Rebuilding Environmental Governance: Understanding the Foundations

Today we are facing persistent, complex, and accelerating environmental challenges that require adding new approaches to existing environmental governance frameworks. The scale of some of them, such as climate change, require rethinking our regulatory tools, while diffuse sources of pollutants present additional difficulties. At the same time, effective governance systems must accommodate the addition of new infrastructure, housing, and energy delivery to support communities. Our legal framework must be sufficiently stable to enable regulation, investment, and innovation to proceed without the discontinuities and gridlock of the past few decades. 

In an increasingly divided atmosphere, it will take candid, multiperspective dialogue to identify paths toward such a framework. This discussion paper explores the baseline that we’re building on and some key dynamics to consider as we think about the durable systems, approaches, and capacity needed to achieve today’s multiple societal goals.

Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress. 

Implications for democratic governance

Capacity needs

Modernize today’s system of cooperative federalism to address the lack of clear and intentional interconnections, adaptive feedback loops, and aligned objective, by:

The early 20th Century saw the emergence of our first national laws regulating public resources— the Federal Power Act in the 1930s, the precursor to the Clean Water Act in the 1940s, and the first version of the Clean Air Act in the 1950s. Then, in a concentrated decade of new laws and massive amendments to existing ones, the 1970s saw a focus on assessing, controlling, and reducing pollution, while setting ambitious goals for human and ecosystem health. These statutes generally were constructed around specific resources—airsheds, watersheds, public lands, and wildlife habitat—and articulated specific roles for federal agencies and other levels of government. State efforts were incorporated into a nationwide system of cooperative federalism, while many states undertook their own initiatives to address environmental problems.

For half a century these laws—enacted with overwhelming, bipartisan congressional support— produced a great deal of success, with conventional pollution decreasing across many resources and regions and some species and habitats recovering. But we have plateaued in terms of broad improvements, and meanwhile novel pollutants and more diffuse, global threats have emerged. Political shifts, legacy economic interests, and a changing information landscape have played an important role, as amply recounted elsewhere. 

The bipartisan legislation of the 1970s arose from both idealism and necessity, during an Earth Day moment that embraced ecological thinking in response to tangible harms to humans and the environment. The laws enjoyed massive public support and got many things right. Some were aspirational and holistic, such as the Clean Water Act’s “zero-discharge” target or NEPA’s vision “to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.” The latter Act established the Council on Environmental Quality to coordinate this policy across the entire federal government.

Other advances came piecemeal, focused on specific resources. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was cobbled together by an executive plan to reorganize several existing agencies and offices, then granted authority in a series of media-specific statutes that began with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act, and later the Toxic Substances Control Act and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Superfund, and Oil Pollution Act addressed hazardous substances affecting the nation’s health and ecosystems. Implementation of all these laws required the Agency to develop in-house scientific expertise and detailed regulations that fleshed out statutory standards and applied them to specific sectors—an approach upheld for decades by the Supreme Court.

These laws made unquestionable progress on conventional pollution and waste, the visible, toxic byproducts of industrial production and consumer culture that had spurred the environmental movement and drawn a generation of lawyers to the new profession. But with specialization came fragmentation of environmental law into a plethora of subtopics, and a managerial, permit-centric legal culture that risked losing sight of ecological goals. Nor were the benefits distributed equally by race or class, as demonstrated by pioneering studies in the field of environmental justice.

As the field matured, it slowed, with congressional interventions becoming less frequent and more technical. Some of the last major amendments to a bedrock environmental statute were the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, enacted by a bipartisan Congress and signed by President George H.W. Bush. (The other prominent example is the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act), a major amendment to TSCA in 2016.) Absent updated legislation, EPA regulations became paramount, but these had to run a gauntlet of shifting policy priorities, complex rulemaking procedures, litigation, and a transformed and often skeptical Supreme Court. 

Critiques of this system date back almost as far as the statutes themselves. One ELI study listed 34 major “rethinking” efforts emanating from academia, blue-ribbon commissions, and NGOs between 1985 and 2014, across the political spectrum and ranging from incremental reforms to radical reinvention. One highly touted initiative, led by sitting Vice President Al Gore, resulted in some modest administrative streamlining. Most remained paper exercises, appealing to good-government advocates but lacking political support.

The stakes grew higher with increasing awareness of climate change. In June 1988, NASA and book-length treatments followed, sparking broad discussion of what was then a fully bipartisan issue. Vice President Bush campaigned on addressing it, and as President in 1992, he traveled to Rio de Janeiro to sign the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. With successes like the 1987 Montreal Protocol on the ozone layer or EPA’s 1990 Acid Rain Program doubtless in mind, the Senate ratified the Framework Convention 92-0.

But climate change implicates much larger portions of the U.S. economy—energy, transportation, agriculture—at individual as well as industrial scales. While NEPA embodied the 1960s slogan that “everything is connected,” the lesson of climate change is that many things emit greenhouse gases, and all things will be affected by global warming. The need for systemic change proved to be an uneasy fit with existing site-specific, media-specific environmental laws.

Growing awareness of climate change and the scale of action needed to address it also generated a backlash from entrenched economic interests. By the mid-2000s, the Bush/Cheney administration had reversed course on federal climate commitments. It contested and lost Massachusetts v. EPA, a landmark ruling in which a narrowly divided Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act applies to greenhouse gas emissions that affect the climate. 

The Administration’s argument was captured by Justice Antonin Scalia’s flippant remark in dissent that “everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, [would] qualif[y] as an ‘air pollutant.’” In Scalia’s opinion, real pollution must be visible, earthbound, toxic, inhaled, not a matter of colorless molecules interacting in the stratosphere. Even in dissent, this view set the stage for subsequent legal battles, right up to the present effort to revoke EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding” that is now the underpinning of federal greenhouse gas regulation. 

Climate change likewise laid bare the long-standing divide between environmental law, which historically regulated the power sector in terms of its fuel inputs and combustion byproducts, and energy and utility law, which focused more on transmission and distribution of the resulting power. (Both fields are further divided among federal, state, and local authorities, as discussed below.) Vehicle emissions similarly are regulated via both EPA tailpipe standards and National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration mileage standards, with California authorized to propose more stringent ones. When coordinated, this multi-headed structure produces steady advances, but in deregulatory moments it has become fertile ground for opportunism, retrenchment, and delay. 

At the federal level, these questions have been exacerbated by massive shifts in administrative law, long the building block of environmental law and climate action, and in federal court rulings on the separation of powers, implicating the authority of federal agencies to issue and enforce rules. Successive administrations have run afoul of the current Supreme Court majority, whose “major questions doctrine” casts a shadow both on attempts to fit new problems into once-expansive environmental statutes, and on “whole of government” approaches that attempt to address climate change’s sources and impacts across the entire economy. 

Tentative attempts by presidents to leverage executive power and emergency authority have been curtailed when invoked for regulatory purposes, but are running strong in deregulatory efforts and executive actions in the service of “energy dominance.” Whether the Supreme Court will articulate some principled limits, and whether those will be even-handedly applied to future administrations, remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the past year has seen a large-scale push to reduce environmental regulation, in parallel with abrupt reorganizations and steep reductions in the federal workforce and agency budgets. These actions were joined by sharp declines in environmental enforcement and U.S. withdrawal from environmental and climate-related international instruments and bodies.

In this uncertain atmosphere, attention has turned to new technologies and building the necessary infrastructure to effect growth in low- and zero-carbon energy. As clean energy alternatives have matured and become economically competitive, the climate imperative is pushing against long-standing environmental review and permitting procedures. That may well include NEPA, which is now attracting attention from all three branches of government and a robust debate about whether, or how much, its procedures might be slowing energy deployment. 

Environmental issues were federalized for a reason: to counter pollution that crosses state borders and to prevent a race to the bottom. But decades of implementation have seen the blunting of some tools, expansion of others, and identification of gaps. Moving forward requires reaffirming that the environment is inseparable from societal health and well-being, economic stability, and energy systems. Any serious response must orient governance toward decarbonization, while embedding accountability, equity, and justice from the outset rather than inconsistently and often inadequately after the fact. Doing all this without sacrificing hard-won environmental gains will not be easy.

To meet the challenge of the worldwide crises of biodiversity loss, pollution overload, and climate change, creation of any new structure must be rooted in understanding the existing baseline for environmental governance. 

Cross-Cutting Objectives

Inseparable: Environment, Energy, Economy, and Society

The past half-century has demonstrated the impossibility of severing the environment from the economy, energy production, and social well-being. We must ensure the false dichotomy between environmental protection and economic development, characterized by an oversimplified idea that the two are in a zero-sum competition, also fades. The decades-old concept of sustainability (or triple bottom line) has not yet made its way into many of our foundational laws and governance structures.

Ignoring the complex relationships among environment, energy, the economy, and society favors short-term decisions that externalize impacts. This underlies the longstanding debate over the accuracy and efficacy of cost-benefit analyses, throughout their 40-plus year federal history, including questions about scope and how they handle uncertainty. For any project or program, system designers that consider an integrated suite of factors that move beyond basic environmental parameters or economic indicators (from public health to workforce development, from the supply chain to community well-being) have a greater chance of cross-sector success. 

These governance challenges are also inseparable from shifts in how finance flows. Public and private financial tools—from subsidies and tax credits to loans, grants, and community-based financing—are increasingly shaping market behavior and determining whether policy objectives translate into real-world outcomes. Who controls these tools, how they are deployed, and when capital is made available all play a central role in driving or constraining environmental progress.

Bridging these gaps is, of course, easier said than done. But widening the aperture of considerations can connect decisionmaking to holistic industrial policies that account for a wider range of economic, social, and environmental factors. Accounting for this wider range isn’t just a nice-to-have, but essential to shared prosperity. 

Foundational: Trust and Participation 

A process, project, or program will move at the speed of trust—no faster and no slower. This refers to trust in institutions, in science, and in process. 

Trust is earned through consistent transparency, clear accountability, and demonstrated responsiveness. For governance systems to function at the scale and pace required today, these principles must be embedded in decisionmaking in ways that are coherent and durable, rather than fragmented across a series of disparate steps and entities. Our traditional frameworks contain mechanisms to solicit and incorporate public input. But those mechanisms have limitations for all involved, both those trying to make their voice heard and those proposing the action and receiving input. (These range from when and how often participation occurs in the decisionmaking process to how the input is incorporated and decisions communicated.) Participation is foundational to our regulatory democracy and must occur early enough and in meaningful ways to improve decisions.

Effective participation also depends on clarity. People must be able to understand how decisions are made, what tradeoffs are being weighed, and where and how engagement can influence outcomes. But our frameworks still reflect reliance on elite and professional representation rather than widespread engagement. Trust—and the durability of outcomes—will increase when our processes have clearly articulated principles, transparently and rapidly weigh tradeoffs, and come to decisions through open and informed consideration. 

The Concurrent Risk and Promise of Technology 

Mechanization and industrialization created both unprecedented wealth and the pollutants that were the target of the 1970s wave of environmental laws. Emerging technologies likewise offer great promise, but also place familiar stresses—greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, land use, waste—on the ecosystem and on human health and well-being. Our existing laws will need to respond and adapt to these problems as data centers and other novel demands reach greater scale, even as we evolve new ways of balancing those technologies’ potential against their up-front impacts and opportunity costs. 

Technology also offers a potential path through the climate crisis, as solar and wind energy have become scalable and cost-competitive with traditional fossil fuels. Other clean technologies on the horizon, such as geothermal or fusion energy, retain bipartisan support and will require legal and regulatory guardrails if they mature and are integrated into the system. Battery storage and energy efficiency advances will help manage and reduce energy demand, and carbon removal and sequestration technologies may also play a role in curbing emissions. And at the outer limits of our knowledge, various geoengineering concepts are raising difficult questions about feasibility, decisionmaking procedures, unintended consequences, and accountability. 

New technologies are also helping shape the implementation of environmental law in important ways. Existing tools such as satellite imaging, GPS location and geographic information systems, remote monitoring and sensing, and drones have fundamentally altered the way we view and record data from the physical world, in close to real time. Computer modeling and simulations have been a mainstay of climate science and policy, and other software innovations may improve environmental governance, including addressing long-standing issues of government transparency and public participation.

Sample Topics for Multi-Perspective Discussions
Communicating environmental challenges, conditions, and risks

 Effective messaging is essential to enhancing public understanding of interconnected issues and support for responses. It should be tailored to specific jurisdictions and informed by advances in research (e.g., behavioral science), learn from those thriving in today’s information ecosystem, and embrace strategies for reducing polarization.

Advancing the beneficial use of technologies while establishing reasonable guardrails

How can we identify and address barriers to the development and equitable deployment of technologies that advance environmental protection while limiting their negative impacts.

Democracy, Expertise, and Regulatory Certainty

In a healthy democracy, public policy is guided by evidence, and truth is the shared foundation for collective decisionmaking, whatever the chosen outcome. When facts and scientific expertise are dismissed or minimized in favor of ideology, however, it becomes harder for citizens to deliberate, solve problems, and hold leaders accountable. The diminution and marginalization of science contribute to the erosion of democracy itself.

In the United States, our ability to build necessary infrastructure and take action has been slowed by the long timelines and sometimes overlapping requirements of our regulatory processes. This is exacerbated by the increasingly extreme policy swings we have been experiencing between administrations. The result is the twin challenge of how to increase the pace of our processes without lessening their protections, while also making our decisions more stable and durable.

Aligning Regulatory Certainty and Timelines 

Regulatory certainty is not the same thing as rigidity. When done correctly, it can be the backdrop against which communities are able to plan for the future and companies can make informed decisions about where and how to invest. Regulation that is sufficiently clear on stable objectives does not have as much space in which to swing. 

Long horizons with clear milestones matter: think of a national clean electricity standard, or the emissions-based equivalent, set on a 15- to 20-year glidepath. Confidence in long-term decisions, however, stems from effective inclusion, holistic analysis, and transparent decisions. The perspectives of subject-matter experts (in-house and external), and of those who manage and care about the resources or land in question, should be considered essential and actively pursued by policymakers. 

Program-level thinking can help inform decisions at the project level. The energy transition will be remembered for feats of engineering—the thousands of miles of transmission lines, the buildout of battery storage—but its success will be determined by whether our framework listens, incorporates needed expertise, and produces rules that last long enough for people to plan their lives.

Evidence-Based Decisionmaking

For decades, the principle that good decisions require a good evidence base has been axiomatic. Dating back to 1945, the federal government has invested in science as a discipline and an idea, with government supporting the research to be conducted by public institutions and delivered as socially useful goods by the private sector.

Incorporating meaningful, often complex, evidence—including scientific data, traditional knowledge, and the needs, concerns, and priorities of potentially affected individuals—into decisionmaking is increasingly fraught. Climate change illustrates these challenges: despite decades of understanding by government officials and private sector decisionmakers about its causes and the need to act, economic and social interests have prevented effective policy and legislative response. Decisions are as good as the information they are based on. Emissions reductions ultimately depend not just on technical knowledge, but on institutions and governments capable of acting on that knowledge independently, transparently, and free from corruption and clientelism.

In a study assessing the effectiveness of the federal government’s efforts to improve evidence-based decisionmaking, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found mixed progress in: (1) developing relevant and high-quality evidence; (2) employing it in decisionmaking; and (3) ensuring adequate capacity to undertake those activities. These are foundational problems.

Compounding our challenges in making legislative and policy decisions based on accurate and pertinent evidence is the siren song of AI. Artificial intelligence promises many tools, ranging in complexity and autonomy from providing clerical tasks to generating substantive recommendations. (AI Clerical Assistive Systems automate certain administrative and procedural tasks, such as document classification and automatic transcription, and AI Recommendation Systems can contribute to judicial decision-making, for example, by analyzing legal codes and case precedents. Paul Grimm et al.)

 AI is already being used across jurisdictions and agencies for environmental regulation, including planning, reviewing proposals, drafting environmental reviews, public participation and engagement, monitoring compliance, and enforcement. Recent federal policy has fueled the AI flame, with a 2025 AI action plan and multiple Executive Orders that offer the power to expedite permitting processes.

Enormous governance questions around AI have yet to be resolved. Technologies built by people reflect the values and assumptions of those who built them, and their use shifts power in decisionmaking processes. If a judge were called upon to review a decision made by such a tool, how could she determine the finding was reasonable under existing standards of administrative law? Can machine-generated analysis satisfy NEPA’s “hard look” review? These types of governance concerns dog AI tools wherever they are deployed but become particularly critical when they have the potential to become the decisionmaker in our legal and regulatory system.

The importance of having rigorous systems for identifying and considering trusted information to ground collective and democratic decisionmaking cannot be overstated. Until recently, dozens of scientific advisory committees routinely advised federal agencies to help bridge information gaps. Staggering recent losses of federal research funding and government programs and scrubbing of essential data sets means any path forward will likely require significant investments of both financial and human capital. When we rebuild, priority should be placed on ensuring all participants in decisionmaking have access to the same evidence, supported by the same systems. 

Frontloading Regulatory Decisionmaking 

Even as we work to improve how evidence informs decisionmaking, we face growing risks, uncertainties, and tradeoffs. The challenge is not simply to generate more information, but to make better use of what we already know through regulatory systems that reflect the integrated nature of the problems we face—without mistaking uncertainty for an absence of evidence.

Many conflicts arise because decisions are fragmented across regulatory silos and institutions.  Consider a proposed electrical transmission line crossing a wetland. Decisionmakers must balance the imperatives of the energy transition, the conservation of biodiversity, the protection of water resources, and local economic opportunities. Yet these factors may be evaluated at different times, at different scales, and by different agencies. As a result, environmental permitting decisions can be made in isolation, long after foundational choices about the project’s purpose and design have already been locked in.

By the time site-specific questions arise, such as whether a particular wetland falls within the narrowed jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, many broader tradeoffs have already been foreclosed. 

A holistic approach would entail identifying the priority of certain projects and a system for weighing their impacts. For example, infrastructure decisions could happen at a systemic scale such as nationwide grid needs, providing context for decisions about individual projects and resources. Our decisionmaking processes need systems for weighing tradeoffs, and making them transparent, to enable systems-level planning and prioritization and effective engagement. 

Hard decisions will have to be made regarding prioritized (and thus deprioritized) objectives. But frontloading data gathering, assessment, and decisionmaking on a national scale—through meaningful scenario planning, for example—could reduce the number of decisions made much further down the line in a project lifecycle and temper the uncertainty that can stem from permitting officials’ discretion. 

We will be facing these types of tradeoffs with increasing frequency as needs mount to build infrastructure and housing, retreat from our coasts, manage and conserve species and ecosystems, and respond to and prepare for increasingly frequent and severe emergencies. In addition to an integrated approach for assessing impacts and making tradeoffs transparent, the system will need certain decisions to be made earlier in the decisionmaking processes and with a broader scope. 

Acting (and Adapting) Amidst Uncertainty 

Core tenets of administrative law structure decisionmaking with up front analysis and assume that we have full—or at least sufficient—information about circumstances and potential impacts to support a decision. But this is not always the case. When there are substantial uncertainties about conditions or the possible impacts of an action or rulemaking, adaptive management can improve outcomes by taking an iterative, systematic approach. 

The uncertainties brought on by changing conditions due to climate impacts and unknowns about the consequences of proposed actions may call for an adaptive approach. And there are other situations where establishing sufficient evidence before taking irreversible action is appropriate. For example, we currently have limited understanding of the potential local and global impacts of geoengineering proposals to release aerosols into the atmosphere to block the sun’s rays, nor are there governing mechanisms in place to address them. 

There are also situations where it is important to ensure that we do not indefinitely postpone action due to a desire to have all the answers before acting, such as infrastructure for transitioning away from fossil fuel combustion. When appropriate, effective adaptive management plans include procedural and substantive safeguards such as clear goals to set an agenda and provide transparency, an accurate assessment of baseline conditions to compare future monitoring data against, an outline of the thresholds at which management actions should be taken to promote certainty and assist with judicial enforcement, and is linked to response action.

Learning as we go and making appropriate adjustments may be justified in some contexts, and even essential when we do not have the luxury of time and must move ahead without critical information. Adaptive management can increase an agency’s ability to make decisions and allow managers to experiment, learn, and adjust based on data. But adaptive management’s flexibility comes at the cost of more resources and less certainty, which may also invite controversy. The sweet spot for adaptive management may be when managing a dynamic system for which uncertainty and controllability are high and risk is low. While uncertainties are proliferating, situations that meet those conditions are not the norm. 

It would be beneficial for our environmental governance systems to explicitly identify conditions under which adaptive management may and may not be used, and to provide clear accountability mechanisms. The approach must fit with the practical realities of the working environment. For example, even if uncertainty and controllability are high and risk is relatively low, tinkering with large-scale energy infrastructure is not practical. Adaptive management may not be suited to regulatory contexts (1) in which long-term stability of decisions is important; (2) where decisions simply can’t easily be adjusted once implemented; or (3) where it is essential that an agency retain firm authority to say “yes” or “no” and leave it at that.  It is a valuable tool to be invoked when truly necessary.

Sample Topics for Multi-Perspective Discussions
Realigning to reflect today’s challenges

The interconnectedness of today’s global environmental challenges is in tension with the accreted framework of media-specific, site-specific laws and siloed agencies. Adjustments that help to align objectives, processes, and structures could scale impact. 

Evidence-based decisionmaking is foundational to U.S. governance and essential to progress towards today’s environmental imperatives

Our framework should reflect commitment to and investment in gathering and analyzing information, from intricate science to the concerns of impacted communities; and be designed to incorporate and respond to changing information, such as through judicial review or other checks. 

Designing effective certainty

In part because of impacts already set in motion, we must consider when we cannot wait for more information before taking action on environmental and climate challenges. By their nature, some of those actions can be adapted on an ongoing basis, while others cannot. Clear parameters for differentiating will help ensure clear timelines and appropriate, effective processes.

Building a Structure Fit for Purpose

The triple planetary crises, a term coined by the UN Environment Programme, refers to the challenges of biodiversity loss, pollution overload, and climate change. They require large-scale mobilization and societal level adjustments. This magnitude of action requires a multifaceted system that can support and move myriad levers in a coordinated and balanced manner. The year she received the Nobel Prize in Economics, Elinor Ostrom published a paper capturing the tension but also necessity of this layered system, calling for a “polycentric approach” to addressing climate change.

The following discussion focuses largely on federal and state government action. In addition, Tribal Nations are vital sovereign authorities, partners, and voices in governance, including natural resource management, and their needs and knowledge are critical to effective, sustainable, just results. And as Ostrom recognized, private entities will also be instrumental in addressing climate change and other complex challenges; this includes not only corporations, as discussed below, but philanthropic organizations and a variety of other nongovernmental actors.

The Scale Challenge 

Environmental regulation occurs at multiple levels: local ordinances, state laws and policies, interstate agreements, tribal laws, federal regulations, and international laws and norms. It also works at different resource scales, from managing a subspecies to protecting regional drinking water to setting nationwide air standards.

Jurisdictional nesting can provide comparative benefits at various levels for specific resources or pollutants. For example, working at the local level may allow for tailoring to specific circumstances to maximize benefits and the building of trust, while working at the state level can allow for the cumulative benefits of collective local action while also allowing for the testing of different approaches to federal implementation. Meanwhile, working at the federal and larger scale allows, among other things, the balancing of voices, and the establishment of shared objectives, standards, or requirements. 

However, tiered systems can also be subject to gaps in implementation, such as when there is no mechanism to trigger enforcement of an international mandate at a national level. This may inadvertently impede interoperability and shared learning, such as by using different data standards, tools, or systems, and slow action due to competing or otherwise unaligned priorities. In addition, rarely do jurisdictional boundaries align with resource definitions, whether it be a hydrogeographic basin, extent of an air pollutant, or natural hazard vulnerability zone. Further complexity is added by questions around preemption, with changes occurring in longstanding understandings of federal versus state authorities under key statutes and regulatory structures. 

Federal, tribal, state, and local governments must navigate these challenging dynamics as they work to effectively implement existing environmental laws and creatively address new environmental problems. 

Cooperative Federalism

Federalism—whereby the federal government and states share power and responsibilities—is a central tenet of the U.S. governance system. A particular form, cooperative federalism, is embodied in most of the major U.S. environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. These laws establish a legal framework in which minimum standards are established at the federal level and individual states implement the programs. Today, over 90 percent of the delegable federal environmental programs are run by states. As a general matter, states are responsible for ensuring that federal standards are met but have the flexibility to impose standards that are more stringent than the federal standards. 

In practice, the Congressional Research Service observes that the “precise relationship and balance of power between federal and state authorities in cooperative federalism systems is the subject of debate.” This debate has manifested in a variety of ways over the decades, including differences over the appropriate scope of federal oversight and levels of federal funding for state-delegated programs. 

Environmental protection has advanced in many respects over time with cooperative federalism as its foundation, but few would argue there is no room for improvement. For example, a 2018 memorandum by the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) captured a consensus among states that the “current relationship between U.S. EPA and state environmental agencies doesn’t consistently and effectively engage nor fully leverage the capacity and expertise of the implementing state environmental agencies or the U.S. EPA.”

In addition to the leeway that cooperative federalism provides to the states in implementing federal environmental laws, states are free to regulate or otherwise address environmental problems that are not covered by federal laws. As a result, states are often referred to as (in Justice Brandeis’ phrase) “laboratories of democracy” for testing innovative policies. Historically, states have served as testing grounds for environmental policies later adopted by the federal government. Given the current federal governance landscape, discussed below, what happens in the states may stay in the states (at least for quite some time)—making state laboratories one of the few promising options for advancing environmental protection. 

Barriers to Optimal Functioning of Cooperative Federalism 

In addition to the inherent systemic challenges outlined above with respect to multi-tiered jurisdiction and resource scale, there are broad societal barriers to maximizing the efficacy of cooperative federalism. The numerous overarching problems contributing to democratic dysfunction (e.g., channelized communication, primaries that yield extreme candidates who foster dramatic pendulum swings, lack of public trust) will contribute to impeding the optimal functioning of cooperative federalism for the foreseeable future. 

The multitude of environmental governance-specific challenges identified earlier also significantly affect the functioning of cooperative federalism. These include, for example, long-standing congressional gridlock; new and emerging environmental harms that cannot be easily addressed within the existing, siloed framework; a Supreme Court changing its review of regulation; and regulatory pendulum swings that make consistency and stability difficult and hinder continuous improvement.

In addition, several additional barriers arguably weaken the foundations of cooperative federalism. These include: ineffective federal oversight of state programs (possibly both too stringent and too lenient in some respects); insufficient collection and dissemination of data (e.g., on environmental conditions, performance, pollution impacts), as well as inconsistent tracking of key environmental indicators; lack of state-specific effective risk communication and messaging; limited state resources for filling federal regulatory gaps or experimenting with innovative ways of implementing federal and state regulations; and insufficient federal funding for state programs. Recent critiques also point to the need to build out state administrative law to improve the functioning of cooperative federalism.

Opportunities for Renewing Cooperative Federalism

Recent developments in federal programs are disrupting many aspects of the country’s environmental protection efforts. These developments include drastic regulatory rollbacks, multiplied industry influence, curtailed input from scientists and other experts, rollback of federal grant funds to states and local governments, and sweeping staffing cuts resulting in loss of critical expertise. 

Cooperative federalism has been particularly undermined by federal funding cuts (e.g., withdrawal of federal grants, reductions in revolving loan funds) and cuts to the federal programs that collect and analyze environmental data. Moreover, federal interference with independent or “more stringent than” state initiatives is taking a toll (e.g., response to California’s electric vehicle requirements ).

Given the barriers outlined above that make major statutory change infeasible, building an entirely new structure to replace cooperative federalism will be a nonstarter for the foreseeable future. However, ample opportunities exist to strengthen the existing structure in a manner that yields more effective and innovative approaches to environmental protection. 

Front and center is building state and local governmental capacity to fill the gaps created by federal inaction and rollbacks as well as to lead on regulatory innovation. In so doing, states and local governments can serve as more effective laboratories of democracy and foster innovative federal action. And because states and local governments are on the frontlines of managing environmental and climate impacts such as floods and wildfires, as well as aging water infrastructure and other environment-related challenges, they are motivated to address the cause and effects of these harms, despite the intensely politicized nature of environmental issues such as climate change. 

To be sure, renewing the existing structure is complicated by an uneven political landscape. For example, the level of political and popular support for environmental protection measures in the 26 states led by Republican governors differs from the levels of support in the 24 states led by Democratic governors, and the relative dominance of a particular party (e.g., trifectas or triplexes) is also a factor. These dynamics likewise influence environmental action by local governments when, for example, the potential for state preemption of local authority is a factor. 

Nevertheless, the practical reality of increased extreme weather events, aging water infrastructure, and other environment-related challenges provides a strong incentive for all states and local governments to act. State and local efforts, however, are hindered by limited capacity in the form of staffing, funding, expertise, data, and other factors. For example, virtually all states could benefit in their decisionmaking from more robust data on local environmental conditions, and many states lack adequate funding, staff, and other resources.

Private Sector Synergies and Opportunities

Private environmental governance (PEG)—which can take a range of forms including collective standard-setting, certification and labeling systems, corporate carbon commitments, investor and lender initiatives, and supply chain requirements—is already making its mark across industries as diverse as electronics, forestry, apparel, and AI. For example, roughly 20 percent of the fish caught for human consumption worldwide and 15 percent of all temperate forests are subject to private certification standards. In addition, 80 percent of the largest companies in key sectors impose environmental supply chain contract requirements on their suppliers. And investors are increasingly taking environmental, social, and governance (ESG) into account, including risks related to climate change. A 2022 study estimated, for example, that assets invested in U.S. ESG products could double from 2021 to 2026 and reach $10.5 trillion. 

As professors Vandenbergh, Light, and Salzman explain in their book Private Environmental Governance: “If you want to understand the future of environmental policy in the 21st century, you need to understand the actors, strategies, and challenges central to private environmental governance.” 

Given the scope of PEG activities, it is not surprising that a range of regulatory regimes are implicated, including corporate governance, contract, antitrust, and consumer protection laws. In some cases, these legal regimes place constraints on the forms and scope of PEG initiatives. Many contend, however, that these constraints are inadequate, as reflected in recent efforts to severely curtail ESG initiatives. 

Further, some scholars and advocates have criticized PEG from an entirely different perspective, citing concerns that PEG measures constitute greenwashing—that is, that they do not actually change corporate behavior and environmental conditions. Among other concerns is that PEG may undermine support for public governance measures in certain contexts. 

Yet federal legislative gridlock, a dramatically swinging environmental regulatory pendulum, unregulated new technologies, and other factors point to needing a better understanding of how PEG can be leveraged to advance environmental protection efforts—including the improved functioning of cooperative federalism.

Sample Topics for Multi-Perspective Discussions
Building a robust and widely disseminated information base

How can we use innovative approaches for preserving existing data and collecting new data on environmental conditions, regulated entity performance, and pollution impacts to enhance interoperability of local, state, and federal systems, foster consistency among assessments of risk, and help align priorities and approaches?

Leveraging traditional state and local powers

Problems such as climate change require a whole of government approach to address and could benefit from leveraging adjacent state and local regulatory authorities in areas such as land use (e.g., zoning), infrastructure, and public health.

Enhancing connectivity within jurisdictional nesting and fostering networks of state-level and local-level regulators to align priorities

Bolstering state and local officials’ networks for sharing data, best practices, and regulatory innovations may help align priorities and produce further progress on cross-jurisdictional problems as well as new challenges such as permitting reforms.

Examining how PEG can be leveraged to advance environmental protection

For example, asking—what are the effects of PEG (e.g., emissions reductions); what are the drivers of PEG (e.g., brand reputation, shareholder actions, employees, and corporate customers); are there ways to reduce greenwashing and greenhushing; and how can we ensure that PEG complements public governance.

Leveraging new technologies for capacity-building

For example, AI and advanced monitoring technologies—if thoughtfully leveraged—could lessen the burden on state and local governments, particularly those that are under-resourced, in their efforts to assess climate risk, develop resilience plans, and monitor regulatory compliance.

Conclusion

The environmental gains of the last half-century demonstrate that governance choices matter. The United States built a system capable of addressing the urgent environmental crises of its time by combining scientific expertise, democratic accountability, and enforceable legal standards. 

Today’s urgent challenges—climate change, biodiversity loss, and pervasive pollution—demand a similar alignment under far more complex conditions. The challenge is not merely to regulate more, faster, or differently, but to recommit to decisionmaking that is credible and durable: by restoring confidence that evidence matters, that participation is meaningful, that tradeoffs get confronted honestly, and that rules will persist long enough to justify investment and collective effort.

The path forward lies neither in abandoning the foundations of environmental law, nor in relying solely on technological or private solutions. It will be found by strengthening and adapting existing governance structures—integrating cross-cutting objectives across domains, clarifying roles across jurisdictions, and rebuilding the shared evidentiary base and institutional capacity needed to act amid uncertainty, rather than deferring action in pursuit of unattainable certainty. And it requires clear communication about today’s complex, dispersed challenges that enhances understanding and reduces polarization. 

At its core, the triple planetary crisis is a democratic and governance challenge: how societies decide, together, to protect people and places while sharing costs and benefits fairly. Meeting that challenge will require systems capable of carrying both technical complexity and public trust, as well as a sustained commitment to invest in institutions that can decide, act, and endure. 

Costs Come First in a Reset Climate Agenda

Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency. 

Democratic governance needs

State Capacity needs

Key Takeaways

Introduction

Public policy involves tradeoffs. The primary tradeoff for climate change mitigation is economic cost. Secondary tradeoffs include commercial freedom, consumer choice, and the quality or reliability of goods and services. Political movements seeking to address a collective action problem, such as climate change, are prone to overlook the consequences of tradeoffs on other parties, like consumers and taxpayers. This paper posits that the cost tradeoffs of climate change mitigation have been underappreciated in the formation of public policy. This has resulted in an overselection of high cost policies that are not politically durable and may erode social welfare. It also results in overlooking low or negative-cost policies that are durable and hold deep abatement potential. These policies can have broad political appeal because they align with the self-interest of the United States, however they typically require dispersed beneficiaries to overcome the concentrated lobby of entrenched interests. 

A core, normative objective of public policy is to improve social welfare, which “encourages broadminded attentiveness to all positive and negative effects of policy choices”. Environmental economics determines the welfare effects of climate change mitigation policy by the net of its abatement benefits less the costs. The conventional technique to determine abatement benefits is the social cost of carbon (SCC). The barometer for whether climate policy benefits society is to determine whether abatement benefits exceed costs. Accounting for full social welfare effects requires consideration of co-benefits as well, granted these tend to be conventional air emissions with existing mitigation mechanisms covered under the Clean Air Act. Nevertheless, accounting for costs is essential to ensure climate policy benefits society. 

Abatement costs also have a discernable bearing on the likelihood and durability of policy reforms. Climate policies exhibit patterns of passage, mid-course adjustments, and political resilience across election cycles based on the constituency support levels linked to benefit-allocation and cost imposition. This paper develops four policy classifications as a function of their abatement benefit-cost profile, and uses this framework to examine the political economy, abatement effectiveness, and economic performance of select past and potential policy instruments. 

Political Economy and Policy Taxonomy 

The translation of climate policy concepts into legitimate policy options in the eyes of policymakers can be viewed through the Overton Window. That is, politicians tend to support policies when they do not unduly risk their electoral support. The Overton Window for climate policy is constantly shifting within and across political movements with the foremost factor being cost. 

In a 2024 survey of voters, the most valued characteristics of energy consumption were 37% for energy cost, 36% for power availability, 19% for climate effect, 6% for U.S. energy security effect, and 1% for something else. Democrats slightly valued energy cost and power availability more than climate effects. Independents and Republicans heavily valued energy cost and power availability more than climate effect. 

Figure 1. Voters’ Energy Values

Progressives have long exhibited greater prioritization of climate change policy, but cost concerns are driving an overhaul of the progressive Overton Window on climate change. In California, which contains perhaps the most climate-concerned electorate in the U.S., progressives have begun a “climate retreat” to recalibrate policy as “[e]lected officials are warning that ambitious laws and mandates are driving up the state’s onerous cost of living”. Nationally, a new progressive thought leadership think tank is encouraging Democrats to downplay climate change for electoral benefit. Importantly, they find that 61% of battleground voters acknowledge that “climate change is at least a very serious problem,” but that “it is far less important than issues like affordability.” 

Similarly, veteran progressive thought leaders, such as the Progressive Policy Institute, now stress that “energy costs come first” in a new approach to environmental justice. While emphasising the continued importance of GHG emissions reductions, those policy leaders are making energy affordability the top priority, amid a broader Democratic messaging pivot from climate to the “cheap energy” agenda. The rise of cost-conscious progressives is particularly notable because the progressive electorate has expressed a higher willingness to pay to mitigate climate change than moderate and conservative electoral segments. 

Economic tradeoffs, namely costs and more government control, has long been the central concern on climate policy for the conservative movement. The conventional climate movement messaged on fear and the need for economic sacrifice, which is the antithesis of the conservative electoral mantra: economic opportunity. Yet the conservative climate Overton Window emerged with a series of state and federal policy reforms when climate change mitigation aligned with expanded economic opportunity. However, pro-climate conservative thought leaders remain opposed to high cost policies, such as calling to phase out Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) subsidies for mature technologies. 

Many leading conservative thought leaders continue to challenge the climate agenda writ large because of its association with high cost policies. For example, President Trump’s 2025 Climate Working Group report was expressly motivated by concerns over “access to reliable, affordable energy” while acknowledging that climate change is a real challenge. Similarly, a 2025 American Enterprise Institute report finds that the public is most interested in energy cost and reliability and unwilling to sacrifice much financially to address climate change. Meanwhile, climate-conscious conservative thought leaders like the Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions and the R Street Institute continue to emphasize a market-driven, innovation-focused policy agenda that prioritizes American economic interests and drives a cleaner, more prosperous future. Altogether, it indicates a conservative Overton Window on negative and low-cost climate change mitigation. 

While cost is driving the Overton Window within each political movement, it also buoys the potential for alignment across political movements. Political movements are not monoliths, but rather exhibit major subsets within each movement. The progressive movement has seen gains in popularity among its populist left flank, often identified as the “democratic socialist” wing, which contributes to ongoing debate about Democrats’ ideological direction. Climate policy initiated by this wing, however, is associated with high economic tradeoffs (e.g., degrowth) and has prompted a backlash within the progressive movement. By contrast, a subset of the progressive movement, sometimes labelled “abundance progressives,” has emerged to support a more pro-market, pro-development posture. This movement is especially responsive to energy cost concerns, and is an emerging substitute for the anti-development traditions of the progressive environmental movement. Overall, variances in the progressive movement are fairly straightforward to categorize linearly on the economic policy spectrum. 

The Republican electorate views capitalism far more favorably than Democrats, but with modest decline in recent years. Republicans have trended away from consistently conservative positions associated with limited government, which historically emphasized the rule of law and a strict cost-benefit justification for government intervention in the market economy. They have migrated towards right-wing populism associated with the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. Right-wing populism is hard to operationalize for economic policy because it is not a standalone ideology, but a movement vaguely attached to conservative ideology. Generally, the “America First” orientation of MAGA implies positions based on the self-interest of the U.S., with the Trump administration prioritizing cost reductions in energy policy. 

MAGA is further to the right of conventional conservatives on environmental regulation and general government reform. For example, conservatives have noted the contrast between conservative “limited, effective government” and the Department of Government Efficiency’s “gutted, ineffective government” reform approach. On the other hand, MAGA will occasionally back leftist policy instruments, such as coal subsidies, wind restrictions, executive orders to override state policies, and emergency authorities for fossil power plants. These are often justified to counteract the leftist policies passed by progressives (e.g., renewables subsidies, fossil restrictions, emergency authorities for renewables), resulting in dueling versions of industrial policy. In other words, ostensible overlap between MAGA and progressives on policy instrument choice actually reflects the use of similar tools used for conflicting purposes (e.g., restrictive permitting or subsidies for opposing resources; i.e. picking different “winners and losers”). Nevertheless, the disciplinary agent for right-wing energy populism has been cost concerns, which have influenced the Trump administration to pursue more traditionally conservative energy policies like permitting reform and lowering electric transmission costs. 

This political economy identifies the broadest cross-movement Overton Window between moderate or “abundance progressives” and traditional conservatives. Regardless, both broad movements exhibit cost sensitivity and growing prioritization of U.S. self–interest. Distinguishing the domestic SCC from global SCC is essential to determine what policies are consistent with the self-interest of the U.S. versus the world as a whole. Traditionally, the U.S. government only considers domestic effects in cost-benefit analysis, yet the vast majority of domestic climate change abatement benefits accrue globally. 

The first SCC, developed under the Obama administration, relied solely on a global SCC. Leading conservative scholars, including the former regulatory leads for President George W. Bush, criticized the use of the global SCC only to set federal regulations. They argued for a “domestic duty” to refocus regulatory analysis on domestic costs and benefits. Similarly, the first Trump administration used a domestic SCC. Although the second Trump administration moved to discard the SCC outright, this appears to be part of a regulatory containment strategy, not a reflection of the conservative movement’s dismissal of the negative effects of climate change. In other words, even if the SCC is not the explicit basis for policymaking, it is a useful heuristic for policymakers.

The proper value of the SCC is the subject of intense scholarly and political debate. It has fluctuated between $42/ton under President Obama, $1-$8/ton under President Trump, and $190/ton under the Biden administration (all values for 2020). The main methodological disagreement has been over whether to use a domestic or global SCC, with the Trump administration position guided by “domestic self-interest.” This suggests the original domestic and global SCC values may approximate the Overton Window parameters the best. This underscores the following policy taxonomy that characterizes climate abatement policies by cost relative to domestic and global SCC levels:

Policy Applications

There are myriad policies across the abatement cost spectrum. This analysis applies to particularly popular domestic policies already pursued or readily considered. This includes policies targeting the environmental market failure via direct abatement (GHG regulation) and indirect abatement (public spending, clean technology mandates, and fuel bans). It also includes policies targeting non-climate market failure, yet hold deep climate co-benefits (innovation policy). The analysis also examines policies that correct government failure and have major climate co-benefits (permitting, siting, and electric regulation reform). 

Fuel Mandates and Bans

For the last two decades, the most prevalent climate policy type in the U.S. has been state level fuel mandates and bans. Last decade, the environmental movement came to prefer policies that explicitly promote or remove fuels or technologies, not emissions. This is despite ample evidence in the economics literature that market-based policies are more effective and carry far lower abatement costs. Nevertheless, the most common domestic climate policy instrument this century has been state renewable portfolio standards (RPS). The literature notes several key findings from RPS:

Micro-mandates have also sprung up, primarily in progressive states. These have often targeted the promotion of nascent or symbolic energy sources that the market would not otherwise provide, with the costs obscured from public view (e.g., rolled into non-bypassable electric customer charges). A good example is offshore wind requirements in the Northeast, which carries a high abatement cost (over $100/ton). 

Fuel bans have become increasingly popular climate policy in progressive states and municipalities. Beginning in 2016, a handful of progressive states began banning coal. However, this does not appear to have created much cost or abatement benefit, as evidenced by a lack of commercial interest in coal expansion in areas without such restrictions. In fact, neither federal nor state regulation was responsible for steep emissions declines from coal retirements. Coal retirements were mostly driven by market forces, especially breakthroughs in low-cost natural gas production and high efficiency power plants. Policy factors, like the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, were secondary drivers of coal plant retirement. 

Around 2020, California, New York, and most New England states began adopting partial natural gas bans or de facto bans on new gas infrastructure through highly restrictive permitting and siting practices. Unlike coal restrictions, these laws have markedly decreased commercial activity, namely gas pipeline and power plant development, and in some cases caused economically premature retirements. This has caused “pronounced economic costs and reliability risk.” Resulting pipeline constraints drive steep gas price premiums in these states, which translate into a core driver of elevated electricity prices. 

Insufficient pipeline service in the Northeast is especially problematic, as demonstrated by a December 2022 winter storm event that nearly led to an unprecedented loss of the Con Edison gas system in New York City that would have taken weeks or months to restore. Further, preventing gas infrastructure development does not provide a clear abatement benefit, because more infrastructure is needed to meet peak conditions even if gas burn declines. A prominent study found a 130 gigawatt increase in gas generation capacity by 2050 was compatible with a 95% decarbonization scenario. 

Progressive states and municipalities have also pursued natural gas consumption bans. This policy may carry exceptional cost, especially for existing buildings, with potentially well over $1 trillion in investment cost to replace gas with electric infrastructure. One estimate put the cost of natural gas bans at over $25,600 per New York City household. A Stanford study projected a 56% electric residential rate increase in California from a natural gas appliance ban. Generally, conservative thought leaders and elected officials have opposed natural gas bans for cost as well as non-pecuniary reasons, including security concerns and the erosion of consumer choice. This applies even for prominent members of the Conservative Climate Caucus. Altogether, gas bans are considered class IV policy with virtually no Overton Window alignment. 

GHG Transparency 

GHG regulation takes various forms. The least stringent is GHG transparency, which addresses an information deficiency and lowers transaction costs in voluntary markets. This begins with reporting and accounting requirements on emitters (Scope 1 emissions). Public policy can help resolve measurement and verification problems that have eroded confidence in voluntary carbon markets. GHG transparency policy can also standardize terminology and provide indirect emissions platforms. For example, making locational marginal emissions rates on power systems publicly available lets market participants identify the indirect power emissions of power consumption (Scope 2 emissions). Progressives have consistently favored GHG transparency policy, while conservatives have typically supported light-touch versions of it like the Growing Climate Solutions Act. 

The second Trump administration recently pursued removal of basic GHG reporting requirements on ideological grounds, specifically repeal of the GHG Reporting Program (GHGRP). This appears to reflect an optical deregulatory agenda over an effective one. Conservative groups have warned of the downsides of GHGRP repeal. Pressure to course correct may prove fruitful, given that the industry the Trump administration aims to assist – oil and natural gas – maintain that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should retain the GHGRP. A recent analysis found that if states replace the GHGRP, new programs will be more expensive (Figure 2). 

Figure 2. Cost Comparison of Federal and California Reporting Programs

Many regulated industry and conservative groups instead support a low compliance cost GHG reporting regime with durability across future administrations. This not only applies to direct emissions reporting but indirect emissions reporting, as in the absence of federal policy industry faces a patchwork of compliance requirements across states and foreign governments. The same economic self-interest rationale justifies a role for limited government in emissions accounting, with an emphasis on the capital market appeal of showcasing the “carbon advantage” of the U.S. in emissions-intensive industries. An example is liquified natural gas, whose export market is enhanced by showcasing its lifecycle emissions advantage over foreign gas and coal. 

The abatement effectiveness of GHG transparency has grown appreciably in the 2020s, as voluntary industry initiatives have sharply increased. This policy set enables an efficient “greening of the invisible hand” with staying power, as corporate environmental sustainability efforts appear resilient regardless of political sentiment, unlike corporate social endeavors. In fact, the aggregate willingness to pay for voluntary abatement from producers, consumers, and investors suggests that well-informed domestic markets go a long way towards self-correcting the externality of GHGs (e.g., convergence of the private and social cost curves). Certain voluntary corporate behaviors may even exceed the global SCC, especially commitments to nuclear, carbon capture, and other higher cost abatement generation financed by the largest sources of power demand growth. Well-functioning voluntary carbon markets could yield roughly one billion metric tons of domestic carbon dioxide abatement by 2030. Providing locational marginal emissions data can slash abatement costs from $19-$47/ton down to $8-$9/ton while doubling abatement levels from some power generation sources. 

Overall, efficient GHG transparency policy described above is a low-cost mitigation strategy consistent with class II designation. Basic, federal GHG transparency policy may even constitute class I policy, because it avoids the higher compliance cost alternative of a patchwork of state and international standards that would manifest in the absence of federal policy. However, stringent GHG transparency policy may constitute class III or IV policy. Prominent examples include a recent California climate disclosure law and a former Securities and Exchange Commission proposed rule to require emissions disclosure related to assets a firm does not own or control (Scope 3). Such efforts may obfuscate material information on climate-related risk and worsen private-sector led emission mitigation efforts.

Direct GHG Regulation 

Classic environmental regulation takes the form of a command-and-control approach. These instruments include applying emissions performance standards or technology-forcing mechanisms, typically for power plants or mobile sources. These policies vary widely in stringency and cost. Overall, command-and-control is widely considered in the economics literature to be an unnecessarily costly approach to reducing GHGs relative to market-based alternatives. It can also result in freezing innovation, by discouraging adoption of new technologies. 

Federal command-and-control GHG programs have not been particularly environmentally effective, cost-effective, or demonstrated legal or political durability. The first power plant program was the Clean Power Plan, which was struck down in court, and yet its emissions target was achieved a decade early from favorable market forces and subnational climate policy. The most recent federal command-and-control approaches for GHG regulation were 2024 EPA rules for vehicles and power plants. A 2025 review of these and other federal climate regulations over the last two decades of federal climate regulations found:

The 2025 review study implies that past federal command-and-control had very high cost – well into class IV range. It has also been a top priority of conservatives to undercut. However, it is possible for modest command-and-control policy with class II or III costs. 

Some conservatives, noting EPA’s legal obligation to regulate GHGs and the cost of regulatory uncertainty from decades of EPA policy oscillations between administrations, suggested modest requirements as a better option to replace high cost rules in order to mitigate legal risk and provide industry a predictable, low-cost compliance pathway. For example, conservatives argued that replacing high cost requirements for power plants to adopt carbon capture and storage (CCS) with low cost requirements for heat rate improvements may lower compliance costs more than attempting to repeal the Biden era rule for CCS outright. Similarly, the oil and gas industry opposed stringent GHG regulations on power plants and mobile sources, but often validated alternative low cost compliance requirements. 

The first Trump administration pursued modest replace-and-repeal GHG regulation. The second Trump administration has opted for repeal policies and to eliminate the endangerment finding via executive rulemaking. However, regulated industry and many conservative thought leaders believe this is a strategic blunder, given the low odds of legal success, resulting in the perpetuation of “regulatory ping-pong that has plagued Washington, D.C., for decades.” If the courts uphold Massachusetts v. EPA and the associated endangerment finding, this implies that modest command-and-control policy may have durable political alignment potential. Yet this does not hold much abatement potential. In the absence of a legal requirement to regulate GHGs, there is unlikely to be broad political alignment for even modest command-and-control policy. Conservatives tend to view this as a gateway to more costly policies that will probably not meaningfully affect global GHG trajectories. 

The 2025 review study understates the full cost of U.S. climate regulations because they exclude state and local levels. Although no comprehensive study of state climate regulation is known, command-and-control state regulations often raise major cost concerns as well. The cost and environmental performance of such state programs varies immensely, often owing to differences in the accuracy of abatement technology costs that regulatory decisions are based upon (e.g., the failure of California’s zero-emission vehicle program compared to success with its low-emission vehicle program). A recent example is California’s rail locomotive mandate, which projected to impose tens of billions of dollars in costs before being withdrawn. State command-and-control regulation is commonplace in progressive states, but not beyond, implying meager Overton Window alignment. 

A more economical version of GHG regulation is a system of marketable allowances, or cap-and-trade (C&T). Over three decades of experience with C&T programs reveals two things. First, C&T is environmentally effective and economically cost effective relative to command-and-control policy. Second, C&T performance depends on its design quality and interaction with other policies. Abatement costs depend on stringency and other design features, but C&T in a backstop role is generally close to the domestic SCC, rendering it class II policy. Robust C&T generally falls in the class III policy range. C&T is an example of abatement policy that can be cost-effective on a per unit basis, but given the breadth of its coverage its total costs can be substantial. Recent developments in Pennsylvania indicate a possible preference for policies with higher per-unit abatement costs than C&T, which may reflect a political preference for policies with less cost transparency and lower aggregate costs. 

Some environmental C&T complaints are valid, such as emissions leakage, but C&T effectiveness concerns are generally readily fixable design flaws. C&T effectiveness complaints are often the result of interference from other government interventions like fuel mandates, relegating C&T to a backstop role and suppressing allowance prices. Such state interventions triggered anti-competitive concerns in wholesale power markets overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This prompted conservative state electric regulators to call for a conference to validate mechanisms like C&T as a market-compatible alternative to high cost interventions. Conservative expert testimony at that conference, invited by conservative FERC leadership, explained that interventions layered on top of C&T merely reallocate emissions reduction under a binding cap, which raises costs, creates no additional abatement, and undermines innovation. This implies that such states might increase abatement and lower aggregate costs by upgrading the role of C&T and downgrading the role of costlier interventions. 

In the 2000s, bipartisan interest in federal C&T policy arose, but it failed and has not resurfaced. In its absence, states have supplanted federal policy with subnational C&T programs. However, the durability of C&T beyond progressive states is unclear. Moderate states have sometimes joined a regional C&T program under Democratic leadership, but sometimes departed them under Republican leadership. Conservative state groups typically challenge C&T adoption and seek repeal of C&T programs like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. This suggests that C&T is at the fringe, but typically outside, an Overton Window across political movements. 

Permitting and Siting 

Permitting policy can base decisions explicitly on GHG criteria, or they can be based on non-GHG factors but hold indirect GHG consequences. Generally, only progressive states and presidents have pursued the former. Federally, these include the Obama administration’s “coal study” and Biden administration’s “pause” on liquified natural gas (LNG). The LNG pause did not provide any apparent emissions benefit, yet carried substantial foregone economic opportunity and strategic value to U.S. allies. Pragmatic progressive thought leaders expressed concern with the pause, noting the creation of economic and security risks, and suggested lifting the pause in exchange for companies to commit to strict, third-party verified methane emissions standards. Relatedly, some conservative thought leaders have supported policy that enables voluntary participation in certified programs that provide market clarity and confidence to harness private willingness to pay for lower GHG products. This has been buttressed by support from an industry-led effort to advance a market for environmentally differentiated natural gas based on a standard, secure certification process. 

Permitting constraints on clean technology supply chains can have perverse economic and emissions effects. A prime example is critical minerals, which are essential components to clean energy technologies. A net-zero emission energy transition, relative to current consumption, would increase U.S. annual mineral demand by 121% for copper, 504% for nickel, 2,007% for cobalt, and 13,267% for lithium. Market forces, unsubsidized, are poised to produce a sufficient amount of domestic copper and lithium supply to satiate a large share of domestic demand, but face undue barriers to entry that restrict production far below its potential. To meet net-zero objectives, permitting reform allowing all currently proposed projects to enter the market would lower U.S. import reliance for copper from 74% to 41%, while dropping lithium import reliance from 100% to 51%. 

Expanding domestic mining no doubt carries local environmental tradeoffs. However, the U.S. has some of the most stringent and comprehensive mining safeguards in the world. Thus, foregoing development domestically is likely to push mining toward foreign countries with inferior environmental, safety, and child labor protections. It is therefore critical that domestic permitting decisions account for the unintended effects of denying permits, not merely the direct consequences of approving a project. 

Permitting and siting constraints on energy infrastructure also impose major costs and foregone abatement. These entry barriers largely exist as environmental safeguards, yet almost always inhibit projects with a superior emissions profile to the legacy resources they replace. In fact, 90% of planned and in progress energy projects on the federal dashboard were clean energy related as of July 2023. In 2023, the ratio of clean energy to fossil projects requiring an environmental impact statement to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was 2:1 for the Department of Energy and nearly 4:1 for the Bureau of Land Management. A 2025 study estimated that bringing down permitting timelines from 60 months to 24 months would reduce 13% of U.S. electric power emissions. 

Permitting has proven to be a litmus test for the progressive environmental movement, as the movement bifurcates between anti-development symbolists and pragmatic pro-abundance progressives. While a minority of mainstream environmental groups have become amenable to permitting reform, such as The Nature Conservancy and Audubon Society, the core of progressive environmental groups have not. Instead, new progressive groups like Clean Tomorrow and the Institute for Progress filled the pro-abundance void alongside traditional market-friendly progressive groups like the Progressive Policy Institute. This progressive subset has helped influence moderate Democrats to support permitting reform in a collaborative way with conservatives. 

Permitting reform has long been championed by conservatives for its economic benefits, with climate considerations typically a secondary-at-best rationale. Yet permitting reform has become a priority for the newer climate-minded conservative movement. However, permitting has also proven to be a differentiator between conservatives and right-wing populists. The latter engages in forms of government intervention that sometimes contradict conservative principles. For example, the Trump administration enacted an offshore wind energy pause that followed the same problematic blueprint as the Biden administration’s LNG pause. This elevates the importance of technology-neutral permitting reforms with an emphasis on permitting permanence safeguards. 

In recent years, a coalition of Republicans, centrist Democrats, and clean energy and abundance advocates have pressed for reform to NEPA. A broad suite of federal permitting reforms with bipartisan appeal was identified in a 2024 report by the Bipartisan Policy Center. Bipartisan alignment led to the passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 into law and the Senate passage of the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (EPRA). Although a 2025 Supreme Court decision suggests executive actions alone may substantially reduce NEPA obstacles, plenty of NEPA and other federal statutory reforms remain of high value and hold considerable bipartisan potential. 

The positions of leading progressive, conservative, and centrist thought leadership organizations highlight alignment on various federal permitting and siting reforms. These include statutory changes to NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. Substantive alignment includes reforms that reduce litigation risk (e.g., judicial review reform), limit executive power to stop project approvals and undermine permitting permanence, maintain technology neutrality, strengthen federal backstop siting authority for interstate infrastructure, codify the Seven County decision, and streamline agency practices while ensuring sufficient state capacity. 

Despite considerable positive momentum at the federal level, the greatest permitting and siting barriers generally reside at the state and local levels and trending sharply in a more restrictive direction. Wind and solar ordinances have grown by over 1,500% since the late 2000s. Oil and gas pipelines and power plants face mounting permitting and siting restrictions in progressive states, which not only raise costs but do not necessarily reduce emissions. In fact, the New England Independent System Operator said that a lack of natural gas infrastructure in the region has raised prices and pollution by forcing reliance on higher-cost resources like oil-fired power plants. The only major power generation resource with a less restrictive trend is nuclear, as six states recently modified or repealed nuclear moratoria to ease siting. 

Motivation for opposing energy infrastructure permitting has included the well-known “not in my backyard” concerns, such as noise, construction disruptions, or land use conflicts. Interestingly, much opposition appears to come from perception, as much as substantiated negative effects. Relatedly, permitting resistance rationales increasingly appear to result from ideological opposition to particular energy sources. Finally, much opposition and most litigation of energy projects comes from non-governmental organizations, not the land owners directly affected. Altogether, this underscores the importance of permitting and siting reform that improves the quality of information to agencies and parties, ties decisionmaking to specific harms not speculative claims, limits standing to affected parties, and creates appeals processes for landowners to challenge obstructive local government laws and decisions. A key tension to overcome is that technology-agnostic legislation has been more likely to advance in states with one or more Republican chamber, yet environmental advocates resist “all-of-the-above” reforms.

Policies that reduce permitting and siting burdens are class I: they boost economic output and are increasingly key to emissions reductions. Permitting and siting policies that are restrictive on fossil development are not particularly effective at reducing emissions and often add considerable cost, granted costs vary widely depending on the nature of the policies and implementation. Effective fossil restrictions can range from class II to class IV policy, while ineffective ones actually increase emissions. The political economy of permitting and siting must overcome the lobby of entrenched suppliers, who seek to maintain competitive moats. An ironic example was incumbent asset owners funding environmental groups to oppose transmission infrastructure in the Northeast that would import emissions-free hydropower. 

Electric Regulation

The power industry is at the forefront of energy cost concerns and decarbonization objectives. In the early 2020s, electric rates have risen most in Democratic states. These concerns reoriented progressives towards cost containment, even at the expense of climate objectives. In the 2024 election, cost of living concerns propelled Republicans to widespread victories as President Trump vowed to halve electricity prices. A year later, voter concerns over rising electricity rates in Georgia, New Jersey, and Virginia boosted Democrats in gubernatorial and public service commission (PSC) elections. 

At the same time, electricity is arguably the most important sector for climate abatement given its emissions share and the indirect effects of electrifying other sectors, namely transportation and manufacturing. Ample pathways exist to reduce electric costs and emissions simultaneously, primarily by fixing profound government failure embedded in legacy regulation. Electric industrial organization shapes economic and climate outcomes, with market liberalization an advantage for both. 

Electric regulation falls into two basic formats. The first is cost-of-service (CoS) regulation, where the role of government is to substitute for the role of competition in overseeing a monopoly utility. The alternative is for regulation to facilitate competition by using the “visible hand” of market rules to enable the “invisible hand” to go to work. 

CoS regulation historically applied to power generation, though about a third of states enacted restructuring to introduce competition into power generation and retail services, in response to rising rates and the recognition that these are not natural monopoly services. Nearly all transmission and distribution (T&D) historically and today remains under CoS regulation. Importantly, CoS regulation motivates a utility to expand the regulated rate base upon which it earns a state-approved return. Generally, the main sources of cost discipline problems in the power industry stem from its CoS regulation segments: transmission, distribution, and the portion of generation that remains on CoS rates. 

Generally, restructured jurisdictions see greater innovation and downward pressure on the supply portion of customer bills. The economic performance of restructuring is highly sensitive to the quality of implementation. This includes the quality of wholesale energy price formation and capacity market design. It also includes various elements of retail choice implementation. They have also seen improved governance, whereas CoS utilities are prone to cronyism and corruption given the inherent incentives of their business model. Competitive wholesale and retail power markets hold cost and emissions advantages through several mechanisms:

Electric cost increases are multifaceted, prompting many misdiagnoses that blame markets for non-market problems. Utilities have begun pushing campaigns in restructured states to revert back to CoS regulation, whereas the growing consumer segment – namely data centers and industrials – are organizing campaigns to expand consumer choice. Independent economic assessments warn against a return to CoS regulation, and instead encourage state regulators to implement restructuring better. This includes better market design, consumer exposure to wholesale prices, and effective coordination with transmission investment. 

T&D costs, generally, are the core driver of electricity cost pressures nationwide. Over the last two decades, utility capital spending on distribution has increased 2.5 times while nearly tripling for transmission. This reflects profound flaws in CoS regulation of T&D, resulting in overinvestment in inefficient infrastructure and underinvestment in cost-effective infrastructure. This projects to worsen, given T&D expansion needed to meet grid reliability criteria as a result of aging infrastructure, turnover in the generation fleet, and load growth. 

T&D expansion is also central to abatement. Even partial transmission reforms can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by hundreds of million of tons per year. This explains why progressives have made reforms that expand transmission a top priority. This needs to be reconciled with the cost concerns of consumers and conservatives to result in durable policy. Consumers and conservatives have a budding transmission agenda rooted in upgrading the existing system, removing barriers to voluntary transmission development, using sound economic practices for mandatorily planned transmission, streamlined permitting and siting, and improved governance. A particularly promising frontier is reforms to enhance the existing system, given the expedience of their cost relief and consistency with a Trump administration directive. 

Recent federal regulatory actions have demonstrated bipartisan willingness to improve transmission policy and the related issue of interconnection, which has emerged as a major cost and emissions issue. In 2023, FERC passed Order 2023 on a bipartisan basis to reduce barriers to new power plants trying to interconnect to regional transmission systems. Subsequent reforms were motivated by a coalition of consumer groups and the center-right R Street Institute. In 2024, FERC passed Order 1920-A on a bipartisan basis to improve economic practices in regional transmission development. EPRA, a gamechanger for interregional transmission development, passed the Senate with bipartisan support in 2024. 

Demand growth has sparked reliability concerns over tight supply margins and recently put upward pressure on wholesale market prices. However, states with the greatest price decreases typically had increasing demand from 2019 to 2024 (Figure 3). This shows the importance of infrastructure utilization on electric rate pressures, as many areas had supply slack previously. The past may not be prologue. Emerging conditions show supply-constrained scenarios where marginal generation and T&D costs increase steeply to meet new load increase. The Energy Information Administration observes steady retail price increases and projects further rises to exceed inflation. 

Figure 3. Relationship Between Load Growth and Changes in Retail Electricity Prices (2019-2024)

Source: Wiser et al., 2025.

In an era of resurgent power demand growth, the states poised to keep rates and emissions down have wholesale competition, retail competition, efficient generator interconnection processes, economical T&D practices, and low permitting and siting barriers. The only state that reasonably accomplishes all of these is Texas, which is experiencing the most commercial interest among competitive suppliers and growing power consumers. Texas has experienced industry-leading clean energy investment and earned the distinction of Newsweek’s “greenest state” in 2024. 

All aforementioned electric reforms are considered class I policy. Despite cost-reduction appeal, power industry reforms have proven challenging for two reasons. First, reforms are highly technical in nature and face limited state capacity among legislative advisors and technocratic agencies, namely PSCs and FERC. For example, recent FERC and PSC activities reveal that these entities do not have the bandwidth or expertise to properly implement existing transmission policy, much less reform it. Secondly, reforms face strong resistance from incumbent utilities who hold concentrated interests in the status quo, creating a strong lobbying incentive. By contrast, the beneficiaries of reform, especially consumers, are dispersed interests that do not organize as effectively as a lobbying force. 

Although the Texas electricity experiment and associated federal power market reforms under President George W. Bush is a conservative legacy, most restructured states are progressive. This reflects significant bipartisan historic appeal. However, traditional conservatives have sometimes conflated pro-utility positions as the “pro-business” position, while it is unclear whether right-wing populist influences will catalyze pro-market reforms by challenging the status quo or retrench monopoly utility interests based on technocratic market skepticism (e.g., Project 2025). CoS utilities also commonly oppose cost-effective T&D reform, especially vertically-integrated utilities, which is consistent with their financial incentives to expand rate base and deter lower-cost imports from third parties. Nonetheless, the political economy of bipartisan electric regulatory reform remains promising, given voters’ prioritization of reducing electricity costs. 

Public Spending 

Government spending occurs through direct spending outlays or indirect spending through tax expenditures. Spending takes the form of industrial policy or innovation policy. The economics literature is historically critical of industrial policy, while positive literature on industrial policy usually conflates it with innovation policy. A distinguishing element is that innovation policy selects policy instruments suited to specific market failures, namely the positive externalities of knowledge spillovers and learning-by-doing. These generally apply to research and development (R&D) and early stage technologies, including those in demonstration stage and infant industries that have not achieved economies of scale. 

Predictably, progressives have been consistent backers of robust innovation policy, while conservatives typically scrutinize such expenses closely. Although differences of opinion exist on optimal funding levels, historically conservatives and progressives have agreed on a role for the government in supporting R&D. There is also a history of good governance agreement, such as a joint project between the Center for American Progress and the Heritage Foundation in 2013 on improving the performance of the national lab system. Improving outcomes-based Department of Energy program performance may have broad appeal, including better performance metrics, stronger linkages to private sector needs, and program reevaluation to determine government investment phase-out. Improvements to state capacity are paramount in this regard. 

Conservatives are often critical of public spending on infant industry, where government failure can outweigh market failure. For example, policymakers often struggle to identify when to end industry support, while industry engages in rent-maintenance behavior even after it has achieved maturity. Historic evidence indicates that direct subsidies and tax exemptions for infant energy industry continue well after the targeted technologies mature. Conservative and progressive scholars have historically framed the merits over subsidies for infant industry as a debate over government versus market failure. 

Since innovation policy targets non-climate market failures (e.g., knowledge spillovers) it may have a high static abatement cost. However, it is an inexpensive abatement policy when accounting for dynamic effects, because of induced innovation and learning-by-doing. Importantly, innovation policy holds massive climate benefits, because achieving abatement cost parity between clean and emitting resources is central to clean technology market adoption. Efficient R&D policy can be classified as class I policy, because the upfront cost of the policy is outweighed by long-term cost savings. Demonstration and infant industry support falls into class II-III range, depending on its implementation, and often exhibits substantial durability. 

In recent years, climate-minded conservatives have shown stronger inclinations of public spending for innovation policy. However, there is a stark difference between conservatives and right-wing populism on innovation policy. Conservatives note that the adverse consequences of Department of Government Efficiency’s “gutted, ineffective government” approach to the Department of Energy is inconsistent with limited, effective government practice. The economic self-interest benefits of innovation policy may induce a course-correction with MAGA, which has not deliberately targeted innovation policy insomuch as sacrificing it amid a rash government downsizing exercise. 

In contrast to innovation policy, industrial policy aims to directly promote a given industry, typically using mature technology, with interventions untethered to any underlying market failure (e.g., negative emissions externality). This generally takes the form of public spending on mature industries. For decades, traditional conservatives and climate-minded conservative scholars have been critical of green industrial policy for carrying high costs with modest emissions reductions. 

The most relevant case study in climate industrial policy versus innovation policy is the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022. IRA represented the “largest federal response to climate change to date.” It consisted mostly of subsidies for mature technologies, especially wind, solar, and electric vehicles (EVs). It also contained subsidies for infant industry. IRA was passed exclusively by Democrats, with Republicans voicing concerns over its cost. Republicans then passed the One Big Beautiful Big Act (OBBBA) in 2025, which phased-out subsidies for mature technologies, but generally retained those for infant industry. This underscores the political durability of innovation policy and the fragility of industrial policy. 

A broader debrief on IRA and OBBBA reveals:

The takeaway from IRA and OBBBA is that subsidies for mature technologies are high cost, likely to erode social welfare, and not politically durable. Efficient public spending for RD&D, however, enhances social welfare and falls in the Overton Window due to its value for economic self-interest. Late-stage infant industry is at the fringe of the Overton Window. It is the area where conservative and progressive scholars have historically had contrasting views on whether market failure outweighs government failure, yet political outcomes have largely supported infant industry. 

Generally, the literature finds strong evidence of opportunity cost neglect in public policy, which “creates artificially high demand for public spending.” The IRA was a case-in-point. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost of public spending is rapidly rising given the dire fiscal trajectory of the United States. In 2025, moderate experts emphasized a pivot away from unsustainable and ineffective “Green New Deal thinking” for clean technology subsidies in favor of an innovation-driven strategy. 

Takeaways 

This analysis finds chronic flaws of cost considerations in ex ante policy analysis. Many medium and high-cost policies have passed without any robust accounting of costs at all (e.g., IRA, fuel bans). Interventions with cost-benefit analysis have had a tendency to underestimate costs (e.g., regulation). These flaws contribute to public misconception and play into political economy dynamics that tend to incent policies with hidden costs over those with transparent ones. 

High-cost policies have typically only been enacted by progressive governments and have come under greater scrutiny as energy costs escalate. This calls their social welfare effects and durability into question. It has cast climate action in the public eye as requiring deep economic sacrifice. 

Conservatives have been hesitant to engage on climate policy outright, largely over dire economic tradeoff perceptions. Such concerns have instigated a conservative backlash to climate policy, including to policies that are compatible with U.S. economic interests. This has been exacerbated by right-wing populism, which often strays from limited government conservatism in pursuit of cultural identity objectives. For example, in a 2024 piece promoting energy affordability, the Heritage Foundation correctly attributed cost increases to renewable energy mandates, but incorrectly presumed that a broad shift towards renewable energy and away from fossil fuels would always increase costs. 

High abatement cost policies not only risk reducing aggregate social welfare, but they create distributional concerns. Policies that raise energy costs tend to be regressive. This has challenged the social justice narrative of progressives, prompting a rethink by progressive leaders to take a “cost-first approach to [the] clean energy transition.” Although subsidies are a common response to lower burdens on low-income households, the most popular green subsidies pursued have exacerbated distributional concerns. Specifically, renewables subsidies favored by progressives have been challenged by conservatives as “green corporate welfare.” Progressives have also faced criticism for EV tax credits for disproportionately benefiting wealthy households. 

Encouragingly, negative- and low-cost policies comprise a rising share of the abatement curve. The Overton Window for pursuing such policies has grown remarkably for “abundance progressives” and conventional conservatives. However, populist subsets within both movements challenge the potential for political alignment. Enacting negative-cost policies also faces the collection active problem of dispersed beneficiaries versus a concentrated incumbent supplier lobby favoring the status quo. Mobilizing consumer and taxpayer groups is an underappreciated strategy to enact these policies. 

Abatement cost categoryOverton Window StrengthSocial Welfare EffectPolicy Examples
Class I. negativeStrongVery positiveLiberalized permitting and siting; Liberalized power markets; Streamlined generator interconnection; Economical transmission expansion; Efficient R&D policy
Class II. lowSubstantialPositiveEfficient GHG transparency; Efficient demonstration policy; Modest RPS; Backstop cap-and-trade; Modest command-and-control regulation
Class III. mediumInconsistentGlobally positive, often domestically negativeModerate RPS; Robust cap-and-trade; Moderate command-and-control regulation; Infant industry support
Class IV. highPoorOften negativeStringent RPS; Stringent command-and-control regulation; Onerous GHG transparency; Mature technology subsidies

This analysis is far from comprehensive. A notable omission from this paper is transportation policy, the largest GHG sector in the U.S. A scan of the transportation literature underscores major abatement potential for negative and low-cost policies, including reducing government barriers to efficient heavy-duty transportation like railways, shipping, and heavier trucking. Further, the electrification of transportation requires extensive fixes to government failure, such as liberalizing markets to enable competitive charging infrastructure, which lowers costs. The merits of innovation and GHG transparency policy, previously discussed, also appear to hold promise for transportation applications such as aviation fuel. The transportation sector has also been the target of GHG regulation, mostly in progressive states, which warrants close assessment of costs. For example, one study identified a vast abatement cost range for fuel standards ($60-$2,272/tonne). 

A shortcoming of this analysis is that it only characterizes costs by their efficiency (i.e., $/ton). Political decisions are highly sensitive to aggregate cost and its visibility to the public, which our taxonomy does not characterize. It is possible that efficient, transparent, and higher aggregate cost policies (e.g., C&T) fare less favorably in some political settings than inefficient, opaque, and sometimes lower aggregate cost policies (e.g., RPS solar carveouts). 

Despite the limitations of this analysis, the sample of policies evaluated is sufficient to support the thesis. That is, a retooled climate policy agenda that prioritizes cost considerations should elevate social welfare and achieve greater abatement by selecting more durable policies. 

Conclusion 

Abatement costs have huge bearing on whether climate policies benefit society, their likelihood of passage, and whether they prove politically durable. Most abatement need not come from dedicated climate policy, per se, but rather sound economic policy that carries deep climate co-benefits. Chronic disregard for cost considerations has led to an overselection of high-cost policies and underpursuit of low- and negative-cost policies. This has undermined policy durability and exacerbated political polarization over climate change abatement. 

This paper finds extensive abatement opportunities within negative-cost policies. These largely constitute fixes to government failure and include permitting, siting, and power regulation reforms. This analysis also finds considerable low-cost policies that are compatible with U.S. economic self-interests. These policies primarily spur voluntary private sector abatement through efficient innovation policy and GHG transparency. 

We offer three sets of recommendations moving forward for influencers of the climate policy agenda:

  1. Focus on results. Climate change abatement is a function of global GHG concentrations. Too much attention pursues symbolic objectives, like preventing fossil fuel infrastructure. This tends to undermine abatement goals and impose high costs.
  2. Emphasize cost considerations in policy agenda setting, formulation, and maintenance. Negative abatement cost policies should take top priority, with an emphasis on mobilizing beneficiaries. Robust cost-benefit analyses should precede all cost-additive policies and be reconducted periodically to guide policy adjustments.
  3. Prioritize quality state capacity. The net benefits of abatement policies are sensitive to government capacity and performance. Public management is in great jeopardy in an era of institutional decay. Negative-cost policies are often highly technocratic and require sufficient staffing expertise and accountable management at public institutions like DOE, FERC, PSCs, and permitting and siting agencies. 

In an era of energy affordability precedence, a reset climate agenda should anchor itself in good policy basics. That is, a sober-minded return to results-driven, net-benefits prioritized policy. This should improve the durability of climate policy and ensure it enhances social welfare. Executing reforms well requires a recommitment to improving the quality of institutions as much as the policy itself. 

Federal Climate Policy Is Being Gutted. What Does That Say About How Well It Was Working?

On the left is the Bankside Power Station in 1953. That vast relic of the fossil era once towered over London, oily smoke pouring from its towering chimney. These days, Bankside looks like the right:

Bankside Power Station in 1953 via A London Inheritance; Bankside today via the Telegraph.

The old power plant’s vast turbine hall is now at the heart of the airy Tate Modern Art Museum; sculptures rest where the boilers once churned.

Bankside’s evolution into the Tate illustrates that transformations, both literal and figurative, are possible for our energy and economic systems. Some degree of demolition – if paired with a plan – can open up space for something innovative and durable.

Today, the entire energy sector is undergoing a massive transformation. After years of flat energy demand served by aging fossil power plants, solar energy and battery storage are increasingly dominating energy additions to meet rising load. Global investment in clean energy will be twice as big as investment in fossil fuels this year. But in the United States, the energy sector is also undergoing substantial regulatory demolition, courtesy of a wave of executive and Congressional attacks and sweeping potential cuts to tax credits for clean energy. 

What’s missing is a compelling plan for the future. The plan certainly shouldn’t be to cede leadership on modern energy technologies to China, as President Trump seems to be suggesting; that approach is geopolitically unwise and, frankly, economically idiotic. But neither should the plan be to just re-erect the systems that are being torn down. Those systems, in many ways, weren’t working. We need a new plan – a new paradigm – for the next era of climate and clean energy progress in the United States.

Asking Good Questions About Climate Policy Designs

How do we turn demolition into a superior remodel? First, we have to agree on what we’re trying to build. Let’s start with what should be three unobjectionable principles.

Principle 1. Climate change is a problem worth fixing – fast. Climate change is staggeringly expensive. Climate change also wrecks entire cities, takes lives, and generally makes people more miserable. Climate change, in short, is a problem we must fix. Ignoring and defunding climate science is not going to make it go away.

Principle 2. What we do should work. Tackling the climate crisis isn’t just about cleaning up smokestacks or sewer outflows; it’s about shifting a national economic system and physical infrastructure that has been rooted in fossil fuels for more than a century. Our responses must reflect this reality. To the extent possible, we will be much better served by developing fit-for-purpose solutions rather than just press-ganging old institutions, statutes, and technologies into climate service. 

Principle 3. What we do should last. The half-life of many climate strategies in the United States has been woefully short. The Clean Power Plan, much touted by President Obama, never went into force. The Trump administration has now turned off California’s clean vehicle programs multiple times. Much of this hyperpolarized back-and-forth is driven by a combination of far-right opposition to regulation as a matter of principle and the fossil fuel industry pushing mass de-regulation for self-enrichment – a frustrating reality, but one that can only be altered by new strategies that are potent enough to displace vocal political constituencies and entrenched legacy corporate interests.

With these principles in mind, the path forward becomes clearer. We can agree that ambitious climate policy is necessary; protecting Americans from climate threats and destabilization (Principle 1) directly aligns with the founding Constitutional objectives of ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, and promoting general welfare. We can also agree that the problem in front of us is figuring out which tools we need, not how to retain the tools we had, regardless of their demonstrated efficacy (Principle 2). And we can recognize that achieving progress in the long run requires solutions that are both politically and economically durable (Principle 3).

Below, we consider how these principles might guide our responses to this summer’s crop of regulatory reversals and proposed shifts in federal investment.

Honing Regulatory Approaches

The Trump Administration recently announced that it plans to dismantle the “endangerment finding” – the legal predicate for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and transportation; meanwhile, the Senate revoked permission for California to enforce key car and truck emission standards. It has also proposed to roll back key power plant toxic and greenhouse gas standards. We agree with those who think that these actions are scientifically baseless and likely illegal, and therefore support efforts to counter them. But we should also reckon honestly with how the regulatory tools we are defending have played out so far.

Federal and state pollution rules have indisputably been a giant public-health victory. EPA standards under the Clean Air Act led directly to dramatic reductions in harmful particulate matter and other air pollutants, saving hundreds of thousands of lives and avoiding millions of cases of asthma and other respiratory diseases. Federal regulations similarly caused mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants to drop by 90% in just over a decade. Pending federal rollbacks of mercury rules thus warrant vocal opposition. In the transportation sector, tailpipe emissions standards for traditional combustion vehicles have been impressively effective. These and other rules have indeed delivered some climate benefits by forcing the fossil fuel industry to face pollution clean-up costs and driving development of clean technologies.

But if our primary goal is motivating a broad energy transition (i.e., what needs to happen per Principle 1), then we should think beyond pollution rules as our only tools – and allocate resources beyond immediate defensive fights. Why? The first reason is that, as we have previously written, these rules are poorly equipped to drive that transition. Federal and state environmental agencies can do many things well, but running national economic strategy and industrial policy primarily through pollution statutes is hardly the obvious choice (Principle 2). 

Consider the power sector. The most promising path to decarbonize the grid is actually speeding up replacement of old coal and gas plants with renewables by easing unduly complex interconnection processes that would speed adding clean energy to address rising demand, and allow the old plants to retire and be replaced – not bolting pollution-control devices on ancient smokestacks. That’s an economic and grid policy puzzle, not a pollution regulatory challenge, at heart. Most new power plants are renewable- or battery-powered anyway. Some new gas plants might be built in response to growing demand, but the gas turbine pipeline is backed up, limiting the scope of new fossil power, and cheaper clean power is coming online much more quickly wherever grid regulators have their act together. Certainly regulations could help accelerate this shift, but the evidence suggests that they may be complementary, not primary, tools.

The upshot is that economics and subnational policies, not federal greenhouse gas regulation, have largely driven power plant decarbonization to date and therefore warrant our central focus. Indeed, states that have made adding renewable infrastructure easy, like Texas, have often been ahead of states, like California, where regulatory targets are stronger but infrastructure is harder to build. (It’s also worth noting that these same economics mean that the Trump Administration’s efforts to revert back to a wholly fossil fuel economy by repealing federal pollution standards will largely fail – again, wrong tool to substantially change energy trajectories.)

The second reason is that applying pollution rules to climate challenges has hardly been a lasting strategy (Principle 3). Despite nearly two decades of trying, no regulations for carbon emissions from existing power plants have ever been implemented. It turns out to be very hard, especially with the rise of conservative judiciaries, to write legal regulations for power plants under the Clean Air Act that both stand up in Court and actually yield substantial emissions reductions. 

In transportation, pioneering electric vehicle (EV) standards from California – helped along by top-down economic leverage applied by the Obama administration – did indeed begin a significant shift and start winning market share for new electric car and truck companies; under the Biden administration, California doubled down with a new set of standards intended to ultimately phase out all sales of gas-powered cars while the EPA issued tailpipe emissions standards that put the industry on course to achieve at least 50% EV sales by 2030. But California’s EV standards have now been rolled back by the Trump administration and a GOP-controlled Congress multiple times; the same is true for the EPA rules. Lest we think that the Republican party is the sole obstacle to a climate-focused regulatory regime that lasts in the auto sector, it is worth noting that Democratic states led the way on rollbacks. Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Vermont all paused, delayed, or otherwise fuzzed up their plans to deploy some of their EV rules before Congress acted against California. The upshot is that environmental standards, on their own, cannot politically sustain an economic transition at this scale without significant complementary policies.

Now, we certainly shouldn’t abandon pollution rules – they deliver massive health and environmental benefits, while forcing the market to more accurately account for the costs of polluting technologies, But environmental statutes built primarily to reduce smokestack and tailpipe emissions remain important but are simply not designed to be the primary driver of wholesale economic and industrial change. Unsurprisingly, efforts to make them do that anyway have not gone particularly well – so much so that, today, greenhouse gas pollution standards for most economic sectors either do not exist, or have run into implementation barriers. These observations should guide us to double down on the policies that improve the economics of clean energy and clean technology — from financial incentives to reforms that make it easier to build — while developing new regulatory frameworks that avoid the pitfalls of the existing Clean Air Act playbook. For example, we might learn from state regulations like clean electricity standards that have driven deployment and largely withstood political swings.

To mildly belabor the point – pollution standards form part of the scaffolding needed to make climate progress, but they don’t look like the load-bearing center of it.

Refocusing Industrial Policy

Our plan for the future demands fresh thinking on industrial policy as well as regulatory design. Years ago, Nobel laureate Dr. Elinor Ostrom pointed out that economic systems shift not as a result of centralized fiat, from the White House or elsewhere, but from a “polycentric” set of decisions rippling out from every level of government and firm. That proposition has been amply borne out in the clean energy space by waves of technology innovation, often anchored by state and local procurement, regional technology clusters, and pioneering financial institutions like green banks.

The Biden Administration responded to these emerging understandings with the  CHIPS and Science Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – a package of legislation intended to shore up U.S. leadership in clean technology through investments that cut across sectors and geographies. These bills included many provisions and programs with top-down designs, but the package as a whole but did engage with, and encourage, polycentric and deep change.

Here again, taking a serious look at how this package played out can help us understand what industrial policies are most likely to work (Principle 2) and to last (Principle 3) moving forward.

We might begin by asking which domestic clean-technology industries need long-term support and which do not in light of (i) the multi-layered and polycentric structure of our economy, and (ii) the state of play in individual economic sectors and firms at the subnational level. IRA revisions that appropriately phase down support for mature technologies in a given sector or region where deployment is sufficient to cut emissions at an adequate pace could be worth exploring in this light – but only if market-distorting supports for fossil-fuel incumbents are also removed. We appreciate thoughtful reform proposals that have been put forward by those on the left and right.

More directly: If the United States wants to phase down, say, clean power tax credits, such changes should properly be phased with removals of support for fossil power plants and interconnection barriers, shifting the entire energy market towards a fair competition to meet increasing load, as well as new durable regulatory structures that ensure a transition to a low-carbon economy at a sufficient pace. Subsidies and other incentives could appropriately be retained for technologies (e.g., advanced battery storage and nuclear) that are still in relatively early stages and/or for which there is a particularly compelling argument for strengthening U.S. leadership. One could similarly imagine a gradual shift away from EV tax credits – if other transportation system spending was also reallocated to properly balance support among highways, EV charging stations, transit, and other types of transportation infrastructure. In short, economic tools have tremendous power to drive climate progress, but must be paired with the systemic reforms needed to ensure that clean energy technologies have a fair pathway to achieving long-term economic durability.

Our analysis can also touch on geopolitical strategy. It is true that U.S. competitors are ahead in many clean technology fields; it is simultaneously true that the United States has a massive industrial and research base that can pivot ably with support. A pure on-shoring approach is likely to be unwise – and we have just seen courts enjoin the administration’s fiat tariff policy that sought that result. That’s a good opportunity to have a more thoughtful conversation (in which many are already engaging) on areas where tariffs, public subsidies, and other on-shoring planning can actually position our nation for long-term economic competition on clean technology. Opportunities that rise to the top include advanced manufacturing, such as for batteries, and critical industries, like the auto sector. There is also a surprising but potent national security imperative to center clean energy infrastructure in U.S. industrial policy, given the growing threat of foreign cyberattacks that are exploiting “seams” in fragile legacy energy systems.

Finally, our analysis suggests that states, which are primarily responsible for economic policy in their jurisdictions, have a role to play in this polycentric strategy that extends beyond simply replicating repealed federal regulations. States have a real opportunity in this moment to wed regulatory initiatives with creative whole-of-the-economy approaches that can actually deliver change and clean economic diversification, positioning them well to outlast this period of churn and prosper in a global clean energy transition.

A successful and “sticky” modern industrial policy must weave together all of the above considerations – it must be intentionally engineered to achieve economic and political durability through polycentric change, rather than relying solely or predominantly on large public subsidies. 

Conclusion

The Trump Administration has moved with alarming speed to demolish programs, regulations, and institutions that were intended to make our communities and planet more liveable. Such wholesale demolition is unwarranted, unwise, and should not proceed unchecked. At the same time, it is, as ever, crucial to plan for the future. There is broad agreement that achieving an effective, equitable, and ethical energy transition requires us to do something different. Yet there are few transpartisan efforts to boldly reimagine regulatory and economic paradigms. Of course, we are not naive: political gridlock, entrenched special interests, and institutional inertia are formidable obstacles to overcome. But there is still room, and need, to try – and effort bears better fruit when aimed at the right problems. We can begin by seriously debating which past approaches work, which need to be improved, which ultimately need imaginative recasting to succeed in our ever-more complex world. Answers may be unexpected. After all, who would have thought that the ultimate best future of the vast oil-fired power station south of the Thames with which we began this essay would, a few decades later, be a serene and silent hall full of light and reflection?

Building an Environmental Regulatory System that Delivers for America

The Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act. The National Environmental Policy Act. These and most of our nation’s other foundational environmental laws were passed decades ago – and they have started to show their age. The Clean Air Act, for instance, was written to cut air pollution, not to drive the whole-of-economy response that the climate crisis now warrants. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 was designed to make cars more efficient in a pre-electric vehicle era, and now puts the Department of Transportation in the awkward position of setting fuel economy standards in an era when more and more cars don’t burn gas.

Trying to manage today’s problems with yesterday’s laws results in government by kludge. Legacy regulatory architecture has foundered under a patchwork of legislative amendments and administrative procedures designed to bridge the gap between past needs and present realities. Meanwhile, Congressional dysfunction has made purpose-built updates exceptionally difficult to land. The Inflation Reduction Act, for example, was mostly designed to move money rather than rethink foundational statutes or regulatory processes – because those rethinks couldn’t make it past the filibuster.

As the efficacy of environmental laws has waned, so has their durability. What was once a broadly shared goal – protecting Americans from environmental harm – is now a political football, with rules that whipsaw back and forth depending on who’s in charge. 

The second Trump Administration launched the biggest environmental deregulatory campaign in history against this backdrop. But that campaign, coupled with massive reductions in the federal civil service and a suite of landmark court decisions (including Loper Bright) about how federal agencies regulate, risks pushing U.S. regulatory architecture past the point of sensible and much-needed reform and into a state of complete disrepair.

Dismantling old systems has proven surprisingly easy. Building what comes next will be harder. And the work must begin now. 

It is time to articulate a long-term vision for a government that can actually deliver in an ever-more complex society. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is meeting this moment by launching an ambitious new project to reimagine the U.S. environmental regulatory state, drawing ideas from across ideological lines.

The Beginning of a New Era

Fear of the risks of systemic change often prevent people from entertaining change in earnest. Think of the years of U.S. squabbles over how or whether to reform permitting and environmental review, while other countries simply raced ahead to build clean energy projects and establish dominance in the new world economy. Systemic stagnation, however, comes with its own consequences. 

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) are a case in point when it comes to climate and the environment. Together, these two pieces of legislation represented the largest global investment in the promise of a healthier, more sustainable, and, yes, cheaper future. Unfortunately, as proponents of the “abundance” paradigm and others have observed, rollout was hampered by inefficient processes and outdated laws. Implementing the IRA and the IIJA via old systems, in short, was like trying to funnel an ocean through a garden hose – and as a result, most Americans experienced only a trickle of real-world impact.

Similar barriers are constraining state progress. For example, the way we govern and pay for electricity has not kept pace with a rapidly changing energy landscape – meaning that the United States risks ceding leadership on energy technologies critical to national security, economic competitiveness, and combating climate change.

But we are perhaps now entering a new era. The United States appears to be on the edge of real political realignments, with transpartisan stakes around the core role of government in economic development that do not match up neatly to current coalitions. This realignment presents a crucial opportunity to catalyze a new era of climate, environmental, and democratic progress.

FAS will leverage this opportunity by providing a forum for debate and engagement on different facets of climate and environmental governance, a platform to amplify insights, and the capacity to drive forward solutions. Examples of topics ripe for exploration include:

In working through topics like these, FAS seeks to lay out a positive vision of regulatory reconstruction that is substantively superior to either haphazard destruction or incremental change. Our vision is nothing less than to usher in a new paradigm of climate and environmental governance: one that secures a livable world while reinforcing democratic stability, through systems that truly deliver for America. 

We will center our focus on the federal government given its important role in climate and environmental issues. However, states and localities do a lot of the work of a federated government day-to-day. We recognize that federal cures are unlikely to fully alleviate the symptoms that Americans are experiencing every day, from decaying infrastructure to housing shortages. We are committed to ensuring that solutions are appropriately matched to the root cause of state capacity problems and that federal climate and environmental regulatory regimes are designed to support successful cooperation with local governments and implementation partners. 

FAS is no stranger to ambitious endeavors like these. Since our founding in 1945, we have been committed to tackling the major science policy issues that reverberate through American life. This new FAS workstream will be embedded across our Climate and Environment, Clean Energy, and Government Capacity portfolios. We have already begun engaging and activating the diverse community of scholars, experts, and leaders laying the intellectual groundwork to develop compelling answers to urgent questions surrounding the climate regulatory state, against the backdrop of a broader state capacity movement. True to our nonpartisan commitment, we will build this work on a foundation of cross-ideological curiosity and play on the tension points in existing coalitions that strike us all as most productive.

We invite you to join us in conversation and collaboration. If you want to get involved, contact Zoë Brouns (zbrouns@fas.org).