Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade

Background

Impact on Law and Regulation

Before the revocation, President Obama’s Executive Order, known as 'Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade,' set ambitious goals for federal agencies. It aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the use of renewable energy within federal operations, mandating comprehensive policy shifts. Agencies were directed to establish specific emissions reduction targets and integrate sustainability into their operations. This reshaped how federal entities approached energy consumption, emphasizing renewables and energy-efficient technologies. For instance, there was a significant push toward implementing green building standards, demanding that new constructions achieve net-zero energy status.

Additionally, the Order incentivized federal agencies to lead by example in sustainability efforts, which had ripple effects across state and private sectors. The integration of life-cycle cost analyses in evaluating energy projects and acquisitions created a regulatory environment where economic and environmental goals aligned. In the operation of federal fleets, there was a marked transition toward alternative fuel vehicles, notably electric and hybrid models. This directive resulted in specific procurement practices favoring sustainability, impacting contracts worth billions and fostering market innovation in green technologies.

This Order also influenced social policy by reinforcing the role of the federal government as a leader in combatting climate change. It set broad sustainability goals and extended them into federal supply chains, intending to affect contractors and vendors. By establishing stringent targets, it propelled the adoption of cleaner technologies and supported sectors poised to engage with a greener economy. Agencies were thus accountable not only for meeting targets but also for integrating climate resilience into planning and operations, showcasing sustainability as a core operational competency.

Reason for Revocation

Shift in Energy Policy

The revocation of Obama’s Executive Order was part of a broader ideological shift under the Trump administration, which sought to promote energy independence and economic growth by reducing federal regulations. President Trump framed his environmental policy changes under the banner of "energy dominance," emphasizing traditional energy sectors such as coal, oil, and natural gas. This shift towards deregulation included rolling back measures deemed as overreaching federal overhauls and inhibiting economic growth with strict compliance requirements.

By revoking this particular order, Trump aimed to reduce what his administration considered burdening and costly sustainability mandates on federal agencies. The administration argued that such regulations imposed excessive costs on the government and industries impacted by federally mandated sustainability practices. Trump's policies instead encouraged the development and use of domestic fossil fuels as a means to spur job creation and lower energy prices, reflecting an underlying skepticism about the urgency of climate change and a preference for traditional energy sectors.

This ideological change was also set against a backdrop of economic concerns. The intent was to remove perceived roadblocks to economic activity and to re-align government priorities towards economic pragmatism over environmental stewardship. The Trump administration frequently presented the dichotomy of environmental regulation versus economic expansion, favoring the latter as vital to national interests. This strategic pivot was consistent across multiple policy decisions that sought to reduce the federal government’s involvement in mandated environmental action.

Trump's revocation represented a clear pivot from sustainability initiatives towards promoting unencumbered economic activity. This approach framed environmental stewardship as potentially detrimental to American competitiveness, particularly in energy-intensive industries. This shift in focus disregarded the previous administration's view of long-term environmental strategies as compatible with economic growth.

Winners

Fossil Fuels Industry

The revocation significantly benefited the fossil fuel industry, including major oil, natural gas, and coal companies. By removing stringent greenhouse gas emission requirements and the emphasis on renewable energy, companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Peabody Energy were better positioned to operate under fewer constraints, improving their competitiveness and operational flexibility. These companies gained from reduced regulatory costs and an increased ability to develop domestic oil and gas projects, aligning with Trump's energy independence objectives.

Additionally, contractors and vendors involved with traditional energy supplies and infrastructure maintenance also stood to gain. Industries servicing fossil fuel extraction, including those related to pipeline construction, drilling, and transportation, experienced fewer federal directives diverting energy procurement towards renewable or alternative sources. This translated into steadier demand for conventional energy projects, rejuvenating sectors tied to fossil fuel extraction and distribution.

Furthermore, regions heavily reliant on fossil fuel production, such as Appalachia and the Gulf Coast, faced potentially beneficial economic effects as federal policy shifted away from renewables-led initiatives. Employment stability in these areas was another intended consequence, with industry-friendly policies potentially easing employment pressures in these energy-dependent communities. The Trump administration's policies promised economic revitalization by supporting jobs traditionally linked to fossil fuels.

Losers

Renewable Energy Sector

The renewable energy sector experienced setbacks due to the revocation, as federal procurement commitments to wind, solar, and other clean energy technologies were diminished. Companies like Tesla, Vestas, and First Solar, as well as numerous smaller renewable firms, had relied on federally-driven demand to bolster market trends favoring sustainable energy solutions. The revocation decreased government-led incentives that had been crucial in stabilizing renewable energy markets and galvanizing private-sector co-investment.

The broader environmental goals suffered, weakening the federal government's leadership role in climate action. This impacted organizations working towards sustainability and climate resilience, as decreased support for renewable energy adoption and infrastructure investments impeded the momentum gained under previous sustainability-focused mandates. Environmental advocacy groups, such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, were affected by halted federal ambitions for rapid emissions reduction, seeing setbacks in policy advocacy gains.

Lastly, communities vulnerable to climate change were adversely affected by the rollback of environmentally-focused federal policies. Regions in coastal areas or those prone to extreme weather events bore the risk of reduced federal investment into climate adaptation and resilience planning. Federal leadership on climate readiness was compromised, exacerbating socio-economic disparities as affected communities faced the dual threat of climate impacts with diminished government support.