California and New York are scaling back their climate policies, even as Republican-led states ramp up renewable energy deployment. On Friday, California weakened its cap-and-invest program by offering over $3 billion in free pollution allowances to polluters. Earlier in the week, New York delayed its carbon regulation plan from 2024 to 2028 and reduced emissions targets. Rhode Island's governor is also attempting to roll back clean-energy programs.
These moves come amid the Trump administration's withdrawal of clean energy incentives and rising energy prices linked to trade disruptions from the US-Israeli war on Iran. Proponents argue the changes are needed to lower electricity costs, but climate advocates disagree.
Affordability vs. Climate Action
Johanna Bozuwa of the Climate and Community Institute called using affordability as a cudgel to weaken climate policy a major error. She warned that extreme weather and fossil fuel dependency inflate costs across the economy. Polls show most Americans are concerned about climate change, with 44% worrying a great deal about global warming, according to Gallup. A Yale and George Mason University report found 65% of voters believe global heating drives up living costs.
Red States Lead Clean Energy Growth
In contrast, red states dominate renewable energy expansion. Eight of the top ten states for utility-scale renewable growth in the year to March voted for Donald Trump in 2024, according to the Energy Information Administration. Indiana led, followed by Kentucky and Utah. Texas has emerged as the nation's clean energy leader, topping wind production and surpassing California in utility-scale solar. Governor Greg Abbott calls Texas the energy capital of the world.
Despite Trump's attacks on renewables, including slashing tax incentives and halting offshore wind, red states continue to build both fossil fuel and clean energy infrastructure more easily than their Democratic counterparts.
Climate Leaders Under Fire
States scaling back policies have long styled themselves as climate leaders. California's cap-and-invest program, extended by Governor Gavin Newsom, requires polluters to buy permits for emissions. But recent changes reduce costs for refineries and create incentives for cleaner technology. Bahram Fazeli of Communities for a Better Environment argued that free allowances may not lower gas prices and questioned the commitment to working families.
New York's weakening of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act has also drawn skepticism. The state removed a 2030 mandate to cut pollution by 40%, replacing it with a 60% goal by 2040 if feasible. Governor Kathy Hochul said the original goals would drive energy costs higher. Elizabeth Yeampierre of UpRose countered that operational alternatives to fossil fuels can address climate change while boosting local economies.
Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee proposed delaying the 100% renewable power requirement from 2033 to 2050. Maryland lawmakers approved measures to lower consumer costs, including shrinking emissions targets and cutting utility efficiency spending. Anna Johnson of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy warned that short-term savings could lead to higher future costs, potentially increasing household electricity bills by $592 million.
Mar Zepeda Salazar of the Climate Justice Alliance noted that weakening protections shifts costs to families through emergency rooms, insurance premiums, and disaster recovery. The climate crisis itself imposes heavy costs on working people, she said.
