Solving the Energy & Climate Infrastructure Finance Rubik’s Cube

Building Blocks to Make Solutions Stick

Capital is not the constraint, alignment is: Catalyzing large-scale climate and energy infrastructure requires government to act as a systems integrator—synchronizing policy, de-risking commercialization, modernizing valuation, and coordinating markets so private capital can move with speed and confidence.

Implications for democratic governance

Capacity needs

Deal templates and archetypes: Clear, standardized financing pathways that signal how government capital will engage at different risk tiers and technology stages. 

Jump to…

Executive Summary

Historic commitments. Huge demand. Massive cost reductions. Ready technologies. Yet, infrastructure deployment levels are underperforming their potential. What gives?  The U.S. clean energy sector has achieved remarkable milestones: solar and wind have tripled since 2015, costs have fallen 90%, and annual clean energy investment now exceeds $280 billion. Yet deployment has arguably fallen short of what both markets and the climate moment demand. The culprit isn’t a single bottleneck: not permitting, not subsidies, not technology readiness alone. The real constraint is misalignment across the multiple interdependent factors that investors need to see in place before committing capital at scale.

Think of it like a Rubik’s Cube: solving one face means nothing if the other five stay scrambled. This paper identifies six strategic levers that, when pulled in concert, can unlock the conditions for large-scale capital deployment:

The good news: the capital exists, the technologies are ready, and infrastructure is a solvable problem. With over 1,000 GW of clean energy in development and electricity demand projected to grow up to 50% over the next decade, the infrastructure build-out represents one of the largest capital deployment opportunities in American history. And global demand for U.S. clean energy technology has never been higher. The barriers identified in this paper are structural and systemic, not fundamental; most of the solutions proposed are actionable in the near term, without waiting for perfect legislation or perfect markets.

The window is open, but not indefinitely. For policymakers and investors alike, the question is not whether to act, but whether to act with the clarity, coordination, and urgency the moment demands. The frameworks, partnerships, and policy tools outlined here offer a practical roadmap for unlocking decades of economic growth, cost-of-living relief, and energy security for communities across every region of the country and beyond. The energy transition is not a cost to be managed; properly coordinated, it is a generational economic opportunity.

America has experienced extraordinary momentum in the growth and transformation of the energy sector. Solar and wind generation has more than tripled since 2015. In 2024, 50 GW of solar power was added to the U.S. grid, which is not only a record, but is the most new capacity that any energy technology has added in a year. Technology costs have plummeted dramatically: utility-scale solar and battery energy storage have each fallen 90% since 2010. Those declines have made them among the lowest cost forms of electricity in many places. Domestic manufacturing capacity has also surged with hundreds of clean energy manufacturing facilities, many of which have already come online. These technologies and projects have been reinvigorating communities and creating jobs across the nation, and we should see the benefits from these advances continue as capital is flowing into this sector at an unprecedented rate. Clean energy investment in the United States more than tripled since 2018 to $280 billion annually, with multiples more in commitments, and private markets alone have raised nearly $3 trillion over the past decade. For more established technologies like utility-scale solar and onshore wind, financing has become standardized. This includes established project finance structures, robust secondary markets, accurate energy production forecasts, and predictable returns that align with the needs of institutional capital. These asset classes now exhibit many of the hallmarks of market maturity: transparent pricing, deep liquidity, sophisticated risk assessment frameworks, and predictable transaction execution. This progress has been galvanized by unprecedented governmental support, including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), alongside bold state policies, aggressive corporate clean energy procurement, sustained advocacy, and relentless technological innovation. 

Yet despite these achievements and the trillions of dollars in committed capital, the pace of deployment has arguably fallen short of what the market opportunity demands and what the climate crisis requires. Hundreds of IRA-supported energy and manufacturing projects have faced delays or cancellations: much of that is due to increased economic and logistical uncertainty (e.g. in the cost and availability of equipment, permitting timelines, import and export regulations); much of that too is due to sharp reversals in federal funding priorities (e.g. tax incentive changes from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), direct project cancellations). Moreover, emerging solutions are still taking time to achieve true commercial liftoff. Despite billions in federal funding allocations, only a few carbon capture projects have meaningfully progressed, with others indefinitely delayed or cancelled. Growth of some demand-side energy solutions, like behind-the-meter solar and virtual power plants, has remained relatively regional, despite favorable economics. Advanced nuclear energy, though it remains a policy priority, has been challenged with long delivery timelines, and many project investors remain wary of the risk of cost overruns. Sustainable aviation fuel production capacity increased by ten times in 2024, but it is still a very small fraction of jet fuel demand. Furthermore, transmission capacity has not grown nearly as quickly as needed and remains a key constraint to progress. 

The situation – deployment deficiencies despite historic support – can be entirely solved with just one thing… and that is… to stop acting as if there is just one thing. The relative underperformance described earlier is not attributable to any singular constraint: contrary to what some have argued, for instance, it’s not solely about removing permitting roadblocks nor creating more subsidies. Rather than seeking silver bullets, real progress can be made by recognizing that there are multiple elements involved and misalignment between those elements have curbed the rate of progress.

Accelerating new energy project investment is somewhat like solving a Rubik’s Cube. The key to solving the puzzle lies in its interdependence: every twist of one face ripples across the others. You can solve one face perfectly, but if the other five remain scrambled, you haven’t solved anything in the grand scheme. Progress requires coordinated progress across multiple dimensions simultaneously in the right sequence. The cube rewards systems-thinking and algorithms over siloed, non-coordinated actions. All six of its faces must align to win.

The same is true for new energy finance. When most project investors look at a sector, they approach it as a puzzle and look for as much alignment of the full picture as possible before being sufficiently comfortable to deploy capital. That’s the indicator for the risk-reward balance being in the right place to justify investment. Rather than defining the theory of progress by singular issues, policy and industry stakeholders need to create sufficient alignment of multiple puzzle pieces at the same time. 

This paper offers a few perspectives on how to achieve the conditions for larger-scale capital deployment, drawing on both lessons learned and promising concepts from across the industry. Like the six faces of the Rubik’s cube, six priority strategy areas are articulated: market defragmentation, commercialization partnerships, transaction execution speed, policy synchronization, holistic valuation methodologies, and proactive investor engagement. Note that while some of the underlying strategies may take time and require deep structural realignment, most of the concepts discussed herein are actionable in the near term. A range of stakeholders, from policymakers to infrastructure investors to community and industry advocates, need to move in concert to solve the puzzle and unlock greater investment. 

The opportunity before us is immense. With over a thousand gigawatts of clean energy in development and electricity demand projected to grow up to 50% over the next decade, the infrastructure build-out required represents one of the largest capital deployment opportunities in American history. Similarly, global demand for U.S. clean energy technologies to be a bigger part of the mix has soared over the past few years, as many countries are seeking to diversify away from China or access some of the more unique technologies that the U.S. is developing. And solutions can’t come quickly enough, in this era of fast-growing energy demand, spiking electricity bills, aging physical infrastructure, and burgeoning new industries, not to mention a plethora of old and new technology solutions and operational strategies poised to meet the moment. The question is not whether the capital exists (it does!), whether energy solutions are available (they are!), nor whether there is a silver bullet salve (there isn’t!). It’s whether we can align the six faces of our energy finance cube quickly enough and strategically to channel the right types of capital where it’s needed most, when it’s needed most. The energy transition presents a real opportunity to drive economic transformation that, when properly coordinated, can unlock decades of strong economic growth, cost-of-living reductions, innovation, and prosperity across every region of the country and the planet.

Chapter 1. “Come together”: Defragmenting markets through regional coordination

For many companies across multiple sectors, the U.S. market can seem like the golden goose. Its big population, high income, diversified economy, and strong purchasing power typically mean large total addressable markets (TAM). While those drivers can be true, the reality for many energy and climate solutions, especially early on, is that the large TAM is challenging to realize, as the market can be highly fragmented. In those sectors, the U.S. is less of a “market” per se and more of a loose mosaic. There are about 3000 utilities, ranging from large publicly traded corporations to rural cooperatives, in regulated and regulated markets. States and territories not only have different market drivers, but they also have their own regulations and  regulators, business processes, permitting requirements, and market rules. This also complicates the go-to-market as you typically need large and locally-focused commercial organizations to tap the markets, which can be expensive and time-consuming to build, especially for newer companies. It also often means a less efficient path to scalability, as each set of local customers and  regulators need to be brought up to speed and convinced about the fit of a solution (compared to having a few entities that speak for the entire country). In addition to the commercial elements, this dynamic introduces technical barriers to scalability, especially where deep integration and redesign are required to meet local requirements. Over the years, this has often flummoxed both U.S. startups and experienced foreign investors, who have approached the U.S. market with high expectations, only to be confounded by these complexities.

Harmonize local requirements to avoid the piloting death spiral

To the extent possible, to promote more rapid and widespread investment and deployment of solutions that could benefit their communities, local (and national) governments need to work more closely together to harmonize market designs and project requirements.  Oftentimes, a solution provider may implement a solution in one state, but when they go to another state, that utility might make them start from the beginning and prove themselves all over again – many innovators have likened these continuously repeated pilots to death by a thousand cuts. If a good solution is successfully deployed in one place, the barriers associated with deploying the same solution in another market need to be lower. This concept applies to permitting and design as well. The more that permitting  processes and tariff structures, or modular elements within, can be templatized, time and uncertainty are reduced. Additionally, uniformity lowers development costs because the solution doesn’t have to be fully reengineered for each locale. This could also correspond to standardizing equipment and project technical requirements between them, to minimize costly product redesigns and reengineering. Furthermore, state stakeholders seeking to deploy similar solutions should consider entering into reciprocal partnerships or MOUs, supporting collaboration that’s both technical (e.g., between their utilities and independent engineering organizations) and policy-focused (e.g., between their policymakers and regulators). As such, when a solution under that type of agreement is evaluated and approved in one state, when that solution is brought forward in a partnering state, the solution can be given an expedited evaluation and approval process. 

Not just physically, but digitally

The dynamic described previously is not limited to hardware. It is present for many software solutions as well, particularly those that have to integrate with local operators’ control systems. For example, a locality may be interested in deploying a virtual power plant (VPP), which is a relatively low-cost, software-based approach to aggregate distributed and controllable energy resources in order to provide large-scale energy services. A VPP deployment would have to connect to a utility’s and/or grid operator’s distributed energy management system (DERMS) to talk to devices, energy management systems (EMS), energy dispatch and trading system for wholesale market participation, customer information systems to track billing and energy usage, and also be cybercompliant – note too that several utilities have yet to fully roll out these foundational modern digital systems. Not only that, each utility and grid operator might have their own implementations (vendors, versions, configurations, rules) of these systems. Even outside of controls-oriented functions, the variety of data structures, naming conventions, and IT systems can make it difficult to access available market data (e.g., energy pricing), electricity tariff rate structures, and other highly important information. This is a reason why you tend to see that many energy software solutions have their operations concentrated in just a few markets, as the costs and time associated with integrating with another market’s cadre of systems can be hard to justify and thwart efforts to scale. 

This is an area where states can work together (along with their respective utilities, grid operators, technology providers, and regulators) to agree upon more uniform ways to structure data, access market information, and securely interface with market and control systems. This could include partnering with groups that are developing common standards and protocols (such as RMI VP3, LF Energy), building an implementation roadmap across those states and utilities (accelerating implementation of FERC Order 2022), and taking corresponding legislative actions to ensure investments are made to build out the enabling foundational digital systems.   

Aggregated demand and collaborative procurement

In a similar vein, collaboration between state and national governments can level the playing field and expand markets. When it comes to infrastructure, states and countries may often endeavor to ensure that local manufacturing capacity and supply chains are set up within their territories – this can create long term economic growth opportunities, reduce equipment delivery risks, and improve the public’s return on their investment. 

However, issues can arise when multiple states are trying to duplicate efforts in the same sector. Take offshore wind in the early 2020s. Multiple eastern U.S. states were not only supporting a new wave of projects, many funding programs had requirements that the projects needed to source materials and equipment from suppliers located in the state.. The effect of this for a small, burgeoning industry was dilutive and slowed down factory investments as the scaling factors were harder to justify. After all, there are only so many blade, monopile, vessel, and cabling factories that can be supported at a given time, especially early on in the industry’s development. In response, thirteen states and the federal government signed a memorandum of understanding, where they agreed to take more regionalized, collaborative approaches to procurement and supply chain development. 

Relatedly, an area where significant improvements could be made is around the procurement of critical common equipment. To accommodate the load growth from new factories, data centers, and building and vehicle electrification efforts, there are many pieces of equipment that will be needed irrespective of what types of energy are associated: things like transformers, circuit breakers, switchgear, and so on. There are considerable production capacity shortages and long lead times on these, which raise costs and create execution risks for projects. Despite the robust market demand, manufacturers have been somewhat hesitant to invest in expanding production as they worry that the demand will not materialize, which would leave them with underutilized or even stranded assets. 

State and local governments can respond to these challenges in multiple ways. For instance, they could pool together their demand and drive standardization of the equipment so that the equipment is more fungible and interchangeable, as has been previously highlighted by the U.S. National Infrastructure Advisory Committee’s report on protecting critical infrastructure. Also, states  can create well-defined demand guarantees where they can provide assurances to manufacturers and consumers that necessary  equipment will be there, as needed.  

For example, in 2013, the Illinois’ Department of Transportation led a seven-state procurement initiative to jointly acquire a standardized set of efficient locomotives and railcars, with additional funding provided by the Federal Railway Authority to support domestic manufacturing. This effort pulled forward new, more efficient railway vehicles into the market and lowered lifecycle costs. These concepts can additionally apply to secondary markets as well, for example, providing residual value guarantees on heavy-duty electric trucking procurement, to help mitigate risks on the initial purchase (e.g., traditional resale markets not emerging or asset residual values not being realized as projected).

Chapter 2. “That’s what friends are for”: Overcoming commercialization barriers through partnerships

The next facet of the cube pertains to early market formation and investment into technologies that are not yet fully commercialized, especially first-of-a-kind (FOAK) and early-of-kind (EOAK) infrastructure, and why capital formation has been easier for some types versus others. Differences in the ability to demonstrate, commercialize, and scale new infrastructure do not purely depend on the ultimate value of the solution; they are often driven by how the characteristics of that infrastructure affect the pathway to value realization, particularly the inherent capital-intensity and modularity of the solution. 

For highly modularized solutions with lower capital requirements, the pathway can be much more straightforward. Take solar photovoltaics. Though module R&D and fabrication are far from trivial, technical demonstration and deployment are relatively simple. One can usually install and field-test new solar quickly and inexpensively. The advantage extends when scaling the solution to bigger projects: once you reach megawatt scale, given the modularity of solar cells and their balance of plant (inverters, cables, trackers, etc), you can obtain a reasonably clear picture of how even gigawatt-scale projects should fundamentally work. Other highly-modular solutions like batteries and EV chargers have enjoyed similar advantages. Tesla, for instance, in order to address potential range anxiety issues for its customers, leveraged its own balance sheet and government funding to build out a network of standardized superchargers, taking advantage of charger modularity to build in waves. This characteristic has made it easier for rapid demonstration and scaling of those solutions, as the financial community can enter the market, investigate, learn, and expand with relatively low risk.   

However, the commercialization process becomes significantly more challenging with more capital- intensive and complex technologies, such as carbon capture, nuclear, e-fuels, etc. For some of these types of solutions, the early projects can require billions of dollars to construct and demonstrate.  For these types of infrastructure, smaller-scale systems might not provide comparatively representative technical proof points of how the larger system needs to operate. Furthermore, larger sums of capital are often needed for early deployments. What’s more, the financial risk can be compounded as the long-term payoff is not guaranteed, as FOAK & EOAK projects typically have more uncertainty, and the learning rates of subsequent projects may also be less obvious. Furthermore, instead of a typical first-mover advantage that you often see with new technologies, early project investors here might actually suffer from a first-mover disadvantage, where they have the risk and cost of participating in the earlier projects, but don’t accrue the benefits and learnings that are seen in projects executed down the line. 

To help address these types of challenges often seen with capital-intensive, less modular FOAK and EOAK infrastructure projects, adopting a new suite of partnership structures can greatly help to accelerate market formation and improve investability.

Multi-project joint ventures

Catalyzing capital for this class of infrastructure may mean going significantly farther than providing a few incentives and having strong advocacy efforts. More complex and elaborate agreements, private and/or public, are often necessary to drive deployment. Particularly in the form of deployment coalitions, consortiums, and joint ventures that support multiple projects. At the highest level, this can exist in several forms and can be originated by the private or public sector, as appropriate. For illustration, a few examples of commercial approaches to scale new nuclear energy projects, roughly in increasing order of relative deployment impact:

All of them offer significant advantages over pursuing projects on an individual basis. They provide demand signals to supply chains to create manufacturing capacity and to labor groups to create a workforce. Generally, both of these stakeholders may need to see firm demand signals before they will undertake significant investments, which are in turn typically needed to reach a solution’s cost and performance entitlement (otherwise creating a chicken-and-egg problem). They also create more concrete opportunities to drive project standardization; this not only allows a technology to achieve faster learning curves, but it also helps to derisk and justify the investment by providing a more tangible line of sight to the large market. The point for manufacturers and workforce development groups is equally applicable for financiers, who often want to see a pipeline of repeatable opportunities before spinning up their underwriting teams. 

Risk and reward sharing

Having an orderbook of the first several projects, per se, may not be sufficient to create sufficient activation energy at the project level. Though it sends a good signal for supply chains and others, it does not necessarily address the first-mover disadvantage issue that may exist. 

A differentiator in partnership approaches, including the ones described previously, is how to think about alignment and value creation. Traditionally, the way in which governmental entities approach financial partnerships is through mechanisms like subsidies, loan guarantees, offtake guarantees, backstops, and fast-tracked processes. These help to reduce financial exposure to stakeholders, but alone, they miss a key part of the story: the long-term upside that can be created by successfully deploying and opening up a market for these solutions. 

Usually, for the product owners and corporate investors, this is more naturally accounted for and balanced against the downside risk. For instance, companies, from software providers to aircraft manufacturers, might sell their first products as loss-leaders, providing lower pricing to early adopters to reduce the risk to the buyer, which they justify knowing that they should be able to rapidly recoup the costs of early expenses (and even failures) over the broader market pool, if they are successful. For large infrastructure projects, this is more challenging to achieve. When projects are highly capital-intensive, the financial exposures may be too great for the product company and/or equity investor to bear – that company or fund might be entirely wiped out by an individual project failure (for example, Westinghouse had to declare bankruptcy in 2017 when their two U.S. nuclear projects faced challenges). Project stakeholders and financiers might be asymmetrically exposed to the downside risk and, therefore, be inclined to avoid investing in early projects. For a promising technology, you may often find several customers (e.g., electric utilities) lining up for the ‘third’ or ‘nth-of-a-kind’ project, which would likely be derisked and less expensive, while at the same time taking a passive wait-and-see approach with the first project – which produce a stalemate if the first project is hard to get off the ground. 

This is where deployment partnerships with structures that more fully align economic incentives and share in both the downside risk and upside of value creation can be a powerful catalyst for action. Amazon’s structure, for instance, creates this too by being involved in multiple projects where they would ultimately benefit from improvements over time and also through their equity investment into X-energy itself, so they should (depending on terms) continue to benefit down the line if the company is successful. 

In addition to encouraging the formation of joint ventures and consortia as described earlier, states and/or national governments can work together to strategically invest in key solutions, run competitive tenders to prospective providers, and strike profits-sharing agreements and/or warrants (as opposed to pure equity) in situations where government investment played an outsized role in value creation. 

A potential example of this is the recent $80 billion framework agreement between Brookfield and the US Government to deploy new large nuclear reactors. Notably, beyond packaging existing products and authorities (e.g., low-interest government loans for projects), this proposed deal additionally stipulates a proposed profits sharing mechanism where the US Government would receive a share of future profits from reactor sales. Noting that this partnership is early-stage and important details have yet to be disclosed, this mechanism could be appropriate here as you have a hard-to-commercialize sector, with strategic national and geopolitical value, with effectively no domestic competitive products. 

State entrepreneurship

Public sector funders can also play a significant role in creating and incentivizing these kinds of deployment partnerships. Though more commonplace in countries with state-run industries, countries with free market economies have often found it more delicate to navigate. There may be legitimate concerns about how governments’ “picking winners” may create adverse incentives and undermine competitive markets, in some cases. Plus, it may confuse governments’ role of trying to maximize public benefit, versus showing favoritism or extracting economic rents from corporations.  

All that said, there are models for state entrepreneurship that can be very powerful here, balancing the need to pull forward solutions and capital, while protecting the public and maintaining market competition – particularly in markets that are pre-commercial, have few players, have outsized national strategic benefits, and otherwise would not develop on their own without heavy external intervention. These are cases where, though the market benefits are considerable, the activation energy may be too high to stimulate deployment without deep governmental intervention. 

Furthermore, consider where you have first-mover disadvantage challenges but a strong set of prospective fast-followers. To avoid the risk of a Spiderman-meme-like situation where stakeholders (e.g. local utilities or individual states) are pointing at each other to make the first move, downstream project investors could, for instance, co-invest (debt, equity, or backstops) for the first project, even on a minority basis, which would both mitigate risk on the first project and also enable them to access a cost-effective pathway to the technologies they desire to build down the line. You do not traditionally see state and local entities investing in infrastructure projects in other jurisdictions, but doing so could be net beneficial as a faster and lower-cost way to derisk and execute their own projects. 

In addition, where appropriate, public financing entities investing domestically (e.g., states, green banks, federal agencies) could, where appropriate, consider extending their authorities to borrow some concepts from the US’s international playbook. Organizations like the Development Finance Corporation (DFC) can make equity investments in strategic, high-value projects, particularly where the normal capital markets would otherwise struggle to enter until the investment thesis is more clearly actionable. Such a process would have very clear scopes, firm guardrails, clear commercial competition plans, and be compatible with legal and market structures to create the intended benefits without confusing or distorting markets. 

In any scenario, there should be a corresponding plan for how the public profits would be used. For example, it could be used to raise capital for other governmental activities or directly returned to the public in some way. Or it could be efficient to recycle the funding towards related activities and balancing of the governmental ‘venture capital’ portfolio, as would a strategic sovereign wealth fund.

Chapter 3. “Highway to the deployment zone”: Faster, risk-weighted transaction execution

There’s a common cliché from finance that time kills or wounds all deals. Increasing the speed of policy formation and deal execution is essential to unlocking growth and investment, especially for newer sectors. We will particularly focus on the public capital side of the equation. Here, there is a great mismatch between public and private investment decision time scales.  In the private sector, deals are expected to be completed on the order of months or even weeks. Often in the public sector, this can add many months to years, with a high degree of uncertainty, depending on the program. There can be many idiosyncrasies associated with public funding – e.g. infrastructure projects with federal dollars may have additional compliance requirements (e.g. for environmental regulation or for domestic manufacturing). Though there are many deep policy questions here, for this discussion, this piece will focus on ways to accelerate the process.  

Staffing for success

While it’s easy to say that the government should move faster, the reality for many is that the individual government program officers are typically working at a rapid pace. This is especially true at the political level where the motivation to make progress in a short amount of time tends to be very high. Particularly, when it comes to developing new programs, they do a massive amount of work, mostly unseen by the public, and with very few resources and are often overstretching to meet deliverables. 

The other side of this is that when new programs and initiatives are rolled out, there often isn’t a similar level of flexibility in staffing levels and allocations. In fact, staffers at the federal, state, and city level can get overwhelmed by the volume of direct work and information requests, following the relevant laws and statutes. A new capital program may get introduced, but the number of people to implement that program might not change rapidly. For instance, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 introduced and/or influenced dozens of tax credit programs, and accordingly had to issue almost a hundred pieces of new guidance, so the market could act on them. A relatively small group of people led by the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Policy were charged with generating that official guidance (as required, to ensure consistency and fairness). In addition, a number of the programs therein had complex elements which required deep technical expertise (e.g. tax law, energy markets, carbon accounting, energy technology) to complete their work well – skills that are in relatively short supply and in high demand, both inside and outside the government. The rate of progress was also slowed by some ambiguity in the law itself, where key technical questions (e.g. accounting methodologies and criteria) accordingly needed additional time to be addressed during implementation instead of beforehand. The associated teams ran at breakneck pace to complete all those issuances in just two years. Yet, many engaged market actors who were excited to proceed with shovel-ready projects experienced challenges, as they waited for guidance, thereby slowing initial progress. 

To meet the rapid needs of an eager market and particularly in times when the governments are trying to push comprehensive reforms, agency leaders and legislators need to consider ways to make sure that the implementing organizations are sufficiently well-staffed and resourced. This should not only consider program staff (both existing and new), but also functional teams (e.g. legal, communications, stakeholder engagement) where bottlenecks can often form as they support multiple programs. This can include having surge capacity resources (either short and/or long-term, internal or external) bringing on technical and subject matter experts to help enable fast and fair processing. Also, an implementation staffing needs assessment should ideally be conducted as part of the policy-formation & legislative process so that the appropriate resources can be allocated early and efficiently. To further ensure efficiency of resource allocation and implementation speed, legislators should consider expedient ways to drive greater clarity and specificity at the point of legislation, where applicable. 

Iterative capital deployment programs 

It is tempting and important to get things totally right on the first try, particularly when it comes to government funding, which is highly scrutinized. That said, an approach which has delivered success is to release capital in phases. Here, instead of issuing all funding at one time, the program office (especially for a large competitive program) might split the deployment into phases over time. The first phase is executed quickly and the subsequent phases are introduced later. While this may introduce some short-term friction, it not only gets capital and projects moving faster, perhaps as importantly, it gives both the funders and market chances to build momentum, learn from one round, and improve towards the next ones. A good example of this was the DOE’s Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (“GRIP”) program. This was a $10 billion program from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to enhance grid flexibility and improve the resilience of the power system against extreme weather.  That $10 billion allocation was split into three phases to be issued over a few years. Over those three phases, the quality and ambition of the applications and programs funded increased significantly as all stakeholders were able to learn and adapt with each round. 

Progress over perfection

For public programs, this is a major challenge driven by misalignments of risk tolerance. Many ambitious government funding programs are faced with a strange pickle. On one end, they have the duty, mandate, and power to drive innovation, do deals ahead of the commercial markets, and derisk promising solutions to a point where they can scale on their own and deliver the broad public benefits associated with that solution. On the other hand, the funds being used are raised from people’s hard-earned money or a state or country’s valuable natural resources, and neither should be handled frivolously. The fear of the political fallout from the latter may drown out the benefits of delivering the projects; that is, in the eyes of an underwriter or program officer, the downside risk may often outweigh the upside creation; doing no deal may feel safer than doing a ‘bad’ deal. 

Take the case of two companies that received funding from the DOE’s Loan Programs Office (LPO) in the early 2010s. One is the solar cell manufacturer Solyndra, whose idea was to decrease the cost of solar energy by using cylindrical, thin-film solar cells that could capture the sun’s energy from multiple angles, compared to their conventional flat-panel counterparts, and thereby bring down their levelized costs. Solyndra received $535 million in federal loan guarantees, which it defaulted on and went bankrupt when market conditions changed (they, and other promising new solar companies, were undercut by plummeting prices of silicon solar cells from China). The default filled the news cycles for months, sparked several congressional hearings and investigations, and also left a profound imprint in the minds of many program funders. No government underwriter wants to be dragged to the Hill or see their name in the papers for this reason. On the other end of the spectrum, you have a little-known car company called Tesla, which received a $465 million loan to expand electric vehicle production. Tesla, as we know, went on to become one of the most transformational and successful automobile companies in recent history. And yet, comparatively little fanfare has been made about the government’s role in making that a success. Two loans, about the same size, issued around the same time, by the same organization. Not only did their actual outcomes differ, but the financial outcomes to the upside and the political fallout to the downside were diametrically-opposed.

This contrast becomes even more stark when looking at the broader picture. Again, taking the example of the LPO (now Office of Energy Dominance Financing (EDF)). It has historically had a loss rate of less than 3%, which is on par with most commercial and investment banks – entities which often invest in markets with more proven solutions and less uncertainty. Moreover, other governmental programs, like DARPA, NIH, and ARPA-E, also have strong investment track records. All that said, the perception of risk has led to an overly deep risk conservatism and a sense of fear of doing deals that might go sideways. This creates huge process drag for the entire organization and curbs the rate of progress that can be made, as underwriting processes can become elongated and difficult to navigate. Furthermore, for many loan applicants, it can take several years to get through the loan process; anecdotally, some applicants have complained it was slower and harder to access than what they could wrestle from the commercial market. 

Overall, this is a situation where the tolerance for and understanding of losses for public financing needs to be reconceptualized and appropriately balanced, given the mission. Not all losses are bad. Individual losses are not necessarily detrimental if outweighed by net gains. There are significant opportunity costs of not taking risks appropriately. More can be accomplished without jeopardizing public interest. 

Given the governments’ having historically demonstrated their ability to be good stewards of capital across long periods of time, the inherent risk that accompanies the pre-commercial asset classes they support, and the urgent need to make progress and unlock markets, this is a situation where more streamlined, faster underwriting processes that increase the speed of execution are critical and warranted. Furthermore, governmental funding organizations need to be given more ‘air-cover’ so that individual misses do not get over-politicized, but are understood to be reasonable elements of a process for progress. Note that accomplishing this process and cultural shift requires major work internally with staff, policymakers, and the broader public. This is an aspect where integrating concepts like state entrepreneurism and more balanced portfolio-based risk and reward approaches, described previously, can also unlock new investment and risk management strategies, greater societal benefits, and increased comfort to staff and leaders to usher in that kind of transformation.  

Creating longer and more durable windows of action

A more obvious reason to move quickly on policymaking is to deliver benefits faster to project and community stakeholders – which is, of course, the main objective of the policy in the first place. But beyond that, investors understand that the political time windows covering favorable conditions could be short. This is particularly acute for assets with long development cycles and/or high upfront costs: e.g., building new manufacturing facilities or developing interregional transmission lines can take years. Indeed, it was estimated that 60% of committed IRA-funded clean energy manufacturing projects were originally not slated to come online until between 2025 and 2028. 

Moreover, the IRA timeline created some interesting time crunches. Though the law was thoughtfully conceived with some longer time horizons for tax credits, in practice, the actionable investment window for that version ended up being incredibly short. The law was passed in August 2022. It then took time for programs to be formed and guidance to be released, as described earlier. In parallel, the investment community had to learn, come up the learning curve on the new opportunities, and build ecosystem collaborators (which themselves are also reacting and forming). Next thing you knew, as the election window started to ramp and policy uncertainty increased, many investors started to park their capital and take a wait-and-see approach in early 2024, as evidenced by strong increases in fund ‘dry powder’ (raised but uncommitted capital) but a sharp dropoff in actual capital deployment and assets under management at that same time. 

Moving quickly is critical to give investors, communities, and other associated stakeholders as much time as possible to understand the landscape, develop deployment pathways, build new solutions, and ideally iterate, given the chance to take more shots. 

That was a shorter-term perspective. In the spirit of leveraging speed to open the front end of the window, longer term, some thought should be made to how one extends the investability window. Investors typically do not decide to invest in a project purely due to the project’s merits. Particularly when entering a new sector, it’s also driven by the commercial prospect of potential follow-on deals. Short political windows and the associated ‘stroke-of-pen’ risks often raise major flags for the risk committees at financial institutions. As was mentioned earlier, many IRA programs arguably had much less than two years of impact. Deeper policy stability is critical to ensure continued, long-term investment. That type of stability has, at least historically, been a hallmark of the US regulatory & commercial system and a positive differentiator in the race to attract capital and talent from across the globe. For sectors with high strategic value, high early capital requirements, and long investment cycles, policymakers should consider more mechanisms to provide longer-term policy guarantees to give investors assurance that they have long enough windows to justify their business cases.

Chapter 4. “Okay, now let’s get in formation”: programmatic policy synchronization for fast market formation

Catalyzing the deployment of new infrastructure is usually enabled by a bevy of policy actions. This can be important as transforming a sector may require several changes in economics, behaviors, and processes. Especially when resulting from expansive new legislation and/or executive actions, the government may be required to deliver a host of new policy programs, including new rules (e.g., permitting reforms, categorical exemptions), funding allocations and programs, implementation guidance (e.g., for tax rules), informational reports (e.g., National Lab technical studies, commercialization reports, etc). These types of activities are highly valuable as they tackle different aspects of the deployment challenge and take huge amounts of effort to be effective. However, they often get rolled out and implemented on separate and independent processes. This can actually stall and frustrate deployment efforts as most investors will want to see the major policy puzzle pieces locked in place before getting comfortable enough to deploy capital – for most risk organizations, ‘stroke-of-pen’ risks are often viewed as red flags. Conversely, this hesitation can cause consternation for policymakers and advocates who may feel that they have done the heavy lifting in passing new legislation, but don’t see a corresponding flood of serious commitments immediately after. 

Policy deliverable schedule alignment

One way to address this is to implement a visible and synchronized schedule, showing all the related policy efforts and programs for an initiative. The interdependencies between those activities would be easier to identify and allow relevant stakeholders to see when all the major puzzle pieces would be in place, and in turn, also align their investment and advocacy efforts accordingly. 

An example of this comes from carbon capture: the federal tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration (45Q) was first issued in 2008; however, the first set of tax guidance was not issued until 2020, as the IRS, Treasury, EPA, and other agencies had to build a suite of complex regulations around reporting, verification, stakeholder comments, and more. A consequence is that, though the tax credit was in place (and though there were strong complementary financing capabilities from renewables tax equity and thermal power plant development already in place), little to no investment went into this sector, effectively ‘wasting’ many years of eligibility and frustrating many interested stakeholders. 

By contrast, take advanced transmission technologies: despite being rapidly-deployable and cost-effective solutions to increase transmission and distribution system capacity and performance, they have been historically underutilized. To increase awareness and deployment, the federal government developed a suite of products including the formation of the Federal-State Modern Grid Deployment Initiative, grant funding via the DOE’s Grid Resilience Innovation Partnerships program, loan funding from the LPO’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment program, categorical exemptions in federal environmental permitting on upgrading existing transmission lines, a Pathways to Commercial Liftoff report on grid modernization, new national deployment goals, technical reports and new assistance programs by the National Labs, and more. These were all released within a couple of months of each other in 2024, so the market had a fuller picture to which it could react and begin to make greater progress. Since then, dozens of states have passed new laws, and the number of projects being pursued and funded has also been on the rise.

Capital source navigators

Relatedly, new legislation may result in several new governmental funding programs or changes in missions for existing funding programs. Many of these efforts and changes might go unnoticed or disproportionately utilized. Take the energy- and climate-tech startups, who may be seeking capital to grow or transform their businesses. Government capital tends to be attractive as it is often willing to embrace early technology risk (unlike most commercial capital), is often non-dilutive to the company’s capital stack, and can give the company extra visibility. Most people in the energy sector will know of programs like DOE’s ARPA-E (Advanced Research Program Agency for Energy) or the Loan Programs Office. Far fewer may know that there may be funding available through ‘non-energy’ agencies like the US Department of Agriculture, Small Business Administration (SBA), the Governmental Services Administration (GSA), or the Department of Defense (DOD). These have increased the pool of capital available and provided a wider array of financing products that increase the chances that the right kinds of capital are available to serve the spectrum of company needs.

Initiatives like the Climate Capital Guidebook, published in 2024, can be helpful to make these types of programs less opaque and easier to access, especially for startups and small businesses. At the state level, databases like DSIRE USA have been providing a beneficial service aggregating information on state incentive programs for years. 

Making information on federal, state, and/or municipal funding programs highly accessible and searchable from a centralized, common location is key. Or else they may get lost, buried in webpages that few know where to access. This process can be further enhanced using cross-cutting discovery technological tools. For example, AI-based agents could be used to continuously and automatically map these programs and keep information organized. Also, large language models can be deployed to allow stakeholders to more readily identify and compare programs of best fit (matching things like user capital needs versus program ‘ticket sizes’, usage restrictions, and eligibility requirements). 

Zooming out from individual needs, this would also augment new solution developers’ and investors’ ability to more comprehensively understand the relationship between governmental capital programs and the role they play in energy solution commercialization and deployment. For instance, related to technology readiness, it would make it easier to chart what programs are available to technologies at different stages of maturity. From the National Science Foundation (NSF) for fundamental research, or the Advanced Research Program Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) for more applied technology development and early manufacturability demonstration, to planning grants from various agencies, and federal tax credits for infrastructure projects. 

Similarly, funding programs could be mapped against project development phases. In areas like international project finance, this exercise would be valuable to demystify which programs and institutions are suitable for various phases of project development. In some cases, an international energy project developer using American technology might need to navigate a gauntlet of different funding institutions: from the US Trade and Development Association (USTDA) provide grants for front-end engineering development (FEED) studies, the Export-Import (EXIM) bank for domestic manufacturing loans, to the Development Finance Corporation (DFC) for equity co-investment and political risk insurance. Not to mention multilateral development banks like the World Bank and International Finance Corporation (IFC), which themselves have an array of funding programs and instruments. Here, providing clearer, more cohesive representations of how a patchwork of funding sources can work in tandem and be packaged together can have outsized strategic competitiveness for American companies. This would thereby help level the playing field for companies competing against companies backed by governments that can provide fully wrapped financing solutions.

Chapter 5. “C.R.E.A.M.”: More holistic valuation tools and methodologies

This facet addresses the challenge, which is still too common in solution valuation. Not of valuing the companies themselves, but of proving to customers and investors that the proposed energy solution is worth adopting. Especially because regulation alone is usually not a salve for driving energy transition activities in free market economies. While regulation may steer what should happen, costs and economics are often bigger drivers of how quickly that transition occurs. Borrowing a chemistry analogy, economics determines the activation energy and kinetics of transition policy. Solutions need to demonstrate their fit and attractiveness in often economically competitive and constrained environments. In addition, stakeholders with shared interests (e.g., not just federal, but also at the industry and state & city levels) should invest to build a common valuation infrastructure (e.g., resource characterization data, system models, and more) that helps lower the barriers to deployment and investment. Doing so will also make it easier to appropriately size any associated financial programs (like subsidies and grants), to ensure that there is sufficient catalysis to get multiple stakeholder groups moving and investing. 

Understanding end-use unit economics 

This means that solution providers, policymakers, and advocates need to develop very deep understandings of the commercial drivers and realities of the markets they are looking to serve. They need to put themselves in the shoes of their customers and related stakeholders. This is particularly important when trying to sell solutions into new and competing markets or applications that may not otherwise be required to change (e.g. regulations on fuel use or emissions).  This should seem obvious and has always needed to have been a primary focus, yet it’s a step that some innovators, policymakers, and advocates have not always adequately prioritized.  

This is a recipe for failure, particularly in the infrastructure space. Saying it’s good for the world is not sufficient to get traction; a need does not mean there’s a market. Getting a strong, detailed, and accurate understanding of customer unit economics is foundational to the success of any infrastructure. By their nature, this should encompass more rigorous estimations of how much a solution costs to produce and deliver (which often tends to be underestimated in early stages, and leave stakeholders to be surprised later on by cost overruns upon implementation). And it should likewise reflect an understanding of the customer’s cost and value drivers, as this affects project revenue and adoption readiness. This is a question that sometimes gets missed in the early stages, but in later stages, particularly when seeking significant capital to fund projects, it becomes highly pertinent as investors tend to take a much more critical viewpoint of the economic potential of the project, both to the upside and downside. As part of the process of developing detailed assumptions, they should develop reasonable sensitivities and scenarios that illustrate how the financial performance of the project may vary due to changing internal and macroeconomic conditions. 

Diagnosing this early not only helps the solution providers to be better positioned for commercial success with their customers but also enables them to catch potential flaws early enough, make different design choices, and ensure the product’s value proposition is more robust and resilient. In turn, this helps reduce project risk and gives comfort to financial investors along the way. 

Governments can help by driving easier price discovery and transparency, collaborating with project stakeholders (especially developers and customers) to compile and share relevant cost and value data in more public forums. Reports generated by government agencies (e.g., the series of Pathways to Commercial Liftoff reports by the US Department of Energy’s Office of Technology Transition/Commercialization), national laboratories, and private third-party analysts (e.g., BNEF, S&P, Lazard) have made strong contributions in attempting to fill those information gaps. Continuing to support and drive efforts like those would be valuable. Having state and regional actors (e.g., groups of state economic development organizations) can also help to make them even more granular, and perhaps more local, which would drive even more actionability. They could also compel information disclosure through legislation (akin to efforts in healthcare and drug pricing transparency over the past few years) or require a greater level of disclosure as a part of some government-funded programs, especially with new industries. 

Development of accessible, trustworthy technoeconomic evaluation analysis tools

Intending to perform the types of deep technoeconomic analyses described in the previous paragraph is one thing. But having the ability to do that is another. In many situations, you either suffer from data unavailability or asymmetric access. Taking the electricity system, for example, there are very few stakeholders (usually utilities and grid operators) with deep access to information about how the system and its underlying assets are performing.  Sometimes, this is intentional due to potential concerns around security and market manipulation.  Sometimes, like often in the case of customers requesting their own historical hourly usage data, the process might be archaic and difficult. 

That said, a major downside of this situation is that third parties are often not in a position to interrogate resource plans, challenge priorities, or test and validate new ideas. There are third-party analytics tools, but they sometimes don’t have the requisite data, fidelity, or trust to ensure that their results cannot be readily dismissed. That also makes it too easy for grid operators to dismiss new ideas without adequately considering them. Not having accessible data and models can result in excluding beneficial solutions from being part of the menu of options or from making it to market. 

This has been a pretty common battle with an array of more ‘disruptive’ energy technologies, like distributed energy systems and advanced transmission technologies. But it also occurs with generation. One example is the prospective transition of the Brandon Shores coal plant in Maryland. The plant’s owner, Talen Energy, filed to retire the facility because it was no longer economically viable to operate (following a trend with many coal plants around the country). However, the grid operator, PJM, sought to force an extension of its operation (via striking a reliability must run (RMR) contract) for four years until new transmission capacity can be brought in, citing potential reliability concerns. State and congressional officials strongly opposed this plan as extending the operation via an RMR contract would increase costs to ratepayers and increase local pollution. A group of advocates and energy experts, led by the Sierra Club and GridLab, proposed replacing the plant with a mix of energy storage, reconductoring, and voltage supports, which they claimed would be not just cleaner, but more cost-effective than what was proposed – even more so in the likely event that the transmission project is delayed. Note too that a similar concept was deployed in New York City at the Ravenswood power plant. However, that suggestion was dismissed by PJM, without real allowance for iteration, arguably for not using the right modeling methodology, and for not being a project sponsor. Aside, the decision is also reflective of PJM’s energy storage market structure’s inability to effectively value energy storage’s benefits as both energy and transmission assets. Though an agreement was ultimately reached, many stakeholders view this settlement as suboptimal, not just because of its outcome (even more so as it does not help wider issues like high-capacity market prices), but because the advocates did not have the modeling tools in place to meaningfully evaluate the options and force a more substantive dialogue with the grid operator. 

Rebalancing this situation is essential in order to allow additional key stakeholders like policymakers, regulators, project developers, solution providers, and other experts to interrogate the opportunity space and propose actionable new ideas. This should include creating common, accessible infrastructure for data, models, and evaluation methodologies that an interested stakeholder would need to know to assess potential project options – which are otherwise difficult or prohibitively expensive to access. Note too that government endorsement of these tools greatly assists the credibility of the prospective solution. 

The Australia Energy Market Operator (AEMO), for example, did exactly this by implementing the world’s first connection simulation tool. This tool is a digital twin of the country’s electric grid that project developers are using to rapidly evaluate their prospective solutions in an accurate, safe, and trustworthy environment. 

Also consider two approaches to accelerate geothermal project development, where insufficient quantification of the resource can add significant development costs and project risks. One example is Project InnerSpace: this is a collaborative effort funded by philanthropy, the US federal government, and Google to provide a common, open set of surface and subsurface characterization data. Another example is the Geothermal Development Company: this is a special purpose vehicle fully-owned by the Kenyan government, which performs the resource characterization and steam development themselves, and shares the information with prospective geothermal power producers, which in turn has significantly lowered the barriers to entry and made Kenya a global leader in geothermal power production. Both approaches are being used to help project investors to be more targeted, capital-efficient, and prolific. 

Similarly, Virginia recently passed a grid utilization law requiring their local utilities to measure the utilization of their transmission and distribution systems, including establishing metrics as well as plans to improve those metrics. If implemented well and the associated data is made available, having that data can drive more targeted investments, more cost-effectively manage customer energy bills, and allow new solutions like virtual power plants, distributed energy, and grid-enhancing technologies to be appropriately valued and play bigger roles in the energy solution mix.  

Quantify, aggregate, and internalize external benefits and costs

Many solutions labeled for “climate” often have a wide array of other benefits – lowering costs, boosting reliability, creating jobs, improving health, to name a few. In some cases, reducing emissions might be a secondary or even tertiary benefit. This often results in the cost-benefit of a potential solution being understated and capital being underallocated. Alternatively, it can lead to greenwashing, where the benefits are overstated relative to the impact and capital being misallocated. 

In some cases, like in electricity markets and industrials, decisions are made on a narrower set of financial criteria, ignoring the broader value proposition – e.g., which solution has the lowest upfront cost? What is the least costly way to meet power demand on hourly basis or does the solution pay itself back in three years? There have been some directional approaches that at least help with the first issue of benefit underquantification. 

An example is with FERC Order 1920, a rulemaking that covers new approaches to transmission planning and cost allocation. It called on state decision criteria to be expanded from just cost and reliability to a consideration of seven benefits: avoided or deferred infrastructure costs, reduced power outages, reduced production costs, reduced energy losses, reduced congestion, mitigated extreme weather impact, and reduced peak capacity costs. As it gets implemented across the country, that should provide a considerably more fair and holistic basis to assess the potential benefits of transmission projects and will likely increase the viability of game-changing concepts (e.g., reconductoring, interstate/interregional transmission). 

In other cases, like in some larger governmental grantmaking or policy efforts, a suite of benefits may be quantified but are estimated and presented in siloes, where the benefits appear to be orthogonal and nonadditive. So, the key to addressing that is developing valuation frameworks that do the difficult task of weighing the benefits together in a clear manner that’s directly relatable to the investment thesis. Applying ways to translate those benefits commensurately into the project’s financial terms is critical to ensure they get prioritized and realized. The IRA had elements of this at least conceptually, for instance, by applying bonus credits to low-carbon energy projects that paid fair wages, were put in economically disadvantaged areas, or used domestically-manufactured equipment. On a local level, there are state laws like Montana’s transmission law that established a new, elevated cost-recovery mechanism for transmission projects that used more efficient, high-performance conductors. 

Going further along the point of internalization, there are more structural issues where markets may not be designed to solve for the outcomes that stakeholders are seeking.  In electricity, for example, power markets generally solve for meeting demand for the least cost in a short time period (following a narrowly-defined reliability scheme). This may not only ignore solutions that may save more money over longer periods of time, but it also does not explicitly solve for attributes like resilience, sustainability, or flexibility. That often means external out-of-market solutions are needed to create desired outcomes (e.g., reliability-must-run contracts, tax credits, renewable energy credits). While those have had a great impact on their specific goals, they are imperfect and may have unintended consequences, like distorting market behavior or disincentivizing cost-cutting innovations. Solving that on a greater scale and more fundamental basis in some segments may require greater reforms, like redesigning electricity market structures, revisiting the Energy Policy Act and Federal Power Act, and more.

Chapter 6. “Take it to the bridge”: Rethinking the ‘missing middle’ problem

For the last face of the cube, it is incumbent to describe the role that a whole cadre of investors needs to play. Not just venture and early stage, but particularly later stage capital providers such as project financiers (equity and debt), institutional investors, pension funds, insurance funds, and even utility balance sheets. They have a massively important role and arguably need to be more proactively involved with ensuring the maturation of promising earlier-stage solutions. The ‘missing middle’ problem in energy, where a lack of transition and demonstration capital thwarts promising venture-backed solutions from progressing to mainstream infrastructure, is well-known. While continued innovation is needed to form new capital solutions to fill that gap, there is a lot that investors can do to shrink the gap and make that chasm easier to traverse. 

Engaging earlier to pull companies to maturity

Though they control the greatest share of the majority of assets under management and can support bigger ticket sizes, by the nature of their investment mandates, late-stage investors’ risk tolerances tend to skew more conservative. They tend to concentrate their efforts on solutions with established track records and large addressable markets that provide greater certainty of execution and relatively consistent returns. And they typically have more than enough deal volume to justify their focus in those markets. Consequently, though these investors typically at least follow major new trends, they tend to be hesitant to enter newer markets; in fact, many are content to just ‘wait’ for the market to come to them before they engage. This introduces several challenges. 

First, at the most basic level, it means that many lower-cost sources of capital may be hard to access for newer solutions, whether climate and otherwise, which makes it more challenging for them to compete on a level playing field early on. Next, as importantly, it means that companies may miss critical opportunities to get sharper earlier. The attributes that are valued by investors change dramatically over the life cycle. 

For instance, many early-stage products are rated by things like their uniqueness, differentiation, disruptiveness, and total addressable market. Those attributes that tend to attract venture capital and garner the most market visibility in the media. By contrast, at later stages, especially for project uniqueness and differentiation, might actually be seen as sources of risk: risks that get compounded if the solution is supplied by a new market entrant. Moreover, fungibility and supplier optionality may hold even greater weight. To mitigate the risk of a situation where things could go wrong with a project’s vendor, project investors are often comforted knowing there are substitutes that can be brought in as part of a contingency plan. In addition, though addressable market matters to both groups of investors, early-stage investment tends to focus on alignment with macroeconomic trends. While for later stages, micro arguably supersedes macros, as diligence tends to be more deeply and narrowly-focused on project-specific questions, like contracts, pricing, and execution. Furthermore, late-stage underwriters may need to conduct deeper diligence and acquire more data to get comfortable with the new technical attributes, features, and vendors, which can be a drag on their process as they have to spend more time and money to go through that process. Whereas for earlier stage investors, that deep focus on the new features already tends to be an integral part of the diligence and value creation process, and they get rewarded for that accordingly. 

Overall, not understanding these differences can create shocks for new companies that have had great success with attracting capital early, but get stopped in their tracks when graduating to the next level of maturity. This has also often meant that prospective solutions providers miss the opportunity to sharpen their pencils, address more detailed questions, and have their key assumptions stress-tested. Even if they are not prepared to transact, later-stage investors, especially in infrastructure project finance, should devote additional time to engage with promising technologies early on and bring them along. This is also in the investors’ interest as it allows them to get up the learning curve faster, be better positioned to take advantage of those opportunities when the markets come around, and ensure that the solutions that do make it to later stages are of higher quality and more likely to yield successful transactions. 

Formulate deal templates and archetypes

The previous steer for early engagement comes with a conundrum. For many investors, it is hard to meaningfully engage until there is a complete deal on the table. By complete, I mean a fully-fleshed out representation of all core theses, puzzle pieces, assumptions, and more, mapped to a specific, actionable situation. This is the scaffolding onto which the financing packages are built and the basis by which most risk managers are trained to evaluate the financeability of a solution. This can be true for governmental and commercial financing programs; “bring us deals to look at” is a common refrain.  

The conundrum comes because many of those details may not be fully known early on, so there may not be a fully-formed deal to bring per se, and in addition, there might not be a clear set of underwriting criteria that the company can aim for. Even for offices like the DOE LPO, which was proactive and engaged, struggled to get significant market traction for a few years, both to their and the market’s frustration. Instead of both sides staring at each other like the Spider-man meme, the impasse can be broken by creating deal templates and archetypes, which can take a more hypothetical representation of assumptions, including reasonable scenarios, and frame what the financial structure and execution pathway would look like for that. 

The LPO, for instance, did just that, creating several deal archetypes based on customer type and technology, with terms and execution timing aligned based on the associated risk. For instance, deals involving more established energy solutions (e.g., solar, storage, transmission) with investment-grade utilities providing corporate guarantees were allowed to have faster execution processes than some other deals, commensurate with the comparatively low level of credit risk involved. Next, deals associated with a narrow focus, like the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program, tended to have more well-defined execution processes. For others that may have more default risk (e.g., newer technologies, non-investment grade counterparties), those deals might take more time to diligence and underwrite. This benefitted both the Office and the applicants, as this created clear, agreeable expectations for each.  Providing this clarity greatly increased deal volume and traction, as more clients brought more loan applications and had greater clarity and confidence in the transaction process they were entering into. 

More broadly, this is an area where the companies, industry associations, and other advocates can play an active role, independently and in collaboration with governments. Formulating early pictures and archetypes for financial stakeholders and investors can significantly enhance feedback and capital formation. 

Collaborate, Celebrate, and Replicate 

Finally, energy investors, especially in less mature sectors, need to find ways to be more open, as appropriate, about their investments and investment strategy. Though for product companies, this usually comes a bit more naturally and is necessary to market their products, later-stage investor communications for individual deals often tend to be more guarded and high-level. This is usually not because the information is unavailable. Sometimes this can be hard as they may be attempting to protect sensitive information, or the move may be to protect potential market share and not lead other players on to the same strategy (particularly if they worked hard to open a new market). The richer information transfer usually happens privately during deal execution (e.g., as part of due diligence) or during project- or fund-level capital raises. 

In newer spaces, however, progress itself is often catalytic (rising tides floating all boats). The easiest way to persuade a risk committee to invest is to show precedents and comparables. An underwriter can stand up with greater confidence when they can show that someone else has done it before.  It can be even more validating when that ‘someone else’ is a competitor. Project investors should endeavor to share more about how they got comfortable with the deals, market, and/or technologies involved, as appropriate. This is not out of altruism. Especially in emerging sectors, rapidly expanding the market and creating a foundational flywheel can be commercially more beneficial for the firm versus purely protecting market share. Getting more investors comfortable makes the pie bigger and encourages other investors to pursue their own projects. This then sends actionable signals to ecosystem stakeholders (e.g. supply chains) to invest and create production and delivery efficiencies. The efficiencies improve unit economics, reduce risk, and increase returns both down the line and potentially even on the early projects (e.g. operating expense and replacement parts scarcity reduction). These scale efficiencies and flywheel creation should help investors generate more deal flow and revenue, building on the expertise they have built and leadership position they have established. The advantages can be extended where significant public funds were allocated to the project, perhaps in exchange for preferable financing terms from the public funding institution. 

Similar ideas apply to public sector funding programs. Making announcements about projects and ribbon cuttings, though important, are  shorter-term and quick-hitting communications strategies that tend to be more formulaic. Instead, policymakers should take a page from commercial product marketing. Policymakers should view their deployment policy efforts as their products. As such, they should create consistent, thematic narratives to which individual initiatives, projects, legislation, and rules, can all be framed. Even though they may be exhausted after delivering the policy itself, government officials and program officers should not undervalue the uplift phase. It is crucial to plan to spend ample time and resources to explain and repeat the micro- and macro significance of each product to investors and community stakeholders, especially in today’s competitive information environment. Building greater public buy-in both nationally and with communities, is crucial, especially to longer-term, transformational projects. Government funders should work hard to bring along additional local governments, nonprofits, and investors along to collaborate, celebrate, and replicate the successes. 

Akin to what was mentioned in the valuation section about common information infrastructure, working closely with investors, industry, and other stakeholders to collate and amplify key investment theses, lessons learned, and others will be key to building investor confidence and creating more of a flywheel effect for follow-on investments. 

Conclusion. “The Next Episode”

Taking a step back, we have laid out many ideas and concepts in this paper: harmonization, collaboration, acceleration, synchronization, valuation, and amplification, to name a few. It may seem daunting to look at policymaking across so many vectors, particularly in a manner where many of those puzzle pieces have to align and move in sync in order to unlock significant and consistent investment. That said, the power of a strong and well-intentioned administrative state, at both national and local levels, lies in its very ability to wrap its arms around big challenges, partner with private industry, and leverage its resources to create high-value solutions with outsized benefits. This has repeatedly been proven in the US and globally across time and multiple sectors: whether it’s going to the moon or inventing life-saving medical treatments; building massive infrastructure, or delivering nanoscale electronics. States and towns should roll up their sleeves, find creative ways to collaborate, develop foundational information tools, and remove unnecessary market barriers. Investors should take an even more active role, making their needs known to early-stage companies and policymakers, building consortia to pull new opportunities forward, and creating an actionable set of commercial opportunities that they would find attractive. What’s more, acting now to design and implement new, actionable administrative structures, especially at the state and local level, will not only create more high-value pathways for progress now, but if it is well-coordinated, it can also lay a foundation for federal actions that can be taken, nearer and longer term. Though the challenges and journey are complex, the opportunity before us is massive, the imperatives are clear, the transformations are tractable, and success is achievable. This can be done, so let’s get busy!

Why Credit Access Makes or Breaks Clean Tech Adoption and What Policy Makers Can Do About It

Building Blocks to Make Solutions Stick

For clean energy to reach everyone, government can’t just regulate behavior. It has to actively shape credit markets in partnership with the private sector.

Implications for democratic governance

Capacity needs

Access to affordable credit is a necessary condition for an equitable energy transition and an inclusive economy. Markets naturally concentrate capital where risk is low and returns are predictable, leaving low-income communities, rural areas, and smaller projects behind. Well-designed federal policy can change that dynamic by shaping markets—reducing risk, creating incentives, and unlocking private capital so clean technologies reach everyone, everywhere. This paper explores how policy-enabled finance must be part of the toolkit if we are going to drive widespread adoption of clean technologies, and can be summarized as follows: 

The critical role of policy-enabled finance to drive widespread economic opportunity  

Access to affordable credit is not just a financial tool—it is a cornerstone of economic opportunity. It enables families to buy homes, entrepreneurs to launch businesses, and communities to invest in technologies that reduce costs and improve quality of life. Yet, across the United States, access to credit remains deeply uneven. Nearly one in five Americans and entire regions – particularly rural and Tribal communities – are excluded from the financial mainstream, limiting their ability to thrive.

Private-sector financial institutions—banks, private equity firms, and other lenders—are designed to maximize profit. They concentrate on markets where risk is predictable, transaction costs are low, and deals are easy to close. This business model leaves behind borrowers and communities that fall outside these parameters. Without intervention, capital flows toward the familiar and away from the places that need it most.

Public policy can change this dynamic. By creating incentives or mitigating risk, policy can make lending to or investing in underserved markets viable and attractive. These interventions are not distortions — they are strategic investments that unlock economic potential where the market alone cannot, generating economic value and vitality for the direct recipients while yielding positive externalities and public benefit for local communities. And, importantly, these policy interventions act as a critical complement to regulation. Increasing access to credit is often the carrot that can be paired with, or precede, a regulatory stick so that people are not only led to a particular economic intervention, but they are also incentivized and enabled.  

For decades, policy-enabled finance has delivered measurable impact through multiple programs and agencies designed to support local financial institutions – regulated and unregulated, depository and non-depository – that are built to drive economic mobility and local growth. These policies and programs have taken multiple forms, but can generally be put in three categories: 

These tools enjoy broad recognition and bipartisan support because they work. They increase access, availability, and affordability of credit—fueling job creation, housing stability, and economic resilience. Policy-enabled finance is not charity; it is a proven strategy for broad and inclusive economic growth and a key tool for the policy-maker toolkit to support capital investment, project development, and adoption of beneficial technologies in a market-driven context that can increase the effectiveness of a regulatory agenda. 

Most importantly, policy-enabled finance has led to major improvements in wealth-building and quality of life for millions of Americans. The 30-year mortgage was created by the Federal Housing Administration in the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression. Before this intervention, only the very wealthy could afford to buy a home given the high downpayment requirements and short-term loans. Since this policy change, thousands of financial institutions have offered long-term mortgages to millions of Americans who have bought homes that provide safety and security for their families, strong communities, and an opportunity to build wealth through appreciating assets. Broad home ownership is a public good, but until the government created the right policy and regulatory framework for the markets, it was out of reach for the majority of Americans. 

Similarly, the Small Business Administration’s loan guarantee programs started in the 1950s supported financial institutions, including banks and non-bank lenders, in extending credit to small businesses that would otherwise be difficult to serve with affordable credit. These programs have collectively helped millions of small businesses access the credit they need to grow their businesses, create wealth for themselves and their families, provide critical goods and services in their communities, and create a diverse and vibrant local tax base. 

The financial markets, without these types of interventions, are not structured to prioritize access and affordability. Well-designed policy and complementary regulatory interventions have been proven to drive different behaviors in the capital markets that yield real benefits for American families and businesses.  

The role of access to credit in driving an equitable energy transition 

The public and private sectors have spent decades and billions of dollars investing in the development of clean technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create economic benefits, and deliver a better customer experience. Now that these technologies exist, the challenge is to deploy them for everyone, everywhere. 

The barrier to widespread deployment is that most clean technologies require an upfront investment to yield long-term benefits and savings (i.e., an initial capital expense to reduce ongoing operational expenses) – technologies like solar and battery storage, electric vehicles, electric HVAC and appliances, etc. – which means that people and companies with cash or access to credit are adopting these better technologies while those without access to cash or credit are being left behind. This is yielding an even greater divide – creating economic savings, health benefits, and better technologies for those who can afford them, while leaving dirty, volatile, and increasingly expensive energy sources for the lowest-income communities. 

Many of the federal policy interventions to support deployment of these new technologies to date have been through tax credits. These policies have been very popular, but are not often widely adopted, particularly in rural and lower-income communities, because, (a) they are complex, (b) they often require working with individuals or businesses with large tax liabilities, and (c) they typically come with high transaction costs, making smaller, more distributed projects harder to make work. The energy transition is a huge wave of change, but it is made up of many small component parts – individual buildings, machines, vehicles, grids – so if our policies fail to enable small projects to get done, we will fail to transition quickly and equitably.

To deploy everywhere, households and businesses need credit to offset capital expenses. To expand access to credit, we need supportive clean energy policies that work within and alongside local financial services ecosystems – just like we’ve seen with housing and small businesses. 

Regulation is insufficient to drive widespread adoption 

Pursuing a carbon-free economy is a massive undertaking and, understandably, much of the state and federal government’s toolkit has focused on regulation of people and businesses to drive behavior change – policies like fuel economy standards, pollution restrictions, renewable energy standards, and electrification mandates. This is an important piece of the puzzle – but insufficient to drive broad (and willing) adoption. 

Take, for example, the goal of electrifying heavy-duty trucks in and around port communities. States like California have attempted to set a date at which all new trucks on the registry must be zero-emissions vehicles. Predictably, this mandate was met with a lot of pushback from truck drivers, small operators, and industry associations who struggled to see a path to complying with this regulation without a major increase in cost. 

It wasn’t until the regulation was paired with direct incentives for truck purchases and an attractive and feasible financing package for vehicle acquisition and charging infrastructure that the industry actors started to come around. This has helped change behavior of both buyers and incumbent sellers in the market. 

Policy-enabled finance creates tools – often used in conjunction with other policy mechanisms – that can more effectively meet people where they are with affordable, appropriate, and tailored solutions and can help demonstrate a feasible path to adoption that can help buyers and sellers in these markets adapt accordingly. 

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund as an innovative policy-enabled finance program 

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) is more than an emissions initiative—it is a strategic investment in economic equity and market innovation that took lessons in program design from many sectors and programs of the past. Designed with three core objectives, the program aims to:

GGRF programs, including the National Clean Investment Fund, the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator, and Solar for All, were built to complement other Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) programs by occupying a critical middle ground between grant programs and tax credits. Grant programs provide direct, one-time support for projects and programs that are not financeable (i.e., not generating revenue). Tax credits are put into the market to incentivize private investment for anyone interested in taking advantage but are not typically targeted to any specific project or population. 

GGRF bridges these approaches. It channels capital into markets where funding does not naturally flow in the form of loans and investments, ensuring that clean energy and climate solutions reach every community—but does so in a way that often extends the benefits of the tax credits and incentive programs so that they reach a broader set of projects and communities where the incentive is insufficient to drive adoption. GGRF focuses on increasing access to credit and investment in places that traditional finance overlooks by reducing risk and creating scalable financing structures, empowering local lenders, community organizations, and national financing hubs to deploy resources where they are needed most. Also, because the program makes loans and investments, it recycles capital continuously – akin to a revolving loan fund – so that the work filling gaps in market adoption can continue for decades. 

GGRF’s design was built on a strong foundation of successful direct investment programs for local lenders, such as CDFI Fund awards and USDA programs. What makes it unique is its scale—tens of billions of dollars—and its centralized approach, leveraging national financing hubs to drive systemic change with and through new and existing local financial capillaries (i.e., credit unions, community banks, green banks, and loan funds). This program was not built to drive incremental progress; it is a market-shaping intervention designed to accelerate the clean energy transition while promoting widespread economic growth.

Unfortunately, the program was stopped in its tracks when the Trump administration illegally froze funds already disbursed to awardees, leading to multiple lawsuits to restore funding. Without this disruption, awardees and their partners across the country would be driving direct economic benefits for families and communities across all 50 states. In the first six months of the program, awardees had pipelines of projects and investments that were projected to create over 49,000 jobs, drive $866 million in local economic benefits, save families and businesses $2.7 billion in energy costs, and leverage nearly $17 billion in private capital. The intention and mechanics of the program were working – and working fast – to deliver direct economic, health and environmental benefits for millions of Americans.  

Moving at the speed of trust: Bringing the public and private sectors together for effective implementation 

For a program like the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to succeed, both the private and public sectors need clarity, confidence and accountability. But most importantly, they need a baseline of trust between the parties to support ongoing creative problem solving to implement a new, scaled program with exciting promise and a limited blueprint. 

For the private sector, certainty is paramount. Investors and lenders (and importantly, their lawyers) require clear definitions, consistent requirements, and transparency about the availability of funds, requirements of use, and the ability to forward commit capital to projects and businesses. They need mechanisms to leverage public dollars with private capital and assurances that counterparties will be shielded from political, compliance, and policy risk. Flexibility is equally critical, allowing actors to adapt to rapid market shifts and technological innovations without being constrained by rigid program structures. Understanding these requirements – and the needs of the financial market actors involved – is outside the comfort zone of most government agencies and employees and requires significant experience and capacity building to strengthen this muscle. Nimble thinking is not often associated with government agencies, but in policy-driven financial services, it is paramount. 

At the same time, the public sector has its own requirements which require patience and understanding from the private sector. Policymakers and the EPA, the implementing agency of the GGRF, must ensure that funds are used properly and that Congressional and public oversight is robust. This means designing programs that comply with all laws and regulations while advancing policy priorities. It requires mechanisms for accountability—certifications, reporting, and transparency in how funds flow – along with safeguards against undue influence from purely profit-motivated private actors. Balancing these needs is not optional when managing taxpayer funds; it is the foundation for building trust and ensuring that the program delivers on its promise of reducing emissions, benefiting communities, and transforming markets. 

Implementation requires striking the balance between the needs of the private and public actors; this was difficult and time consuming for both the federal employees and for us as private recipients. There was pressure to deploy quickly to demonstrate impact and the value of the program, but it took a long time to get contracts signed and funds in the market because of the many requirements of the public and private parties involved. We speak different languages, are solving for different constraints, and work in drastically different environments – all which led to complexity and delays. 

Internal EPA requirements and federal crosscutters (i.e., federal requirements from other related laws that applied to this program) increased time to market and transaction costs. Many of these requirements came with high-level policy objectives without the ability to get to a level of detail required for capital deployment. 

For example, two of the major policy crosscutters were the Davis Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) requirements around labor and workforce, and the Build America Buy America (BABA) requirements for equipment manufacturing and component parts. While the agency and private awardees were aligned at a high level on policy intention – good-paying jobs and domestically-manufactured goods – down streaming these requirements to borrowers and projects required significantly more detail and nuance than was available to the agency, adding weeks and months onto implementation and frustration among private counterparties. 

Clear expectations up front on how to manage the trade-offs – policy priorities versus capital deployment – could have helped create a high-level framework for implementation, which was a one-by-one review of use cases to determine feasibility and applicability. This added complexity and friction to the process without driving outsized results. 

More requirements and complexity led to slower, more costly deployment, which meant fewer communities would benefit from the program’s goals of cutting emissions, creating jobs, and cutting household and business costs. 

Another key feature of the program for the National Clean Investment Fund and Clean Communities Investment Accelerator was the ability for the federal government to leverage a Financial Agent to administer the funds. This arrangement was developed between the EPA and Treasury, leveraging a long-standing practice of the Treasury Department of contracting with external banks to provide financial services that were hard for the government to provide directly. This was particularly important for the National Clean Investment Fund program because the disbursement of funds into awardee accounts enabled the awardees to meet a core statutory requirement to leverage funds with private capital. Without this function, the cash would not be available on the balance sheet of the awardees and would be difficult to leverage with private investment. 

Lastly, the reporting requirements for the program were complex, making it hard to provide clarity on what data collection was required for early transactions. Again, both parties recognized the importance of transparent data collection and dissemination but implementing that intent in practice was time consuming. A simple, standardized framework to get started that could evolve over time would have helped reduce uncertainty and supported faster deployment. 

Altogether, the cross-sector translation – finding common ground between two disparate worlds – added many months onto the process of getting the program to the market which, in the current political climate, was time not spent doing the important work to educate a broad set of stakeholders on the program’s promise, potential, and purpose. A lot of this complexity could have been reduced by developing a baseline of trust between the parties through the application and award process, complemented by a common goal to improve program implementation over time. 

Strange bedfellows create weak alliances 

In addition to the programmatic elements of translation, the actors involved in implementing direct investment strategies tend to be unknown entities to government agencies and Congress. Even though many of the implementing organizations – the “awardees” – have been around for decades doing similar work, there were weak ties with Congress, federal agencies, and other related stakeholders. Similarly, there was a lack of understanding of the role that nonprofit and community-based financial organizations play in addressing market gaps. This mutual lack of understanding and engagement leaves room for misunderstanding, distrust or generalizations that can hinder the ability to make collective progress. 

Within the agency, this was a new program type for the EPA, so requirements and design process took many months before anything was shared publicly. The Notice of Funding Opportunity was released nearly a year after the legislation was signed. 

The unique form and function of the program and limited direct engagement with lawmakers and other stakeholders about the program left a vacuum of information, which led to skepticism and confusion. Because the funds were provided to awardees as grants, many interpreted this as just another grant program – a large federal spending package that would lead to “handouts” – instead of what it was, the federal government seeding a sustainable fund with “equity” that would be lent out, returned, and reinvested in perpetuity. For example, here is the Wall Street Journal editorial page,and later, the EPA press release conflating investments with “handouts”: 

“Imagine if Republicans gave the Trump Administration tens of billions of dollars to dole out to right-wing groups to sprinkle around to favored businesses. That’s what Democrats did in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The Trump team’s effort to break up this spending racket has led to a court brawl, which could be educational.”

The fact that this policy structure and the private sector entities charged with implementing it were relative strangers led to confusion and delay during a period that could have been spent on outreach, engagement, and education. Without that broad base of support, the program unnecessarily became a political punching bag.

To mitigate this risk going forward, there needs to be greater investment in relationship building, education, stakeholder engagement and capacity building within and among the implementing partners across all relevant government actors and their private sector counterparts, especially after award selections are made. This connective tissue would go a long way in creating a baseline of common understanding of the policy objectives, program design, and implementation partners involved so all parties are aligned on strategic intent and path forward. 

Making policy-enabled finance programs work in the future 

If we agree that policy-enabled finance is essential to drive the energy transition and deliver broad benefits, the next step is asking the right questions about how to design these interventions for success, drawing lessons from the GGRF and other related programs.

First, what mechanisms should we use, and what are the trade-offs for each? Federally supported direct investment programs, such as managed funds, can deploy capital quickly and target underserved markets, but they require strong governance, thoughtful program design, and radical transparency, otherwise they are susceptible to the “slush fund” narrative or similar risks (i.e. conflicts of interest and political favors). 

Tax credits and incentives have proven effective in attracting private investment, yet they often favor actors with existing tax liability and can leave smaller players behind. Guarantees reduce risk for lenders and unlock private capital, but they demand careful structuring to avoid moral hazard and can struggle to reach communities that are truly under-resourced. 

Despite the many pitfalls of direct investment programs, they address a challenge that has plagued many of the more distributed policies: centralization and market making. Often in an attempt to let a thousand flowers bloom, policymakers underestimate the need for centralized or regional infrastructure to help with asset aggregation, data collection, product standardization, and scaled capital access. This yields local infrastructure that is sub-scale, inefficient, and unable to access the capital markets for private leverage – too small to truly shape markets.

While the GGRF’s future is uncertain given pending litigation, its purpose and role as a set of centralized financial institutions within the broader community-based financial ecosystem is critical – and needs to be more broadly understood as policymakers set future priorities. 

Second, should government manage funds and programs internally or partner with external experts? Internal management within an agency offers control and accountability but can strain agency capacity and impede the ability to be an active market participant. It is also difficult to attract the right talent within the government’s pay scale, leading to an inability to recruit and high turnover. This model has been attempted through programs like the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office (LPO), but even that market-based program has been slower to execute, delaying critical infrastructure and technology investments by months, if not years.   

On the other hand, external management brings specialized expertise and market agility, yet it raises questions about oversight and influence. No matter who the private party is, there is skepticism around the use of funds, their personal or professional gain, and their intentions with taxpayer money. In our deeply politicized world, this puts a target on the leaders of these organizations that may limit who is willing to play this role. 

Quasi-public Structures

Despite the challenges, on balance it seems that internal agency management or a quasi-public structure is the most feasible path. Internal management pushes the boundaries of public agency function but goes a long way to build trust and accountability. Quasi-public structures seem to be a good compromise when feasible. Other countries have figured out how to manage these programs within a government or quasi-government agency (see the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and Reconstruction Finance Corporation, both in Australia). We can too. 

At the federal level, credit programs should be managed by agencies with the skills and capacities to hold an investment function, like the Department of Energy or the Treasury Department, and leverage lessons learned from programs like DOE’s LPO and EPA’s GGRF to structure new entities. Or – like many of the state and local green banks have done – create quasi-public entities that have public sector governance and appropriations but otherwise operate independently as financial institutions with their own balance sheets, bonding authority, and staffing structure. 

Lastly, if public-private partnerships are preferred, who should the government work with to implement policies meant to expand access to capital and credit? Nonprofit financial institutions often prioritize mission, community impact and are willing to arrange complex financings that require a higher touch approach but often lack scale and institutional capital access. For-profit firms bring scale and expertise but often find it hard to manage a government program with a mindset or culture that differs from their typical profit-maximization frameworks. 

Depository institutions such as banks offer stability and regulatory oversight, whereas non-depositories can innovate more freely to reach the hardest to serve communities. Regulated entities provide robust and trusted infrastructure and controls, but unregulated actors may move faster and can be more creative in supporting traditionally under-resourced opportunities. Specialty firms bring deep sector or asset-class knowledge, while generalists offer broad reach and experience in managing across asset classes. 

To identify the optimal path, it is helpful to look to existing programs for lessons. The U.S. Treasury’s Emergency Capital Investment Program (ECIP) demonstrates how direct investment into regulated depository institutions can mobilize significant capital for underserved communities through an existing financial ecosystem. The Loan Programs Office shows what internal management can achieve for large-scale projects. Tax credit programs like the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC)/Production Tax Credit (PTC) illustrate how incentives can transform markets, while guarantee programs such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI) Fund Bond Guarantee and SBA 7(a) and 504 guarantees highlight the power of risk mitigation in activating and standardizing products to support secondary market access. These precedents offer valuable insights as we design future policies to accelerate a broadly beneficial energy transition.

Educating policymakers to build trust in the community finance ecosystem

Regardless of path forward, one thing remains critical – building better relationships between policymakers and the community finance industry, including community banks, credit unions, loan funds, and green banks. These are the boots-on-the-ground organizations that share a mission with many policymakers to expand economic opportunity and broaden access to capital and credit. And they are often the organizations navigating multiple public products and programs to bring affordable, quality financial services to communities. 

The challenge is that most advocacy and educational work for these organizations has been siloed – there are groups representing credit unions big and small, those representing housing lenders, loan funds, green banks, and community banks. The disaggregation of these efforts has diluted the potential for policymakers to look at this ecosystem as a whole to determine how best to leverage it for public good. This is not to say that each of these individual groups does not have a role to play for their members – they all have different needs and requirements and deserve representation. But the broader industry would benefit from collaboration across these organizations to create a mechanism for these institutions to help with outreach, advocacy and education around policy-enabled finance overall. This would bring a strong and powerful group of actors together for a higher collective purpose and, ideally, create a large and diverse constituency with common goals. 

State and local governments stepping up  

In the near-term, the absence of federal support for clean technology deployment through policy-enabled finance creates an enormous opportunity for state and local governments to step up and push forward. Hundreds of local financial institutions were doing work to prepare for the delivery of GGRF funds to and through local projects and businesses to drive broader adoption of clean technologies. These organizations continue to have the skillsets, capacity, and pipeline to finance these projects – but need access to flexible and affordable capital to do so. 

State funding efforts could mirror the program and product design of the GGRF to get deals done locally, working with one or more of the constellation of financial institutions preparing to deploy federal funds. Just because the GGRF’s programs were cut short, it doesn’t mean that the infrastructure and learnings generated should go to waste – if there are public institutions willing to commit capital, there should be many financial institutions across the country ready to put it to good use. 

Conclusion 

If our shared goal is an equitable, rapid energy transition, policy must do more than regulate — it must enable finance and focus on deployment, or getting great projects done. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund showed both the promise and the pitfalls of large-scale, policy-enabled finance: when designed and governed well, these tools can unlock private capital, deliver measurable local benefits, and sustain long-term market transformation. When implementation gaps and weak relationships persist, even well-intentioned programs become politically vulnerable and ripe for attack. To make these programs successful within our current political context, future efforts should prioritize clear governance, cross-sector capacity, and sustained stakeholder engagement so public dollars can catalyze private investment that reaches every community. 

Policy-enabled finance snapshot (illustrative, not exhaustive)

ProgramDirectTax IncentiveGuaranteeFederal agencyImplementing entit(ies)
CDFI Fund Financial Assistance ProgramXTreasuryCertified nonprofit loan funds
Emergency Capital Investment ProgramXTreasuryCommunity banks and credit unions
Opportunity ZonesXTreasuryPrivate funds and other financial intermediaries
Low-income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) ProgramXIRS, State Housing Finance AgenciesPrivate housing developers, lenders and syndicators
New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) ProgramXTreasuryPrivate Community Development Entities (CDEs)
Investment and Production Tax Credit (ITC/PTC) ProgramXTreasuryPrivate developers, investors, and syndicators
USDA Business and Industry Loan GuaranteeXUSDABanks, credit unions, and farm credit lenders
USDA Single Family Loan GuaranteeXUSDAPrivate mortgage originators
SBA Loan Guarantees (7a, 504, etc.)XSBABank and non-bank private business lenders
DOE Loan Programs Office Guarantee ProgramXDepartment of EnergyDOE direct to companies, alongside private lenders and investors
CDFI Fund Bond Guarantee ProgramXTreasuryCertified Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs)
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund National Clean Investment Fund and Clean Communities Investment AcceleratorXEPANational nonprofit specialty finance organizations in partnership with local lenders (community banks, credit unions, green banks, and loan funds)

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.

Building Blocks to Make Solutions Stick

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

Building Blocks to Make Solutions Stick

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. 

FAS Launches New “Center for Regulatory Ingenuity” to Modernize American Governance, Drive Durable Climate Progress

WASHINGTON, D.C. — February 12, 2026 — The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) today announced the launch of the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity, a new hub designed to reimagine how the government tackles “wicked” modern problems while delivering everyday benefits for Americans.

“We can’t manage today’s problems with yesterday’s laws,” said Dr. Jedidah Isler, FAS Chief Science Officer. “The Center for Regulatory Ingenuity will bridge the gap between high-level policy design and on-the-ground implementation, ensuring that government promises translate into real-world results that Americans experience.”

FAS is launching the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI) to build a new, transpartisan vision of government that works – that has the capacity to achieve ambitious goals while adeptly responding to people’s basic needs. CRI does this by (1) creating high-trust environments to brainstorm and refine the big ideas that will breathe new life into government, and (2) building a “network of networks” that supports policymakers and practitioners in implementing those ideas at scale.

“The administrative state has delivered extraordinary achievements in the past, but today’s operating model is a complete mismatch for the complexity we face. As a result, trust in government has been in the basement for decades,” said Loren DeJonge Schulman, Director of Government Capacity at FAS. “Strengthening government capacity is an investment in democracy and deeply intertwined with climate progress. It requires thinking creatively about how to build the government we need, not endlessly pointing fingers at the government we have–CRI aims to do just that.”

CRI is launching with a focus on climate: a space where there’s an increasingly evident mismatch between the functions the government needs to provide and the tools it has to deliver. FAS is pleased to welcome Climate Group North America, ICLEI USA, and the Environmental Law Institute as core partners in this initial work.

“Today’s rollback of the endangerment finding underscores that we are in a new era for U.S. climate policy,” said Dr. Hannah Safford, Associate Director of Climate and Environment at FAS. “To be clear: there’s no credible scientific basis for that rollback, which FAS strongly opposes. At the same time, it’s worth recognizing that while foundational environmental laws like the Clean Air Act worked to curb industrial pollution, they weren’t designed to guide the economy-wide transition to clean technologies that’s currently underway. There’s tremendous opportunity for innovation on how we design and deliver climate policies that are equitable, efficient, effective, and durable. With EPA stepping back on this front, it’s time for others to step forward.“

With the support of contributors from across the ideological spectrum, CRI is already charting paths for a renewed administrative state, a more responsive government, and ambitious climate policy that lasts. These paths are explored in CRI’s inaugural essay collection, Bureaucracy as Social Hope: An Argument for Renewing the Administrative State. The first two of these essays, “Rebuilding Environmental Governance: Understanding the Foundations”, by Jordan Diamond and collaborators at the Environmental Law Institute, and “Costs Come First in a Reset Climate Agenda”, by Devin Hartman (R Street Institute) and Neel Brown (Progressive Policy Institute) are available now; the remainder will be released in coming weeks. Other authors featured in the collection include:

In addition, CRI is today releasing “From Ambition to Action: Shovel-Ready Policy Solutions for Climate Leaders”. This policy primer, crowd-sourced from dozens of experts and policy entrepreneurs, outlines how motivated public leaders – especially at the state and local level – can turn big ideas into reality, cutting emissions while delivering cheaper electricity, ensuring affordable housing, and improving transportation for all of America.

Moving forward, CRI intends to deliver more detailed playbooks illustrating how an approach grounded in regulatory ingenuity can improve outcomes and achieve goals in these key sectors, which collectively account for two-thirds of U.S. emissions and contribute at least 25% of U.S GDP. 

More information about CRI is available here. For updates, and to stay connected, click here. 



ABOUT FAS

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) works to advance progress on a broad suite of contemporary issues where science, technology, and innovation policy can deliver transformative impact, and seeks to ensure that scientific and technical expertise have a seat at the policymaking table. Established in 1945 by scientists in response to the atomic bomb, FAS continues to bring scientific rigor and analysis to address national challenges. More information about FAS work at fas.org.

Media Contact: Katie McCaskey, kmccaskey@fas.org, (202) 933-8857

Bureaucracy as Social Hope: An Argument for Renewing the Administrative State

I. Why Isn’t Government Working?

The “administrative state” is an unlovely bureaucratic term for a bureaucracy that has grown increasingly unloved: the network of government agencies that implements and enforces laws. In the United States, critiques of the administrative state abound. The nativist right pushes back against a purportedly dangerously powerful “deep state” while the left sees a meek state beholden to big corporations and incumbent interests. Libertarians bemoan bureaucratic inefficiency and hubris, while the newer “Abundance” movement describes a state choking on its own procedures. Though different narrators are telling different stories, they are arriving at the same moral that the core mechanics of the world’s greatest democracy just don’t work. From there, it is not too big a jump towards casting a nihilistic eye on democracy itself, and towards reckless deconstruction.

Erosion of faith in government is manifesting acutely in the climate movement. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was by far the largest climate investment the world has ever seen. Biden-era regulations were intended to further spur rapid decarbonization of the world’s largest economy. And yet. If we had a dollar for every word written about the administrative state’s failure to effectively implement the IRA, we’d be shaving truffles on our eggs. Meanwhile, the current administration’s regulatory rollbacks are the latest play in what seems to be a never-ending game of political football around federal climate policy. If the administrative state can’t effectively address challenges it deems an “existential threat”, one might ask, what good is it?

Our answer: the American administrative state, since its modern creation out of the New Deal and the post-WWII order, has proven that it can do great things. Vast bureaucracies now successfully care for the elderly, the sick, the poor. Many communicable diseases are close to elimination. The administrative state, by directing tremendous amounts of public and private effort, built the power grid, the internet, the interstates. Nor are our glory days behind us: The American administrative state played the primary role in ending the Covid pandemic, saving millions of lives.

Even when it comes to climate change, the record simply isn’t one of failure. American bureaucratic regulation, including from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and from the states, and from air pollution standards for cars to carbon trading systems for entire economies, combined with significant incentive investments, has brought us technological transformation. Renewable energy is the dominant source of new energy globally. Electric cars now comprise 20% of sales globally and will replace internal combustion by mid-century. Whole industries are decarbonizing and emissions will shortly be beginning to fall. For all the many dubiously legal rollbacks of the second Trump administration, the United States continues to decarbonize.

And so, we argue, it’s hardly time to abandon the administrative state. But it is time to reinvent it. Our core supposition is that the sense of malaise and stasis characterizing current views of the bureaucracy has a substantial amount to do with mismatches between tools that produced current successes and the next set of tools that will be required to sustain and grow them. In the same way that nations might have a first or a second Republic, with constitutional reforms intervening, it is likely time for the next American administrative state.

Again, grounding in climate illustrates the point. Significant administrative pushes have commercialized the technologies needed to address the climate crisis and substantially pushed them into use. The Inflation Reduction Act supercharged this process in the United States, while China – which has sought to dominate clean energy supply chains via its own administrative state and invested accordingly – did so globally. As we enter 2026, there is no real doubt that many clean technologies are available, profitable, and better than fossil technologies. Every nation, including those that do not substantially produce these clean technologies, benefits from their adoption. 

But we are now running into a “mid-transition” moment, in which rival technologies, energy systems, and the economic and political systems on which they depend, are in collision. Consider electric vehicles (EVs). It is one thing to call EVs into being by imposing traditional “supply-side” regulations on manufacturers. It is quite another, as gasoline demand begins to sharply decline, to manage knock-on consequences for the entirety of the fossil economy, from refineries to pipelines to gas stations – much less the local and state budgets and jobs that the fossil economy underpins. Though regulatory strategies can be designed to address these economy-wide consequences, we won’t get there by running the same plays harder and faster. We’ve got to seriously interrogate where the most significant bottlenecks are, who is equipped to address them, and what tools they have or will need to deploy.

Now add two further wrinkles. 

First, procedural tangles that were created for all the right reasons, but that now hamper problem solving. In the environmental space, laws and processes were put in place decades ago to carefully scrutinize the impacts of potentially polluting infrastructure and factories. These measures have, in many instances, succeeded in preventing harm and protecting communities. But they are also indisputably making it harder to rapidly, massively scale up green technologies. This “Greens’ Dilemma” playing itself out in debates over the national environmental regulatory regime nationally is, in fact, a specific manifestation of broader dynamics. Incumbent systems, and those invested in them, do not particularly like to change. Indeed, the American administrative state generally was designed to move deliberately and deliberatively, including multiple veto points to avoid capture by industry or any particular interests. A worthy goal, but distinct from moving with speed towards the public good. When system inertia makes it too easy to grind the gears, the result, unsurprisingly, is painfully slow progress on building new public infrastructure and harnessing new innovations. If we zoom back in on the environmental space with these broader dynamics in mind, the particular obstacle inhibiting climate progress emerges with startling clarity: a system that was designed to produce cleaner technologies within the fossil economy is simply not set up to replace the fossil economy.

Second, the fact that capacity of the government to navigate these challenging dynamics has been sapped. There are multiple drivers of eroding government capacity. At the state and local level, years of corrosive narrative attacks translated into unwise revenue restrictions that in turn made forward-looking capacity investments all but impossible. At the federal level, a variety of policies and misaligned incentives have led to stasis and overreliance on contractors as opposed to internal expertise. At all levels, well-intentioned good-government and environmental reforms have imposed layers of analytic requirements that, while initially successful, ultimately contributed to “kludgeocracy”, while a highly litigious American society has, unsurprisingly, produced a highly risk-averse American government. Make no mistake: U.S. government at all levels has, and has always had, countless dedicated and talented civil servants who find ways to accomplish great things. But generally, this government is riddled with systems and structures that make it ever-more difficult for even the most effective individual to quickly and creatively deliver, especially when armed with aging legal and regulatory tools. 

The upshot? We need not lose faith in the administrative state itself; we would do better to view it as having functioned with its hands tied tighter and tighter. But we are now starting, particularly in the climate and energy space, to hit real limits.

These aren’t issues we can resolve with one-off budget bills or Band-Aid workarounds. The vision, and the fixes, will have to run much deeper. The second Trump administration’s massive federal shake-ups, if nothing else, have opened the field for reconstruction. There is an opening – and, we believe, transpartisan appetite – for a bold, positive vision of a government that is attuned and responsive to the needs of American people and communities, that people can trust to deliver things like cheap, reliable energy; affordable, abundant housing; and fast, safe transportation even as it adeptly manages complex, higher-order challenges like climate change.

To launch its new Center for Regulatory Ingenuity, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) engaged an ideologically diverse cohort of experts on government capacity and climate to describe how we might realize that vision. This cohort was asked to consider how to advance a paradigm of “regulatory ingenuity” – that is, creativity and cleverness in service of societal objectives alongside basic democratic values – in one or both of the following ways:

  1. Ingenuity in regulatory design. Looking across the entire regulatory lifecycle – from underlying statutory construction, to rule development, to implementation and (ideally) iterative improvement – to seriously examine how existing regulatory systems in the United States can be improved, and identify where fresh thinking is needed.
  2. Ingenuity in regulatory application. Considering how regulations can be coupled with other tools (e.g., innovative market designs, financial instruments, contracting mechanisms, etc.) to achieve societal goals quickly, equitably, and durably.

“Bureaucracy as Social Hope: An Argument for Renewing the Administrative State” is a collection of essays capturing the cohort’s insights. Essay authors envision new alignments of regulatory and financial power, new tools to enable multiple levels of government to move fast, to address distributional impacts, to channel capital at scale, to finally build infrastructure, and to, most fundamentally, break free from stasis. They are, eminently, not cynics. Though clear-eyed about the failings they seek to remedy, they understand that these failings are largely the shadows cast by past success. 

While these essays are grounded in climate policy, they address cross-cutting themes. They use climate as a lens to evaluate where government is and isn’t working. Indeed, the authors’ commentary with respect to government performance on climate challenges is easily extrapolated to other domains.

In writing, the authors revive an older American tradition of a vital administrative state in service of an equally vital and egalitarian democracy. Our nation used to regularly reorganize its government, and the Congress used to legislate regularly on hard problems. The recent reality of agencies working within aging statutes and confined by outdated structures was not the dominant face of government during the creative ferment of the New Deal or the Great Society or, indeed, of the Reconstruction itself. It is, in fact, deeply odd that we still largely live with the same administrative agencies and processes that we had in the 1970s.

So what should – what could – a modernized administrative state look like? The authors together imagine: 

A government that can deliver. It doesn’t need to take a generation to build a railroad, a power grid, or new housing. We can trade a veto-ocracy for the older progressive tradition of governance that rapidly responds to public needs – and secures us the service and infrastructure we need.

A government that can make decisions. The rules of the economy need to stop changing with every election and every major lawsuit. Re-empowering Congress to make big choices, and administrative agencies to deliver without constant swerves, will allow us to stop re-reading the manual and actually play the game.

A government for a modern economy. The future should be innovative and egalitarian. Realizing this future requires the de-risking and direction-setting powers of government to invite bold bets and spur investment, and the distributive powers of government to ensure that benefits are appropriately shared.

A government that listens and responds. We can replace the prevailing procedural labyrinth with a government that asks focused questions on the key issues, acknowledges and addresses real disagreements, and then moves forward thoughtfully yet confidently. That would involve, in part, staffing government fully and organizing it well – reversing decades of attacks on public servants and putting people to work on the right problems.

A government that works on all levels. Federal, state, and local governments each have unique levers and comparative strengths when it comes to serving our communities and society. A modern administrative state should recognize these, and emphasize frameworks that enable them to work well together.

Americans have spent too long living within a slowly failing version of last century’s government. The resulting civic frustration has largely fueled further attacks on government, spiraling us downwards. But an upwards spiral is possible too, in which structural reforms yield a government better equipped to chip away at tough problems in ways that improve daily life and rebuild civic satisfaction.  Because while the “administrative state” as a term is about as wonky as you can get, a renewed administrative state in practice is just common sense.

II. New Approaches for Climate and Democracy

As you will discover as you read, the authors do not all agree on every particular; our goal in inviting this collection was good-faith debate, not artificial consensus. Yet a survey of the collection’s component essays reveals common themes.

For instance, the authors generally agree that economic and industrial policy will be central to the next chapter of climate action. Incumbents still heavily invested in mature fossil-linked technologies and supply chains, as well as non-transparent pricing and other barriers to market entry, badly constrain the transition to competitive clean technologies in many sectors. And where promising technologies are still earlier-stage (e.g., as is the case for nuclear, geothermal, or green hydrogen), there are compelling arguments for government involvement to help establish U.S. dominance. Pollution regulators do not typically, though, control fiscal and monetary tools that can (i) correct market distortions, (ii) manage the very considerable distributive impacts of a shift away from fossil fuels that profoundly impacts industries and jobs across regions, and (iii) support a comprehensive strategy for incubating high-potential domestic industries. Nor are these regulators, with little ability to affect trade policy, well positioned to act within the complex geopolitical context of a partial energy transition. To put it frankly, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to run a massive societal transition with substantial global implications through the EPA. But in the absence of purpose-built institutions and statutes, that’s pretty much what we’ve been doing – with politically and legally unstable results.

This problem is compounded by the fact that the Supreme Court’s skepticism of sweeping regulatory mandates based on old statutes has left the administrative state with ever fewer tools to respond to economic transition needs. Regulations are regularly reversed, and the ongoing duel between litigators and executive branch agencies increasingly looks like an unproductive stalemate. The authors generally chart a path towards a reinvigorated role for Congress to settle disputes, for agencies to act more inventively, and for disputes to move away from the courts and back into democratic processes. 

The authors further point out that regulatory efforts alone are not sufficient to drive the infrastructure shifts needed to make those efforts last, or to buffer their up-front costs. Big infrastructure projects – including vastly growing the clean power grid, electrifying freight, expanding and upgrading transit systems, building new housing, and dismantling legacy, non-economic fuel systems – are central to regulatory success and stability, as well as to addressing an ongoing cost-of-living crisis and boosting national economic competitiveness. Infrastructure, the authors emphasize, isn’t an afterthought – it’s a core enabler of regulatory policy. Unfortunately, the now decades-long trench warfare over climate and other regulations has been accompanied by attacks on the state itself, stripping away administrative and delivery capacity along with the ability of many subnational governments to collect sufficient revenue to fund even basic services, let alone flagship infrastructure projects. The authors vehemently agree that there is much room to trim bureaucratic bloat, streamline process, and sensibly reorganize agencies. At the same time, they observe that a government that is smaller doesn’t always work better; not infrequently, the opposite is true. The authors therefore favor approaches that fit government agencies with the staffing, structures, and revenue they need to deliver on outcomes. Sometimes, those approaches are tweaks. Other times, they’re radical reforms.

II.A Towards a Shared Affirmative Vision

So how do we tackle these challenges – how do we start the upwards spiral in which effective delivery reinforces faith in democratic governance that in turn unlocks more delivery capacity? The authors develop a shared affirmative vision, one that broadly looks like this:

The collective vision is one in which the administrative state starts moving again, returning to the ethic of ongoing systematic revision that once characterized it. Rather than relying on the best ideas and institutions of a half-century ago, we would work towards structures more aligned with current needs – and do so in a way that reaffirms the creativity and vigor that has long powered America’s economy.

II.B Laying Out The Pieces

Each of the essays in this collection lays out particular pieces of the shared vision. Broadly: the collection starts by proposing fundamentally different ways to think about environmental and administrative law, seeing its task as delivering a clean economy at scale, rather than simply cutting pollution, and doing so with stable rules derived in democratically legitimate and procedurally stable ways. It then explores how these legal and regulatory structures could help guide the far larger private sector into configuration with public goals, removing barriers to competition that have insulated stubborn fossil incumbents and creating opportunities to move capital at scale into communities in ways that build a fairer and cleaner economy. From there, wrestling with the dislocations that nonetheless will accompany these changes, the collection describes ways to link participatory democracy with economic change, sharpening the focus of the regulatory state and its engagement with the public. The collection concludes by bringing these issues home, describing how state and local governments can deliver today – and presenting a “policy primer” of innovative ideas that can start moving from ambition to action this year. Below, we discuss each of these pieces in turn.

Jordan Diamond and co-authors at the Environmental Law Institute lays the foundation for this collection with a careful look at what environmental law can do, what it can’t, and how we might rebuild its powerful tools for modern challenges. They argue that the pollution statutes of the Nixon era, crucial though they are to addressing environmental contamination from fossil fuels, are at best limited tools for a whole-of-economy shift away from fossil fuels entirely. Viewing that new challenge as fundamentally one about driving economic innovation and infrastructure growth, they chart out areas ripe for legal development. At the same time, they explain why the next round of environmental progress is more likely to be led by infrastructure and economic agencies than pollution regulators – emphasizing that while pollution regulation will remain critical, we should stop asking pollution regulators to drive a national economic transition with aging environmental statutes alone. Their vision is of treating the energy transition like the economic problem it is, with tools to match. They would expand state capacity, bringing to bear a much wider set of agencies and approaches, and therefore also expand what we think of as “environmental law” to respond to the modern era.

Still working within legal reforms, Kirti Datla takes a close look at the profound challenges modern administrative law poses to the regulatory state. The Supreme Court’s new doctrines, she writes, are making it very difficult for environmental agencies, and regulators generally, to address new problems (and often even old problems) through existing statutes. And they suggest that the Court will impose its deregulatory views on even new statutes. These ever-changing rules strain government capacity, make it difficult for subnational governments and investors to plan a path forward, and prevent progress on policy goals. After acknowledging the need for new regulatory approaches, judicial system reforms, and new statutes, Datla focuses on how Congress can and should engage in the constitutional politics of asserting its role within our federal system, both to constrain the Court and to build its own capacity to address pressing problems like climate.

These two foundational essays, then, help us see the challenge before us. They explain why a kludged-together administrative state running off old statutes and aging structures keeps sputtering to a halt – and start to focus us on an expanded field of play, well beyond re-litigating the environmental policy disputes that have seesawed between the Obama, Biden, and Trump administrations. It is not that the regulatory state is inevitably a “hollow hope” for the shared challenges of climate, democracy, and fair economic growth – but that it has been asked to tackle enormous challenges without a shared theory of action or structures to match. Shifting the economy from its incumbent fossil foundations to a new electrified base, while managing the many linked distributive impacts of that shift under growing climate pressure, simply requires more than pollution regulations or one-time tax policy. If politics is the “slow boring of hard boards,” it helps to have the right tools to drill deep.

But, as Devin Hartman and Neel Brown posit, new tools need not – for durability’s sake, must not – be expensive tools. Nor will another round of mandates succeed without thinking seriously about how to address accompanying costs. Hartman and Brown argue that traditionally conservative lenses that look skeptically at giant fiscal policies and regulatory mandates do, in fact, bring to bear a canny understanding of the interests of incumbent economic system actors. The authors point out that the stuttering progress of the transition to clean technologies comes from the ways in which fossil fuels are deeply intertwined with the interests of powerful economic incumbents, and of existing government. And, having traced the root of the challenge, they conclude that opening these incumbents up to competitive disruption through appropriate reforms will be a potent strategy. For instance, Hartman and Brown contend that the repeal of the IRA may appropriately shift focus of subsidies from mature energy technologies (including clean technologies like solar as well as most fossil technologies) towards earlier-stage technologies (e.g., geothermal). From permitting reform to addressing market problems that deny Americans access to affordable EVs, Hartman and Brown set out a creative array of solutions that, with government backing, can push forward a modern economy at low, or even negative, cost.

Sometimes aligning with these arguments, sometimes complicating them, and always making them concrete, Beth Bafford describes how a focused set of government investments can further shift the economy onto new foundations by using public capital to leverage far greater private investments in the fundamental infrastructure American needs. She outlines how to wed together Hartman and Brown’s pro-competitive policies with the expanded and stable regulatory mission state described by Diamond and Datla. Regulators have often operated on a model in which government grants help underwrite regulatory mandates. Bafford instead starts to outline a structure in which government investments – including simple and accessible loan products – instead help shift the economy towards profitable and self-reinforcing clean new industries. Her model is one in which capital access builds entire businesses that can electrify and modernize core sectors of the economy, from the freight sector to the power grid. Regulations can and should still set the direction of travel in this model – but its engine is broadly shared profitability. Rather than forcing innovation into new channels with politically-exposed regulatory mandates, agencies in Bafford’s model would help convene and channel the economy towards new system states entirely, with regulations conceived as tools operating in concert with economic investments and planning to help crowd in capital to communities across the country.

Nicole Steele explores the role of capital in renewing the administrative state from a different lens. Steele observes that mission-aligned financial institutions (including values-based banks, green banks, CDFIs, and other purpose-driven funds) are increasingly functioning as essential partners in the administrative state’s delivery capacity. Sitting at the intersection of public policy and private markets, these institutions translate legislative and regulatory goals into bankable, scalable projects by absorbing early risk, standardizing structures, and aggregating demand. In practice, this has included mission-aligned banks working alongside state and local governments to deploy catalytic capital – whether as first-loss reserves, flexible operating support, balance-sheet backstops, or credit enhancement – in support of simple, repeatable lending platforms (such as residential and commercial PACE financing) that allow households, small businesses, and local governments to access clean energy, resilience, and efficiency upgrades without relying on bespoke grants or one-off subsidies.

By deploying catalytic capital, Steele continues, these intermediaries unlock funding that would not otherwise reach underserved markets or emerging project types. Critically, investment into mission-driven institutions does not substitute for private capital; it enables it. Strengthening the balance sheets and operating capacity of green banks and CDFIs allows them to originate, warehouse, and scale lending products that meet market standards, crowding in institutional capital while maintaining public purpose. In a period of federal uncertainty and shifting incentive regimes, expanding the availability of catalytic capital will require a diversified approach: drawing on state and local public balance sheets, philanthropy and quasi-philanthropic capital, and mission-aligned institutional investors willing to deploy flexible funds through intermediaries rather than relying on centralized federal programs alone.

Nana Ayensu builds on Bafford and Steele’s insights. As Ayensu points out, we have a transformational economic opportunity to deploy modern, clean energy infrastructure at scale. 

Federal and subnational governments have a real chance to catalyze significant capital deployment of mature and emerging clean energy technologies that are primed for growth – both directly and via investment into infrastructure. Widespread social benefits are available if governments use their authorities to assemble the puzzle pieces needed to create more actionable investment environments. Ayensu describes the state’s ability to do so: it can synchronize intra- and intergovernmental policy execution, build high-value foundational infrastructure to provide project stakeholders with the information they need, develop deeper risk and reward sharing partnerships with the private sector, and create the market forces that close align with economic & societal benefits. Making this type of consistent, efficient multi-pronged effort will be critical to garner the scale of investment needed to expand and update critical energy infrastructure systems and deliver lasting value to communities and industries across the nation.

Ali Zaidi makes the case for bringing this ingenuity to the arena of critical minerals and materials, what he calls “the atomic foundation for reindustrialization and any shot at lasting prosperity and security.” Zaidi draws moral inspiration from America’s post-oil shock response, a crisis moment that authored a broad policy playbook with a spine for experimentation. New laws and regulatory authorities, institutions and infrastructure, and moonshot moves on research…that moment, he writes, gave life to policy to solve a problem. It was “policy with helmets and pads”: playing offense, not defense. Zaidi urges bringing that same positioning to minerals and materials security policy today. In his conception, that policy should entail three pillars – production, partnership, and a drive for increasing productivity – that together support the shared goal of strengthening American competitiveness.

The third pillar is where Zaidi spends the most time. The oil shock of the 1970s propelled domestic standards designed to achieve greater fuel economy and appliance efficiency. Such standards have been weighed down over time by clunky test procedures, multi-year rulemakings, and heavy hand of government auditors. Zaidi proposes a framework for materials productivity that adopts the same solutions-oriented spirit of the 1970s energy policy environment, but is characterized by standards that bind instead of burden. To unlock minerals and materials security, Zaidi writes, “we should replace red tape with rubber bands, just enough structure to allow us to slingshot forward new production, processing, and partnerships — and increased productivity.” Zaidi details a framework that is digital, dynamic, and data-driven: where enforcement is algorithmic, not bureaucratic; and the work is easily federated and easily staffed. This light, flexible scaffolding will accelerate capital formation and technological innovation. 

Indeed, Jennifer DeCesaro, Jennifer Pahlka and Hannah Safford add, we’d do well to apply a similar mindset to planning: a standard feature, and all-too-common bug, of climate policy. Environmental statutes are rife with planning mandates, from Clean Air Act implementation plans to natural hazard mitigation plans required by the Stafford Act to all things NEPA. Look beyond pure statute and become quickly overwhelmed: climate-related plans are mandated by public utilities commissions, developed by task forces, produced as a precondition for grant eligibility, and on and on. Though plans are easy to ask for, they’re often expensive and time-consuming to develop; moreover, lack of coordination among overlapping plans can lead to duplication or even contradictions. DeCesaro, Pahlka, and Safford therefore ask a simple question: “What are all these plans getting us?” They argue that climate policy too often falls into the trap of “planning primacy”, where planning becomes the end goal instead of an intermediate step towards progress. Put another way, it’s rarely the case that a plan is developed and its directions are then followed to the letter. Rather, the process of thinking through scenarios, understanding constraints, building mental models, and developing relationships with other plan stakeholders is what really matters. DeCesaro, Pahlka, and Safford draw from both the climate space and other domains to illustrate how treating plans as compasses, not maps, can improve efficiency and outcomes. Because to quote Eisenhower: “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”

Shifting incumbent systems requires not just low-cost solutions, access to capital, and competent, efficient regulatory capacity. It also requires ways to reconcile or resolve competing interests. Our current regulatory system has gotten bogged down with ineffective procedural approaches to dispute resolution, yielding a litigation-driven collection of process fouls and veto points that no one really likes. Our next set of authors observes that improving this system requires more than a simplistic call for deregulation. Moreover, they argue, the solution can’t be to ignore stakeholder input altogether – that runs the risk of policies that are poorly informed, technically unfeasible, and brittle given lack of buy-in by the businesses, communities, and people they serve. Rather, our authors propose a range of reforms to help administrative bodies effectively collect input from stakeholders, weigh hard trade-offs and disputes, and move forward fairly, but expeditiously: thereby using democratically legitimate decisionmaking to strengthen industrial policy.

The first of these authors is James Goodwin, who argues for an “agonistic” view of the regulatory state in which regulators must actively surface and invite input on genuine disputes. Goodwin proposes replacing today’s box-checking engagement exercises and voluminous stacks of public comments with a focused participation process. In this process, administrators would at each state of a project or regulation, identify the core disputes and disagreements that need resolving, and draw in input specifically on these issues. By targeting engagement – and avoiding consensus – in this way, administrators would be able to efficiently advance dialogues with the public that are both quicker and inherently more resistant to status quo bias.

Loren DeJonge Schulman and Shaibya Dalal pick up on this theme. They argue that treating public engagement as a strategic asset, not a box-checking exercise, leads to smarter, more durable policies that reflect real community needs and build trust in government. Participation is not a distraction from governing – it is how government governs well. They argue that the failure of many engagement processes is not that agencies invite too much input, but that they do so too late, too perfunctorily, and in ways that exclude the communities most affected by public decisions. When participation is treated as compliance rather than governance, it fuels distrust, invites procedural obstruction, and produces policies that are fragile and contested. By reflecting the full range of transactional public participation and relational community engagement options, and by applying clear principles (purposeful design, mutual respect, transparency, accessibility, and iteration) agencies can use engagement to surface lived experience, anticipate conflict, improve policy design, and strengthen the legitimacy and durability of their actions. Done well, participation becomes a form of ingenuity that reduces conflict, eases implementation, and reinforces democratic accountability.

Of course, inviting public participation only works when people are interested in participating. Angela Barranco and Kristi Kimball argue that the American climate movement faces a critical public engagement crisis that threatens to undermine decades of progress on clean energy adoption – and explore how advocates can speak to the public to build interest and support for the shifts that government seeks to deliver and legitimize. Despite nearly 70% of Americans expressing concern about climate change, Barranco and Kimball contend that current advocacy strategies fail to tee up paths for politically durable dispute resolution (and eventual support) because those strategies are unduly rooted in fear-based messaging and technical data. Barranco and Kimball make the case for a shift towards a public conversation that approaches Americans as consumers (who must adopt new technologies and cannot be persuaded through regulatory mandates alone) making lifestyle choices rather than political constituents to be mobilized. Drawing on proven strategies from consumer marketing, behavioral psychology, and community-based social marketing research, Barranco and Kimball observe tremendous opportunities for (i) reframing climate engagement around consumer choice, and (ii) leveraging the unprecedented infrastructure investments necessitated by extreme weather impacts to build lasting climate coalitions while simultaneously strengthening democratic institutions and community trust. 

Ultimately, these changes and debates occur not in the abstract, and not just in Washington, DC. State and local governments are the theaters in which economic and democratic change play out, mediating federal policy and global geopolitical shifts in the lives of real people. Thus both the climate crisis and the economic transition are inherently “polycentric”. Subnational governments have therefore always been at the core of climate and regulatory policy. It is these governments that are most able to set democratically responsive visions for clean economic growth, climate resilience, and infrastructural change that will concretely change lives. If our future is to be shaped more by ordinary people than by technocrats, it is these governments that must have the capacity and creativity to act.

Louise Bedsworth provides a prospectus for local action. As she argues, a rebuilt regulatory state has to position state and local governments for creative action and response. These governments, she writes, are more than subsidiary partners, and more than replacements for federal regulators during deregulatory periods (important though those roles can be). State and local governments are innovators and leaders in their own right. The task is not just to provide ancillary community benefits from federal grants, or to mandate particular state plans, but for state and local democracies to be engines of national and even global change. By expanding their own capacity, aligning capital and economic plans to build regional prosperity and resilience, and engaging in and leveraging networks across geographies, nationally and globally, subnational governments can reshape climate action and the regulatory state.  

Indeed, because of the enormous creativity of subnational governments, and the huge opportunities created by the private sector, in response to past regulatory guidance and government investments, we do not need to wait for a new federal administration to start putting solutions into place. We have already identified a broad network of ideas and actors that can start building these ideas in reality, this year – in a policy primer for that foundational work. The primer, crowd-sourced from leaders across the field, highlights a starting list of policies well within the reach of subnational actors, and focusing strongly on economic and industrial policy interventions that can durably advance clean economic systems while managing real trade-offs with savvy deployment of government capacity. It is a practical point of engagement, allowing for the ideas articulated in these papers to be tested now, not after further electoral cycles.  

III. Conclusion

We do not need more stories of American decline. Critics on the left, center and right have already told us that our government doesn’t work. Americans feel underserved, underrepresented, and ripped off. But Americans also know how to do better. We are always rebuilding our democracy; it is time to do it again.

Collectively, our authors have sketched out the beginnings of an administrative state for this era – grounded in the pressing challenge of climate change and its increasingly evident impacts on American lives. This state would enable governments across scales, and stakeholders across sectors, to realize the vision of a nation where:

This sort of “mission state” – a government that sets a clear vision and brings together public and private sectors to execute it – is actually an old American tradition. What else were the New Deal, the Apollo Program, Operation Warp Speed, and the creation of the internet than missions of this sort? Indeed, when it comes to newer challenges like climate change, we have started, a bit haphazardly, to reach for a mission again. The Inflation Reduction Act’s billions in investments, and the Biden administration’s complementary regulations, were an attempt to bring together the public and private sectors around the vision of a clean and prosperous economy, with good-paying jobs and dominance in the technologies increasingly certain to underpin the 21st-century global order. Yet because of obstacles identified above, that mission was…while not entirely a failure, hardly a resounding success.

But the mission remains necessary. America must not remain mired halfway between the old economy and the new, exposed to climate shocks, with a government unable to satisfyingly respond. Clean technologies are advanced enough that retrenchment and retreat to fossil is a doomed strategy; similarly, we’ve seen that taking a chainsaw to government leaves our whole nation bleeding.

The only logical approach is to tap into the creative, determined spirit that is the essence of American identity. Think of the millions of Americans who, in the midst of the Great Depression, spread out to every part of this country to rebuild it. We still live among the lovely parks, trails, and civic architecture called into being by the Civilian Conservation Corps; our power grid was brought to us by rural electrification, the Federal Power Act, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. We know what it looks like when Americans believe in government and the government is worthy of that belief. 

It looks, to start, like a conversation. As CRI launches, in partnership with a broad network of partners and contributors, we invite debate, dissent, and experimentation. One of our goals is to bring together people and perspectives that are often in tension to identify where there are some threads of common sentiment – and how we can productively move forward despite the tension that remains. We will be gathering thinkers, exchanging ideas, and mapping out pilot projects with growing momentum across the months and years to come, working not just to theorize around solutions but to bring them to life. To adapt the truism about trees: the best time to renew our administrative state was ten years ago. The second-best time is today.

From Ambition to Action: A Policy Primer

How public leaders can boost climate progress, restore trust in government, and make lives better…starting today.

People across the nation are clamoring for solutions that make their lives better. And they’re frustrated by the responses they’re getting. Confronting massive inequality, Americans watch leaders finger-point on the price of eggs; yearning for security and stability, Americans watch politics lurch between radically different agendas. No wonder, then, that public trust in the U.S. government has been in the basement for decades. Americans are facing both everyday challenges and a deep, growing sense of discontent. But they’ve lost faith in government to resolve either.

That sense of stuckness doesn’t need to last. But change means focusing on outcomes, eliminating bottlenecks, and prioritizing delivery. It means embracing tools and talent that better connect big ideas to real-world results. It means resisting the temptation to chase buzzwords – from “abundance” to “dominance” to “affordability” – and focusing on the method over the message.

One place to start is with the shift to clean technologies, a place where there is powerful momentum. One in five cars globally are already electric, while heat pumps have outsold gas furnaces in the United States for four consecutive years. The vast bulk of new energy generation is renewable: globally, clean energy investment is now double the amount spent on all fossil fuels combined.

While the transition to clean technologies is unstoppably underway, it is also in its messy middle. Rival technologies and energy systems (and the economic and political systems on which they depend) are now colliding. Many counties and cities depend heavily on fossil fuel revenues; meanwhile, job quality and union density in the renewable energy industry leaves much to be desired. And core parts of our infrastructure – from the power grid to gas stations – are complex and expensive to convert to serve renewable and clean industries, even if those industries will ultimately boost affordability.

Put simply, remaining globally competitive on critical clean technologies requires far more than pointing out that individual electric cars and rooftop solar panels might produce consumer savings. But we also can’t afford to cede the space. Internationally, clean energy spending is booming. China’s clean energy industry by itself would be the world’s eighth largest economy if it were a country, and Europe’s investments have almost doubled over the last decade. Even if current estimates hold, fossil fuel demand will peak mid-century. If the U.S. continues to hold fast to existing policies until then, we’ll be 30 years behind the rest of the world’s energy economy, and it will be impossible to catch up. The bottom line? Good climate policy is good economic policy, and vice versa.

Good climate policy is also good politics. Climate-induced disasters are increasing by the day, and are impacting both safety and affordability. Americans generally see climate and energy policy as important as immigration. Most Americans, on both sides of the political aisle, support environmental regulations and clean energy development. Many say electricity costs are just as stressful as grocery bills, and they worry about higher insurance rates and local market problems. And they’re tired of entrenched corporate interests calling the shots.

What’s needed are creative, clever strategies that boost climate progress while delivering everyday benefits. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS), as part of our new Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI), developed this primer to put a bunch of those strategies in one place. Our goal is for this primer to serve as a resource for public-sector leaders at the federal, state, and local levels who believe that government can do great things for our communities and our planet.

The strategies herein are open-sourced from a diverse network of contributors and collaborators, and are shovel-ready. Many of these strategies are already being deployed across the country. They’re designed to make energy, housing, and transportation better this year.

Indeed, we hope that readers see the actionability of these solutions not just as a benefit, but as an imperative. Americans aren’t looking for the magic message or the magic moment. They’re looking to government for leadership. Every day that government is paralyzed by gridlock, indecisiveness, or fear of failure is another day that it fails to realize the potential of the good that it can achieve, and that public trust in government further erodes. That’s a downwards spiral that we’ve got to stop.

Finally, we emphasize that this primer is a starting place. We’re at the precipice of a new era for climate and energy policy in the United States, and the strategies that will form the backbone of this new era – by adeptly fitting together government capacity, private innovation, and democratic decision-making – are just starting to come into view. As they do, CRI and its partners are committed to working hand-in-glove with bold doers and thinkers, sharpening our collective focus, and realizing the vision of a more responsive government, more optimistic society, and more resilient nation.

Getting to Work: Opportunities in Energy, Transportation, and Housing

Solving problems requires framing them accurately. As observed above, the truth is that clean technologies are increasingly dominant, and that the United States is rapidly falling behind. A response predicated on propping up the 20th-century fossil economy is doomed to fail. So too, we’ve learned, is a response that relies on the U.S. federal government to muscle the clean-technology transition forward single-handedly.

Fortunately, because so many clean technologies are now commercial, the opportunity for leadership on multiple levels, and multiple fronts, has never been more available – or more crucial. For example, simple economics will do much to propel wind, solar, and battery technologies if needed supporting infrastructure is in place and clean technologies are given the chance to compete on fair terms. Policymakers can worry less about expending political capital on expensive public subsidies for clean power, and focus instead on transpartisan policies enabling broad market access, streamlined interconnection processes, and swift power grid build-out. In the transportation sector, policies that ensure transparent vehicle pricing or increase market competition for legacy car companies may matter more than traditional regulatory standards.

This new reality also makes thoughtful economic, industrial, and social policy indispensable. The advent of new technology often comes with the promise of broad societal benefits, but making good on that promise is hardly a guarantee (witness the emergent effects of AI). It’s incumbent on government to ensure that the clean-technology transition reduces inequality and improves quality of life at scale, and that the transition doesn’t abandon workers in fossil-dependent regions and industries to the vagaries of the market. And it’s government, working across multiple scales, that can assess regional comparative advantages and figure out where the United States can still compete – as well as where it must innovate and diversify.

Government leaders, in short, have the unique ability to see all the way from the kitchen table to the commanding heights of the global economy, and to mediate between them.

We illustrate below the types of approaches that entrepreneurial policymakers can adopt to secure U.S. leadership on critical clean technologies, in ways that benefit all Americans. We focus on energy, transportation, and housing, which are collectively the largest sources of climate pollution and key elements of household and regional economies nationwide. The list below is not exhaustive, or comprehensive, but exemplary – a demonstration that there are real opportunities for change.

Unleashing Modern Energy

There’s massive untapped potential for clean energy in the United States. To realize it, we’ve got to make room for new energy to move.

This isn’t primarily a project of continued renewable energy subsidies: there’s good evidence that renewable energy can compete on a level playing field when it’s given the chance. Rather, the project is one of clearing away barriers to financing and building projects, fixing broken market incentives that favor existing players over new entrants and distort energy pricing, and accelerating construction of major grid infrastructure. 

This project looks a lot like the successful national push towards rural electrification that the United States led a century ago: a serious effort that aligns private and public investments to rethink how and where we deliver energy. In executing this effort, we must grapple with the full set of barriers to building – not just cost and permitting, but also thorny local siting processes, misaligned incentives for electric utilities, and lengthy wait times to connect projects to the grid. 

Today, of course, we’ve also got to reckon with the growing threats of cyberattacks and extreme weather to energy infrastructure, as well as the unprecedented, unpredictable energy demands of hyperscalers. Such challenges can only be managed by a mix of climate stabilization policies, economic risk-sharing strategies, and investments in infrastructure modernization. That’s not a cheap or easy proposition, but it is one with major lasting benefits.

At the consumer level, building more clean energy can help stabilize residential electricity prices (though many other factors also contribute to electricity prices and price volatility). More broadly, clean energy could unlock billions of dollars in potential efficiencies, such as by reducing costs associated with redundant natural gas transmission infrastructure. Expanding clean energy, especially distributed energy resources and virtual power plants, can also upgrade outdated grid infrastructure and secure it against cyber threats. But getting to these benefits requires government leadership.

Energy ingenuity could look like:

Making Transportation Cleaner and Cheaper

People just want to get to where they’re going safely, efficiently, and affordably. Yet despite record levels of federal transportation spending, traffic, emissions, and pedestrian deaths keep rising. And as the Cato Institute observes, “U.S. policy contributes to an inefficient and costly transportation system that reduces workers’ time and incomes.”

We can do better. This starts by recognizing that in much of the United States, cars are both essential and increasingly unaffordable. There’s opportunity for a suite of policies that break market strangleholds while expanding consumer choice, moving us away from involuntary dependence on expensive cars and towards a future with transit that people actually want to ride – as well as affordable yet excellent, and often zero-emission, personal transportation. Core federal clean transportation programs have supported $4.6 billion in domestic investments and created at least 14,000 jobs in manufacturing, demonstrating the large-scale benefits of such programs and the economic case for continued federal support. Because the tools involved are nearly all within the authorities of state and local governments, and independent of ongoing federal regulatory disputes, they also can go into effect quickly.

On the vehicle side, this agenda includes governmental efforts to address legacy company market power. Incentives and protections for domestic manufacturing are sensible so long as they boost local economies, support American workers, and drive American innovation – but they’ve got to be coupled with policies ensuring price transparency and other oversight mechanisms, to ensure that benefits flow to consumers rather than pad company profits. Unlocking a more affordable, competitive, zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) market – with more options for buyers at lower prices – is also a key political foundation to the next round of vehicle regulatory mandates, by creating a larger constituency for further progress.

On the system side, states and cities can significantly build up regional budgets with savvy transportation investments. The data are clear that transit and walkability investments bring more valuable housing into cities and connect people with jobs, raising economic activity and raising property values. Investments in electric-vehicle charging similarly boost local business revenue and spurs economic vitality. Communities thrive when their members have transportation options (that all work well), instead of being steered towards legacy vehicle technology and wrestling with creaky 20th-century infrastructure.

On the vehicle side, transportation ingenuity could look like:

On the system side, transportation ingenuity could look like:

Building Affordable, Abundant Housing

Housing shouldn’t be a luxury: it’s a prerequisite for a stable, healthy life. Yet Americans – facing prohibitively high (and increasing) rental costs as well as unrealistic down payments and pathways to ownership – are struggling to meet this basic need. And with extreme weather on the rise, renters and owners alike are facing concerns about physical safety and skyrocketing insurance as well as price hurdles. The emissions that the housing sector produces only worsen these problems.

Delivering more affordable, resilient, and climate-friendly housing means making it easier to build housing of all shapes and sizes; tailoring solutions to rural communities, urban communities, and different geographies generally; and striking a better balance between development for housing and development for other purposes. These strategies need to be paired with deep investments in government capacity to facilitate permitting and approval of new housing construction, as well as to facilitate more complex projects – like retrofits, infill development, and office-to-residential conversion – at scale. Also critical is reimagining community and stakeholder engagement on housing questions, aiming to maintain trust, democratic process, and local buy-in without overvaluing the perspectives of existing homeowners, developers, or any other particular constituency. at the expense of the rest of the community.

Housing ingenuity could look like:

Making Solutions Stick: The Cross-Cutting Benefits of Government Capacity, Pro-Democracy Design, and Innovative Financing

Each of the policy solutions above offers a way to boost climate progress while delivering everyday benefits across energy, transportation, and/or housing. But how do we make those solutions stick? With trust in government at historic lows, public-sector leaders must quickly follow ambition with action, investing in both ideas and the building blocks that turn ideas into reality. Below, we outline how public leaders can use three of these core building blocks – government capacity, financing, and pro-democracy design – to get on the scoreboard early…and stay there for the long term.

Government Capacity

Government capacity refers to the ability of government to get things done, whether through efficient processes, effective talent, or fit-for-purpose tools. Americans are frustrated by the slow pace of government, but they don’t want the functions that keep them safe and supported dismantled: they want them improved. Accomplishing this requires more than new programs or new funding streams or new inventions. It requires leaders to seriously (and systematically – not via a “wrecking ball” approach) consider which government functions are working, which need to be overhauled, and which should be retired.

Rebuilding government capacity is inseparable from strengthening democracy itself. Both of these goals are wholly intertwined with climate progress. When government acts competently, transparently, and in partnership across levels, it restores public faith that collective action is possible and worthwhile. When it can’t, even well-designed policies stall under the weight of fragmented authority, procedural burden, risk aversion, and institutional inertia. Treating government capacity as a core investment is therefore much more than administrative housekeeping. It’s a prerequisite for durable climate progress.

To boost government capacity, public leaders can:

Finance

Capital is a powerful tool for policymakers and others working in the public interest to shape the forward course of the economy in a fair and effective way. Very often, the capital needed to achieve major societal goals comes from a blend of sources; this is certainly true with respect to climate action and facilitating the transition to clean technologies.

States, cities, banks, community-driven financial institutions (CDFIs), impact investors, and philanthropies have long worked in partnership with the federal government on clean-technology projects – and are stepping up in a new way now that federal support for such projects has been scaled back. These entities are developing bond-backed financing, joint procurement schemes, and revolving loan funds – not just to fill gaps, but to reimagine what the clean technology economy can look like.

In the near term, opportunities for subnational investments are ripe because the now partially paused boom in potential firms and projects generated by recent U.S. industrial policy has generated a rich set of already underwritten, due-diligenced projects for re-investment. In the longer term, the success of redesigned regulatory approaches will almost certainly depend on creating profitable firms that can carry forward the clean-technology transition. Public sector leaders can assume an entrepreneurial role in ensuring these new entities, to the degree they benefit from public support, advance the public interest: connecting economic growth to shared prosperity.

To be sure, subnational actors generally cannot fund at the scale of the federal government. But they can have a truly catalytic impact on financing availability and capital flows nevertheless. 

To boost finance, public leaders can:

Public Participation

Public participation in climate action is often treated as a procedural requirement to be satisfied late in the process, rather than as a core function of governing well. The result is familiar: performative town halls, notice-and-comment processes that invite frustration rather than insight, and transparency tools that are easily weaponized by organized interests. This dynamic erodes trust, slows projects, and fuels the perception that government is both unresponsive and incapable. Yet participation, when designed well and tailored to the moment, is not an obstacle to effective governance:  it is how government discovers what will work, where friction will arise, and how to build solutions that communities will defend rather than resist. Treating participation as a functional component of state capacity means seeing it as an input to smarter design, faster implementation, and more durable outcomes.

Upgrading how government listens and engages is vital to upgrading how government delivers. When residents see clearly how their input shapes decisions, participation builds legitimacy and reduces the incentives for obstruction and litigation later in the process. When agencies invest in the infrastructure, tools, roles, and expectations that make participation meaningful, they create a feedback loop that improves policy design and strengthens democratic trust at the same time. And when climate leaders meet the public where they are in terms of how they experience and make consumer choices in the the climate transition, we can strengthen the connective tissue between government action and public trust.The recommendations below are aimed at helping public leaders move beyond compliance-driven engagement toward participation models that are relational, deliberative, and integrated into the machinery of experience and delivery. This approach ensures that climate solutions are not only technically sound, but socially resilient and democratically grounded. These take time, but we encourage recognition that they enable enormous time, risk and failure saved. 

To boost public participation, public leaders can:

About The Primer

Ambition to Action was authored by Angela Barranco, Zoë Brouns, Megan Husted, Kristi Kimball, Arjun Krishnaswami, Hannah Safford, Loren Schulman, Craig Segall, and Addy Smith.

Many individuals contributed ideas and input to this primer. The authors are grateful to the following individuals and organizations for their time, expertise, and constructive feedback: Patrick Bigger, Laurel Blatchford, Heather Clark, Ted Fertik, Danielle Gagne, Kate Gordon, Betony Jones, Nuin-Tara Key, Alex McDonough, Sara Meyers, Shara Mohtadi, Saharnaz Mirzazad, Beth Osborne, Alexis Pelosi, Sam Ricketts, Bridget Sanderson, Lotte Schlegel, Igor Tregub, Louise White, and Clinton Britt. The content of this primer does not necessarily reflect the views of individuals or organizations acknowledged. Any errors are the sole fault of the authors.

To scale up climate solutions, local governments need to accelerate system changes

When I ran for city council in Boulder, Colorado in 2023, everyone talked about climate change. Forum after forum, all ten candidates spoke up for the climate. 

And cities saying climate change matters is typical. The number of US cities with adopted climate action plans is in the hundreds. 

That’s what we need, since cities drive the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions and are on the front lines of climate havoc. 

More specifically, for large-scale climate solutions to work, cities have to really stretch. That’s according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which says cities need to rapidly become compact, efficient, electrified, and nature‑rich urban ecosystems where we take better care of each other and avoid locking in more sprawl and fossil‑fuel dependence. 

Yet, big-picture progress in the United States is critically insufficient. Those are the words of Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific analysis evaluating climate commitments. The US has pledged to reduce 2030 GHG emissions levels by 50–52% below 2005, yet the latest projections show we are on track to achieve at best only 29–39%—assuming no further backsliding.

And earlier this month, the Trump administration withdrew our federal government from the international climate agreement process.

So when local governments say “we’re on it,” what is a concerned citizen to think?

What local government climate solutions look like 

Climate advocates are used to talking about climate action. But for local governments, the measuring stick for climate progress isn’t simply action. What counts is measurable progress towards specific, substantive transitions.

Transitions to walkable, compact neighborhoods where abundant, space-efficient middle housing near jobs and services let most residents meet daily needs within a short walk or bike ride, reducing trip lengths and housing and transport costs.

To transit-rich, highly bikeable towns where frequent, accessible service and a connected, protected network allow seniors and youth travel independently and where per-capita car dependence falls.

To fully-electrified communities in which homes and transportation run on clean, distributed power, working efficiently, that delivers lower bills, healthier indoor air, and outage resilience, with benefits accruing equitably to residents.

To enhanced landscapes of bioswales, permeable streets, restored wetlands, and drought- and fire-resilient shade trees that cool neighborhoods, absorb stormwater, and buffer heat, flood, and smoke risks.

To resilient local food systems that blend urban agriculture with regional producers, food hubs, cold storage, and compost-to-soil loops to deliver reliable, affordable, nutritious food even during heat, drought, or supply disruptions.

There is good news: The transitions we need, and the solutions and capacity we need to implement them, are showing new signs of life. That’s evident in two trends. 

One trend is local governments playing a bigger role in climate solutions. The number of U.S. cities reporting to the CDP, a global system for disclosing climate progress, has grown to over 150. Now more than 200 US cities have committed to 100 percent clean electricity. And cities’ climate action plans are showing a visible shift from a focus on municipal operations to community‑wide impacts of buildings, transportation, and waste, and more sophisticated thinking about resilience.

As the federal government has retreated, advocates are increasingly realizing cities and counties have tools to lead. Local governments manage streets, land use, buildings, public fleets, transit, and major service contracts. They can strongly influence state-level actors, like energy utilities and air quality programs, and be providers of those services directly.

There is proof of this awakening in the large numbers of people suddenly running for local office on climate. Political organizing coalitions such as Run on Climate and Climate Cabinet helped elect more than 50 local leaders running on climate in 2025. One of the year’s most high-profile candidates, Zohran Mamdani, won with “fast and free” buses–one of the measures IPCC has highlighted as a meaningful mitigation measure that saves more money than it costs–as a centerpiece of his campaign.

The other trend is a greater focus on wellbeing. Research included in the latest IPCC report shows demand-side measures can cut end-use emissions by roughly 40 to 70 percent by 2050 while improving daily life and making communities stronger. And wellbeing is the currency of local governments and local politics. Concrete quality of life issues dominate local elections and policymaking, which is where climate action takes root—or doesn’t.

Climate action prompted by a desire for healthier, happier, and less expensive lives is happening. People are adopting electric cars, e-bikes, heat pumps, and induction stoves because they work better, are cheaper to operate, and healthier. The intersection of climate solutions and wellbeing is central to a 2025 bestseller Abundance  and to the national conversation it kicked off about defining and achieving “abundance.” The topic of wellbeing was a bright spot at the COP30 climate talks via the World Health Organization’s report, “Delivering the Belém Health Action Plan.”

These two trends reinforce each other. Local governments oversee the services where wellbeing, decarbonization, and resilience meet. When those services are designed as a system, investments can compound to create more value for more people, who then have a stake in continuing the transition. And the importance of rallying around local governments to carry climate solutions forward is becoming clearer as U.S. national policy looks structurally less reliable than most experts used to think.

Difficult conditions for change 

But local governments face headwinds. Existing policies and markets, like those that have created widespread car dependence and extensive natural gas systems, create momentum that favors the status quo and encourages continued investments that lock us in further. Simply put, it’s easiest to keep doing it the way we’ve done it before, and then we dig ourselves in deeper.

Local governments purposefully design systems to keep things stable. Most likely, whatever your town or county is doing is based on the direction of long-term plans, from departmental plans to bigger comprehensive plans. Those plans often come up for renewal only every few years or longer, and if you miss that window or fail to follow procedures, making big change is nearly impossible. Related, local governments tend to have policies and practices for conducting community engagement that deliberately create a high bar for making major turns.

On top of all that, local governments in the U.S. are suffering a long-term decline in investment that leaves them with significant and growing cash flow constraints, heavy workloads, limited time to deliberate, and pressure to deliver. The pandemic and recent national political forces reduce their maneuverability even more.

Political will necessary but not sufficient—concrete transitions are needed

In order to drive climate transitions under such tough conditions, political will is necessary but it is not sufficient. For local governments to scale up climate solutions, they need to take tangible, visible steps to change systems, consistent with evidence-based recommendations, outlined by institutions like the IPCC. 

Here is what that can look like – and what advocates can look to encourage:

1. Transition plans  

Climate issues touch everything, so all local governments can point to doing climate things. But the difference between lists of activities and high-reward strategic commitments that make good use of time is everything. The latter requires a clear plan to make transitions happen, with defined outcomes and milestones, and dogged pursuit.

Ambitious climate action at the local government level means being clear about the transition(s) the community is focused on, which could include the previously mentioned examples, along with what successful completions looks like and by when. This involves working on at least two tracks concurrently—both integrating ambitious transformations into long-term planning exercises, for which adopting changes may or may not be available right away, and taking whatever more tactical action is possible now to support such planning and concrete action to the fullest extent possible.

2. User experience  

Cities often add a bike lane in one place or restore a bus line in another. What truly changes behavior is a complete experience that makes the pro-climate option the intuitive choice. Kids can bike around town without parents fearing they could be hit by a driver. You can count on bringing a large electric bike anywhere and park it safely. Buses are within a 10-minute walk of home and arrive every 10 minutes. Utility investments in electrification actually lower monthly bills. To make climate transitions attractive and sticky, we have to confront gaps that get in the way of people’s experience from their vantage point.

A practical opportunity for local governments is to use the tools of user experience (“UX”) and be responsible for how the ecosystem works and feels from the immersive standpoint of users. UX is an interdisciplinary field that uses research, psychology, and design to remove friction and ensure a seamless journey for users.

3. Public service delivery  

One of the core jobs of local government is to provide public services like zoning, safe transportation, building standards, air quality protections, and emergency management. Providing services is also generally the justification for spending public money. And services are where the planning activities that local governments tend to be so careful about materialize in the real world. So if local governments are going to be engines of climate action, then day-to-day service delivery—their core product—is where most of that action will show up. Climate action will appear in what gets approved, funded, built, maintained, enforced, measured, and improved.

Local governments already deliver public services. So the opportunity is to evaluate how core local government services can or should be tuned and/or reorganized to drive climate and resilience outcomes. This includes formal adoption in comprehensive plans, capital improvement programs, and strategic plans, and clear alignment with budget priorities. When leaders routinely report on progress and adjust course publicly, it signals that climate transitions are a core organizational responsibility rather than a side project.

4. High-level ownership 

Plans only come to life when people who have the right level of power and accountability own delivery. Inside local government, that means both the elected body (mayor, city council, and/or their equivalents) and executives (city manager, their deputies, and in the case of a “strong mayor” form of government, the mayor) adopt the initiative as their own. Roles and accountability are defined and gaps are addressed. Resources are allocated through direct investments and through partnerships that expand capacity.

High-level ownership of climate solutions in local government happens when transitions are included in the agency’s highest-level plans and strategies.This includes formal adoption in comprehensive plans, capital improvement programs, and strategic plans, and clear alignment with budget priorities. It also looks like leaders routinely communicating to the public about the transitions under way, the progress against them, and how community members can help support the journey.

5. Playbook of procedures

Local government commitments are heavily shaped and constrained by procedure, like protocols for what gets a hearing and when, annual or biennial work plans, and comprehensive plans that may come around only every few years or longer. Communications between elected officials and staff may be limited by city ordinance, and communications among elected officials may be very limited by state law. There are also often arcane, highly-localized meeting customs. Getting things done requires working through these procedures and often landing decisions in small windows that are easy to miss. 

A playbook for how climate transitions are going to make their way into staff proposals, planning processes,and budgeting is fundamental to turning a good idea into something real. Such a playbook is needed to spell out who does what, when, and through which formal channels, so that key decisions do not depend on heroic one-off efforts. It also helps new staff and elected officials quickly understand how to use existing procedures to advance climate goals, rather than be derailed by them.

Conclusion

To scale up climate solutions through local government, we need at least two things. First, political will, which is familiar to most advocates. Looking into 2026 and beyond, climate advocates have great opportunities to continue increasing the proportions of elected local bodies who are led by politicians serious about climate solutions. Everyone has a role to play: run for local office, support local climate candidates, use whatever powers of creativity and persuasion you have–from writing to speaking to organizing and beyond–to help make climate action a core election issue in your community. 

The second—and where we need greater shared focus—is to make local governments responsible for specific, strategic commitments to systems change. To do that, help build transition plans that commit to providing great user experiences, an approach to public service delivery that is aligned with those objectives, ownership by city council and the city manager or mayor, and a clear playbook for how strategic climate commitments are going to be adopted and rolled out.

Not everything is going right for the climate movement. But there are some fantastic bright spots, and one of those is big new local government innovations that are starting to unfold.  

Looking into 2026, I’m excited to be a part of the movement to help local governments drive the next generation of climate progress. And a big hat tip to FAS with its regulatory rethink and government capacity work as well as ICLEI USA, both partnering with local officials like me to map out how cities can translate ambitious climate goals into durable systems change. 

There are great things ahead, and so much room to work together.

Barriers to Building: A Framework for the Next Era of Electricity Policy

The American power grid in 2025 faces a set of challenges unlike any in recent memory. The United States is deploying clean energy far too slowly to meet load growth, avoid spikes in electricity prices, and combat climate change. To get within striking distance of the Paris climate goals and plan for the lowest electricity costs, we must build 70 to 125 gigawatts of clean energy per year, much higher than the record 50 gigawatts built in 2024. 

Grid upgrades, too, are proceeding far too slowly. To meet growing electricity demand and integrate new clean power at lowest cost, transmission capacity must more than double within regions and increase more than four-fold between regions by 2035. But large transmission projects frequently take 7 to 15 years from initial planning to in-service operation and only 322 miles of new high-voltage transmission lines were completed in 2024—the third slowest year of new construction in the last 15 years.

Even before the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) gutted federal clean energy incentives, non-cost challenges like uncertain and lengthy interconnection and siting processes, local restrictions on development, and supply chain bottlenecks led to lower levels of clean energy deployment than projected and slowed down grid upgrades. Now, clean energy and transmission face additional cost and financing barriers from Congressional rollbacks and permitting restrictions from the Trump Administration.

Past federal and state clean energy policies, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) as well as state renewable portfolio standards, have leaned heavily on financial incentives to drive deployment and incentivize grid upgrades and expansion. These incentives successfully attracted massive investment in clean energy projects, but they largely did not grapple with non-cost challenges—like siting restrictions—to building projects.

Political challenges have made it difficult to pass, implement, and defend clean energy policies. A mismatch between public needs, government programs, and industry incentives has led to unsatisfactory outcomes and degraded public trust in the government. 

Now, policymakers, industry, and the advocacy community are paying more attention to non-financial issues that can impede deployment, like siting and permitting. The abundance movement, for example, has identified two causes of America’s building problem: ineffective government programs and burdensome permitting processes. This diagnosis is incomplete. Getting to a world where we can build things quickly and make government work will require us to identify the full suite of problems, not just these convenient two. 

To maximize clean energy deployment, we must address the project development barriers that slow down investment and construction. And to build more durable and effective energy policies, we must interrogate and address the political barriers that have held us back from smart policymaking and implementation that can withstand political change. Overcoming these challenges is necessary to address the climate crisis, rein in rising utility bills, and ensure that government can deliver on its energy promises to the public it serves. 

In early 2025, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) set out to identify and categorize these barriers through research and interviews with experts and practitioners. Following this research, at the 2025 Climate Week NYC, FAS convened a group of researchers, advocates, industry leaders, and policymakers to solicit feedback on this framework. 

The outcome of that convening allowed us to ground-truth the following report—which we intend to use as a rubric for state-level electricity policies and efforts to rethink federal energy policy. We should ask: to what extent do new policies under consideration reduce the major barriers to building clean energy and transmission while addressing the shortcomings that have made past policy less durable? 

A future paper will detail the priority solutions that make progress on each of the project development barriers while improving our toolkit to overcome the political barriers that impede durable policy.

Contents

Jump to chapter
Interconnection
Siting & Permitting
Misaligned Incentives
Financing
Grid Planning
Supply Chains
Jump to chapter
Energy Affordability
Incumbent Interests
Delayed Impact
Jump to chapter

Project Development Barriers: Making it Harder to Build

Clean energy technologies are mature and cost competitive, if not least cost, across the country. Yet we are not building clean energy as fast as necessary, and in many places we are building new gas plants instead, raising costs for customers and intensifying the climate crisis. This trend is the result of several barriers that make it more difficult to build clean energy. 

The Barrier

The interconnection process is one of the most significant constraints on clean energy deployment in the United States. At the end of 2023, nearly 2,600 gigawatts (GW) of generation and storage were queued, which is more than double the U.S. installed capacity (~1,280 GW). Today’s grid was built around a small number of large, centralized fossil fuel plants; the grid must now accommodate thousands of diverse, geographically distributed projects. Processes that were designed for a handful of large plants per year are now evaluating orders of magnitude more proposals, each with more complex grid interactions. These processes are not able to adequately handle the current grid, nor have they kept pace with development in grid planning and analysis tools. The result is a massive backlog of projects waiting to interconnect to the grid and a review system that is fundamentally misaligned with the scale and pace of the energy transition. 

Developer experience confirms that interconnection challenges rank among the most decisive barriers to clean energy buildout. In the 2024 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) developer survey, respondents ranked interconnection delays and network upgrade costs higher than permitting, supply chain constraints, or workforce shortages as reasons for project cancellations or deferrals. Many projects face cost uncertainty on the order of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars as interconnection studies shift responsibility for broad system upgrades onto single developers. Interconnection costs are rising, and it is difficult for developers to predict what their interconnection bill will be at the end of the process. This unpredictability increases financing risk, reduces developer participation, and leads to large-scale attrition. 

Outdated processes for evaluating and approving new projects have led to enormous project delays, averaging 4-5 years from request to commercial operation. This delay has raised prices and led some grid operators to keep old, expensive coal plants online in lieu of new capacity. Both of these trends benefit incumbent transmission and generation companies, who have significant decision-making power over the entities that control interconnection, making it difficult to update the processes. Clean energy projects also face higher interconnection costs than gas projects because they are more likely to need transmission upgrades to connect to the grid, which increases the chances of project cancellation.

These barriers have direct system-wide consequences. Only about 15 to 20 percent of projects that enter the queue ultimately reach commercial operation, meaning most of the clean energy capacity counted as “planned” will not materialize unless interconnection processes are reformed.  Long queue timelines and uncertainty also make it more difficult to finance projects. The result is slower emissions reductions, delayed IRA-driven investment and job creation, and higher costs for consumers as operators extend the life of aging coal and gas resources to meet growing load. 

The Past Playbook

Federal interconnection policy has largely gone through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In 2023, FERC issued Order 2023, which made significant changes intended to speed up interconnection and increase certainty for new projects. The rule (1) replaced outdated serial studies, in which operators study projects one by one as their applications come in, with cluster studies, in which operators study projects in batches, (2) required grid operators to speed up study timelines and imposed penalties for failing to meet deadlines, and (3) directed grid operators to update rules to reflect technological advancements, like grid-enhancing technologies and hybrid solar-plus-storage projects. Some grid operators have gone further than Order 2023 to improve interconnection processes, and some states have pushed grid operators for more ambitious reform. In addition to FERC rules, the federal government has also provided limited resources to grid operators to improve interconnection processes. 

To date, federal efforts have largely fallen short of what’s necessary to reform interconnection processes to enable adequate buildout of clean energy, and in most places states have limited tools. For one, FERC rules rely on effective implementation from grid operators, which has been a mixed bag. Order 2023 also strayed from making more fundamental changes to the interconnection process, like fixed entry fees that provide certainty to developers or proactive modeling and transparency of information to allow projects to connect quickly in places with transmission headroom. It fully does not address the fundamental problem that rising, variable interconnection costs are killing projects. The federal government has limited resources to support grid operators through, for example, funding for increased staffing or new technology to automate studies. 

Where Do We Go From Here?

The next era of energy policy must radically transform the way we connect projects to the grid to enable faster, greater deployment of clean energy, including through an expanded role for federal and state governments. Policy must shorten study timelines using automation and other new technology, enable smarter planning with proactive modeling and greater transparency for developers, increase upfront cost certainty, and reduce the amount that projects end up paying for interconnection. And in addition, the next playbook must address governance and decision-making structures that favor incumbents who benefit from a congested grid. 

The Barrier

Siting and permitting processes have become two of the most visible friction points in the clean energy buildout. While federal policy receives the most attention, most clean energy siting and permitting decisions are made at the state and local level, where zoning boards, planning commissions, county supervisors, and community members have significant influence over whether a project proceeds. In many states, local jurisdictions have adopted new ordinances that restrict or outright ban wind, solar, and transmission development. According to recent analyses, roughly one-fifth of U.S. counties now have formal restrictions on clean energy, and many more are considering them. Even in states with strong climate and clean energy targets, municipal-level land use rules can effectively halt projects that align with statewide goals.

These local barriers are often rooted in concerns about landscape change, perceived impacts on property values, agricultural land use, wildlife, or community identity. But they are also a reflection of who benefits and who bears the immediate impacts of clean energy development. Benefits like lower system-wide electricity prices, cleaner air, and national decarbonization progress tend to be distributed widely, while the visual and land-use impacts are concentrated locally. Developers may not readily have the resources to meet community needs to come to agreement on projects, and federal and state governments often do not have adequate resources to support community benefits. Misinformation and disinformation—spread by incumbent interests who stand to lose money with greater clean energy or transmission deployment—also seed opposition in communities.

Permitting requirements add an additional layer of delay and uncertainty. Most clean energy projects, particularly solar and storage projects—which make up the bulk of new planned capacity—rarely trigger major federal environmental statutes and primarily deal with state-level permitting. Developers must navigate state statutes governing clean water, conservation, and environmental impacts, which serve important purposes but are often still implemented through outdated processes (e.g., many states still require paper permits; in Arizona, digitization reduced timelines for one permit process by 91 percent) administered by understaffed agencies. Projects such as transmission lines, offshore wind facilities, pumped storage hydropower, nuclear plants, geothermal projects, and any project on federal land or receiving federal grants generally must also navigate federal permitting processes. When new projects trigger federal review, they must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and sometimes other federal permitting statutes, like the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act. These reviews can take multiple years, particularly when agencies have limited staffing or when studies must coordinate across several state and federal entities and jurisdictions. 

Delays from local siting and state and federal permitting translate directly into cost escalation and canceled projects. Developers report that siting challenges can add years to development schedules and millions of dollars in carrying costs before a shovel ever hits the ground. For technologies like wind and solar, where the business model depends on tight capital cost margins, extended pre-construction periods can be the difference between a viable project and one that never breaks ground. Transmission development is even more exposed: large lines can spend a decade or more navigating route identification, landowner negotiations, environmental review, and litigation. Without new transmission capacity, interconnection backlogs grow, power costs increase, and states are forced to rely on older fossil resources simply because they are already in place.

Yet, the challenge isn’t so simple. It is not simply “local opposition” or “slow permitting.” It is that the scale of clean energy land use today is fundamentally different from the past century of centralized fossil energy development. We are building more projects, in more places, at a pace that communities have not previously experienced.

The Past Playbook

Siting and permitting reforms have increasingly been part of the federal and state policy agenda. Reforms have largely focused on process changes and improving coordination across agencies, with some focus on building capacity for analysis and review in some federal agencies and states. In general, these reforms are insufficient and not widespread enough to match the urgency and scale of the U.S. energy transition. 

The federal government has pursued a range of reforms over the past few years to improve the permitting process for projects that involve federal land, funding, or regulatory triggers. Key cross-agency initiatives include the Coordinated Interagency Transmission Authorizations and Permits Program, which made the Department of Energy (DOE) the lead agency for coordinating environmental review and permitting for transmission lines, and FAST-41, which aims to align multiple agency reviews and reduce duplicative permitting processes. Agencies have taken additional steps to improve individual permitting processes. For example, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) designated solar and wind energy zones on public lands to reduce conflicts and expedite approvals, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management modernized offshore wind leasing and programmatic NEPA reviews (although the Trump Administration overhauled these reforms by halting all offshore wind leasing). 

Several states have attempted to reduce delays and uncertainty by centralizing siting authority and standardizing permitting rules. For example, New York’s Office of Renewable Siting and Massachusetts’ Energy Facilities Siting Board can override local opposition for large projects, while other states provide model ordinances to guide counties on setbacks, noise, and environmental protection. DOE has also helped states: the agency provided a small amount of technical assistance to states to help local governments with planning, siting, and permitting decisions and a larger tranche of funding for transmission projects to provide benefits to local communities to help with siting and community buy-in. In some places, these reforms have improved consistency across counties and reduced the influence of NIMBY-driven delays.

This playbook, while directionally correct, has fallen short of what is necessary. Local restrictions on clean energy continue to proliferate, siting power plants and large transmission lines remains a major challenge, and many state and federal permitting processes still pose significant barriers. Existing efforts have several gaps: (1) many states have not addressed local restrictions on development, (2) process improvements, especially at the state level, have happened in a piecemeal fashion and have not extended to the full suite of state-level permitting requirements, (3) existing efforts often do not cover the full set of solutions (e.g., broken permitting for customer-owned solar is a huge impediment that keeps U.S. solar costs much higher than other countries), (4) governments and developers have insufficient tools to ensure that local communities get what they want out of projects, and (5) efforts to increase state and federal government capacity (i.e., hiring and training the right staff and increasing analytical capabilities) have fallen far short of what is needed to have a fast, effective, and responsible permitting and siting process. 

Where Do We Go From Here?

The next era of energy policy must wrestle with the fundamental siting and permitting challenges and introduce new frameworks for planning, permitting, and building projects. That means upfront planning to make major decisions about tradeoffs between clean energy, water, conservation, and other goals, expanding the tools and resources necessary to ensure that local communities benefit from projects, dramatically improving government capacity to do siting and permitting well, and taking a holistic approach across federal, state, and local governments to prevent new bottlenecks from emerging. 

The Barrier

Most clean energy and grid upgrade projects are financed by private capital and procured or built by companies, either utilities or independent power producers. The profit motives of those financiers and companies determines the solutions they invest in, within the bounds of policy requirements. Across states and regions, outdated utility regulations and market designs have created flawed incentives that have limited investment in some necessary solutions and resulted in overinvestment in others. Utilities have wielded significant political power, built by lobbying with ratepayer money, to maintain today’s incentive structure. 

For example, in vertically integrated states, utilities are incentivized to prioritize capital expenditures that earn them the highest returns, within the bounds of commission approval. This incentive structure deprioritizes solutions like increasing imports of clean energy through new transmission and leveraging distributed resources like customer-owned solar. 

Most commissions are often not well-equipped or willing to ensure that utilities pursue the full toolkit. In most states, utility planning is driven by the utilities, who conduct detailed analysis and provide proposals on planning and ratemaking to their commissions. Commissions have more limited capacity to conduct analysis and interrogate utility proposals. 

Organized markets also have flawed incentive structures. For example, incentive structures in organized markets were generally designed around an electricity grid made up of a small number of large power plants. As a result, market rules and incentive structures provide limited to no support for distributed energy resources, which makes it harder to finance these projects. Governance structures exacerbate this issue. In some organized markets, incumbent generators have significant decision-making power in important determinants of clean energy deployment, including interconnection and transmission planning. Some organized markets have maintained rules that make it difficult to connect new power plants.

Misaligned incentives reduce the effectiveness of other policy solutions. For example, tax credits to reduce the cost of clean energy projects are most effective if utility companies have a profit incentive to build those projects instead of other generation types. The effectiveness of bulk transmission grant programs is limited by the willingness of utility companies to collaborate on projects. 

The Past Playbook

Federal policy has largely ignored utility incentive structures and instead attempted to influence private-sector behavior by working within existing incentive structures (e.g., by making it easier for utility companies to use tax credits to build clean energy). Federal agencies have attempted to overcome misaligned incentives through regulations (e.g., pollution standards on power plants that require generation owners to make changes). Some efforts to change incentives structures (e.g., the Clean Electricity Payment Program included in the 2021 Build Back Better Bill) have gained momentum but failed to pass. 

Many states have also used tools that operate within existing incentive structures, like renewable portfolio standards that require utilities to procure an increasing share of their electricity from clean sources. States have attempted to change incentive structures to varying extents. More than 15 states have adopted some form of performance-based ratemaking to align utility incentives with desired outcomes. However, these efforts vary in how comprehensively they have changed the dominant incentives for companies. 

Where Do We Go From Here?

The next era of energy policy must reform incentives to realign private sector interests with public benefit, including affordable bills, reliability, and decarbonization. To achieve the scale, speed, and depth of transformation needed to address the challenges facing our grid, policy must address misaligned incentives for distribution utilities, generation owners, and integrated utilities in different regulatory contexts. That requires a greater focus on realigning incentive structures at the state and regional level (through organized market reform) as well as creative federal tools to directly change incentives or help states and organized markets to do so. Increasing regulator scrutiny of utilities and bolstering capacity at commissions must also play a larger role moving forward to ensure that utilities are focusing on the best solutions, not just what is most profitable. Greater use of publicly owned or publicly financed projects can also ensure investment in solutions that are underutilized by private companies. 

The Barrier

The federal government has created new financial barriers for clean energy projects.  OBBBA’s changes to tax incentives and increased regulatory and permitting uncertainty make clean energy projects more expensive and harder to finance. Macroeconomic changes like persistent inflation and other uncertainty, including on tariffs and interest rates, have also affected investment. 

While the clean energy industry has continued to move forward (2025 investment in solar, storage, and wind is similar to 2024 levels, and the industry is benefiting from demand growth, as many projects are able to find offtakers like tech companies willing to pay higher prices), the full effects of federal policy changes are likely delayed, as the tax credits have not fully expired. Moving forward, financing may become a larger barrier. In addition, rising utility bills have opened a conversation about the cost of private finance for grid projects and whether there are alternative approaches that come with lower costs for customers. 

Financing less mature clean energy technologies, like advanced nuclear, enhanced geothermal, and aggregated distributed generation (i.e., virtual power plants), remains a major issue. 

The Past Playbook

Financial support has played a dominant role in the federal energy policy playbook. Tax incentives, which were dramatically expanded by the IRA and pared down by OBBBA, have been central to energy policy for decades. Grant and loan programs, also dramatically expanded by the IRA, have also been a core driver of clean energy deployment, grid upgrades, and large-scale demonstrations and commercialization of advanced energy technologies. States have also used tax incentives, grant programs, and green banks to finance and incentivize clean energy and grid projects. This model has largely been successful at deploying mature technologies like wind, solar, and storage, but it has fallen short when it comes to commercializing some newer clean energy technologies. Gaps also remain in financial support for projects that struggle to get private capital.  

Where Do We Go From Here?

Financing and financial support should continue to be a major pillar of clean energy policy. The next era must incorporate a broader, more diverse set of financing tools in the capital stack, including state-led public financing for more types of projects and state efforts to create demand certainty for clean energy by leveraging procurement and working with corporate buyers. 

The Barrier

Today, the U.S. bulk transmission system faces significant constraints that limit where new clean energy projects can be built and threaten reliability. Congestion already causes curtailment of low-cost low-carbon power, higher consumer electricity prices, and dampened investment in clean energy. Many regions with abundant clean energy resources simply do not have enough high-voltage transmission capacity to deliver that power to population centers. As a result, developers are increasingly unable to move generation projects forward even when siting, permitting, financing, and interconnection queue positions are in place. 

These challenges stem in large part from fragmented and inadequate planning processes. Coordinated planning is essential to ensure that transmission is expanded in the right places and that new clean energy investments flow to areas with sufficient transmission capacity. Despite the need for coordination, the United States conducts virtually no interregional transmission planning, and regional planning has been lacking in many regions. The result is piecemeal grid planning, as transmission providers and developers focus on smaller lines which meet near-term needs and are profitable within their own footprint. Planning for these smaller lines is easier as fewer parties are involved. Where we have successfully built larger regional lines, they are the result of transmission providers conducting robust planning processes. And because no unified authority or planning framework exists to shepherd large, high-impact projects across regions, the U.S. has built essentially zero major interregional transmission lines in recent history.

Lack of coordination between transmission and generation planning also creates inefficiencies and prevents smart development. In deregulated markets (and some vertically integrated states), transmission and generation planning processes occur largely in isolation without systematic processes to align long-term clean energy expansion with major grid upgrades. 

Together, these gaps make expanding the transmission system an inefficient process at best, and an unworkable process at worst, at precisely the moment when the need for additional capacity is growing most rapidly. 

The Past Playbook

Policymakers have made progress in addressing transmission planning bottlenecks, but these reforms remain far short of what’s needed. FERC Order 1920 is the most significant recent step: it requires long-term, forward-looking, multi-value regional planning. It was designed to improve transparency in the planning stages and help regions identify beneficial projects earlier. Yet the rule stops at regional borders and thereby doesn’t meaningfully advance interregional planning. 

A patchwork of state and regional efforts has emerged alongside federal reforms. New Mexico created a new entity called the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority to map and finance new lines. Similarly, Colorado created the Colorado Electric Transmission Authority to plan and develop transmission lines to meet power needs, unlock clean energy, and lower costs. California conducts long-term transmission planning intended to incorporate transmission needs to accommodate clean energy deployment required to meet the state’s climate goals. Federal tools like National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) were designed to accelerate siting of critically important lines, and part of DOE’s Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) funding has helped bring utilities, states, and developers together to plan large projects. On the interregional front, DOE has conducted analysis to demonstrate where new capacity would create the greatest benefits and inform planning.

These efforts certainly make progress and will likely result in expansion of local and regional transmission capacity. The magnitude of progress will depend in large part on how transmission providers implement Order 1920—for most regions, compliance filings will be submitted this month (December 2025) or by June 2026. 

However, this playbook had significant gaps and pitfalls. Lack of interregional planning is the most glaring gap, but other tools had limitations, too. GRIP had limited funding and power to solve cost allocation disputes. NIETCs did not translate into built infrastructure. In many places transmission planning will not take into account the long-term clean energy expansion required for deep decarbonization, leaving high-value opportunities—like pairing wind resources with long-distance transmission—unrealized. The result is a set of reforms that move in the right direction but still fall short. 

Where Do We Go From Here?

The next era of energy policy must tackle interregional planning, while following through on Order 1920 with effective implementation. We must require transmission providers to plan decisively for futures with significant load growth and levels of clean energy deployment necessary for deep decarbonization. Future federal policy must also expand the government’s tools to bring parties to the table for smart, effective planning. In parallel, states should continue to use creative policies, like Colorado and New Mexico’s transmission authorities, to strategically plan new transmission lines to maximize benefits. And the next era must also include national, forward-looking land-use planning for clean energy deployment, in sync with transmission planning. 

The Barrier

Grid components, such as electrical steel and transformers, are necessary to increase grid capacity to support additional generation and load. However, grid component supply chains are still suffering from disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and lack of domestic manufacturing capacity. The rising demand for grid components and battery technology have further stressed supply chains, drawing out lead times and increasing prices. For example, across transmission and distribution equipment, the lead time for components averaged 38 weeks in 2023, nearly double from the year prior, with costs escalating nearly 30 percent year-over-year. Bottlenecks in the supply chains from upstream suppliers to manufacturers among these components risk power system stability, the ability to deploy clean energy, and the ability to build new industrial production and technology facilities at scale. 

The Past Playbook

Federal policy has increasingly focused on building secure supply chains for clean energy technologies. The IRA included tax credits, grant programs, and loan authority to build out domestic supply chains for clean energy and storage technologies. The federal government has also used demand-side pressure to bolster supply chains (e.g., through a bonus tax incentive for clean energy projects that use domestic content and Build America Buy America requirements on federal grant programs). These policies led to major investment in domestic supply chains. 

This playbook was quite successful at building out domestic supply chains for some industries, but it had major gaps. For example, the IRA and BIL included no dedicated support for grid components, and the minimal support that was embedded in larger programs was insufficient. Federal demand-side programs were structured as incentives for downstream industries to use domestic content, but this design had too much uncertainty to sufficiently derisk upstream domestic supply chains.  

Today’s programs have also struggled to respond quickly when conditions change. For example, the federal government had limited tools with which to respond when the utility industry faced a debilitating shortage of large power transformers or when it became clear that incentives were not large enough to drive domestic investment for some clean energy components. 

Where Do We Go From Here?

The next era of energy policy must build on the same financial tools to support secure supply chains that enable clean energy deployment and grid upgrades. The playbook must include policies that more directly create demand for domestic components to provide certainty for manufacturers and derisk new investments. Future policy must also provide more flexible and dynamic tools to rapidly address supply chain shortages as they arise. 

Political Barriers: Making it Harder to Pass, Implement, and Defend Policy

Clean energy advocates have focused on economic competitiveness, climate, and public health benefits as the winning messages to support and defend policies. The BIL and IRA came out of this model, and the architects of those policies hoped that the industry that benefitted from these policies would step up to defend them. While this strategy has enabled passage of significant new policies, it has failed to withstand changing political dynamics. The swift rollback of major parts of BIL and IRA is the prime example. Our ability to successfully implement and defend clean energy policies—and make further progress—has been hampered by several key political barriers. The next era of clean energy policy must address these barriers to be successful. 

The Barrier

Rapidly rising utility bills have become an urgent cost-of-living issue. People pay 13 percent more for electricity in 2025 than they did in 2022, and nearly 40 percent of households sometimes have to choose between paying for food and medicine or keeping the lights on. 

Rising electricity prices are a political barrier to some clean energy policies. For example, states have struggled to follow through on procurement of advanced clean energy technologies like nuclear and offshore wind as prices have risen. New York recently cancelled a planned transmission line, using affordability as a justification. Clean energy opponents are using prices to oppose climate policies, even though deployment of wind and solar has generally reduced rates. Concerns about electricity affordability make it difficult to justify major grid infrastructure investments under current regulatory and ratemaking structures, as additional spending to update the grid will lead to near-term bill increases. High prices also make it difficult to replace direct fossil fuel use in vehicles, buildings, and factories with electricity. 

The Past Playbook

Federal energy policy has largely dealt with affordability in two ways. 

First, the federal government has provided important but limited direct assistance to struggling households through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps households pay for energy, and the Weatherization Assistance Program, which funds energy- and cost-saving home improvements. However, these programs are significantly underfunded and oversubscribed—many households that need support do not get it.

Second, federal financial support results in long-term savings. IRA incentives for low-cost clean energy were projected to reduce generation costs, which in the long term translates to lower prices. Tax incentives and grant programs for distributed energy resources and home energy improvements save energy and costs for customers that make upgrades. However, this approach falls short in two ways: (1) it does not address the root causes of rising electricity bills, which means bills will continue to rise, and (2) the benefits are long term and do not show up on peoples’ bills on politically relevant timelines. 

Where Do We Go From Here?

The next era of energy policy must provide sufficient and swift relief for customers that are on the edge of catastrophe due to rising costs, make it easier to deploy cheap, clean energy to reduce generation costs, and target the root causes of high and rising bills to unlock a sustainable utility ratemaking regime that allows for major new investments in the grid without harming regular people. The new playbook must also include more effective cross-sector tools to cut total system and household costs, including by transferring planned spending on gas infrastructure to home electrification and grid upgrades where possible. 

The Barrier

Many solutions, including adding new generation in organized markets, relying more on regional and interregional transmission, and deploying distributed and demand-side solutions, threaten the profits of incumbent interests under current market and regulatory structures. For example, utilities make money through a return on qualified capital investments in things like power plants and distribution infrastructure. Increasing bulk transmission capacity to connect the Southeast with other regions would lead to more imports of lower cost clean energy, which would reduce the utilities’ reliance on local generation. That makes it harder for the utilities to justify capital expenditures in new power plants, which is how the utilities make a profit, so new transmission poses a threat to the business model. As a result, Southeastern utilities are opposed to policies that would expand bulk transmission to better connect different regions, even though these policies would reduce costs and increase reliability. These dynamics make it politically difficult to pursue policies that expand transmission capacity.

The Past Playbook

Federal clean energy policy has largely avoided changing incumbent incentive structures or decision-making processes at the state and regional level. Instead, policymakers have used financial incentives to bring incumbents to the table and increase their investment in clean energy and grid upgrades. As a result, the misaligned incentives described above, combined with decision-making structures that reward incumbents over innovation, make it difficult to fully address the barriers to clean energy deployment and grid upgrades at the necessary scale. 

Where Do We Go From Here?

The next era of clean energy policy must address governance issues through reform of regional grid operators and public utility commissions. Strengthening the role of regulators is critical to reining in incumbent interests where they do not align with public benefit. It must also realign industry incentives (e.g., through performance-based ratemaking) where possible with affordability and decarbonization goals. 

The Barrier

Another major political barrier is the lengthy time it takes to get from enactment and implementation to tangible benefits for people. Transforming major sectors of the economy is a time-intensive, multi-stage project, and climate advocates have accordingly focused on long-term goals, such as 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 or net-zero emissions by 2050. The IRA and BIL were made up primarily of multi-year (even some decadal) programs to drive major changes in the economy. As a result, the largest benefits were projected to come in the late 2020s and early 2030s, far outside the window of political memory. That mismatch makes it difficult for the public to understand the point of policies and in turn makes those policies hard to defend. 

Where policies do have near-term benefits, those benefits have often been delayed by the implementation process. Successfully shifting the private sector requires precise policy and new programs, which take time to implement. Implementation of new programs can also run up against the government typically works, and that friction causes delays. Implementation delays make it difficult to connect the dots between policy and tangible improvements to peoples’ lives.

The Past Playbook

Policymakers have used three dominant approaches to overcoming this barrier. First, they tout near-term signs of economic change. For example, the Biden administration consistently cited private-sector investment in clean energy as a key metric to convince the public that the IRA and BIL were driving benefits for people. Second, they rely on the quickest economic changes to demonstrate impact. For example, the IRA and BIL drove a near-term increase in construction jobs. Real and announced job creation was the dominant message to support and defend these policies. Third, they cite projected benefits. For example, the Biden administration frequently cited the 1.5 million jobs and the $27 to $33 billion in energy cost savings that the IRA was projected to drive. 

Attention to long-term impact is important for addressing long-term problems like climate change and load growth. However, politics runs on instant gratification. As of late 2024, only 39 percent of Americans had heard of the IRA. And federal energy policy failed to make a near-term dent in the issue that was most visible for people: utility bills. 

Where Do We Go From Here?

The next era of clean energy policy must tangibly and visibly benefit people in the short term. The playbook must include a better balance of policies geared toward long-term transformation of the economy and policies focused on pressing issues for regular people. That means including programs that are designed for quick implementation and real-world change. 

Conclusion: What’s Next?

The power sector sits at an inflection point. The challenges facing the grid are immediate, interconnected, and solvable but only if we confront the real sources of delay and dysfunction. Accelerating clean energy deployment requires moving beyond our old playbook—dominated by financial incentives and regulations that see-saw based on the political winds—toward a new approach that addresses both project development barriers that slow investment and construction and political barriers that impede durable policymaking. Building durable, effective energy policy demands a clear-eyed assessment of the barriers that have undermined smart policymaking and implementation.

In a forthcoming publication, we will move from diagnosis to action, detailing policy solutions that can unlock faster, more reliable project development while expanding the policy toolkit needed to overcome the political barriers that have prevented durable reform. Together, these solutions aim to strengthen grid reliability, rein in rising utility bills, and put the United States back on a credible path to decarbonization. These stakes could not be higher, and the opportunity to build a more affordable, resilient, and clean energy system has never been more urgent. 

Report: When Ambition Meets Reality — Lessons Learned in Federal Clean Energy Implementation, and a Path Forward

The Trump administration has scrapped over $8 billion (so far) in grants for dozens of massive clean energy projects in the United States. For those of us who worked on the frontlines of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) implementation, the near-weekly announcements and headlines have been maddening, especially at a time when many of these projects would have helped address soaring electricity prices and surging demand growth.

While some of these cancellations were probably illegal, they nevertheless raise fundamental questions for clean energy advocates: why was so much money still unspent…and why was it so easy to cancel?

In a new report, we begin to address these fundamental implementation questions based on discussions with over 80 individuals – from senior political staff to individual project managers – involved in the execution of major clean energy programs through the Department of Energy (DOE). 

Their answer? There is significant opportunity – as our colleagues at FAS have written – for future Executive branch implementation to move much faster and produce much more durable results. But to do so, future implementation efforts must look drastically different from the past, with a ruthless focus on speed, outcomes, and the full use of Executive Branch authorities to more quickly get steel in the ground.

The risk of risk aversion

Take the grant cancellations example. The Trump administration has relied on one small clause in the Code of Federal Regulations (2CFR 200.340(a)(4)) as the legal basis for its widespread cancellations. This clause, traditionally included in most grants between the government and a private company, allows the government to cancel any grant that “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities” and essentially functions as a “termination for convenience” clause.

But including this “termination for convenience” clause was optional. DOE could have leveraged a different, more flexible contracting authority for many awards. It also could have processed what’s known as a “deviation” in order to exclude the clause from standard contracts. Leaders of program offices were aware of these options, with some staffers strenuously objecting to the inclusion of termination for convenience.

But in the end, DOE offices generally opted to keep this clause because it was the way the agency had always executed (primarily R&D) grants in the past, and because sticking to established procedures was seen as the best way to avoid the risk of Congressional or Inspector General oversight. 

And yet, this risk-averse approach perversely increased the risk of project failure, by creating an easy kill switch for an administration looking for grounds on which to cancel particular projects.

This attitude toward risk – which saw defaulting to the status quo as the most prudent path – was a constant barrier to effective implementation. (In addition to opening up grants to cancellation, the embrace of 2CFR 200 regulations meaningfully slowed negotiations as companies bristled at the obscure accounting and other compliance measures the regulations would impose on them.)

Understanding this culture of risk aversion offers two takeaways for improving government: (1) rigorously question status quo decisions and avoid defaulting to agency precedent and (2) avoid excessive focus on eliminating every risk or avoiding external backlash or oversight (especially given that backlash and oversight are likely regardless of the approach.) 

Speed is paramount

Of course, excluding the termination for convenience clause would not have been a panacea. It’s likely the Trump administration would have devised some other pretext for cancelling the grants that may have been just as successful, though perhaps legally shakier.

That’s why implementers also told us that speed is critical. The best defense is a strong offense. And the best way to prevent money from being taken back is to have already spent it on promising projects. The federal government has moved faster in implementation of large policies before. During the New Deal, the Tennessee Valley Authority moved from passage of its founding law to beginning construction on a major dam in just four months. Operation Warp Speed delivered cutting-edge life-saving vaccines to millions of Americans in about a year. While the contexts and goals of these programs were different, we know from history that the federal government can move fast.

But at DOE, only 5% of the funds appropriated through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law had actually been spent (not just obligated) by the time the Biden administration ended three years later. In addition to making clean energy projects more vulnerable to subsequent cancellations, the pace of the rollout meant that the basic political hypothesis animating clean energy legislation—that the economic development projects brought, especially to red states, would create a durable bipartisan coalition for clean energy—went untested.

Practically everyone we spoke with expressed frustration at the slow pace of implementation. Interviewees highlighted many challenges associated with a relatively slow pace of BIL and IRA implementation, such as:

The work begins now

One commonality between these and other issues identified in our report is encouraging: they are mostly within the Executive Branch’s power to solve. A sufficiently prepared future administration could address many of these challenges for future federal clean energy efforts without relying on the vagaries of the legislative process. But the work must begin now. 

On contracting, for instance, a future administration’s DOE could make better use of Other Transactions Authority for clean energy. But it should be prepared with drafts of the basic commercial terms of agreements between the government and companies it works with. Similarly, a proactive future administration will come in with a clear view on how to streamline compliance with environmental, prevailing wage, domestic sourcing, and other cross-cutting requirements. On decision-making, a future administration can set norms pushing decision-making to the lowest possible level, clarify processes to elevate and execute major issues, and establish small, clear, and empowered teams that own frontline negotiations. 

If pursued, this updated approach to federal clean energy implementation will look drastically different. But one way or another it will have to: the next time there is a federal government interested in accelerating clean energy, it is likely to be dealing with a private sector much more wary of working with the government, fiscal constraints that limit the likely scale of any clean energy funding, and a dramatically altered federal workforce and state apparatus.

Much can be done outside of the federal government — including at state and local levels — to prepare for those circumstances. It is possible for a future federal administration to achieve faster and more durable clean energy outcomes. But to make that possible, the work must begin now. 

It’s not enough to say we need to make full use of DOE’s authorities; we need the drafted Secretarial directives and advance legal legwork to do it, and leadership well-equipped with the details and government-insider knowledge to execute on it. 

It’s not enough to say we want more nuclear, transmission, or critical minerals projects; we need to have identified the priority projects and designed the strategies and programs needed to actually put them in motion on Day 1. 

It’s not enough to say we should take a “whole-of-government” approach to an issue like clean energy; we need a detailed plan for how to use the $5 billion/year in electricity purchases and the PMA’s 45,000 miles of transmission lines—all under the direct control of the federal government—to achieve explicit policy outcomes. 

And it’s not enough to say we need to rebuild the federal workforce; we need a roster of hundreds of people that can be brought on and trained rapidly to implement within weeks.

To live up to the spirit of the New Deal and Operation Warp Speed—the spirit that turned ambitious goals into massive real-world impact in a matter of months—the next administration must come armed not only with broad aspirations, but also with the detailed plans required to implement them.

Want abundant energy? Ask who benefits from scarcity.

This article originally was published July 30 on Utility Dive.

A new obsession with abundance is spreading through policy conversations and governors’ mansions across the country. Abundance advocates, boosted by a recent book from Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, envision a future in which we defeat the climate crisis, reduce cost of living and improve quality of life by speeding up construction of housing and energy infrastructure.

Making clean energy abundant is certainly critical to addressing the climate crisis. We need plentiful, cheap, clean energy to replace polluting fossil fuels in buildings, vehicles and factories. As a senior policy advisor in the Biden White House, I worked on many policies aimed at clean energy abundance, directly or indirectly, and I also saw firsthand how those policies were insufficient. That’s why it is now clear to me that the abundance movement’s playbook — to streamline permitting, simplify government processes and make public investments more focused — falls short of what’s needed.

We won’t achieve energy abundance unless we contend with the powerful interests that benefit from scarcity. Doing so requires reforming electricity markets, refreshing regulation of electric companies and rethinking the way we pay for grid infrastructure.

Let’s start with the problem: we are not building nearly enough clean energy to curb climate change and keep electricity affordable. Analysis from three leading research projects found that for us to get within striking distance of the Paris climate goals and plan for the lowest electricity costs, we must build 70 GW to 125 GW of clean energy per year, much higher than the record 50 GW built in 2024. As a result of our failure to build new energy projects fast, families and businesses will pay more for power and the planet will warm faster.

This is no longer an economic issue. Clean electricity is now often cheaper to deploy than new coal and gas, and in many cases cheaper than existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants. So what is stopping us from building it fast enough?

To answer this question, abundance proponents, including Klein and Thompson, largely focus on two main obstacles: 1) opposition from people who live nearby specific projects and groups concerned with local environmental impacts and 2) “everything-bagel liberalism,” the tendency to add too many strings to government incentives. The solution to the first problem, they argue, is to limit the power of the opposition by streamlining federal permitting and constraining public input in state and local siting processes. And for the second, their remedy is to limit the number of goals of government programs and reduce the requirements for funding.

There is no doubt that some clean energy and transmission projects have been thwarted by local opposition and lengthy litigation. And it is a worthy goal to make government incentives as effective as possible. But by portraying the primary villains defending scarcity as local landowners, conservation groups and the diversity of the liberal coalition, Klein and Thompson ignore important characters and policies that, if left unchecked, will continue to hamstring the pursuit of abundance.

For example, consider the situation unfolding in the electricity market organized by the PJM Interconnection, which operates the electricity grid for 65 million people in 13 mid-Atlantic and midwestern states and Washington, D.C. An independent, non-governmental entity, PJM runs the process to connect new power plants to the grid, among other important processes to make the electricity system work. PJM has been notoriously bad at this job. It ranks as the worst grid operator in the country in terms of the speed and effectiveness of its interconnection process. The average project waits five years for PJM to give it permission to connect to the grid. In fact, PJM closed its doors to new project applications in 2022 and has yet to re-open it. As a result, electricity demand is outpacing supply, prices are rising rapidly, and new clean energy projects are dying as they wait for word from PJM.

PJM has the power to speed up the process to connect new projects, which would increase electricity supply and cut electricity prices. But PJM has largely resisted reforms and focused instead on extending the life of existing power plants. Here is where it is helpful to ask: who benefits from an electricity shortage and the resulting high prices? It is not conservation groups or liberal stakeholder groups with competing goals (who have no voting power in PJM’s governance structure). It is the incumbent utilities that own the fleet of aging coal-fired power plants, which are struggling to compete with new clean energy projects. If cheap clean energy is allowed to enter the market, these companies will make less money. The outdated processes for approving new projects help prevent cheaper energy resources from threatening their business model. The companies have significant decision-making power — together, power plant owners, transmission owners (many of whom also own generation) and other energy service suppliers make up 60% of the voting power in PJM decisions.

Energy will not be abundant in the mid-Atlantic unless we take on the interests that are benefitting from scarcity. That means reforming the electricity market to stop overpaying existing power plants at the expense of customers, changing the rules to make it easier to connect new power plants to the grid and updating governance structures to make sure that customers are properly represented.

Similar cases abound of powerful interests benefitting from scarcity and defending policies that prevent abundance. Monopoly utilities, for example, benefit from abundant energy to the extent that they can build it and can earn a return on their investments — but not if the energy comes from their competition. That’s why utilities in the southeast have gone to great lengths to block transmission lines that enable cheap clean energy to compete with their existing power plants. Changing how those utilities make money (for example, by paying for outcomes instead of investments) could flip the script and turn the utilities into energy abundance advocates.

If the abundance movement is to succeed, it must identify the defenders of scarcity and broaden the playbook to either overcome those interests or change their incentives to bring them on the team.

Beyond Binary Debates: How an “Abundance” Framing Can Restore Public Trust and Guide Climate Solutions

Public trust in U.S. government has ebbed and flowed over the decades, but it’s been stuck in the basement for a while. Not since 2005 have more than a third of Americans trusted the institution that underpins so much of American life.

We shouldn’t be surprised. Along with much progress, over the past two decades the U.S. became more unequal, saw stagnation or decline in many rural counties, stumbled into a housing crisis, and experienced worsening health outcomes. When the government can’t deliver (especially in core areas like health, housing, and economic vitality), trust in it wanes while the false promises of autocrats grow more appealing.

The strength of American democracy, in other words, hinges in large part on how well our government functions. This urgency helps explain why, at a moment when the United States is flirting with autocracy ever more vigorously, a book on precisely this topic became a #1 bestseller and prompted a debate around the “abundance agenda” that has turned quasi-existential for many in the policy world.

The abundance agenda, as described by Jonathan Chait, is “a collection of policy reforms designed to make it easier to build housing and infrastructure and for government bureaucracy to work”, such as by streamlining regulations that constrain infrastructure buildout while scaling up major government programs and investments that can deliver public goods. 

Unfortunately, popular discourse often flattens the conversation around abundance into a polarized binary around whether or not regulations are good. That frame is overly reductionist. Of course badly designed or out-dated regulatory approaches can block progress or (as in the case of the housing policies that the book Abundance centers on) dry up the supply of public goods. But a theory of the whole regulatory world can’t be neatly extrapolated from urban zoning errors. In an era of accelerating corporate capture, both private and public power structures act to block change and capture profits and power. We need a savvier understanding of what happens at the intersections between the government and the economy, and of how policy translates to communities at local scales.

We should therefore regard “abundance” less as a prescriptive policy agenda than as a frame from which to ask and answer questions at the heart of rebuilding public trust in government. Questions like: “Why is it so hard to build?” “Why are bureaucratic processes so badly matched to societal challenges?” “Why, for heaven’s sake, does nothing work?”

These questions can push us in a direction distinct from the usual big vs. small government debates, or squabbles about the welfare state versus the market. Instead, they may help us ask about interactions within and between government and the economy – the network of relationships, complex causation, and historical choices – that often seem to have left us with a government that feels ill-suited to its times.

At the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), we, along with colleagues in the broader government capacity movement, are exploring these questions, with a particular focus on agendas for renewal and advancing a new paradigm of regulatory ingenuity. One emerging insight is that at its core, abundance is largely about the dynamics of incumbency, that is, about the persistence of broken systems and legacy power structures even as society evolves. A second, related, insight is that the debate around abundance isn’t really about de-regulation or the regulatory state (every government has regulations), but rather about how multi-pronged and polycentric strategies can break through the inertia of incumbent systems, enabling government to better deliver the goods, services, and functions it is tasked with while also driving big and necessary societal changes. And a third is that the abundance discourse must center distributive justice in order to deliver shared prosperity and restore public trust.

Moving the Boulder: Inertia, Climate Change, and the Mission State

The above insights are particularly helpful in guiding new and more durable solutions to climate change – a challenge that touches every aspect of our society, that involves complex questions of market and government design, and that is rooted in the challenges of changing incumbent systems.

Consider the following. It’s now been almost 16 years since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its 2009 finding that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a public danger and began trying to regulate them. To simplify a complex history, what happened on the regulatory front was this: the Obama administration tried to push regulations forward, the Trump administration worked to undo them, and then the cycle repeated through Biden and Trump II, culminating in the EPA’s recent move to revoke the endangerment finding.

We can certainly see the power of incumbency and inertia within this history. Over a decade and a half, the EPA regulated greenhouse gases from new power plants (though never very stringently), new cars and trucks (quite effectively cutting pollution, though never with mandates to actually electrify the fleet), and…that’s about it. The agency never implemented standards for the existing power plants and existing vehicles that emit the lion’s share of U.S. GHGs. It never regulated GHGs from industry or buildings. And thanks to the efforts of entrenched fossil-fuel actors and their political allies, the climate regulations EPA managed to get over the finish line were largely rolled back. 

None of this should be read as a knock on the dedicated civil servants at EPA and partner federal agencies who worked to produce GHG regulations that were scientifically grounded, legally defensible, technically feasible, and cost effective, even while grappling with the monumental challenges of outdated statutes and internal systems. But it certainly speaks to the challenge of securing lasting change.

The work of economist Mariana Mazzucato offers clues to how we might tackle this challenge; she paints a portrait of a “mission state” that integrates all of government’s levers to define and execute a particular objective, such as an effective, equitable, and durable clean energy transition. This theory isn’t a case for simplistic deregulation, nor is it a claim that regulations somehow “don’t work”. Rather, it suggests that (especially in a post-Chevron world) another round of battles over EPA authority won’t ultimately get us where we need to go on climate, nor will it help us productively reshape our institutions in ways that engender public trust.

The shift from one energy system foundation to another is messy – and it is inherently about power. As giant investment firms hustle to buy public utilities, enormous truck companies side with the Trump administration to dismantle state clean freight programs, and subsidies for clean energy are decried as unfair and market-distorting even though subsidies for fossil energy have persisted for nearly a century, it’s clear that corporate incumbents can capture public investments or capture government power to throttle change. Delivering change means thinking through the many ways incumbency creates systems of dependencies throughout society, and what options – from regulations to monetary policy to the ability to shape the rule of law – we have to respond. To disrupt energy incumbents and achieve energy abundance, in other words, we must couple regulatory and non-regulatory tools.

After all, the past 16 years haven’t just been a story of regulatory back-and-forth. They are also a story of how U.S. emissions have fallen relatively steadily in part due to federal policies, in part to state and local leadership, and in part to ongoing technological progress. Emissions will likely keep falling (though not fast enough) despite Trump-era rollbacks. That’s evidence that there’s not a one-to-one connection between regulatory policy and results.

We also have evidence of how potent it can be when economic and regulatory efforts pull in tandem. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was the first time the United States strongly invested in an economic pivot towards clean energy at scale and in a mission-oriented way. The results were immediate and transformative: U.S. clean energy and manufacturing investments took off in ways that far surpassed most expectations. And while the IRA has certainly come under attack during this Administration, it is nevertheless striking that today’s Republican trifecta retained large parts of the entirely Democratically-passed IRA, demonstrating the sticking power of a mission-oriented approach.

Conducting the Orchestra: The Need for an Expanded Playing Field

Thinking beyond regulatory levers (i.e., a multi-pronged approach) is necessary but not sufficient to chart the path forward for climate strategy. In a highly diverse and federalist nation like the United States, we must also think beyond federal government entirely.

That’s because, as Nobel-winning economist Dr. Elinor Ostrom put it, climate change is inherently a “polycentric” problem. The incumbent fossil systems at the root of the climate crisis are entrenched and cut across geographies as well as across public/private divisions. Therefore the federal government cannot effectively disrupt these systems alone. Many components of the fundamental economic and societal shifts that we need to realize the vision of clean energy abundance lie substantially outside sole federal control – and are best driven by the sustained investments and clear and consistent policies that our polarized politics aren’t delivering.  

For example, states, counties, and cities have long had primary oversight of their own economic development plans, their transportation plans, their building and zoning policies, and the make-up of their power mix. That means they have primary power both over most sources of climate pollution (two-thirds of the world’s climate emissions come from cities) and over how their economies and built environments change in response. These powers are fundamentally different from, and generally much broader than, powers held by federal regulatory agencies. Subnational governments also often have a greater ability to move funds, shape new complex policies across silos, and come up with creative responses that are inherently place-based. (The indispensable functions of subnational governments are also a reason why decades of cuts to subnational government budgets are a worryingly overlooked problem – austerity inhibits bottom-up climate progress.)

The private sector has similar ability to either constrain or drive forward new economic pathways. Indeed, with the private sector accounting for about half of funding for climate solutions, it is impossible to imagine a successful clean-energy transition that isn’t heavily predicated on private capabilities – particularly in the United States. While China’s clean-tech boom is largely the product of massive top-down subsidies and market interventions, a non-communist regime must rely on the private sector as a core partner rather than a mere executor of climate strategy. Fortunately, avenues for effectively engaging and leveraging the private sector in climate action are rapidly developing, including partnering public enterprise with private equity to sustain clean energy policies despite federal cutbacks.

An orchestra is an apt analogy. Just as many instruments and players come together in a symphony, so too can private and public actors across sectors and governance levels come together to achieve clean energy abundance. This analogy extends Mazzucato’s conception of a mission state into a “mission society”, envisioning a network that spans from cities to nation states, from private firms to civil actors, working in concert to overcome what Ben Rhodes calls a “crisis of short termism” and deliver a “coherent vision” of a better future.

Building Towards Shared Prosperity

For the vision to be coherent, it must resonate across socioeconomic and ideological boundaries, and it must recognize that the structures of racial, class, and gender disparity that have marked the American project from the beginning are emphatically still there. Such factors shape available pathways for progress and affect their justice and durability. For instance: electric vehicle adoption can only grow so quickly until we make it much easier for those living in rented or multifamily housing to charge. Cheaper renewables only mean so much when prevailing policies limit the financial benefits that are passed on to lower-income Americans.

To borrow, and complicate, a metaphor from Abundance: distributive justice questions are fundamentally not “everything bagel” seasonings to be disregarded as secondary to delivery goals. They are meaningful constraints on delivery as well as critical potentialities for better systems, and are hence central to policy and politics. No mission state or mission nation, addressing the polycentric landscape of networked change needed to shift big incumbent systems, can afford to dismiss or ignore them. Displacing those systems requires wrestling with inequality and striving to create shared prosperity through new approaches that are distributively fair.

That’s an approach rooted in orchestration, one that asks why some instruments drown out others, and how to alter relationships between players to produce better results. It understands that we can’t solve scarcity without centering distributive justice, because as long as deep structural disparities and structural power exist there is strong potential for the benefits of rapid energy or housing buildout to be channeled towards those who need them least. And it is capable of restabilizing the center of American society and restoring trust in U.S. government because it realistically grapples with the interests of incumbents while paying more than lip service to the interests of a dazzlingly diverse American public.

This re-fashioned abundance agenda can provide actual principles for administrative state reform because it knows what it is asking regulators, and the larger intersecting layers of government and civil society, to do: Systematically remove points of inertia to accelerate shared prosperity in a safe climate, while anticipating and solving for distributive risks of change.

Because again, the abundance debate isn’t really about whether or not regulations are good. It’s about unfreezing our politics by being clear and courageous about our goals for a society that works better and is capable of big things.

This is not the first time Americans have envisioned a better future in the midst of national crisis, or the first time we have collectively disrupted failed incumbent systems. From our messy foundation, to the beginnings of Reconstruction during the Civil War, to the architects of the New Deal envisioning an active and effective government in the midst of the Dust Bowl and Depression, the history of our nation is full of evidence that a compelling vision of truly democratic government can pull Americans back together despite deep and real problems. Each time, these debates have scrambled existing binaries, and driven realignment. We are on the verge of realignment again as the systems built up over the fossil era break down and our neoliberal order fragments. This is the right time to engage, together, in orchestrating what comes next.