On May 8th, 2025, the Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP) convened a session to discuss the future of the transition to clean energy in the face of some stiff headwinds caused by the new US administration led by Donald Trump. The panel included Dale Bryk, Director of State and Regional Policy at the Harvard Environmental and Energy Law Program and a Senior Fellow at the Regional Plan Association, and Dan Sosland, President of the Acadia Center. The discussion was moderated by Richard Eidlin, National Policy Director for Business for America.
The actions of the Trump administration are somewhat surprising, given the campaign rhetoric at face value. While the administration promised an end to burdensome Federal regulation and an era of new Federalism, the current policy regarding clean energy and the environment has been anything but. The president’s executive order “Unleashing American Energy”, issued on January 20th, 2025, is, in fact, a heavy-handed intrusion by the Federal government into state and local energy policies, and reads, according to Bryk, like a “mindless assault on anything that sounds clean.”
While the acts of the current administration will make a transition to clean energy more difficult, the message from Bryk was that “the arc of history bends towards clean energy.” The transition will happen because, politics aside, the science is now clear and not in dispute. So what can be done in the face of an administration that is antagonistic to this transition? As described by the panel, US states in fact have a tremendous amount of jurisdiction over not only energy policies, but over the industries that primarily contribute to climate change, such as transportation and housing. And the advice from Bryk to those state and local governments is “not to chase the chaos.” Most states and communities have affirmative agendas for their energy policies, and those need to be defended, including in the courts.
There is a long history of Federal and state collaboration on various programs, and many states also cooperate among themselves to agree on, for example, emission limits from power plants operating within those states. Historically, these efforts have broad bipartisan support. One of the points repeatedly mentioned during this presentation was that there is more agreement on the need for an energy transition than might be apparent based on the highly polarized talking points visible at the national level. But how is this possible?
Part of the reason is that the discussion at the state and local levels is not necessarily about “climate change.” In fact, how we discuss the transition to clean energy is a complicated issue itself, and what we say can also obscure what is happening in many states. Bryk emphasized that in many states, “climate is not the driver. Job creation is the driver.” Or, reducing energy costs is the driver, or just trying to keep energy dollars local is the driver. It can be surprising for people steeped in climate change discussions to learn that the US states that generate the most wind power (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas) or have the most widespread use of heat pumps (South Carolina) do not have the most aggressive climate policies. They have other priorities that align with the desire to make a transition to clean energy, and the climate impact may be just a side benefit, for now. On the topic of the transition to clean energy, the American electorate has more in common than it has differences. Even conservatives argue that the Trump energy policy is interfering in the market, and is not allowing renewable energy sources to move to the forefront. However, it is often economically advantageous for them to do so.
So, how we talk about this issue matters. As Sosland emphasized, we are all paying for the costs of the energy choices we are currently making. We pay not just in terms of dollars, but also in terms of the impact on the climate and our own health. “We need to do a better job in the climate community of framing a message that works. We talk so much about cost, so much about utility and other kinds of economics…we are really talking about human beings in flood zones, coughing, getting sick. We are talking about humans here. The human impact of this issue is not even being addressed. That has to change. It has to turn around.” As Bryk put it, “The underlying values that we have are not controversial, and that’s a place where we can start and have conversations about these things with our families and our friends.”
If the transition is going to happen, however, it’s not the case that unleashed market forces by themselves will get us to where we want to be. As Bryk recognized, we know that there are “communities across the country that have been overburdened by pollution and underserved by the clean energy solutions.” There is a disconnect, and it’s important to think about what, as she says, a “just and orderly transition looks like, economic sector by economic sector. To make that transition orderly, we will need policies to be put into place that avoid the failures that often occur in the market. “That’s part of what we have to think about when we are thinking about equitable transition … all of those opportunities to intervene and help it work better and prevent the bad things from happening that can happen in a transition.”
The approach of the current administration will pose the greatest challenges to our ability to create just policies. Although states and communities have power, states cannot do everything when plans involve, for example, Federal leases, and the government may renege on those contracts. This makes it extremely difficult to conduct business. “What can you rely on if you can’t rely on the signature of the US government on a signed contract?” Bryk asked. The opposition of the Federal government to enabling a clean energy transition is especially surprising, given that data shows economic forces are already pushing in that direction. Sosland reminded us that in the Northeast region of the country, energy production was 21% based on coal just 10-15 years ago. It is now less than 1% coal. Market pressures are driving the shift away from fossil fuels. This is why the panel believes that the transition is inevitable, but the opposition of the Federal government will delay the transition timeframe, and that may or may not be the time that we have. International agreements aim to achieve goals by 2030, 2035, and 2050. If we are not on track to meet the first targets, we will either not meet or it will be much more expensive to meet the 2050 target. So, while the technology and ingenuity is in place, the policies of the current administration are incredibly damaging. “This isn’t a blip, necessarily, that is affordable. Losing four or more years is really going to be damaging to meeting the 2030, 2035 targets as we head to 2050,” Sosland reminded us. “There is an enormous amount to worry about,” Bryk said. We are currently in a very precarious position. I have confidence in the states, cities, communities, and some businesses. But, we are not meeting many targets that many states and companies have set. And now we are being hamstrung in a way … that’s out of our power. But there are always other places where we can make a lot of progress,” said Bryk.
And this last comment highlighted the areas of optimism that the panel wanted to emphasize. While the stance of the current US administration can be disheartening, the panel believes that considerable good can be achieved at the state and local levels.
For example, small communities are doing quite a bit. Putting solar farms on landfills. Creating bike paths as alternatives to cars. Massachusetts has incentives to adopt very stringent energy codes, so new buildings are being constructed to very high standards. Many states with climate policies are demonstrably improving the quality of life in their communities. Almost all states (44) participate in the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program, a policy initiated under the IRA. Whether or not these states have explicit climate policies doesn’t matter as much as the fact that they see good reasons to pursue a migration to a clean energy infrastructure. They have recognized that we are always spending money on energy infrastructure, so we can choose to allocate it to options that will yield greater benefits and longer lifespans.
If there is so much agreement on the underlying principles, why does it still seem so difficult to talk about it? The answer to that seems to be that, at the current level of polarization in our society, it is challenging to discuss anything that has become a political litmus test. How to talk about this issue was branded by Bryk as the “question of our time.” The advice given by this panel was to adopt the old aphorism, “think globally, and act locally.” It is hard to have these conversations at the national level, but easier at the state level, and even easier at the community level. And there is something happening in almost every community that is part of a clean energy transition. So, getting involved at the local level, for example, with local faith organizations, was described as one of the best ways to engage in this issue while avoiding much of the damaging political rhetoric.
Leigh Chinitz is a Board Member of the Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP).
