From Sea Change to Sea Levels Rising: What a Unified Democratic Government Means for Climate Change Action

Jan 7, 2021

Reading Time : 3 min

Still, any ambitious landmark climate change legislation will face a steep uphill battle in light of Democrats’ thinnest of  margins in both houses of Congress (particularly in the Senate).  Absent the elimination of the Senate filibuster or the use of budget reconciliation, comprehensive reform through a singular bill is unlikely.  Instead, Democrats may learn from their failed attempt to pass economy-wide cap-and-trade legislation through a unified Congress in 2009.  They may consider eschewing a single, major legislative proposal and, instead, embedding climate change provisions in myriad pieces of legislation to implement a comprehensive climate strategy in a more bottom-up approach.  We do not anticipate that in 2021 Congress passes the Green New Deal, a fracking ban, or a full repeal of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to fund an ambitious environmental agenda.  Neither do we expect to see a climate-focused overhaul of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Rather, this newly unified government—which will require the cooperation of the more moderate members from both parties—is likely to look to more politically palatable, incremental ways to accelerate the United States’ response to environmental and climate impacts with an economy still struggling from a global pandemic.  Given these constraints, we expect short-term legislative priorities of Congress and the President-elect to include infrastructure, transportation (especially motor vehicles), and energy efficiency as modest, but tangible, ways to refocus the Trump Administration’s nationalist, fossil-fuel-based approach through a more renewable, climate-friendly, environmentally just lens.  Lastly, Democrats may be reluctant to use the oft-discussed Congressional Review Act to overturn late-term Trump Administration rules due to the law’s prohibition on the promulgation of similar rules, and instead rely on the regulatory process to rescind or replace them with rules that include stronger climate protections.

A number of Democrats will encourage Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi to use the budget reconciliation process, but this would require some deft legislating to amend a rule to allow for consideration of legislation beyond mandatory spending and revenue measures.  If Democratic leaders decide to pursue the budget reconciliation process to move climate policy, and are successful in amending the rules, that legislation can be much more ambitious.  This special mechanism used to pass the Trump tax reforms, as well as the Bush tax cuts, allows for the Senate to pass legislation with a simple majority and prevents the use of the filibuster.  If Democrats decide to use the budget reconciliation process to pass climate legislation, the approach will still require approval from moderates such as Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), but Democrats may not need any Republicans to support the effort.

While the first 100 days of his presidency are unlikely to yield comprehensive legislative reforms, a Democratic Congress gives President-elect Biden more cover to take bolder steps to “Build Back Better.”  In the short term, the narrow Democratic majority in the Senate (when considering the tie-breaking vote of Vice President-elect Harris) means that Biden has a clear path toward the prompt confirmation of his nominees to lead executive branch agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, Council on Environmental Quality, and Department of Justice.  Following the confirmation of those agency heads, expect to see relatively quick action to achieve the more realistic components of his environmental agenda that do not require congressional authorization or appropriations.  These could include initiating the process to rescind and replace Trump-era rules related to methane and other greenhouse gas emissions from both stationary and mobile sources, scientific transparency in the rulemaking process, protected species, and NEPA implementation.

While there will be much optimism for an ambitious climate agenda under a newly unified government, Democrats will continue to be constrained by the narrow margins in the House and Senate.  Nonetheless, various Congressional rules changes or procedures are now available to them that could lead to more robust climate and environmental legislation.  President-elect Biden and Congressional leaders will need to decide if they are going to make climate change a priority that warrants the use of budget reconciliation or filibuster reform, or if they will rely on a more targeted strategy of winning smaller victories wherever feasible.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.