Affordability Continues to Collide with Misguided Climate Policies
As the affordability crisis deepens, states are beginning to confront the consequences of aggressive climate policies and reconsider the path forward. Democratic leaders in states long-known for climate leadership, such as California and Massachusetts, are backtracking on their ambitious anti-energy agendas.
For the last decade, climate activism has run rampant across the United States, pressuring states to pass aggressive emissions reduction pledges, pursue electrification mandates, and even mounting legal campaigns against U.S. oil and gas companies.
The tables have turned, and now the cost implications of those decisions are becoming harder to ignore.
As Bloomberg recently reported, high energy prices, coupled with rising costs from other essential items such as groceries, are forcing states to reconsider their climate policies and their approach to domestic energy development.
In New York, for example, Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul recently announced plans to roll back the state’s landmark 2019 climate law. Despite the Governor’s concerns over costs and feasibility, Democratic legislators in the state are backing a lawsuit to compel enforcement of the law. As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board points out:
“But Democratic legislators say they knew the policies would squeeze average New Yorkers when they passed the law. […] The Democrats say they dismissed such concerns because, well, climate change. One Democratic Senator in 2019 proclaimed that even if the law’s mandates bring ‘hard times,’ ‘if we haven’t saved our planet, the rest is moot.’ So please bow to the ‘transformation’ that your political betters demand.
“The reality is that any CO2 reductions New Yorkers make will have zero effect on global temperatures.” (emphasis added)
Under Pressure, Blue State Leaders Flip-Flop on Climate
As Energy in Depth has previously analyzed, New York is hardly the only state running headfirst into reality.
Governor Maura Healey’s administration has delayed implementation of Massachusetts’s proposed Clean Heat Standard. Then, Governor Healey issued an executive order that continued to overprioritize renewable energy, a move that voters and her potential opponents blasted – while simultaneously designating the Everett LNG import terminal a strategic energy asset.
Healey can’t seem to choose a lane. Regardless, the causes for Massachusetts’s energy vulnerability are clear: for years, the state has pursued overly ambitious climate targets while restricting the supply of traditional energy supplies.
California offers another example. Even Governor Gavin Newsom, one of the climate movement’s top supporters, has quietly shifted to more pragmatic energy policies in recent months. He has opened the door to more in-state drilling and softened enforcement timelines for fuel-market rules, a dramatic departure from his aggressive campaign against oil and gas companies.
Still, the state is considering proposed changes to its “cap-and-invest” program that could raise gas prices by $1 per gallon or more – on top of already nation-leading fuel costs that have approached $6 per gallon. Chevron Corp. executive Andy Walz explained in a recent letter how Newsom’s latest proposal would deplete California’s refinery capacity, which is already hanging on by a thread:
“The proposed regulation will cripple the survivability of the state’s remaining refineries, which will result in California losing the entire industry to this misguided program.”
In Michigan, where gas prices are exceeding $4 a gallon, Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation to repeal a 2023 law that requires the state’s utilities to use 100% renewable energy sources by 2040.
State Representative Pauline Wendzel (R-Watervliet), who introduced the bill, wrote:
“Lowering the cost of daily life isn’t just an issue for Michigan families. It’s the issue.”
Amidst these cost concerns, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is moving in the opposite direction, having recently filed a climate lawsuit against American energy companies.
Lawsuits that inherently target domestic energy production do not make energy cheaper. This litigation – which is intended to bankrupt energy companies – would only drive-up costs for the very consumers the lawsuit purports to protect.
Unsurprisingly, environmental activists are also missing the point and are continuing to push states to strengthen their climate policies. Michael Burger and Ann Carlson, two long-time leaders of the climate lawfare movement, recently advocated for states to stay strong on their climate goals, despite affordability issues.
That’s an easier position to take without direct accountability to voters. State lawmakers, on the other hand, are increasingly hearing from constituents facing higher energy bills on top of broader cost-of-living pressures.
Bottom line: As we approach midterms, affordability will no doubt be a top issue for voters. Democratic lawmakers are noticing, and as costs continue to rise, the great backtracking of billionaire-backed climate policies continues; however, only time will tell if these states are serious about finally prioritizing reason and reliability over politically-motivated climate ambitions.
