundation, arguing that the estimations derived can significantly vary based on the inputs and discount rates used in models.
- Obama administration set the cost at $43 per ton.
- Trump administration recalibrated this to $3-$5 per ton.
- Biden raised it to $51 per ton, with proposals for further increases.
Removing this framework is seen as a move towards reducing reliance on potentially arbitrary economic models in federal regulatory actions.
Revising NEPA Regulations
The order also addresses NEPA, a law mandating environmental reviews for federal agency actions. It instructs for the rescinding of existing NEPA regulations set by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), aiming to streamline the environmental review process for energy projects.
This shift follows previous amendments under the Biden administration, which sought to enhance considerations of climate impact and environmental justice in energy assessments. By retracting these regulations, Trump is seeking to alleviate the regulatory burden on energy production activities.
Streamlining Environmental Reviews
The call to streamline NEPA reviews is significant, particularly in light of data showing that the average completion time for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has increased dramatically over the years. Reducing the complexity and length of these reviews could lower project costs and minimize delays.
Conclusion
President Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order represents a decisive policy shift concerning energy production in the United States. Through directives focused on reassessing key environmental regulations and streamlining federal processes, the administration aims to foster an environment that promotes energy abundance. While the full impact of these changes remains to be seen, they potentially signify a move towards lowering energy production costs in the long term.
