2024 has been a pivotal election year across the globe, with the United States’ presidential race attracting immense attention. The significance of this election transcends U.S. borders, as the outcome could shape environmental policies that impact both national and global efforts in combating climate change. But how much control does the U.S. president truly wield in determining the future of American environmental policy?
This article examines the enumerated powers granted to the U.S. president by the Constitution and how these powers can and have influenced U.S. environmental policy.
How Presidential Power Shapes Environmental Policy
The president of the U.S. has significant, though not all-encompassing, authority over environmental matters. This influence is exercised through multiple avenues:
- Legislative Approval and Veto Power
The president has the authority to either approve or veto legislation passed by Congress, a power that allows direct influence on environmental policies. For example, in 1916 President Woodrow Wilson signed the act creating the National Park Service, which designated over 35 protected national parks and monuments; in 2015, President Obama vetoed the Keystone Pipeline, preventing an oil pipeline system from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada from being built. - Executive Orders
Presidents can issue executive orders to advance environmental policies without needing congressional approval. Executive orders are not without restraint, they cannot violate the Constitution, create new laws, contradict existing laws, appropriate funds or directly control independent agencies. However, these orders can direct federal agencies to take specific actions. Often aimed at addressing climate-related concerns or establishing environmental protections, the impact of these actions may be short-lived if successive administrations decide to reverse them or if Congress passes legislation that invalidates it. - Cabinet Appointments
Presidents appoint leaders to their cabinet as well as other key positions that oversee federal environmental initiatives such as the Secretary of Energy and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These appointments must be confirmed by Congress, and the selected leaders’ stances on environmental issues can significantly influence policy implementation. However, during congressional recesses, the president can make "recess appointments" without Senate approval. Intended to prevent prolonged vacancies in government positions, recess appointments expire "at the sine die adjournment of the Senate's next session," after which they may be renominated or reappointed during a subsequent recess.
Additionally, presidents can guide the regulatory priorities of independent agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which, while autonomous, often aligns its strategic goals with executive branch priorities. For example, the Department of the Interior under the previous Trump administration worked to open more land for oil and gas leasing by limiting wildlife protections and weakening environmental requirements for projects.
Using these avenues, the president has the ability to influence environmental policy and regulation primarily on the federal level with indirect impacts to state’s either through bipartisan cooperation and/or aligned party control over multiple branches of the government. However, they cannot make any change unilaterally. Since the U.S. government is set up on the fundamental idea of checks-and-balances, presidential collaboration with legislators is critical.
The President’s Influence on Federal Programs
Several federal agencies and programs could be affected by presidential power. Leadership positions in many federal agencies, such as FERC, SEC, FTC, and the Federal Reserve, have terms that overlap administrations to ensure consistency. Appointees to these independent agencies are selected by the president but generally cannot be removed by a new administration before the end of their terms without legal cause (such as misconduct). The president can, however, replace leaders of executive branch agencies (like DOJ, Department of State, and Department of Treasury) at will.
- The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a federal program overseen by the EPA that requires transportation fuel sold in the U.S. to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels. Despite its status as an independent governmental agency, political leadership could strongly influence key areas of the EPA’s direction in this regard. One possibility is the administration steering decisions on renewable volume obligations and allowance of small refinery exemptions.
- The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), an independent agency that regulates interstate energy transmission (electricity, pipelines, etc.) and reviews energy-related construction and market proposals, could see its appetite for reforms influenced by executive branch priorities.
- The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) standardized climate-related disclosures for public companies – developed to meet investor demand for consistent and reliable reporting on companies’ climate risk and mitigation strategies – could also be influenced by executive goal setting as the SEC is led by a presidential appointee.
While presidential candidates typically focus on the larger question of raising or lowering taxes during campaigns, the president can also affect more specific tax reform. When President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law on August 16, 2022, it marked a historic investment in the American economy, energy security and climate. Included in the act was the ability to transfer some federal tax credits to third parties, incentivizing new renewable energy project development. By selling these credits to interested buyers, project developers can utilize these federal incentives to create a new cash flow that can be used to further their current renewable energy project’s development and initiate others. While the president has some power to direct the U.S. Treasury on developing tax credit guidance and can make certain tax credits easier or more difficult to access, fully repealing tax credits would take an action of congress.
State and Congressional Power
Despite the authority wielded by the executive branch, congressional and state governments have been the primary drivers of climate policy in the United States and will have most of the power regarding renewables growth going forward. One crowning example is California, which enacted several climate disclosure bills in October 2023. While these laws’ requirements are in line with standards referenced in the SEC’s climate disclosure proposal, they significantly expanded the scope to both public and private companies with business activities in California. Besides amendments that were signed into law on September 27, 2024, the disclosure requirements remain largely intact despite legal challenges and will likely exist no matter who is president.
Many states have made strides to increase the mix of renewable electricity that is used within their borders through programs like Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and Clean Energy Standards. Each of these programs vary in design and stringency to support the reduction of energy related emissions, but generally require utilities to sell a certain percentage of electricity from renewables by a specified date. As of 2019, 29 states and the District of Columbia have adopted a mandatory RPS, with Iowa becoming the first state to adopt it in 1983 followed by Massachusetts and Nevada in 1997. However, these standards have and will continue to evolve depending on each state’s unique circumstances.
A handful of states have also implemented programs to significantly reduce emissions from the transportation sector within their states through the use of low-carbon or clean fuels as well as electric vehicle transition mandates. Like RPS’, these programs are similar but have unique characteristics depending on the state. In low-carbon or clean fuels programs, carbon intensive fossil fuels generate deficits while renewable fuels generate credits, which must then be purchased to offset deficits. Currently, California, Oregon, and Washington all have clean fuel programs and New Mexico is actively developing one. For EV mandates, 12 states plus Washington D.C. have all passed Advanced Clean Cars, a regulation that is designed to accelerate the transition of light-duty passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs to zero emission models by, among other things, requiring a percentage of new vehicle sales within the state to be zero-emission.
While political affiliation may have had a hand in these decisions, state-specific opportunities and a renewed focus on grid reliability and lowering the cost of fuels, buoyed by concerns surrounding solely incentivizing renewable build out, are also key factors. Broadly, state governments will likely choose what is politically viable and economically beneficial when focusing on growing their renewable economy.
On the International Stage
As the president is the national and international face of the country, the president’s public statements, participation (or lack of participation) in global climate summits, and foreign alliances can heavily influence the US’s environmental future. Following a declaration from former President Trump, the US became the first nation in the world to formally withdraw from the UN’s Paris Agreement. After the Clinton administration Kyoto Protocol, this marks the second time the US has negotiated an international climate deal and then left it.
While U.S. participation in international accords could be impacted once again by a changing administration, corporate climate commitments will still be an individual, business-level decision. Depending on areas of operations, companies will still have to comply with international frameworks like Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which will remain in effect. Companies will need to consider whether they are obligated to track and report their emissions and climate related risks, and whether the cost of compliance is more than their revenue from the region.
The Path Ahead
While a two-party system can present complications, the U.S. has seen environmental progress and regulations from Republican presidents working with a Democratic-leaning Congress and Democratic presidents working with a Republican-leaning Congress. The U.S. president has power in areas of environmental policy, but most of the progress or inaction in terms of our environmental future is in the hands of state officials and the voluntary action of corporations.
Voluntary corporate commitments will remain in the face of any administration and will account for much of the progress towards reducing the United States’ emissions goals. The transition to renewable energy is a strategic move, positioning companies to remain competitive in a low-carbon economy. Exceeding mandatory requirements positions companies for greater financial resilience, reputational benefits, and increased market share with the growing demand from consumers and investors for greener operations. Explore your organization’s sustainability possibilities with one of our experts today.
