Kyle Danish

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case West Virginia v. EPA, will have a ripple effect on the broader federal approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But options remain for the EPA to cut emissions from the power sector.

Can emerging climate-related bank regulation be a potent climate policy?

Kyle Danish and Sarah Ladislaw examine the motives of the Trump administration deregulatory energy agenda and the increasingly divergent industry responses.

Late last week, officials from the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made it clear that they are working on a proposed rule that would not only repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP) but also solicit public comment on possible replacements. Following quickly after this announcement, high-level White House officials caused and then tamped down a flurry of speculation about a potential route for the administration to stay in the Paris Climate Agreement rather than pull out as previously stated. Though not necessarily coordinated, these two events suggest that the Trump administration’s positions on climate policy remain a moving target; the positions could be more malleable than it first appeared.

Last week, the Donald Trump administration announced its decision to leave the Paris Agreement. The decision was treated by many government and corporate leaders around the world as an immediate and abrupt abandoning of the global climate effort. In reality, the process for withdrawing from the agreement is lengthy, and the concrete steps for meeting the U.S. commitment under the agreement were already being targeted for reconsideration through the deregulatory agenda launched during the first 100 days.