President Trump is advancing a multi-pronged strategy to dismantle what he has called the “Green New Scam,” tightening renewable energy subsidy rules, rolling back climate-related federal authority, and challenging state-led environmental programs.
On August 15, the Treasury Department issued new guidance altering “beginning of construction” thresholds for wind and solar projects seeking tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act. The guidance eliminates the industry-favored five-percent safe harbor—no longer counting projects as construction-started simply for incurring 5 percent of costs—and requires qualified standards to be met within a two-week window.
For industry participants, this represents a significant shift. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) warned that the move “is part of an unprecedented side deal the administration made with anti-clean energy ideologues to undermine Congress,” and threatens thousands of small businesses.
Still, the new rules stopped short of the most restrictive proposals, offering something of a middle path. Tim Urban, head of tax policy at Bracewell, noted that the guidance “is less restrictive than the rumors that were circulating around K Street.” Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), historically supportive of wind tax credits, applauded the approach, saying it “seems to offer a viable path forward for the wind and solar industries to continue to meet increased energy demand” (eenews.net).
The guidance aligns with the broader One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which phases out clean electricity production and investment credits for wind and solar facilities placed in service after December 31, 2027.
In July, the Trump administration began to dismantle the EPA’s Obama-era “endangerment finding” that empowered regulation of greenhouse gases like CO₂. This was based on the executive order he issued in April calling for “the removal of all illegitimate impediments to the identification, development, siting, production, investment in, or use of domestic energy resources — particularly oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, geothermal, biofuel, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources.”
Daren Bakst, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told NPR: “Since the 2009 endangerment finding, the EPA has been trying to regulate greenhouse gases and as a result trying to control large portions of the economy.” He called the potential harms identified by the finding “speculative at best,” arguing that even “if the United States eliminated all of its greenhouse gas emissions, it would have little to no measurable effect on global temperatures.” Bakst added that overturning the finding “would preclude future greenhouse gas regulations” and make repeal of EPA rules much simpler.
If GHG emissions from U.S. power plants would have no measurable effect on global temperatures (there is no real disagreement on this point):
— Daren Bakst (@darenbakst) August 19, 2025
Then it would be unreasonable to claim these emissions significantly contribute to "dangerous air pollution." https://t.co/TdzFK5pZxM
Marlo Lewis Jr. of CEI argued that the EPA’s new proposal should clarify that greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power plants “do not ‘contribute significantly’ to ‘air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare,’” thereby eliminating the Clean Air Act predicate to regulate them.
These developments mark a major reversal of climate regulation policy that has relied on the 2009 finding. The public can submit comments on the proposed elimination of the endangerment finding until September 22.
Trump’s agenda also targets state-level climate programs. On August 12, the Federal Trade Commission—acting under the administration’s direction—closed its inquiry into the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Clean Truck Partnership by compelling truck and engine manufacturers to withdraw from it, and to sign legally binding commitments never to reenter similar agreements with U.S. state regulators.
The FTC’s action, framed as an antitrust enforcement, effectively dismantled the agreement. The administration argued that the arrangement “locked in terms with limited political accountability” and permitted cross-enforcement by competitors, raising legal and competition concerns. This is one of several moves that is reducing the ability of California to influence U.S. environmental policy.
Taken together, these developments mark a major reversal of climate regulation policy that began with the 2009 finding.
