Executive Order Targets State Climate Laws, But Existing GHG Permit Requirements Remain Enforceable – The National Law Review

New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
On April 8, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order titled Protecting American Energy From State Overreach. The order directs the U.S. attorney general to identify and take action against state and local laws “burdening” domestic energy development, especially laws addressing climate change, environmental, social, and government (ESG) initiatives, and environmental justice. The order highlights New York, Vermont, and California climate laws as examples of state actions that may be “beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities” and should be targeted by the Justice Department.
Key Provisions of the Executive Order
Identification of State Laws: The attorney general is tasked with identifying “all State and local laws, regulations, causes of action, policies, and practices:
Implications for State Energy Regulations
The executive order reinforces the administration’s policy to “unleash American energy,” and targets state-level climate (and other) initiatives that the administration regards as ideological and contrary to federal policy initiatives to expedite domestic energy production. In furtherance of the order, the attorney general may pursue lawsuits challenging state and local laws on grounds such as the Commerce Clause, federal preemption, or other legal theories.
Additionally, based on other recent initiatives from the Trump administration, the Justice Department may attempt to use non-litigation tools such as the withholding federal funding from states that refuse to abandon laws and policies deemed objectionable to the administration.
State-Level Responses
The executive order has elicited swift responses from states with climate-focused laws. New York Gov. Hochul and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, co-chairs of the Climate Alliance, have pledged on behalf of the Alliance’s member states continue advancing their energy policies.
New York, in particular, has implemented some of the nation’s most ambitious climate policies, including requiring a net zero-emissions power grid by 2040 and limiting statewide GHG emissions to 15% of 1990 levels by 2050. Notably, the executive order specifically referenced legislation recently enacted in New York that would require compensatory payments by the fossil fuel industry to fund various climate initiatives, which is already being challenged by industry. New York and other similarly situated states are almost certainly preparing to defend their climate agendas, and the outcomes of these legal challenges could have far-reaching implications.
GT Insights
The attorney general faces a 60-day deadline to:
The attorney general may initially prioritize high-profile states and laws explicitly referenced in the executive order, such as New York, Vermont, and California. Litigation is inevitable, both to defend against Justice Department attempts to invalidate state climate programs and to challenge non-litigation measures the department might employ in furtherance of the order.
These legal battles are expected to test the boundaries of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark case, California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987), which clarified that state law can be preempted if Congress demonstrates an intent to occupy the field or if the state law conflicts with federal law, making compliance with both impossible. At this time, however, state climate initiatives remain in effect until courts say otherwise or states move to revise their approaches.
More Upcoming Events
 
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
 
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317.  If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2025 National Law Forum, LLC

source