Blue states weaken climate rules as red states lead renewable energy growth

California on Friday scaled back its cap-and-invest program, releasing more than $3bn in free pollution allowances to polluting companies, according to reporting by The Guardian. Earlier the same week, New York weakened its 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, delaying a plan to regulate carbon from 2024 until 2028 and reducing emissions-slashing targets. Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee has proposed pushing back the state’s requirement for 100% renewable power from 2033 to 2050, and Maryland lawmakers in April approved measures that would shrink emissions-reduction targets through 2035 while cutting utility energy-efficiency spending.

Proponents have said the changes are necessary to suppress electricity costs amid an energy price spike linked to trade disruptions from the US-Israeli war on Iran, as the Trump administration withdraws clean energy incentives and energy savings programs. But climate advocates say the view is short-sighted and will compound costs over time.

“Using affordability as a cudgel to weaken climate policy is a major error that will not solve either crisis, ultimately amplifying both,” said Johanna Bozuwa, executive director of the Climate and Community Institute, a left-leaning thinktank. “Extreme weather and fossil-fuel dependency directly inflate costs – for food, energy, transportation, housing, and health – across the economy for working people.”

Polls show most Americans remain concerned about climate change. An annual Gallup poll published in April found 44% of American adults say they worry “a great deal” about global warming, one of the highest levels since 1989. About 65% of registered voters think global heating is driving up the cost of living, according to a December 2025 report by Yale University and George Mason University.

In contrast to many Democratic-led jurisdictions, red states have dominated renewable energy deployment in recent years. In terms of growth of utility-scale renewables, states that voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election made up eight of the top 10 in the year to March, according to Energy Information Administration data. Indiana topped the list, followed by Kentucky and Utah.

Texas has emerged as the country’s leading clean energy superpower despite its strong ties to the oil and gas industry and unsuccessful attempts within the Republican-led legislature to curb wind and solar growth. Texas leads the country in wind energy production, followed by Iowa, Oklahoma and Kansas, and in March overtook California in utility-scale solar capacity.

The oil and gas sector remains strong in Texas amid the boom in renewables. Like many red states, Texas has made it easier to build energy infrastructure in general, both dirty and clean, than their Democratic counterparts.

Still, the ramp-up from red states comes as Trump has attacked efforts to boost renewable energy nationally, slashing tax incentives for wind and solar developers, attempting to halt offshore wind projects, and deriding clean power as “stupid” and a “scam.”

Meanwhile, the states scaling back their emissions-cutting policies have long called themselves climate leaders. When California Governor Gavin Newsom extended the state’s cap-and-invest program last year, he said: “We’re doubling down on our best tool to combat Trump’s assaults on clean air … by making polluters pay for projects that support our most impacted communities.”

The changes made on Friday reduce costs for in-state refineries while creating a new incentive for companies that invest in cleaner technology, allowing some polluters to reduce the amount they owe by demonstrating spending on emissions-cutting projects.

The changes could end up giving more money to the fossil fuel producers and distributors who have been increasing consumers’ energy prices amid the Iran war, said Bahram Fazeli, policy director with Communities for a Better Environment, a grassroots organization in California.

“There’s no reason to think that giving them more free allowances will actually help motivate them to lower gas prices more,” he said. “This is the time that we can see who are the real climate leaders who have the courage and imagination to fight for working families and the health of vulnerable frontline communities.”

New York advocates are also skeptical about whether the weakening of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act will deliver long-term benefits. The state legislature last week reached a deal with Governor Kathy Hochul to remove a 2030 mandate to cut planet-warming pollution by 40% from 1990 levels, instead including language to aim for a 60% reduction by 2040 if it is “feasible and cost effective” to do so.

Last month, Hochul told reporters the state’s climate goals were untenable “without driving energy costs higher.” Climate advocates are pushing back.

“We have an alternative to fossil fuels that is not just aspirational, but it is operational and it is going to make it possible for us to be able to address climate change while also incentivizing the local economy,” said Elizabeth Yeampierre, executive director of UpRose, a community-based environmental justice organization in New York City. “In a community like ours, where we’re looking for green re-industrialization that generates good-paying jobs, these changes won’t help with affordability.”

In Rhode Island, Governor Dan McKee has proposed pushing back the state’s requirement for 100% renewable power from 2033 to 2050. Maryland lawmakers in April approved a package of measures aimed at lowering consumer energy costs, including a provision that would shrink emissions-reduction targets through 2035 and cut the amount utilities are required to spend on energy efficiency, according to The Guardian. Proponents say the measures will save ratepayers about $150 a year.

Anna Johnson, a senior policy manager at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, told Baltimore’s NPR affiliate WYPR that the savings would be short-lived. “Even though you might see bill savings initially, that’s going to come at the cost of locked-in, higher energy costs in the future,” she said; Johnson estimates the moves could ultimately increase households’ electricity costs by $592m.

The climate crisis itself also costs working people, said Mar Zepeda Salazar, legislative director of the Climate Justice Alliance.

“You can lower costs on paper by weakening protections, but the bill still comes due,” she said. “It just shows up in emergency rooms, insurance premiums, utility bills, lost wages, and disaster recovery – that families pay, not industry.”