The philosophical divide between Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and former Republican President Donald Trump is huge, with their views on national energy and environmental policy also diametrically opposed in most areas.
A second Trump administration would reverse efforts under President Joe Biden and Vice President Harris to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through cleaner energy production and could put the United States on a path to increase sources of fossil fuels Although Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and said he supported a “drilling for babies” approach to energy in order to accept the Republican presidential nomination, Harris is expected to continue advancing the work initiated by the Biden team, in implementing giant funding programs through the Jobs and Infrastructure Investment Act of 2021 and the Climate Act of 2022, also known as the Inflation Reduction Act.
“What’s at stake is so clear, and we need to win this election,” says Craig Auster, vice president of political affairs for the League of Conservation Voters. “We’ve seen a very strong focus from this administration on incentivizing the transition to clean energy, and we expect that to continue.”
Trump revoked more than 100 environmental protections during this first term. Voters’ choice is between “continue to accelerate the clean energy path we are on [or] taking us backwards, undoing that progress,” says Auster.
Harris on energy
Harris has consistently supported legislation and policies that will provide more funding and incentives for clean energy projects, as well as address water quality and environmental justice issues. He cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, considered one of the most comprehensive climate packages enacted by Congress. As California’s attorney general, he collected millions from oil and gas companies for a ruptured pipeline in Santa Barbara, as well as for leaking storage tanks.
He also sued the Obama administration in 2016 to challenge its plan to begin hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” along the California coast. Harris’ position on fracking has come under scrutiny because he has said he now supports natural gas extraction. Trump and his surrogates have described his change of position as a “flip-flop” for political gain.
During the Sept. 10 presidential debate with Trump, Harris not only signaled his support for fracking, but touted the Biden administration’s record on increasing oil and gas production. According to the Energy Information Administration, crude oil production rose in 2023 to a record 12.9 million barrels per day, up 9% from 2022.
The Republican platform supports an “all of the above” approach to energy, but environmental groups say Trump’s public statements suggest he would seek to rescind tax incentives and funds not already earmarked for energy projects solar, wind and other renewable energy sources, and redirect these funds to further fossil fuel development.
Project 2025, Trump’s conservative plan for a second term, calls for repealing parts of the two recent clean energy laws that have not yet been appropriated, including funding for the US Department of Energy office responsible for overseeing subsidies for transmission line projects.
While Trump has disavowed any connection to the document, he has also said he supports some of its ideas. The Heritage Foundation, which authored the project, has close ties to several former Trump administration officials, including people expected to be part of a transition team if he wins in November.
Program revolutions
However, it is unclear whether a Trump administration could repeal important provisions within the laws. Many of its funded programs, projects and initiatives, as well as those from the American Rescue Plan and the CHIPS Act, are boosting jobs and local economies in GOP states, said Kevin Curtis, the Fund’s executive director. of Action of the Council for the Defense of Natural Resources. the political arm of the defense group.
“More Republican governors in these states and in Congress [lawmakers] they’re starting to say, ‘these are jobs in my state,’” says Curtis. As a result, while GOP lawmakers may support removing IRA incentives and investments in principle, they “would like to do it surgically.”
Jeff Holmstead, a former deputy administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration, says that if Trump is elected, his threatened actions could also be limited by whichever party ends up leading the House and the Senate. Having potentially two different parties running each chamber could provide some checks to prevent a complete reversal of popular policies into enacted laws.
“I think our view is that the tax credits are going to be very difficult to roll back,” says Holmstead, also a partner and co-leader of the environmental strategies group at law firm Bracewell. Even House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has voiced his support for some tax breaks for nuclear power and other power sector projects. But “some programs that require loan or grant guarantees, or annual appropriations, could be at risk,” especially if Trump wins and both chambers are led by the GOP, Holmstead says.
Project 2025 also calls for the elimination of what it calls “subsidies” to renewable energy projects and programs. According to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. electric grid added 20.2 GW of generating capacity in the first half of 2024, with solar accounting for 59% of that. During that time, both the 690 MW Gemini solar and storage facility in Nevada and the 653 MW Lumina Solar were the largest solar projects to come online. The agency expects solar capacity growth to remain robust through the end of the year.
Creation of jobs
All of these types of projects create jobs, notes Stan Kolbe, executive director of government and policy affairs for the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association (SMACNA). “Probably no industry in the country in recent decades has benefited more than the construction industry from the bipartisan legislative packages passed on Capitol Hill through 2021,” he says.
While SMACNA does not endorse presidential candidates, it said it would expect to see Congress during the next administration build on the infrastructure laws that have already been enacted. Kolbe and others say there are already rumblings on Capitol Hill about potential bills based on legislation like the CHIPS and infrastructure laws.
Other industry trade groups, such as the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, are also not endorsing specific candidates in the presidential election, but Kristina Surfus, their managing director of government affairs, says her organization will look to work with whichever candidate wins.
While he notes that both candidates have said they support improving infrastructure, including water infrastructure, “If we see a President Harris, he’s going to want to pile on investments from the … infrastructure act and [IRA]. But that will really depend on the outcome of the congressional elections, whether there is a favorable environment to increase spending further or not.”
While industry-focused groups may not be committed, the political arms of environmental nonprofits are concerned and say their members are motivated, energized and donating to support Harris-Walz’s victory in the november
“I think it’s a mistake made by the voters, made by the public and made by the press [about] Trump is using such overheated rhetoric that at some point you get a little numb and just say, ‘It can’t be that bad,'” says Curtis of the NRDC Action Fund. “But the fact is, it could easily be that bad.”
