The philosophical divide between Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and Republican contender former President Donald Trump is vast—with their visions for national energy and environmental policy also diametrically opposed in most areas. 

A second Trump administration would upend efforts made under President Joe Biden and Vice President Harris to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through more clean energy production and could set the U.S. on a path to increase fossil fuel sources. While Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and said he supported a “drill baby drill” approach to energy in accepting the Republican presidential nomination, Harris is expected to continue to advance work begun by the Biden team, in implementing giant funding programs through the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the 2022 climate law, also known as the Inflation Reduction Act.

“What’s at stake is so, so clear, and we absolutely need to win this election,” says Craig Auster, vice president of political affairs for the League of Conservation Voters. “We’ve seen a really big focus from this administration on incentivizing the clean energy transition, and we expect that to continue.”

Trump rolled back more than 100 environmental protections during this first term. The choice for voters is between “continuing to accelerate the clean energy path we’re on [or] taking us backwards, undoing that progress,” Auster says. 

Harris on Energy

Harris has consistently supported legislation and policies that would provide more funding and incentives for clean energy projects as well as addressing water quality and environmental justice issues. She cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the Inflation Reduction Act—considered one of the most comprehensive climate packages enacted by Congress. As California’s attorney general, she collected millions from oil and gas companies for a ruptured pipeline in Santa Barbara as well as leaking storage tanks. 

She also sued the Obama administration in 2016 to challenge its plan to begin hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” along California’s coastline. Harris’ position on fracking has been scrutinized because she has said she now supports natural gas extraction. Trump and his surrogates have described her shift in position as a “flip-flop” for political gain. 

During the Sept. 10 presidential debate with Trump, Harris not only noted her support for fracking, she touted the Biden administration’s record in increasing oil and gas production. According to the Energy Information Administration, crude oil production rose in 2023 to a record level of 12.9 million barrels per day, a 9% increase over 2022. 

The Republican platform supports an “all of the above” approach to energy, but environmental groups say Trump's public statements suggest he would seek to rescind tax incentives and funds that are not already appropriated for projects in solar, wind and other renewable energy sources, and redirect those funds toward increased fossil fuel development.

Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for a second Trump term, calls for repealing portions of the two recent clean energy laws that have not yet already been appropriated, including funds for the U.S. Energy Dept. office responsible for overseeing grants for transmission line projects. 

Although Trump has disavowed any connection with the document, he has also said he supports some of its ideas. The Heritage Foundation, which authored the blueprint, has close ties to several former Trump administration officials, including individuals who are anticipated to serve on a transition team if he were to win in November.

Program Rollbacks 

Whether a Trump administration could actually repeal significant provisions within the laws is unclear, however. Many of their funded programs, projects and initiatives, as well as those under the American Rescue Plan and CHIPS Act, are boosting jobs and local economies in Republican-governed states, notes Kevin Curtis, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, the political arm of the advocacy group.

“More Republican governors in those states and congressional [lawmakers] are starting to say, ‘these are jobs in my state,’” Curtis says.  As a result, although GOP lawmakers may support rolling back IRA incentives and investments in principle, “they’d want to do it in a surgical way.” 

Jeff Holmstead, a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assistant administrator during the George W. Bush administration, says that if Trump is elected, his threatened actions also could be limited by whichever party ends up leading the House and Senate. Having potentially two different parties running each chamber could provide some checks to prevent complete reversals on popular policies in the enacted laws.

“I think our view is that the tax credits will be very difficult to roll back,” says Holmstead, also a partner and co-lead of the environmental strategies group at law firm Bracewell. Even House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), has signaled support for some tax credits for nuclear energy and other power sector projects. But “some programs that require loan guarantees or grants, or annual appropriations, could be at risk,” especially if Trump wins and both chambers are led by the GOP, Holmstead says. 

Project 2025 also calls for eliminating what it terms “subsidies” for renewable energy projects and programs. According to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. power grid added 20.2 GW of generating capacity during the first half of 2024, with solar representing 59% of that. During that time, both the 690-MW solar and storage Gemini facility in Nevada and the 653-MW Lumina Solar were the largest solar power projects to come online. The agency projects that solar capacity growth will continue to be robust through the end of the year. 

Job Creation

Those types of projects all create jobs, notes Stan Kolbe, executive director of government and political affairs at the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association (SMACNA). “Probably no industry in the nation in recent decades has benefitted more than the construction industry from the bipartisan legislative packages passed on Capitol Hill since 2021,” he says. 

Although SMACNA does not endorse presidential candidates, he said he would hope to see Congress during the next administration build on the infrastructure laws that already have been enacted. There’s already buzz on Capitol Hill about potential bills building on legislation like the CHIPS and infrastructure laws, says Kolbe and others. 

Other industry trade groups, such as the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, also do not endorse particular candidates in presidential elections, but Kristina Surfus, its managing director of government affairs, says her organization will seek to work with whichever candidate wins. 

While she notes that both candidates have said they support boosting infrastructure, including water infrastructure, “If we see a President Harris, she's going to want to build up investments from the ... infrastructure law and [IRA]. But that's really going to depend on the outcome of the congressional elections, if there's a favorable environment to boost spending further or not.” 

While industry-focused groups may be non-committal, the political arms of environmental nonprofits are worried, and say their members are motivated, energized and donating to support a Harris-Walz win in November. 

“I think a mistake that voters make, that the public makes and that the press makes [about] Trump is he uses such overheated rhetoric that at some point you become a bit numb to it, and you just say, ‘it can’t be that bad,’" says NRDC Action Fund’s Curtis. "But the fact of the matter is it could easily be that bad.”