Current Access Level “I” – ID Only: CUID holders, alumni, and approved guests only
Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.
On February 28, the US and Israel launched new attacks on Iran targeting primarily the country's leadership, security forces, and missile program.
Hear in-depth conversations with the world’s top energy and climate leaders from government, business, academia, and civil society.
In energy markets, all eyes are on the Strait of Hormuz. As of March 11, 2026, this vital passage is effectively closed to tanker traffic, stranding almost a...
Find out more about our upcoming and past events.
This roundtable is open only to currently enrolled Columbia University students. To register, you must sign in with your UNI. The Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia...
Reporter, The New York Times
Reporter, POLITICO
Maxine Joselow: My colleagues and I are expecting a decision to formally repeal the endangerment finding this month, and that would arguably be the single biggest deregulatory action by the EPA ever.
Josh Siegel: I think energy affordability will be a top-tier issue in terms of electricity prices in a way we haven’t seen before, and the Trump administration clearly is scrambling on it. So we’ll have to see how it actually trickles down to House and Senate races, but it’s definitely going to be a top-tier issue.
Bill Loveless: From the affordability crisis and the data-center boom to the U.S. government’s campaign to reinvigorate the Venezuelan oil market following its arrest of President Maduro, energy is dominating headlines in unusual ways. And that’s all happening against a backdrop of upheaval in federal energy policy, which started on day one of the second Trump administration. As we begin the new year and head into midterm elections, there’s a dizzying number of crucial energy policy issues at play. So how are geopolitics reshaping the context for U.S. energy and climate policymaking in 2026? And how might upcoming court rulings change things? How is the public responding to changes in energy policy as they also face increasing utility bills? And what stories or trends are going unreported or underreported amid all of these important energy storylines?
Bill Loveless: This is Columbia Energy Exchange, a weekly podcast from the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. I’m Bill Loveless.
Today on the show, Maxine Joselow and Josh Siegel.
Maxine Joselow is a reporter for The New York Times, where she covers climate policy from Washington, D.C. Before joining the Times, Maxine covered climate change and the environment for The Washington Post. Before that, she was a reporter at E&E News.
Josh Siegel is an energy reporter for POLITICO, where he focuses on Congress. He also hosts the POLITICO Energy Podcast. Previously, he covered the energy beat for The Washington Examiner, where he wrote the Daily on Energy newsletter.
We took stock of the ongoing legal battles over wind power and permitting reform and looked ahead to the bills and court decisions that could make the biggest impact this year. We discussed which climate and energy narratives, particularly around energy prices, are landing with voters today and how those issues are likely to play out in the midterm elections. We talked about how energy markets are responding to major policy changes and to geopolitical pressures, and we talked about the stories they’ll be tracking throughout the year ahead. Here’s our conversation.
Bill Loveless: Maxine Joselow, Josh Siegel, welcome to Columbia Energy Exchange.
Maxine Joselow: Thank you.
Josh Siegel: Thanks for having me.
Bill Loveless: I should say, in your case, Maxine, welcome back to Columbia Energy Exchange. It’s good to have you back. And Josh, an old friend, it’s good to see you as well. We’re here to talk about what’s in store for energy and climate policy in Washington in 2026. We’re only halfway through January, and already there have been some big energy headlines, including a major White House announcement regarding AI data centers and electricity. Josh, you were there. What happened?
Josh Siegel (03:33): As you said, it was pretty unprecedented. We had the Energy Dominance Council chair, Doug Burgum; Energy Secretary Chris Wright; and several governors representing states in PJM, the 13-state power market that stretches from the Midwest to Virginia. They all came to the White House and basically they’re calling on PJM to hold an emergency auction for tech companies to buy power for the next 15 years.
Maxine Joselow (00:04): My colleagues and I are expecting a decision to formally repeal the endangerment finding this month, and that would arguably be the single biggest deregulatory action by the EPA ever.
Josh Siegel (00:17): I think energy affordability will be a top tier issue in terms of electricity prices in a way we haven’t seen before, and the Trump administration clearly is scrambling on it, so we’ll have to see how it actually trickles down to House and Senate races, but it’s definitely going to be a top tier issue from
Bill Loveless (00:35): The affordability crisis and the data center boom to the US Government’s campaign to reinvigorate the Venezuelan oil market following its arrest of President Maduro energy is dominating headlines in unusual ways, and that’s all happening against a backdrop of upheaval in federal energy policy, which started on day one of the second Trump administration. As we begin the new year and head into midterm elections, there’s a dizzying number of crucial energy policy issues at play. So how are geopolitics reshaping the context for US energy and climate policymaking in 2026, and how might upcoming court rulings change things? How is the public responding to changes in energy policy as they also face increasing utility bills, and what stories or trends are going unreported or underreported amid all of these important energy storylines?
Bill Loveless (01:31): This is Columbia Energy Exchange, a weekly podcast from the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. I’m Bill Loveless. Today on the show, Maxine Joselow and Josh Siegel. Maxine Joselow is a reporter for the New York Times where she covers climate policy from Washington DC. Before joining the Times, Maxine covered climate change and the environment for the Washington Post. Before that, she was a reporter at E&E News. Josh Siegel is an energy reporter for POLITICO, where he focuses on Congress. He also hosts the POLITICO Energy Podcast. Previously, he covered the energy beat for the Washington Examiner, where he wrote the Dawn Energy Newsletter. We took stock of the ongoing legal battles over wind power and permitting reform, and looked ahead to the bills and court decisions that could make the biggest impact this year. We discussed which climate and energy narratives, particularly around energy prices are landing with voters today and how those issues are likely to play out in midterm elections. We talked about how energy markets are responding to major policy changes and to geopolitical pressures, and we talked about the stories they’ll be tracking throughout the year ahead. Here’s our conversation.
Bill Loveless (02:51): Maxine Joselow. Josh Siegel, welcome to Columbia Energy Exchange.
Josh Siegel (02:56): Thank you. Thanks for having me.
Bill Loveless (02:58): I should say in your case, Maxine, welcome back to Columbia Energy Exchange. It’s good to have you back, and Josh, an old friend, it’s good to see you there as well. Well, we’re here to talk about what’s in store for energy and climate policy in Washington and the year 2026, and here we are just halfway through January, and already there are some big energy headlines in Washington, including a major announcement the other day at the White House regarding AI data centers and electricity. Josh, you were there for the announcement. What happened? Yeah,
Josh Siegel (03:33): As you said, pretty unprecedented. So we had the Energy Dominance Council chair, Doug Bergham, energy Secretary, Chris Wright, and several governors that represent states in PJM, which of course is the 13 state power market that stretches from the Midwest to Virginia. So they all came to the White House and basically they’re calling on PJM to hold an emergency auction for tech companies to buy power for the next 15 years. It’s really designed to motivate these big tech companies to build a fleet of new power plants to serve the rapidly growing AI data centers in this country. And it was really interesting to see Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, who decides to, he’s long been a critic of PJM, he decides to go to the White House for this event. From my understanding, it was sort of last minute as far as the actual invite, this has been in the works for a while as far as governors working with the White House, including Democrats, Wes Moore of Maryland was the other Democrat in attendance, but it was pretty interesting to sort of see them all come together and call on PGM to take action.
Now, PJM doesn’t have to do anything. What’s interesting, I mean, clearly there’s a political element of this. I think the governors and the White House see a reason to be seen as responsive to rising electricity prices, which I’m sure will get more into, has become a really potent political issue. And there’s a lot of questions, I think in talking to experts with some of my colleagues around actually implementing this and what it would take. But to see all these folks at the White House with very disagreements around broader energy policy and the types of generation we should be building, I thought was pretty noteworthy.
Bill Loveless (05:09): Yeah, yeah, certainly affordability, right? That’s sort of the political watchword these days on so many issues. And in electricity, the concerns over rising prices, they’ve gone up, what about 7% in the United States over the past year. And so politically it’s a big issue as well as for the pocketbook. Josh, I know there’s a lot of uncertainty at this point, but I mean, do some see this as what it will take to achieve some sort of breakthrough in terms of providing reliable but affordable sources of electricity for not only data centers, but for the general public?
Josh Siegel (05:45): I mean, I think people seem to think it’s a show of force that really we haven’t seen that’s like, okay, people recognize how big of a problem this is. So in that aspect it’s positive. But as far as any immediate impact, how quickly would PJM act on this, if at all? Would they have a different interpretation of what to do? We know how long it takes to build power plants in this country. Permitting I’m sure we’ll get into is a challenge, so I don’t think you would see any immediate relief for this, but it’s sort of more to show that folks are taking action. There’s bipartisan interest in doing so. I think a lot of questions are around does FERC, so PJM would have to file a filing with FERC. We know that the FERC has been a huge priority of this administration to sort of see FERC as an avenue to move their energy agenda for chair. Laura Swett was in attendance at this event. So I think that was sort of telling to show, okay, they see a need here to maybe act on this if PJM again were to proceed, but a lot of questions as far as how quickly you would see something like this actually be implemented and take effect in time for people to see it and be visible. I think that’s unlikely as far as midterm election season.
It’s designed to motivate big tech companies to build new power plants to serve rapidly growing AI data centers.
It was especially interesting to see Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, a longtime critic of PJM, attend the event. From my understanding, the invitation was fairly last-minute, though the effort has been in the works for some time and included Democratic Governor Wes Moore of Maryland. Seeing them all come together to call on PJM to act was noteworthy.
Josh Siegel (04:37): PJM doesn’t have to do anything, of course. There’s clearly a political element. The governors and the White House want to be seen as responsive to rising electricity prices, which have become a potent political issue. There are major implementation questions, and it will take time to build new power plants. Still, given the disagreements among these leaders over broader energy policy, it was striking to see them unified in this moment.
Bill Loveless (05:09): Affordability really is the political watchword right now. Electricity prices have risen about 7 percent over the past year. Josh, do some see this as a potential breakthrough for providing reliable and affordable electricity, not just for data centers but for the public more broadly?
Josh Siegel (05:45): People see it as a show of force and recognition of how serious the problem is. That’s positive. But in terms of immediate impact, it’s unclear how quickly PJM would act, if at all. Building power plants takes time, and permitting remains a challenge. This is more about signaling action and bipartisan interest than delivering near-term relief, especially before the midterms.
Bill Loveless (06:59): Yeah, absolutely. We’ll talk more about FERC at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in a few minutes, but because certainly a lot will be happening there, and of course this is happening as we are seeing major geopolitical events around the world. I wonder, are events in major oil producers like Venezuela and Iran reshaping the context for US energy policy making this year, Maxine, are they changing any energy priorities around, I don’t know, production, strategic reserves, sanctions, environmental issues?
Maxine Joselow (07:35): Those are a lot of really big questions, Bill. Let me see if I can take a stab at answering some of them and I’ll let Josh weigh in on some of them too. I think at a very high level, the fact that oil prices are low right now has allowed the administration to have more confidence and to kind of be unfettered in taking these big geopolitical actions because they know that there won’t be repercussions at home. Americans won’t be seeing higher prices at the pump as a result, which is top of mind in this whole question about affordability. People often notice prices at the pump more than they notice their electricity bills going up. And so whether it’s Venezuela, whether it’s Iran, the administration feels like it has room to make these big interventions because of the fact that prices are low, generally speaking right now. But those are some big questions. I don’t know if Josh, you want to jump in on some of those too?
Josh Siegel (08:29): Yeah, I do see it sort of involving the affordability context. There’s some intersection here, and again, my frame is really from the Hill. I do most of my reporting in Congress and when I talk to Democrats, they sort of see this as an opportunity to say, Hey, President Trump’s so focused on these overseas interventions, domestic affordability, what does he really care about? And then there’s this question of the administration is exporting Venezuela’s oil. They say the US government has control over the revenue and it’s going to go to the Venezuelan people. But I think there’s a lot of questions. I think Democrats see an opportunity to use that as like, okay, we’re giving more control to this administration. That obviously has stepped on the power of the purse in lots of ways as far as when it comes to Congress’s prerogative over federal government funds and appropriations. This seems separate from that. This wouldn’t involve Congress from everything that I’ve been told as far as does Congress get a chance to weigh in on what to do with these revenues? But I think they see it as an opportunity to say, oh, the Trump administration, we’re going to trust them to sort of handle this when they’ve intervened in funding matters pretty aggressively across the board on energy.
Maxine Joselow (09:41): And just speaking of Democrats in Congress in Venezuela, I also thought it was notable that the administration appears not to have briefed members of Congress in advance of the strike. And then at the same time, the head executives of major oil companies had a heads up and were brought into these conversations earlier on, and you see Democrats like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee sending letters to these top oil company executives asking, what did you know and when and did you know it before we did?
Bill Loveless (10:14): So to some extent, it does color some of the discussions that take place, obviously over energy policy this year.
Josh Siegel (10:22): Yeah, no, I think that’s for sure. And again, I think Democrats are already eager to sort of show that the Trump administration is too close to the oil industry. And this is another example, although, I mean that big White House meeting right there was ExxonMobil, a lot of skepticism around whether what it would take to actually go back in Venezuela in a significant way. So I think that’s interesting that there does seem to be division within the industry on how that will play out. But I think Democrats see an opportunity here and it’ll color a lot of what we see the rest of the year.
Bill Loveless (10:56): So let’s go to Congress, go to Capitol Hill. Are there two or three flash points for lawmakers in 2026? Josh, I know you’ve been big in covering permitting reform, so I would hazard to guess that’s one of them, but there’s grid reliability, something else.
Josh Siegel (11:15): I think permitting reform is really, I mean, the top policy issue I’m still watching for, I mean, I know right? Talks are on pause right now. So Senate Democrats have stopped negotiating with Republicans because the Trump administration during the Christmas holiday season basically paused all offshore wind projects that are in construction, five really large projects. And that sort of caught some folks by surprise, given the timing of that — happened right after the house passed their NEPA overhaul bill, which was sort of their imprint on permitting reform was meant to sort of jumpstart negotiations. The Senate was already having conversations, but Senate Democrats were like, look, we can’t do this when it’s very clear that the Trump administration has favorites when it comes to energy, they favor fossil fuels, they favor nuclear. How can they implement any permitting bill that might benefit clean energy or should on a policy basis benefit clean energy?
(12:08): But I mean the outside noise for action is still super significant. Every industry is at the table that you can think of, oil and gas, clean energy, tech, I mean, so I think the noise is going to be consistent throughout the year. There could be opportunities to reopen. We’ll see if, I’m sure we’ll get more into this, but a big question mark going forward is does the Trump administration change their tactic on clean energy at all? They suffered some court losses here last week with three of these projects, three of these offshore wind projects that now can continue construction. Does that change anything from this administration? Is rising prices and sort of what it looks like when they’re taking projects offline and how that might impact things, does that force them to change course at some point? So I think that’s the biggest question hovering over permitting reform, but I expect that to be a constant conversation every week. It feels like there’s an event from some industry group hoping that they return to the table. So we’ll see. But that’s really my big one.
Bill Loveless (13:05): I mean, that’s been the case with permitting reform for several years, right? I mean, it’s constantly chatter over this. There has been more action lately with the passage of the bill by Republican Bruce Westerman and Democrat Jared Golden late last year. But as you say, there’s been these obstacles that have come up more recently over the administration’s pausing again of offshore wind projects. Maxine, you cover Interior. Remind us what’s happened most recently with those offshore wind projects.
Maxine Joselow (13:37): Yeah, so I cover the interior department generally and have been following these offshore wind projects, specifically, including the ups and downs of their various legal battles. And last week, as Josh noted, there was a trio of adverse rulings against the administration ordering all three of these projects to again resume construction and finding that the Trump administration had not adequately explained why these projects needed to stop construction because they pose these unspecified national security risks. And essentially in its abrupt December 22nd announcement, just three days before Christmas, ordering these projects to stop construction, the Interior Department had cited these classified reports by the Defense Department, now called the Department of War, that found that these projects posed security risks and that the turbines could interfere with the radar used by military vessels and other boat captains. And the three judges in these three cases all ruled that those reports which they saw under seal, did not adequately justify stopping these multi-billion dollar projects, some of which are almost near completion and in operation.
Bill Loveless (14:59): Yeah, there’s been a lot of turmoil over these offshore wind projects. A lot of those that were on the drawing board are no longer there because of the administration’s opposition to this form of energy. So yeah, it’s been quite tumultuous and costly certainly for those offshore developers. I just wonder with those actions on the offshore wind happening when they did and how it came at a point when the house had just passed this bill, so there was giving hope to some people that maybe there would be some sort of permitting reform this year if in fact that can be resolved. Josh, as I understand it in the House, there was some stiff opposition to doing anything to stop the White House from stopping wind projects. And they can point to this has happened during the Biden administration when the President pulled permits that had been done for the pipeline from Canada. I mean, is this one of the big stumbling blocks that needs to be resolved if permitting reforms to go anywhere?
Josh Siegel (16:00): I mean, it’s the biggest one for sure. I mean, we saw, as you noted in the House, I mean some of the Freedom Caucus hard right along with more moderate members who just oppose offshore wind kind of banded together and saw this provision that Westerman was able to negotiate in the markup of his bill that essentially put some limits. I mean it was a pretty modest measure, but put some limits around the executive branch’s interference in the permitting process, which has been sort of the biggest hangup in these talks. Westerman knew he was going to have to get at this issue at some point. He negotiated that with Democrats, but the Freedom Caucus got wind of it, and they immediately saw it as a target on Trump policies, even though Westerman really took pains to say this is a technology neutral, as you noted, Bill, we’ve seen it, the Biden administration take actions against fossil fuel projects.
(16:48): So it was meant to really not target any specific technology, but that didn’t stop the Freedom Caucus. They eventually got it through, but Westerman had to water it down somewhat. And yeah, I mean on the Democratic side, the biggest thing they want out of these talks in the Senate, they even thought what Westerman did was not sufficient at all. So they want to see stronger language in this area. They want to see both Trump administration change its behavior as far as how it’s treating these projects. And then they do this exact opposite right after the House passes its bill when they put the halt on these offshore wind projects. But they also want to see a big policy right as this Interior Department memo that interior secretary Doug Bergham put in, that essentially requires him to sign off on routine permits for solar and wind onshore projects on federal lands.
(17:36): But this affects projects on private lands because some of these approvals involve crossing state and private lands, and that policy has really put a hamper on project development in this country. And the Democrats say they want that policy to go away. They want to maybe put in language into a bill that would limit that kind of stonewalling that the administration has been doing. Rather than outright rejecting. They’re just not approving anything. So is there a way to get at that? But we know that any move in this area is going to get backlash on the right. So it’s tricky to see how you get compromise on that.
Maxine Joselow (18:09): Those are great points, Josh. And I would just add, there was I think a lot of speculation in climate and energy circles in Washington about whether these two things were related, whether the collapse of the permitting reform talks on the Hill was related in any way to the Trump administration’s announcement that it was ordering a halt to construction on these five offshore wind projects just a few days later. And my reporting, my colleagues in their reporting have tried to answer that question, and it seems a little unclear, but maybe the answer is a tentative no. I didn’t actually end up including this in my story, but I’ll share it with listeners of this podcast that I had an interview with Congressman Jeff Van Drew, Republican of New Jersey and leading opponent of offshore wind projects, and I asked him: “You along with your colleagues in the Freedom Caucus up in arms over this language in the permitting reform, talks about offshore wind. Did you call President Trump? Did you call the White House and maybe get this issue back on his radar in a way that may have resulted in that stop work order announcement?” And he actually declined to take credit for getting it back on the White House’s radar, which I thought was very telling whenever a lawmaker declines to take credit for something that’s notable, I think when given the opportunity to do so.
Josh Siegel (19:29): Yeah, no, Maxine, that’s a great point. I do think it’s unclear as far as the connection, but you raise a point on, did just sort of the conversation around this put it back into Trump’s radar and like, Hey, why haven’t we done anything lately against offshore wind? So I think that’s a possibility, but it also shows I think, how disconnected the administration is from Congress that maybe there wasn’t a direct connection here, but they clearly were not aware or they didn’t care that what they did here would permeate or affect permitting talks on the Hill. They didn’t make that connection. So it’s sort of unclear how much they actually see a need for congressional action, what their priorities would be. There hasn’t been a great public discussion of that from administration officials other than some NEPA reform, but they’re going to need more than that to get a bill through and then maybe to see some pipeline approvals streamlined through the Clean Water Act. But they’re doing it right. We’ve seen the EPA do regulatory action and that recently, so it’s unclear. I mean, they’re doing a lot on permitting to benefit the projects they want. So how much do they really want Congress to act?
Bill Loveless (20:31): Yeah, and I certainly want to get to EPA in a moment, one of Maxine’s beats. But I think for years we’ve heard about all of the above energy policy, and there’s some controversy over that, some depending on which side of the political spectrum you sit. Some people would prefer more of this than that, but it seems to be there has been more of an acknowledgement that in all the above energy policy is important to consider. And at a time when renewables solar and wind achieving a bigger part of the new generation in this country, IEA just put out a new short-term energy outlook, I believe it was today, that’s saying that solar power is driving electricity generation growth and will do so over the next two years. But there’s a lot of talk about base load too, particularly natural gas and nuclear new to back in the in the mix again, is there, where do we sit with this? It takes some years to get a gas turbine built and operating in this country for baseload. The renewables seem to come on faster. Is there some meeting in the middle among politicians and regulators over where the optimal growth can be in this country for electricity, Maxine?
Maxine Joselow (21:44): Yeah. Well, I think this whole notion of all of the above energy policy has had a really fascinating political realignment attached to it that I’ve observed as a reporter in the space over the last several years. When you think back to the first Trump administration, they used the phrase to describe their energy policy, all the above. And to some extent it was more true in the first Trump administration because you still had offshore wind leasing taking place. You still had interior Secretary Ryan Zinke at the time praising the offshore wind leasing bonanza that had resulted in a bunch of bids. And fast forward to today, and you actually, despite the fact that President Trump issued an executive order on day one of returning to office calling a national energy emergency and saying that his administration was going to take all of these steps to bring new energy sources online faster, you actually see his administration not so much taking in all of the above approach as pushing for fossil fuels like coal, which he calls beautiful clean coal, natural gas oil, and of course, some technologies that energy secretary Chris Wright tends to favor like nuclear and geothermal at the same time as his administration is arguably throttling wind and solar onshore and offshore.
(23:11): And so all of the above has in some ways become an opening for Democrats to attack the administration on and say, Hey, you say you’re all of the above, but in fact you’re throttling these sources of power. And in the case of offshore wind, these five wind farms we were talking about that are stalled or were stalled off the East coast, we’re projected to power hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses with clean energy at a time that there’s potentially shortages in the northeast.
Bill Loveless (23:40): Well, I mean, we talk about energy all of the above, but I mean this administration came in with energy dominance being the theme, right? Oil and gas and coal. So there’s no getting away from that, and I don’t mean to diminish the significance of that aspect of the administration’s energy policy, but I think out there in the atmosphere when people look at energy, our energy needs, you can’t ignore the fact that the renewables have come on so substantially in recent years and raises the question of what role they could play in combination, say with batteries, for example, which seems to be coming on in greater force these days as well as the fossil fuels. It’s a lot to consider Josh.
Josh Siegel (24:21):
Yeah, no, Maxine is spot on as far as Democrats seeing an opportunity in this, and you are hearing them increasingly talk about wind and solar in the context of being the cheapest quickest to get on the grid at a moment of great energy need out there, less sort of in the climate frame, which is interesting and saying, I mean the administration is preventing that from happening. They’re literally taking projects offline that are ready to go. So it is interesting to see Democrats. And as far as fossil fuels, I mean, I feel like most I talk to on the hill, I mean, you still have maybe the progressive left who would like to see less fossil fuel use even now, but folks seem to say we’re in a different context, a different time with the growing rising demand. We didn’t see that in the last Congress. It wasn’t part of the conversation when we were talking about the Inflation Production Act, which was the big Biden administration climate energy initiative. So Democrats are largely aligned, I think, on we’re really all of the above, not. So it’s been pretty interesting to see that evolution.
Bill Loveless (25:29): Well, we’re talking about Congress, but as I often say, and probably have said it more in recent years, it’s the agencies that seem to matter most when it comes to energy and climate outcomes. And that’s certainly the case here in 2026. And there we’re talking EPA, DOE, Interior, FERC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Maxine, where do we even begin with EPA? There’s so much that has occurred during this administration regarding regulations and rulemakings, which are the ones that deserve a particularly close attention right now?
Maxine Joselow (26:06): Great question. Where to begin? There’s been such a flurry of news out of EPA under the second Trump administration, Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator had this day back in March that I remember because my inbox was just ping, ping, ping where they sent out, I think a total of 30 press releases about each of these new regulatory rollbacks they were undertaking. LeeZeldin called it the Greatest Day of Deregulation in American History and said he was driving a dagger through the heart of the climate change religion, which is a quote that’ll stay with me for a while. And since then there’s just been an onslaught of more news out of the agency. And I think one announcement that deserves a lot of attention and scrutiny is an announcement that I covered last week, it feels like longer ago, but yeah, it was last week. I got my hands on some internal EPA emails and documents that were later posted to their website and formally announced to the public, and they show that the EPA is going to make what I described in my article as a seismic shift to the way that it conducts cost benefit analysis for new clean air rules.
(27:22): And instead of considering both the health benefits of reducing air pollution, including the avoided asthma attacks and avoided premature deaths, the agency is only going to be considering the costs to businesses of complying with the rules. And that’s going to mean that in these cost benefit analysis, the costs of clean air regulations appear to greatly outweigh the benefits, which would be a significant change from the past three decades of EPA rulemakings under the Clean Air Act, where the benefits have typically exceeded the cost by at least a 30 to one ratio.
Bill Loveless (28:00): In the case of that, and there’s so many, as you say, other things going on at EPA right now, I mean, they proposed considering revising the Greenhouse Gas reporting program that could remove reporting requirements for many industry sectors and potentially reshaping how emissions are tracked and regulated in this country. And they’ve more recently proposed limiting the ability of states to block construction of oil and gas pipelines and coal export terminals. And perhaps the biggest thing, in my mind anyway, is that rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding, which provides the legal foundation for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and power plants under the Clean Air Act, there could be some decision on that fairly soon. Right, Maxie?
Maxine Joselow (28:47): That’s right. My colleagues and I are expecting a decision to formally repeal the endangerment finding this month. It might slip to next month, but so far every indication we’re hearing is it could be by the end of this month, and that would arguably be the single biggest deregulatory action by the EPA ever. To be fair to Lee Zeldin, that would probably be an accurate way to describe that action just because of the enormous benefits of climate regulations that have flowed from that Seminole 2009 finding that greenhouse gases do in fact endanger public health and welfare and therefore should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. And that has paved the way for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from car and truck tailpipes, from coal and gas power plant smokestacks. And as part of this proposal to repeal the endangerment finding, EPA is expected to also erase all limits on greenhouse gas pollution from light duty vehicles and power plants could be next.
Bill Loveless (29:53): I mean, this will be challenged in court as are all new regulations regardless of what administration’s in power at the moment, but we’re only entering the second year of the Trump administration. I mean, is it likely that this decision on the endangerment finding as well as other rules that EPA has proposed could in fact take effect within the next couple of years?
Maxine Joselow (30:23): Well, Bill, I’m not an environmental lawyer. I just interview a lot of them, but I think they’re all thinking that the EPA and the Justice Department want this case to reach the Supreme Court within President Trump’s second term and have this issue decided before the next administration comes into office, particularly if it’s a democratic administration. And in an ideal world for them, the Supreme Court would overturn Massachusetts versus EPA, which was the landmark case that found that EPA can regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and that would prevent a future Democratic administration from coming in and reestablishing these limits on cars and power plants and other sources of pollution.
Josh Siegel (31:08):
Yeah, it’s been, just from a help perspective, it’s been interesting to hear Republicans universally who I talked to, even ones who were starting to lean in a little bit on climate change, saying that they support what the administration’s doing on the endangerment finding. I talked to Shelly Moore, Capto chair of VPW Committee of West Virginia who can be moderate on certain energy issues, or at least on how she talks about them. And she was saying, I mean, we want the end engagement finding to go away because we don’t want to see another Democratic administration come in and do what the Biden administration did as far as regulating power plants, vehicles in sort of an aggressive fashion. And they actually see that that’s why we need to see something like this. We don’t want ping ponging anymore. We want finality to it. So I think that’s pretty interesting to note, although there has been some pushback on the greenhouse gas reporting program that the administration has moved to undo where there’s a tie in there to carbon capture tax credits and accessibility, so the administration in the fossil fuel industry are aligned and wanting to see maybe that maintained, which is interesting.
Maxine Joselow (32:14): Yeah, I think potentially even more interesting than Congressional Republicans kind of falling in line is, as Josh said, industry pushback to some of these changes out of EPA. And that’s been a trend that I’ve noticed in my reporting on EPA over the past several months is in many cases, the agency is rolling back programs that industries actually like and want to keep around. So the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is a great example. It’s just all it requires is reporting, reporting your greenhouse gas emissions. And the oil and gas industry really likes this program because it makes them look pretty good. It shows the progress they’ve made in reducing methane emissions compared to their competitors around the world, and it allows them to market their gas as more clean when they’re selling it abroad. Similarly, the Energy Star program, which we haven’t talked about, the administration said it wanted to eliminate it. There was pushback, and the home appliance manufacturers said, Hey, we actually really like this program. Similarly, it allows us to market energy efficient products like washing machines, dishwashers, et cetera, to consumers who recognize that label. And actually, there was pushback from the Hill too in the latest appropriation bill for the EPA and interior department that would actually provide and maintain funding for that program as well.
Bill Loveless (33:36): Now, you mentioned appropriations, Maxine, I don’t know if you or Josh have been following appropriations closely lately, but it’s my impression, I think there’s a bill moving through the hill right now for appropriations for the Department of Energy and some other agencies, and I may be wrong, but I think that the agency’s on fairing all that badly. I mean, compared to what the appropriations were previously. Right. Do either of you track that at all?
Josh Siegel (34:03): Yeah, so the appropriations bills for Interior and the Energy Department did pass the House and Senate already. So the Senate was last week. So I’m not sure if the President has actually signed those into law at this point. But yeah, these were compromised bills. I don’t have the numbers on top of me, but they definitely rejected some of the Trump administration’s proposed cuts, and you saw great votes from both the Democrats and the Republicans, great amount of votes, which I think was notable in this environment that they were able to get there. Appropriation seemed to be sort of the one thing maybe right now where you are seeing some members assert themselves and say, Hey, we need to claw back some power here.
Bill Loveless (34:40): So the funding is more or less consistent with what the agencies have gotten in the past, Josh?
Josh Siegel (34:44): Yeah, I mean, I don’t know. Comparing it to, I’m sure it’s less than the Biden administration have to go and look at the numbers, but they do reject some of the aggressive cuts that the Trump administration was proposing.
Bill Loveless (34:56): Let’s get back to FERC, and I always hesitate when I bring up FERC. As I recall, my first beat as an energy reporter in Washington many years ago was covering the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And I always said that that was sort of my bootcamp in covering energy in Washington because it’s pretty darn complicated place, but it continues to be important. And we’ve mentioned previously the new chair, Laura Swett, and she said at the first meeting that she chaired that her top priority would be connecting data centers to the grid, along with ensuring grid reliability at reasonable prices. Josh, what’s been happening there and what should we be paying particularly close attention to?
Josh Siegel (35:37): Yeah, the big thing we’re tracking, of course, and our FERC reporter, Isa Domínguez, so I sort of moonlight as a FERC reporter occasionally, but yeah, basically Chris Wright Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, issued this request under section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act for the commission to initiate a rule speeding connection of data centers to the grid, really dealing with this issue of interconnection and gave a pretty fast timeline for FERC to act on that. He wants action by the spring. So yeah, as you said, I mean FERC chair Laura Swett has seemingly leaned in on this area. They seem poised to issue a rule on it, notice of proposed rulemaking, and then there’s actually some bipartisan interest on it on the hill. I reported on energy committee chair Mike Lee and ranking member Martin Heinrich, who have really not gotten along on much on that committee.
(36:29): There’s been a lot of tensions in that relationship, but they actually issued a letter to FERC saying, we want to see you take action in this area while, of course, keeping state’s rights and consumer utility bills in mind. So there does seem to be great interest across the energy industry on action. I think the details will matter a lot. We’ve seen state utility commissioners sort of push back on maybe some move into their authority in a way that we haven’t seen when it comes to the grid, so it’ll be interesting to see what FERC does here.
Bill Loveless (37:02): Yeah, it seems like that would be a big potential source of conflict, right? States because states maintain considerable authority over what’s built when it comes to the electric grid, unlike natural gas pipelines and oil pipelines where FERC has considerably more authority than the states. But it’s a very complex issue, and one, I would think it’s going to take some time to work out.
Josh Siegel (37:27): We’ve seen a former Republican for chair Mark Christie really express that from a state perspective on like, look, we need to build a lot more generation and quickly, but he thinks the proposal from the energy secretary will undercut that goal. He talks about legal risks and just as he put it in an assault on the traditional authority of the states, who as he notes are really the key players in what kind of generation gets built.
Bill Loveless (37:52): Then of course as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, there’s renewed interest in building nuclear in the United States, other conventional nuclear new reactors, small modular reactors, restarting reactors that had been previously shut down all of these things, and it’s all before the NRC, which is under a lot of pressure from the White House to act quickly and raising fears among some who follow nuclear regulation closely that maybe they’re going to be sideswiping the close scrutiny that NRC is typically administered in the past. So Josh,we need to keep our eye on NRC as well.
Josh Siegel (38:28): Yeah, we do. I mean, we’ve been watching it here at POLITICO on the energy team, and we’ve seen Trump fire NRC Commissioner, Chris Hanson, we’ve seen others quit, and then he has a new one, Ho Nieh. So this is really one of those independent agencies along with FERC. But I think NRC has even been more glaring of where we’ve seen the Trump administration really try to assert themselves and use it as a vehicle to advance their agenda. And the Energy Department has put some very aggressive goals as far as deploying new nuclear reactors here in the next couple of years. So there’s a bipartisan interest, as you said, so I don’t want to totally say this is going to be a political act that will come out of NRC because of the Trump administration. And Ho Nieh is someone who comes from industry and is seen as having respect. He got bipartisan votes out of the Senate. But yeah, definitely going to be watching what they do in the coming months as far as whether they play much of a role in the Trump administration’s nuclear agenda.
Bill Loveless (39:25): Well, of course, it is an election year. The midterms come up in November and raises the question of how much does the upcoming election cycle affect energy and climate policymaking these days? Maxine, I was just reading Frank Maisano, who we all know, I think at the law firm, very small in one of his weekly emails said, as 2026 unfolds energy policy is shaping up to be a defining fault line in the midterm elections, one that will influence how Republicans position themselves heading into the next presidential cycle. How does the election factor into these activities that we’ve been discussing in the Congress among the agencies, and I guess more importantly among voters across the country?
Maxine Joselow (40:18): Well, we see that poll after poll shows that climate change is not a top tier issue for voters, unfortunately for us climate reporters who it is a top tier issue for in our beats. But energy affordability as part of this broader theme of affordability that we’ve been talking about, I do think will be a big issue in the midterm elections and in those special elections that were held earlier last year for the Governor of Virginia and the Governor of New Jersey, Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill respectively did talk often on the campaign trail about energy and energy affordability, and they both won in those states. And Mikie Sherrill, I think even was talking about PJM and data centers and getting a bit wonky with it. So we’ll have to see how much of a concern it is among the many other concerns for voters right now, Venezuela, immigration, et cetera. The list goes on, but certainly I think both parties are going to be looking to use it as a wedge issue to their advantage.
Josh Siegel (41:23): Yeah, no, I think energy affordability will be a top tier issue in terms of electricity prices in a way we haven’t seen before. And it’s been interesting to see the Trump administration’s evolution on this because I think for a while we saw the president really trying to point voters’ attention to gasoline prices being really low, and how, as Maxine mentioned earlier in our conversation, that’s always the most visible thing to voters when it comes to energy prices and utility rates are utility bills are very hard to unpack. We haven’t really seen a huge political emphasis on it, but now, I mean, the Trump administration clearly is scrambling on it, and we see the president and his true social posts talking about data centers and wanting them to build their own generation announced playing up deals that we’re seeing in the tech space around that area. We saw the White House announcements around PJM that I covered last week, so clearly, and we’ve seen Chris Wright acknowledge that electricity prices, and this is an interview I had with him over the summer, are a vulnerability for them, and they’re the party in power. We know that the incumbent usually gets blamed for these kind of things, so we will have to see how it actually trickles down to house and Senate races, but it’s definitely going to be a top tier issue.
Bill Loveless (42:35): Josh, I saw a former colleague, Callie Patteson of The Examiner wrote the other day that Wright told her that he was willing to put his job on the line over electricity prices.
Josh Siegel (42:47): Yeah, no, I mean, he’s been really out there, but again, I think the Trump administration is hoping they could sort of make this argument that it’s the Biden administration’s fault, that it’s because of renewable energy. I mean, we’ve seen that Chris Wright refers to renewable energy as a parasite on the grid. I mean, he’s really consistent in his messaging saying that that’s what’s been driving up rates in a lot of states. But I mean, that’s just politically right. I mean, we haven’t seen great evidence that blaming a prior administration works out. I mean, the Biden administration faced this problem. They were blamed for inflation that a lot of it was not in their control. There was a result of COVID and returning back from that. But we’ll see if that pays off for them. But clearly that’s the strategy is to say there’s a problem, but it’s not our fault, and we’re trying to do what we can now to keep coal plants online to sper more oil and gas generation, but it might not pay off right away.
Bill Loveless (43:43): Well, we’ve covered a lot. And before we go, what I had like to talk a little bit about covering the beat, you’ve each been doing it for some time now and your experience matters. What do you find the hardest to explain to readers about energy and climate policy in Washington, Maxine?
Maxine Joselow (44:05): Well, one of my goals as a reporter is always to explain to readers how seemingly wonky, arcane policy decisions that get made in DC affect real people, affect their lives, their livelihoods, their pocketbooks. And that’s one of my biggest challenges. But I think one of my greatest opportunities in my reporting too, and when I report on the EPA, I always try to connect it back to what this change to the way they’re conducting cost benefit analysis means for the clean air that we all have come to take for granted when we breathe it as a result of steep reductions in air pollution from the Clean Air Act over the past half century. So that’s something I’m going to be trying to do over this next year, 2026, and hopefully going on more reporting trips and traveling across the country and not just staying chained to my desk in dc but actually getting out and talking to real people about how these moves are affecting them.
Bill Loveless(45:03): Josh?
Josh Siegel (45:04): Yeah, I think just covering this unfolding story around the White House’s attempt to ensure really one of the bright spots in the economy, the surge in construction of data centers devoted to AI and how they’re trying to ensure that isn’t overcome by the rising cost of energy and those two political imperatives, how they clash and just making sure we’re clear to readers on what’s actually behind rising prices, what role data centers are having or not having, could they actually help lower prices? There’s an argument and on that side as well. So just making sure we’re really covering it beyond the political rhetoric, which has been pretty aggressive as far as each side wanting to play the blame game already. So I think there’s a lot of complexity there and just want to, it’s a challenge to be honest as far as being clear about what we’re seeing and what we might see going forward, but we’re definitely trying to do our best on the energy team.
Bill Loveless (45:59): You sort of answered a question that I have in mind, but let me ask it anyway. Is there an energy, or a climate story that you think isn’t getting enough attention right now? Maxine?
Maxine Joselow (46:13): I don’t want to say that in front of Josh and have him steal it before I get to report it out, Bill, but that’s a good question. I don’t know. I think the energy and climate press corps here in DC is doing a great job, but there’s always room to cover more that isn’t necessarily part of the national conversation, but maybe there are local stories on climate and energy that it takes, to my earlier answer, getting out of DC to discover.
Josh Siegel (46:46): Yeah, I mean, I think there’s great coverage being done as far as state and local level. I’m really, as someone who covers permitting, it’s been interesting to see how state and local actions to restrict wind and solar developments or NIMBYism the new frontier on that has been interesting to see some backlash in areas that have openly supported renewable energy in the past, like Iowa, I did some reporting there, but would love to have more opportunity around that as midterms kick in and cover how more states are grappling with this need to build more, which is generally something Republicans want to do, but sort of NIMBYism and how we’re starting to see conservatives really push back on renewable development happening near them. So transmission’s long been a part of this conversation as well. So just continuing to cover that and how it’s actually trickling down at the state and local level. But again, there’s been really good reporting on that from others for sure.
Bill Loveless (47:39): Well, there’s a lot to cover there, and I didn’t mean to try to prompt you to scoop yourself in front of one of your competitors, but you’re both covering a lot of ground and there’s so much for us to keep track of in this year, 2026 in Washington, DC and the United States. So Maxine, Josh, thanks for joining us today on the Columbia Energy Exchange.
Maxine Joselow (48:01): Thank you so much.
Josh Siegel (48:02): Appreciate it.
Bill Loveless (48:07): That’s it for this week’s episode of Columbia Energy Exchange. The show is produced by the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. Mary Catherine O’Connor produced the show. Greg Vilfranc engineered it, with additional support from Caroline Pitman and Kyu Lee. For more information, visit energypolicy.columbia.edu or follow us on social media @ColumbiaUEnergy. Thanks for listening. See you next week.
From the affordability crisis and the data center boom, to the US government’s campaign to reinvigorate the Venezuelan oil market, energy is dominating headlines in unusual ways.
And that’s all happening against a backdrop of upheaval in federal energy policy, which started on day one of the second Trump administration. As we begin the new year and head into midterm elections, there’s a dizzying number of crucial energy policy issues at play.
So what issues are shaping US climate and energy policymaking in 2026? How might upcoming court rulings change things? As high utility bills persist, how is the public responding to changes in energy policy? And what stories or trends are not being told amid all of these important energy storylines?
Today on the show, Bill Loveless speaks with reporters Maxine Joselow and Josh Siegel about covering energy and climate policy, and what key stories and trends they’re covering in 2026.
Maxine Joselow is a reporter for The New York Times, where she covers climate policy from Washington, DC. Before joining The Times, Maxine covered climate change and the environment for The Washington Post. Earlier, she was a reporter at E&E News. Josh Siegel is an energy reporter for POLITICO, where he focuses on Congress. He also hosts the POLITICO Energy podcast. Previously, he covered the energy beat for the Washington Examiner, where he wrote the Daily on Energy newsletter.
In energy markets, all eyes are on the Strait of Hormuz. As of March 11, 2026, this vital passage is effectively closed to tanker traffic, stranding almost a...
Since the US-Israeli bombing campaign began in Iran, energy markets around the world have been on edge as the conflict threatens immediate and long-term energy supplies. We’ve seen...
On February 28, the United States and Israel launched a campaign against Iran targeting military infrastructure and the regime's core leadership. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several...
President Trump has aggressively used tariffs as an economic tool, but a US Supreme Court decision on Friday struck down his sweeping tariffs, bringing new uncertainty. The court,...
Concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and energy security are driving increased interest in nuclear power.
A fossil fuel superpower cannot sustain deep emissions reductions if doing so drives up costs for vulnerable consumers.
The United States is at a rare inflection point for nuclear energy, with unprecedented momentum behind deployment and regulatory reform as nuclear becomes central to energy security, AI competitiveness, and state and corporate climate goals.
