Democrats are beginning to dial back some of their signature environmental policies in response to their mounting economic costs, but some policy analysts argue the changes are far more symbolic than substantive. [emphasis, links added]
In recent months, Democratic leaders have moved to soften key climate regulations, including in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom revised the state’s signature environmental review law in June.
Observers say these changes reflect Democratic lawmakers’ growing awareness that the economic strain caused by climate policies is hurting their electability, but it remains to be seen whether the adjustments are here to stay for the long run.
On June 30, Newsom approved changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which has been widely criticized for causing project delays and exacerbating the state’s housing shortage and affordability crisis.
The same month, the California Energy Commission, the state’s energy regulator, advocated for pausing the profit cap on oil refiners in the state after two major refineries announced they were closing their facilities.
“It’s an acknowledgement that these policies are costly,” Wayne Winegarden, the Pacific Research Institute’s senior fellow in business and economics, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“The median voter seems to be concluding that these policies impose costs that are too high. And you don’t win elections unless you get the median voter to vote for you.”
“He’s not going to get elected president unless he gets the median U.S. voter,” Winegarden said about Newsom, who stoked speculation about his 2028 ambitions during a two-day tour in the early primary state of South Carolina this week.
The political realities of aggressive climate policies are looming over California lawmakers, as the median home price in the state reached nearly $850,000 in the first quarter of 2025, which is more than double the national median.
At the same time, the state continues to have some of the highest gas prices in the nation, driven in large part by its restrictive energy policies.
“Many people say they support the policies in a vacuum, but when you say it will cost an extra $1,000 a year, people say no. That’s what we’re in the middle of,” said Winegarden.
In New York, Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul also quietly walked back the state’s proposed cap and invest program — a component of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) — which sets a limit on carbon emissions and requires businesses to purchase allowances for emissions associated with their activities.
“New York never had a practical path to its climate goals,” Manhattan Institute fellow Ken Girardin told the DCNF, adding that officials never conducted the necessary cost estimates of state climate mandates.
In May, Hochul reportedly made another concession to her climate agenda by reportedly promising the Trump administration to cooperate on a gas pipeline project in the state in exchange for lifting restrictions on offshore wind development.
At the same time, Hochul has fought the administration to preserve the congestion pricing program in New York City, ostensibly meant to reduce gas emissions.
In 2024, Hochul publicly acknowledged that New York would miss its statutory goal of meeting 70% its energy from renewable sources by 2030, citing rising costs and canceled energy projects.
Nevertheless, the state is still pushing ahead with a number of climate initiatives, even ones that make life more expensive.
Read rest at Daily Caller
