In the first year of his second term, President Donald Trump waged an all-out war on the energy transition. His administration canceled hundreds of projects created under the Inflation Reduction Act, IIJA, and CHIPS Act, blocked offshore wind farm development, and forced aging fossil-fueled power plants to continue operating after their utility owners planned to shut them down. It weaponized every federal agency from Interior to the Department of Commerce against renewable energy, seized Venezuela’s oil, and pulled the US out of participation in key UN climate bodies.
The results have been staggering. Over 22 GW of wind and solar projects have been thwarted or thrown into limbo, and fully half of the country’s planned new power capacity, some 117 GW, is at risk of delay. The Department of Energy has issued “emergency” orders to keep six aging coal and gas plants open, invoking a provision of the Federal Power Act originally written for wartime. None of these federal interventions were requested by a utility, grid operator, or state regulator. Courts have been pushing back hard, calling these actions arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and seemingly unjustified.
Whether any of these executive actions will survive is the central question. In today’s conversation, we are rejoined by Ari Peskoe, Director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School, to walk through dozens of Trump’s energy interventions and assess which ones are likely to hold up against the growing wave of legal challenges being brought against them. As we discuss, the courts are doing a surprisingly effective job of striking down the administration’s illegal maneuvers. But every project delayed or canceled while the cases grind through court is inflicting real damage on the energy transition.
