Environmental Rollbacks in California and the Federal Landscape: Challenges and Resilience

Environmental rollbacks occur when laws, regulations, or enforcement measures designed to protect the environment are weakened, delayed, or repealed. These rollbacks can take many forms, from reduced emission standards to weakened water quality protections or scaled-back requirements for hazardous waste management. The effect is often a slowing of progress toward cleaner air, safer water, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Historically, most environmental rollbacks in the United States have occurred at the federal level. Examples include the 2017 revisions to the Clean Power Plan, which reduced requirements for power plants to limit carbon emissions, and the weakening of fuel efficiency and vehicle emissions standards under the Trump administration. Rollbacks have also happened in specific agencies, such as cuts to EPA enforcement budgets or scaling back protections for wetlands and endangered species. California, by contrast, has occasionally rolled back regulations, but these are usually adjustments to improve feasibility, reduce economic burden, or clarify implementation—not wholesale abandonment of environmental protections.

One example of the current wave of federal rollbacks is the administration’s ban on new wind and solar projects. While framed as a measure to reduce energy costs, the ban halts the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure at the national level. For California, the effect is twofold. The state’s renewable mandates remain in place, but federal resistance creates uncertainty for financing, interstate transmission planning, and long-term investment. California continues to advance wind and solar projects under state law, but the lack of federal support slows progress and increases costs for developers who operate across multiple states.

Another significant rollback was the revocation of California’s Clean Air Act waivers, which for decades allowed the state to enforce stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government. The Trump administration withdrew these waivers, arguing that a single national standard was necessary for consistency. California quickly challenged the move in court, joined by other states and environmental groups. Stricter standards are central to meeting  California’s climate goals because transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions . While litigation continues, the rollback underscores how vulnerable even long-established state authority can be to shifts in federal policy.

The suspension of clean energy incentives has also disrupted momentum. In 2020, the federal government ended the 30% investment tax credit for solar projects and froze a $7 billion “Solar for All” program designed to expand access to renewable energy. The timing is crucial, as California’s aggressive renewable targets require significant private investment and consumer adoption. By reducing incentives at the federal level, the rollback raises costs and slows adoption, particularly for smaller businesses and low-income households that rely on subsidies to make renewable energy feasible. California has responded by exploring state-level financing and incentives, but the absence of federal alignment makes the task harder and more expensive.

A fourth example came when the administration invoked emergency powers to block the scheduled closure of the JH Campbell coal-fired power plant in Michigan. While not located in California, the decision highlights how federal interventions can prolong the life of fossil fuel infrastructure across the country. For California, which imports electricity through regional grids, the persistence of coal generation undermines its efforts to reduce carbon intensity. The state continues to push for regional clean energy cooperation, but federal support for coal places it at odds with California’s long-term strategy.

These rollbacks illustrate the tension between California’s climate goals and federal policy choices. Each move—whether halting renewable expansion, limiting state authority on emissions, or removing financial incentives—creates obstacles for California’s clean energy and public health agenda. Yet the state has consistently responded with legal challenges, state legislation, and investment strategies designed to preserve its progress.

Looking forward, California remains committed to its environmental goals. While federal rollbacks present challenges, the state’s legal frameworks, legislative actions, and public engagement strategies provide a foundation for continued progress. Businesses, policymakers, and communities can navigate this evolving landscape by staying informed, participating in advocacy efforts, and aligning with California’s environmental priorities.

California’s resilience in the face of federal rollbacks demonstrates the state’s priorities and strong public involvement. The lesson is clear: federal actions may set roadblocks, but California intends to keep moving forward.