A Review of Past Energy Policies Under the Trump Administration (2017-2021)

The Trump administration’s energy policies were bold and unapologetically pro-fossil fuel, aiming to prioritise energy independence and economic growth over environmental concerns

Between 2017 and 2021, the Trump administration redefined U.S. energy policy with a focus on deregulation, promoting fossil fuels, and distancing the country from international climate agreements. These changes left an indelible mark on the energy landscape, drawing both acclaim and criticism. This blog post explores these policies, their motivations, and the impacts they have had on both the domestic energy market and global climate dynamics.

Deregulation and Support for Fossil Fuels

One of the most defining characteristics of Trump’s energy policy was a robust push toward deregulation. Central to this agenda was the repeal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), an Obama-era initiative designed to limit carbon emissions from power plants. The CPP aimed to shift the U.S. energy grid towards renewable sources by setting ambitious emissions reduction targets for states. President Trump, prioritising coal and traditional energy jobs, replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which delegated much of the regulatory power back to the states and softened the rules governing coal plants (Environmental Protection Agency).

The implications were significant. While coal-fired power plants found temporary relief and operational extensions, market forces still favoured cleaner and more economical natural gas and renewables. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal consumption continued to decline throughout Trump’s tenure despite policy efforts to revive it.

Expansion of Oil and Gas Production

Trump’s vision of American energy dominance extended to aggressive expansion in oil and natural gas production. His administration opened millions of acres of public land, including parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), for oil and gas exploration (Department of the Interior). This policy aligned with the administration’s goal to reduce reliance on energy imports and to bolster national security through energy independence.

However, this expansion came at a cost. Environmental groups and climate scientists raised alarms about the ecological damage and the risk of significant carbon emissions from these activities. While the policies helped U.S. oil production reach record highs—briefly surpassing Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s largest producer—the emphasis on fossil fuel expansion signalled a stark departure from the global push toward decarbonization (International Energy Agency).

Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

In perhaps the most symbolic act of divergence from international climate consensus, Trump announced in 2017 that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, a global accord aimed at limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). The withdrawal, formalised in 2020, underscored a clear shift in U.S. energy policy: prioritising immediate economic interests over long-term climate commitments.

The impact was twofold. Domestically, the withdrawal gave industries a reprieve from stringent emissions targets, supporting economic activity in sectors like manufacturing and energy. Internationally, it created friction with allies and complicated collaborative efforts to combat climate change. European leaders, in particular, viewed this move as a setback for collective climate initiatives (Brookings Institution).

Rollbacks on Methane Regulations

Among the Trump administration's environmental deregulation efforts, the relaxation of methane emission standards stood out. Methane, a greenhouse gas significantly more potent than carbon dioxide, plays a critical role in accelerating climate change. The administration’s revision of EPA rules reduced the oversight on methane leaks from oil and gas operations, citing the need to remove burdensome regulations for producers (Environmental Protection Agency).

While industry players welcomed the cost savings, environmental advocates pointed out that increased methane emissions could negate gains made in reducing other greenhouse gases. Studies indicated that methane emissions were on the rise, presenting a stark challenge for long-term climate goals (Environmental Defense Fund).

Looking Ahead

Given the upcoming 2024 U.S. election, the question remains: will the next administration double down on traditional energy priorities or steer the U.S. toward a renewed commitment to a sustainable energy transition? The answer could shape not just domestic energy markets, but the global climate landscape for years to come.