Democrats are beginning to withdraw some of their iconic environmental policies based on their growing economic costs, but some policy analysts believe these changes are greater than substantial. [emphasis, links added]
In recent months, Democratic leaders have begun to soften key climate regulations, including in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom revised the state’s iconic environmental review law in June.
Observers say these changes reflect an increasing awareness of the economic pressures caused by climate policy by Democratic lawmakers is damaging their suffrage, but it remains to be seen whether the adjustment will remain here in the long run.
On June 30, Newsom approved changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a bill that has been widely criticized for causing delays in projects and exacerbating housing shortages and affordability crisis in the state.
That same month, the California Energy Commission, the state’s energy regulator, advocated suspending the state’s refinery profit caps after two major refineries announced their closure of their facilities.
“This is acknowledging that these policies are expensive,” Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow in business and economics at the Pacific Institute, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Middle voters seem to conclude that these policies impose too high costs. You won't win the election unless you let the median voter vote for you.”
“He won't be elected president unless he gets a median voter,” Winegarden said of Newsom.
The political reality of positive climate policy is vaguely visible to California lawmakers, as the state's median house prices hit nearly $850,000 in the first quarter of 2025, more than double the national median.
Meanwhile, the state continues to have the highest gasoline price in the country, driven in large part by its restrictive energy policies.
“Many people say they support policy in the vacuum, but when you say that it will cost an extra $1,000 a year, people say no. That's our middle.” Winegarden said.
In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul also quietly withdraws the state’s proposed cap and investment plan, an integral part of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), which sets limits on carbon emissions and requires businesses to purchase activity-related emissions.
“New York has never had a practical way to achieve its climate goals,” Manhattan Institute researcher Ken Girardin told DCNF, adding that officials never made necessary cost estimates for the national climate mandate.
In May, Hochul reportedly made another concession to her climate agenda, with the Trump administration reportedly working on a gas pipeline project in the state in exchange for lifting restrictions on offshore wind energy development.
Meanwhile, Hochul fought the government to protect New York City’s traffic congestion pricing plan, ostensibly to reduce natural gas emissions.
In 2024, Hochul publicly acknowledged that New York would miss its statutory goal of achieving 70% of energy from renewable energy by 2030, citing rising costs and cancelling energy projects.
However, the country is still pushing many climate initiatives, even those that make life more expensive.
Reading breaks among daily callers
