It’s been a little over a year since Joe Biden was elected the 46th president of the U.S., with a promise to put climate change—the “number one issue facing humanity”—at the heart of his administration.

Now the president’s lofty ambitions to clean up America’s energy landscape are being pushed through the meat grinder of America’s legislative and regulatory machinery.

This past month saw some big legislative strides forward:

  • The president signed into law the long-awaited $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, which allocated significant funds towards energy and climate.
  • And the single most important weapon in his climate arsenal, the $1.75 trillion “Build Back Better” bill—the largest single investment in climate in U.S. history—finally cleared the House of Representatives.

But the latter is some way off becoming law, with a fractious debate expected when it is picked up by the Senate.

The White House has also touted some big regulatory wins. But things could get complicated on this front over the coming months.

So, taking a step back, what progress has been made domestically on the climate and energy front? And what lies ahead?

Building back better

The Democrats’ slim majority in Congress has made legislating for the president’s climate goals a slog. This makes the final passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill a significant win.

The Department of Energy received its biggest ever infusion of cash—$62 billion—with significant funds allocated towards batteries, carbon capture, hydrogen and advanced nuclear technology—as well as financial support to keep the current nuclear fleet operational.


RELATED:

Biden Calls for Higher Drilling Fees in Review of Federal Oil, Gas Leasing Program

China Non-committal on US ‘Drop in the Ocean’ Oil Release


There were also big investments in “climate resilience”—preparing communities for extreme weather events like floods and wildfires—electric vehicle infrastructure and cleaning up abandoned wells.

But it is the larger Build Back Better spending bill that has climate advocates the most excited. In its current form, it would pump a record $555 billion into clean energy and climate provisions.

Research by the Rhodium group estimated that could contribute as much as half of the emissions reductions needed to meet Biden’s goal of halving U.S. emissions from 2005 levels by the end of the decade.

As far as energy is concerned, the most important element of the bill is a $320 billion tax incentive program to drive the buildout of wind and solar and support nuclear plants.

A methane tax would also aim to limit emissions of that potent greenhouse gas. But this provision may struggle to survive the Senate as the oil and gas industry lobbies hard to have it stripped from the final bill. Another provision aimed at forcing power producers to decarbonize—the so-called Clean Energy Performance Program—has already bitten the dust in the face of industry opposition.

Progress on regulation

The fate of these measures—and that of the briefly mooted carbon tax—underlines the fact that while legislation has been a useful tool for climate carrots, it has struggled when it comes to sticks.

That has left the president reliant on regulation in order to clamp down on pollution.

There has been some progress on this front. The EPA has tightened rules on fuel efficiency and vehicle emissions. But new regulation of methane leaks from the oil and gas sector has probably been the biggest win. The specifics of the new rules are being hashed out at the moment.

Still, it could be quite a while before the methane rules hit the books in some parts of the country. Lawyers have told me that pushback from some states could delay implementation for up to a decade if local authorities drag their feet.

New EPA regulations on carbon emissions from power plants are also in the offing. But a case before the Supreme Court looks set to complicate this.

The surprise decision by the court to hear the case, taken by West Virginia and a host of other fossil fuel states, is likely to lead to some curtailing of the EPA’s authority over pollution from electricity generation, analysts have told me.

And there is a possibility that the court, which is now more staunchly conservative, could go further and scrap the agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions at all—overturning the 2007 Massachusetts vs. EPA case that allowed it do so under the 1970 Clean Air Act.

Such an outcome, which could come as soon as next summer, would utterly defang the EPA—and neuter regulation as a tool to tackle climate change.

‘Whole of government’ approach

Executive orders and appointments have garnered a lot of attention. Scrapping the Keystone XL pipeline and pausing new oil and gas leases on federal lands have riled industry—which has (unfairly) blamed the president for elevated prices.

Gina McCarthy’s installation as White House climate tsar has ensured there is a “whole of government” approach climate, permeating all agencies.

But for many progressives, this has not gone far enough. The president’s decision to renominate Jay Powell as Federal Reserve chair yesterday irked some on his party’s left who take issue with the incumbent chair’s stance on climate related risks. (Powell has previously said climate is “an issue that is assigned to lots of other government agencies, not so much the Fed”.)

Jeff Merkley, a Democratic senator from Oregon, was unambiguous in his criticism:

“President Biden must appoint a Fed Chair who will ensure the Fed is fulfilling its mandate to safeguard our financial system and shares the Administration’s view that fighting climate change is the responsibility of every policymaker.”