Presidential Candidates at Odds on Climate Change

One year ago, my colleague Casey Talon published a blog on the energy and climate change policies of various presidential hopefuls. With the nominees now chosen and the first official presidential debates now over, the nation’s energy future should be clearer, but widely disparate policies have instead made it more nebulous than ever. Let’s take a look at how each nominee could affect US climate policy.

• Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s plan for climate action involves a heavy focus on solar panels, increasing the installed base of solar power in the United States by 700% within her first term. Clinton’s plan also includes creating a White House transmission office, which would coordinate permitting for siting transmission lines on the state and federal levels. This plan would rely heavily on either a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions or a carbon tax. Without increased pricing for emissions, natural gas is currently too cheap for renewable energy to be competitive in some applications. One item Clinton’s plan is relatively vague about is energy storage. In order to meet the solar energy goals set forth by the presidential nominee, a large amount of storage would have to be implemented, as solar and wind are both intermittent power sources that do not necessarily produce power at the time when electricity demand is greatest.

• Republican nominee Donald Trump promises a return to coal-fired power plants, as well as other fossil fuels. The candidate’s America First energy plan involves a dissolution of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Power Plan, as well as the EPA itself. Any move toward clean power would be entirely dependent on free market adoption. Shifting back to more coal power could be problematic from an emissions perspective, as 71% of 2015 carbon emissions from the electric power sector came from coal. Meanwhile, natural gas, the second largest fossil fuel energy source, represented only 28% of emissions. Increasing CO emissions would not only mean a faster rise in global temperatures, but also a deviation from international agreements on climate change. In addition, due to declining renewable energy prices and the increasing prevalence of natural gas fracking, coal is not as economically attractive an option as it once was. A lack of regulation surrounding the energy sector could either result in widespread adoption of renewables on the market or a sharp rise in carbon emissions.

Electricity demand is increasing in the United States, and carbon emissions have remained fairly consistent in the past several years. It is true that cleaner energy is needed in greater quantities, both to balance out the added demand from smart metering, electric vehicles, and increasingly connected cities and to reduce emissions. In the 2015 Paris Agreement, the United States promised to cut its carbon emissions 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. It’s currently not on track to reach that goal, and a reduction in the amount of clean power being utilized would hinder the nation’s ability to meet this pledge.

The future of America’s energy policy is uncertain. November’s election could bring some much needed clarity.