Grid modernization should be a major part of a national infrastructure-investment initiative. Effectively and efficiently modernizing the U.S. electric grid requires rapid deployment of innovative grid technologies. The next administration should establish a Grid Resilience Innovation Demonstration (GRID) Network, run in partnership between the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DoD), to test and accelerate deployment of such technologies. The GRID Network would integrate and build on existing microgrids on federal installations and other relevant facilities, resulting in a group of geographically distributed test beds that can be managed and operated as a national user facility. The distributed nature of the network would allow test beds to ensure that solutions are compatible with a variety of grid technologies and operational structures and would also insulate the network from security threats, and other risks. Prioritizing establishment of the GRID Network early in the next administration will enable our nation to quickly realize the benefits of a modern electric grid, including enhanced resilience to natural disasters, entrepreneurship opportunities, and job growth. Failure to act will leave our national grid vulnerable to hostile actors, rob the country of needed shovel-ready construction projects and manufacturing jobs, and undermine U.S. leadership in electric sector innovation and the resulting impacts to our economy.

Challenge and Opportunity

The U.S. electric grid is a critical backbone of our nation’s economy, national security, health, and social interactions. Yet the current grid is ill-suited to modern demands. Our nation’s grid contains many critical components that were originally constructed in the early 20th century. The grid as a whole is based on an outdated structure that was not designed for today’s varying power demand requirements, such as for the internet data centers, or for the widescale integration of intermittent sources of electricity such as wind turbines and solar panels. The grid is also poorly equipped to withstand the many cyber, physical, and electromagnetic threats that exist today. 

These problems can cause extensive and expensive blackouts, such as the widespread outages across the Northeast in 2003 that cost $6 billion in damages. The possibility of foreign interference presents a threat multiplier. In 2015, a Russian assault on the Ukrainian grid cut power for six hours in the dead of winter. A similar attack on the U.S. grid is possible. In fact, the same malware the triggered the Ukraine attack has been found in US-based critical infrastructure facilities. 

There is a clear need to make the U.S. electric grid much more secure to thwart attacks, robust to withstand physical threats, resilient to ensure rapid and full recovery from adverse impacts, stronger to accommodate greater demands, and flexible to enable a broader deployment of clean-energy technologies.

Yet grid modernization is easier said than done. The U.S. electric grid is a massive, complex system that comprises various technologies for electricity generation, transmission, and distribution as well as multiple operators, regulators, and markets to ensure the continual flow of electricity. Few incentives or financially-attractive opportunities exist for grid stakeholders to demonstrate and deploy innovative models and technologies. And finally, the national-security benefits of a secure, robust, and resilient grid do not deliver direct, sufficient financial gains, creating a market failure that leaves the grid vulnerable to interference.

Plan of Action

The next administration should establish the Grid Resilience Innovation Demonstration (GRID) Network, a national-scale test facility designed to propel the nation toward a more secure, robust, and resilient grid that can strengthen economic and national security while enabling a clean-energy future. The GRID Network should comprise multiple, geographically distributed test beds that are widely accessible to institutions and researchers seeking to demonstrate technologies in prototypical environments. These test beds would be user facilities similar to those owned by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE).

The overall goal of the GRID Network would be to support development, demonstration, and deployment of innovations in grid operation and technology, which are needed to address the evolving energy needs and expanding risks. The types of innovations could run from small to large scale, and from technical to operations, for example, components for high-voltage transmission or distribution, smart meters and associated cyber controls, direct current connects and disconnects, and microgrid operations with a variety of sources, loads and sizes.

The GRID Network would focus on innovations at mid- to high technology-readiness levels, i.e., innovations that have already been demonstrated successful at a limited level and seem like promising candidates for scale-up and commercialization. GRID Network test beds would provide the capacity to test at all scales from individual components in situ up to full end-to-end tests from the electricity generator to the final use. As modernization of the grid continues to occur, the anticipated outcomes will continue to evolve, and this facility will enable more innovations to be developed rapidly and tested such that the decision and risk of implementation can be reduced, which in turn should facilitate deployment. After all, utilities and investors want proven technologies, not science projects. As a result, we will see a more resilient grid that is both more secure and more robust (i.e., less blackouts, more value, savings and/or avoided costs).

GRID Network test beds could serve as official sites for the government to validate and certify any concept or technology intended for use in national-security applications. Through partnerships with community colleges, test beds could also offer workforce-development opportunities and vocational training to prepare technicians to install and operate next-generation grid technologies.

Implicit in the proposed action is that there are innovative technologies and strategies for operation that could be tested and rapidly deployed. While this has not been demonstrated through a survey or collection of data, it is a reasonable assumption based on our knowledge of the research and development (R&D) that is being done in this area as well as some general issues that impact the rapid, successful advancement from R&D to demonstration and deployment (i.e., crossing the so-called “Valley of Death”). Having a user facility aimed at helping bridge that gap that is available to companies and researchers widely would encourage innovators and innovations to surface, as has been demonstrated to work well in the past in the DoD and DOE. A minimally viable prototype will be needed for testing, which focuses the role of the facility between “development” and “deployment.” The costs for testing would be covered by the government, and like the existing user facilities, access to apply for time on GRID would be open to all ideas through a merit-review process. As a result, innovators should be motivated to develop their ideas to a product or operations model that can be tested given the low or zero cost of testing because the value of a having a government-tested and demonstrated device or operating model will be very high.

As is typical for federally-funded user facilities, the GRID Network would be run by a private entity (e.g., an objective management organization) through a public-private partnership with government agencies: in this case, likely DoD and DOE. The partnership could be managed by either agency or by an external entity, such as the National Resilient Grid Authority (NRGA) conceptualized in a 2020 report from the National Commission on Grid Resilience. Existing microgrids and other assets at DoD and DOE sites could provide the foundation for the GRID Network. The GRID Network will also build on and enhance the grid-resilience and modernization efforts that were established and have been pursued at both agencies.

Establishing and managing the GRID Network would cost the Federal Government an estimated $25–50 million per year at the low end to $200–300 million per year at the high end. This funding range is consistent with the funding levels for similar research and development facilities that DOE and DoD have supported over the last 15 years. Funding at the high end would support more sophisticated, comprehensive testing equipment, would permit users to take more time to test ideas, and would permit testing of more high-risk, high-reward ideas. Funding at the high end would also support efforts beyond just testing, such as development of national standards and protocols for grid operations, pursuit of collaborative technologies that would benefit niche applications, such as defense resilience pilot projects, and technology certifications.

The U.S. electric grid must be modernized to enable more use of renewable energy, deploy storage, and assure we improve the resilience. A test facility, such as the GRID facility described above, could help with modernization and entice investments toward deployment of new technologies. As a result, federal investment in the GRID Network would pay off directly or indirectly in four key ways:

1. Modernizing the U.S. electric grid will create shovel-ready construction jobs across the country. Since the GRID facility would be oriented toward rapid development and deployment of innovations, the facility could help enable aggressive and comprehensive modernization of the electric grid, which would involve construction jobs.
2. Grid components that are critical to U.S. infrastructure and national security—ranging from sensors to transformers—must be made through a trusted U.S. supply chain. Investments in the GRID Network hence represent investments in American manufacturing.
3. The GRID Network will support user generation of intellectual property and associated small business start-ups because some of the innovations that are tested and deployed will be manufactured, distributed and installed by start-ups, which will strengthen the U.S. supply chain. This new wave of business activity will propel the U.S. economy for years to come.
4. Grid modernization is a huge effort that will cost at least $500 billion and likely $1–2 trillion. Investing in technologies that could facilitate modernization will retire risks for grid modernization as the decisions by the various grid operators will be based on testing at an applicable scale. As a result, the GRID facility should help ensure the costs for grid modernization are in the middle of the range rather than at the higher end or above.

Conclusion

The U.S. electric grid is a crucial piece of the nation’s infrastructure. If it fails, critical sectors such as finance, healthcare, transportation, defense, agriculture, and manufacturing are at risk of failure as well. Yet the grid remains unacceptably vulnerable to threats large and small. There is a real danger of attacks on the grid by adversarial nations, and natural disasters can wipe out large sections of the grid for hours, days, or longer. Even factors as seemingly trivial as mylar balloons, small arms fire, and broken tree branches can cause costly damage when they interfere with critical grid components. It is past time to create a more robust and resilient system. Creating a testing ground for innovative solutions in grid operations and technology is an important step: one that will not only shore up a glaring weakness in our national security, but will also boost our economy through shovel-ready construction projects, creation of new and good-paying jobs, and development of intellectual property.

Summary

The next administration should establish a national fellowship for scientists and engineers to accelerate the transformation of research discoveries into scalable, market-ready technologies. Entrepreneurship is driving innovation across the U.S. economy—with the troubling exception of early-stage science. Transitioning scientific discoveries from the laboratory into prototypes remains too speculative and costly to garner significant support from industry or venture-capital firms. This makes it difficult for many of our nation’s science innovators to translate their research into new products and puts the United States at risk of falling behind in the quickly evolving global economy.

Entrepreneurial fellowships for scientists and engineers have emerged as an effective strategy for translating research into new products and businesses, showing tremendous early impact and a readiness to scale. The next administration should advance this proven strategy at the federal level by creating a national entrepreneurial fellowship. This new entrepreneurial fellowship would leverage our nation’s investments in science to drive national prosperity, security, and global competitiveness.

Summary

The United States accounts for over 20% of global deaths related to COVID-19 despite only having 4% of the world’s population. This unacceptable reality is in part due to the tsunami of misinformation surrounding COVID-19 that has flooded our nation. Misinformation not only decreases current compliance with best practices for containing and mitigating the spread of COVID-19, but will also feed directly into resistance against future administration of a vaccine or additional public-health measures.

The next administration should establish an office at the Department of Health and Human Services dedicated to combating COVID-19 misinformation. This office should lead a coordinated effort that:

1. Ensures that evidence-based findings are at the core of COVID-19 response strategies.
2. Utilizes data science and behavioral analytics to detect and counter COVID-19 misinformation.
3. Works with social-media companies to remove misinformation from online platforms.
4. Partners with online influencers to promote credible information about COVID-19.
5. Encourages two-way conversations between public-health officials and the general public.
6. Ensures that public-health communications are supported by on-the-ground action.

The next administration can achieve significant reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions by helping transition the commercial truck and bus industries to cleaner fuels like electric power and hydrogen. A key role for the Federal Government is to support the build-out of a nationwide network of zero-emission (i.e., alternative) fueling stations, including electric charging and hydrogen fueling stations. Achieving this goal will require federal leadership and significant collaboration with Congress, states, electric utilities, the private sector, and others. The amount of effort and time necessary for this effort means that it must be a day one priority to achieve meaningful progress within four years. A robust network of zero-emission fueling stations for trucks and buses will facilitate a significant and permanent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, improve air quality for communities nationwide, result in safer highways, and help create of hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

Challenge and Opportunity 

The threat of climate change demands immediate action. The transportation sector is the top emitter of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States, outpacing the energy, agriculture, residential, and commercial sectors. Any serious effort to cut GHG emissions overall must therefore include serious efforts to cut transportation-related GHGs. 

GHG emissions from commercial trucks and buses contribute significantly to the transportation sector’s overall emissions. From 1990 to 2018, GHG emissions from commercial trucks and buses increased far more than emissions for passenger cars (emissions increased by 90.1% for commercial trucks, 158.8% for buses, and only 21.6% for passenger cars) despite the lower number of vehicle-miles traveled for commercial trucks and buses. In 2018, the collective emissions from medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks were the second-largest category of transportation-related GHG emissions.

Alternative fuels like hydrogen fuels, biofuels, and electric power present an enormous opportunity to cut transportation-related emissions while boosting the U.S. economy. Alternative fuels are gaining commercial acceptance in the freight and tourism industries. There is also an emerging U.S. industry around manufacturing alternative-powered vehicles that promises to create millions of new jobs in the years ahead. Domestic companies that have already seen success in this space include Workhorse, a company based in Lordstown, OH that is producing electric delivery vehicles for UPS, FedEx and DHL; Rivian has recently signed a contract with Amazon to provide 100,000 electric delivery vans; and Tesla, the world’s most valuable car company, is developing its own battery-powered long-haul trucks.

But there is a major barrier hampering wider deployment of these vehicles: fueling stations. Adoption of zero-emission trucks and buses will be slow until a robust, nationwide network of zero-emission fueling stations is available. Modest efforts are already underway in California and the northeastern United States to build new zero-emission fueling stations, but federal leadership is needed to accelerate and expand these efforts to a national scale. The Federal Government can facilitate build-out of the country’s network of zero-emission fueling stations by providing tax credits and other financial incentives for station construction and by providing the nationwide planning and coordination capacities that the private sector alone cannot.

Key considerations

The U.S. Department of Energy reports that there were 41 open retail hydrogen fueling stations in the United States in 2019, with an additional 36 stations in various stages of development. Most of these stations are in California and the northeastern states. Various electric-fueling stations—most designed for passenger cars—are scattered throughout the United States. The next administration should focus on building out the national network of zero-emission fueling stations in the Midwest and other parts of the United States that currently lack zero-emission infrastructure. The following considerations can guide this effort.

The commercial truck and bus industry. Most truck and bus companies are small businesses, utilizing fleets of seven to ten vehicles and operating on tight profit margins. Capital is limited for many of these companies, especially in the wake of the devastation that COVID-19 has wreaked on the larger economy and tourism industry. Therefore, it will be difficult for these companies to invest in new, alternative-powered vehicles. Moreover, the rate of fleet turnover for most trucking and bus fleets is slow – a company will typically retain their commercial trucks and buses for a decade or more, and often times these vehicles will then be sold to a secondary market where they will be utilized for several years longer. The next administration should work closely with stakeholders to craft financial incentives that allow commercial truck and bus companies to purchase new trucks and buses that run on alternative fuels.

Travel-plaza owners. Commercial travel-plaza owners are among the largest distributors of diesel fuel and gasoline in the nation. Travel-plaza owners also generate revenue by selling food and other items to truck drivers and other motorists. The deployment of zero emission fueling stations could represent an existential threat to many of these operators if handled poorly: for instance, if zero-emission fueling stations become direct competitors to existing travel plazas. But commercial travel-plaza owners could also be important champions of zero-emission fueling stations if deployment is handled well: for instance, if resources are provided to help travel-plaza owners incorporate zero-emission fueling infrastructure into existing facilities, or if operators who build out zero-emission fueling infrastructure are rewarded with grants to upgrade on-site food and retail establishments.

Congress. Congress must provide new tools for the federal government to accelerate deployment of zero-emission fueling stations. Specifically, Congress should amend title 23, United States Code (USC) so that federal dollars are eligible to support construction of zero-emission fueling stations, including at truck rest stops and via Community Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) projects.

Alternative-fuel types. There currently is no “preferred” alternative fuel in the commercial truck and bus industries. While some think hydrogen fuel has the greatest potential, others are betting on natural gas and batteries. For now, most businesses are making decisions based on current advantages and limits of different alternative fuels. For example, battery cells are less attractive for long-haul trucking and bus trips because of the batteries’ weight and their limited range compared to motor fuels. But battery-powered vehicles are ideal for city deliveries, where many daily trips can be completed on a single charge. The next administration should therefore work to expand the nation’s network of zero-emission fueling stations in ways that support multiple alternative-fuel types.

Fueling technologies and costs. The reality is that zero emission technologies are relatively new. There is still work that must be done to understand the emissions-reduction and fuel-reduction technologies that are available, the challenges to wider adoption of these technologies, where these technologies effectively fit diverse geography and efficient supply-chain needs, and the potential emissions reductions. But doing this work will result in significant impacts on truck freight emissions and fuel usage.

Existing federal regulations. The commercial truck and bus industries are highly regulated. New fueling technologies will need to work within these regulations, not against them. For example, federal requirements limit the number of hours a truck or bus driver may work per day. If refueling an alternative-fuel truck takes longer than refueling a diesel truck, drivers will lose valuable driving time. Additionally, weight limits on commercial vehicles designed to prevent damage to road and bridge infrastructure also discourage the use of heavy batteries for long-haul trips, as the weight of the batteries displace the amount of freight a truck can haul. The next administration should be aware of issues like these, crafting policies to encourage development of alternative-fueling technologies that do not inadvertently hurt businesses or undermine other priorities like highway safety or infrastructure maintenance. Truck and bus drivers should also be included in these discussions, to better understand how to successfully integrate existing practices.

Truck and bus manufacturers and dealers. A handful of companies manufacture the majority of commercial trucks and buses sold and used in the United States. Most of these companies are not significantly invested in alternative-fuel vehicles. The next administration needs to be mindful that it is not pitting established manufacturers against the startups referenced above in supporting the expansion of zero-emission fueling stations, lest it encounter serious opposition among the business community and Congress. Finally, the U.S. Department of Transportation reports approximately 12.5 million commercial trucks and buses are currently registered in the United States. There will need to be significant manufacturing capacity to support the wide-scale adoption of alternative-powered trucks and buses, and these manufacturers could be a valuable partner for this effort, especially if they understand the market potential.

Plan of Action

Keeping the considerations above in mind, there are several concrete actions that the next administration can take to build out of a national network of zero-emission fueling stations. In its first 100 days, the next administration should: 

Prioritize passage of critical legislation

This legislation should provide the Federal Government the authorities and resources needed to support the build out of this zero-emission fueling network. Specifically, this legislation should

• Provide flexibility in title 23 USC to enable states to apply gas-tax dollars towards funding zero-emission fueling stations at truck parking stops and other places along highways – where such projects make sense.
• Allocate resources for financial incentives, including grants, tax rebates, and credits, to incentivize adoption of zero-emission fueling stations and vehicles.
• Utilize “Jason’s Law” surveys (a federal product that documents truck-parking capacity nationwide, including parking shortages) to identify truck-parking locations that could be used for fueling stations.
• Authorize pilot programs and public-private partnerships to provide flexibility in developing “best practices” and techniques with key stakeholders, including the private sector, for building out a commercially viable nationwide network of zero-emission fueling stations.
• Permit fast-track approval to site zero-emission fueling stations, in consultation with local utility regulators.

Strong White House coordination

The White House should work closely with key agencies to ensure coordination and eliminate redundancy with respect to federal efforts to advance zero-emission fueling stations. These agencies include the Department of Transportation (DOT) for its partnership with the states to maintain the nation’s major roads and highways, the Department of Energy (DOE) for its ongoing work to deploy alternative-fueling stations, and the Environmental Protection Agency for its regulatory work on clean air.

Gather stakeholder input

The business community recently has adopted a new level of urgency in confronting climate change. To discuss opportunities for building out zero-emission fueling infrastructure, the next administration should harness this energy by convening key stakeholders, including vehicle manufacturers, truck and bus companies, metropolitan planning organizations, port authorities, labor organizations, truck-stop owners, and owners of large freight-generating facilities (like hospitals, universities, airports, and convention centers). Opportunities may include the following: partnerships with local utilities to integrate new electric-charging stations with existing electric infrastructure; strategic plans for developing infrastructure tailored to specific routes, applications, and duty cycles in order to minimize refueling costs; and joint efforts that distribute capital expenses of infrastructure construction across private fleets as well as government agencies.

Establish pilot programs and public-private partnerships

Highly traveled truck and/or bus corridors along the National Highway System are natural places to pilot policies and public-private partnerships (PPP) designed to support construction of zero-emission fueling stations. Because there are relatively few examples of real-world experiences and limited opportunities to test emerging zero emission technologies and the strategies for their deployment, these pilots and PPPs will provide immense benefit in sharing information and developing best practices. Immense benefits towards wider adoption will come from understanding the emissions-reduction and fuel-reduction technologies available, the challenges to wider adoption of these technologies, and where these technologies effectively fit diverse geography and efficient supply-chain needs will have. The next administration should partner closely with states and the private sector on initiating and overseeing such pilots and PPPs.

Cumulatively, these activities and authorities will spur development of a nationwide zero emission fueling network because they provide stakeholders with a federal partner in navigating the risks and challenges of this effort while also providing necessary incentives to accelerate stakeholder investment in zero emission technologies and fueling stations. But the benefits of this effort may take years to fully realize, so it is critical that the next administration begin work on this effort on day one to see this through.

Conclusion

Commercial truck and bus volumes will only continue to grow in the future and with it their GHG emissions. While changing CAFÉ standards for commercial trucks and buses will make modest reductions in their GHG emissions, the reality is that the only way to significantly reduce these emissions is to accelerate the deployment and adoption of zero emission technologies. But because these technologies are relatively new and untested, the Federal Government must help stakeholders navigate the challenges and opportunities that these technologies present while also supporting the build out of critical infrastructure like fueling stations to improve confidence in adopting zero emission trucks and buses. The steps outlined in this proposal provide a roadmap to making that a reality.

Summary

In the last two decades, the digital marketplace has transformed the majority of the economy and the daily lives of billions of people worldwide. This transformation has delivered great gains to consumers and unlocked whole new technological opportunities for society to thrive. However, amidst these gains, palpable consumer harms and anti-competitive behaviors have also become clearer, and the bottom-up innovative dynamism that ushered forth the digital marketplace is increasingly under threat.

The next administration should establish a White House Taskforce focused on promoting digital market competition. This executive memo supports its establishment on day one of the next Presidential term.

Summary

The Biden-Harris Administration should create a plan for a public, online platform to connect teachers with college students and recent graduates to serve as tutors for K-12 students. One-on-one tutoring is a proven intervention that improves children’s educational competencies and increases students’ self-confidence. Along with supporting students, this platform could provide needed employment for young adults and enable teachers and students together to produce improved educational outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the closure of more than 124,000 schools with the majority of students now learning online. Meanwhile, millions of college students have lost part-time work or are graduating into a historically difficult job market that does not have positions for them to fill. Just as the New Deal created work programs that both created employment and improved our national landscape, our country requires creative solutions that can meet the urgent needs of our time, can be quickly scaled up using modern technology and can adjust to the changing needs dictated by the cycles of the coronavirus.

Summary

The history of the United States is replete with examples of how foundational new technologies can transform the economy and create jobs. From the automobile to the transistor to recombinant DNA, foundational technologies have enabled an expanding middle class and prosperity for millions of Americans. The federal government played a vital role in providing and enabling early market development and applications for these technologies. The United States must rededicate itself to promoting new technologies beyond the research and development phase, if it is to maintain a position of global economic leadership and successful transition to the 21st century economy. 

The U.S. government should create a Foundational Technology Development and Deployment Office within the Department of Commerce that retains flexible financing authority to support market-pull programs for early-stage commercialization of innovative firms. An annual $50 billion authorization, for five years, would spark nascent strategic industries (e.g., new energy production and distribution, advanced manufacturing, synthetic biology, materials, robotics, mobility, space exploration, and next-generation semiconductors), and would be critical to transitioning the U.S. workforce for the 21st century economy. With the success of such an office, the U.S. will cement itself as the global locus of frontier technology industries. The country could also ensure that the economic spillovers from innovation are distributed more equally across socio-economic groups, through the creation of more domestic, advanced manufacturing that creates middle-skill jobs.

Summary

The United States government needs to radically change our national approach to the commercial growth of frontier tech technology companies (e.g., new energy production and distribution, advanced manufacturing, synthetic biology, materials, robotics, mobility, space exploration, and next-generation semiconductors). Frontier tech startups can advance our nation’s future global competitive advantage, providing an opportunity to create high-tech and low-tech jobs and reshore other jobs. Coupling investment in the frontier tech innovation ecosystem with workforce training will allow the U.S. to reinvent and revitalize aspects of our declining or offshored industrial sectors and rebuild the country’s manufacturing capabilities.

The U.S. government should create a $500M fund and an administration authority that allows relevant government agencies to create public-private partnerships. This requires collaboration with private capital providers that utilizes public funding to incentivize private investment in early stage frontier tech companies. The goal is not to subsidize private investment capital in areas where the current free market system is working, but rather to identify those critical national industrial base areas where private capital is insufficiently investing and use matching grants to spur early stage private investment. This early partnership will allow increased access and collaboration between historically siloed government and venture capital innovation ecosystems. For frontier tech companies, whose growth requires both public and private capital, the U.S. must utilize our resources more efficiently to create a globally competitive future economic base.

Summary

Section 230 has been the subject of bipartisan criticism in Washington, with both President Trump and former Vice President Biden arguing that the controversial law should be revoked. As the election has approached, a flurry of legislative proposals have taken aim at the law.

This paper argues that the Biden-Harris administration should take a more targeted approach, focusing on changes that will deter some of the most harmful forms of speech while also preserving the features of tech platforms that are essential to online expression. Specifically, the next administration should modernize federal criminal law for the digital age to prohibit problematic online speech like voter suppression and incitement to riot, require platforms to comply with court orders to remove illegal content, define what it means for a platform to “develop” content, work with platforms on reporting options that will facilitate individual accountability, and incentivize platforms to share data that will inform future product design and policymaking.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed systematic vulnerabilities in the way that wildlife movement and emerging infectious diseases are managed at national and international scales. The next administration should take three key steps to address these vulnerabilities in the United States. First, the White House should create a “Task Force on the Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases”. This Task Force would convene agencies with oversight over animal imports, identify necessary policy actions, determine priority research areas, and coordinate a national response strategy. Second, the next president should work with Congress to pass a bill strengthening live-animal import regulations. Third, U.S. agencies should coordinate with international organizations to address global movement of infectious diseases of animals. Together, these actions would reduce the risk of emerging infectious diseases entering the United States, offer greater protection to citizens from zoonotic diseases, and protect American biodiversity from losses due to wildlife diseases.

Challenge and Opportunity

More than 60% of emerging infectious diseases in humans first originate in animals. More than 70% of these come from wild animals. HIV, for instance, jumped to human hosts from primates in Africa. MERS spread to humans from camels in the Middle East. Of present salience, experts believe that the virus that causes COVID-19 originated from wild animals in China (probably bats).

The risk of animal-to-human “spillover”—and the global spread of zoonotic diseases—increases when wildlife are traded and imported around the world (e.g., for food, traditional medicines, display, pets, etc.). The global spread of COVID-19 has drawn attention to problems such as lack of disease surveillance in wild animal populations and lack of disease testing in many live animals at international borders. International wildlife-trade laws do not account for public-health risks of wildlife trade. These laws also do not require collection of data on zoonotic diseases (i.e., diseases caused by germs that spread between animals and people): data that could help prevent the next pandemic. These problems are exacerbated by accelerating rates of habitat conversion and biodiversity loss coupled with increased volume and speed of international commerce.

The United States is especially susceptible to emerging zoonotic diseases because it is the world’s largest importer6 of legally traded wild animals, yet lacks domestic regulations requiring most imported live animals to be tested for diseases, pathogens, or parasites. Gaps in U.S. statutory and regulatory frameworks governing live-animal imports increase disease risks for humans while also threatening our country’s biodiversity and natural resources. In the United States, four agencies oversee some aspect of live-animal imports—but this oversight is far from comprehensive. The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for assessing the risk of diseases in agricultural imports, but not wildlife species. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) oversees imports of only primates and some species of rodents, bats, or birds known to spread zoonotic diseases. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for regulating imports of all wildlife (and imposes stricter standards on species previously identified as injurious), but its mandate does not cover infectious diseases or parasites. The upshot is that imports of most wildlife species to the United States are not assessed for disease risk by any agency. Most disease agents that infect wildlife (except for a small number of known zoonotic diseases) are not monitored by any agency either.

Plan of Action 

The next administration should take three key steps to address systematic vulnerabilities in the way that wildlife movement and emerging infectious diseases are managed in the United States and around the world. 

Create a White House Task Force on the Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases.

This Task Force would convene agencies with oversight over animal imports (including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of the Interior (DOI), and CDC) and those supporting research (NSF, NIH) or international assistance (U.S. Department of State, USAID) to determine global research priorities on wildlife disease, and facilitate international cooperation on mechanisms to reduce demand as well as disease risk in the live animal trade. The task-force would use the One Health concept that links human health with animal health and environmental health, and that applies a comprehensive approach to understanding the drivers of disease emergence, the spread of disease, and the impacts on human health.

Work with Congress to pass a bill strengthening live-animal import regulations.

This bill would build on past legislation (e.g., H.R. 6362/S. 3210;11 H.R. 3771/S. 1903;12 and S. 375913) related to wildlife disease. The bill should:

• Reduce risk of zoonotic disease introduction to the United States by increasing surveillance of live-animal imports at U.S. borders. Specifically, Congress should give APHIS the authority to use pre-import screening, such as a process that assesses disease risk by species and country and determines allowable imports on the basis of that assessment. Congress should also expand the mission of APHIS to address not only disease issues that affect agricultural animals but also disease issues associated with zoonotic and wildlife diseases.
• Amend the Lacey Act to strengthen the FWS’s ability to identify, designate, and stop injurious species (including dangerous pathogens) from entering the United States, and from moving via interstate commerce if and when they do enter. Specifically, the Lacey Act should be amended to grant the FWS authority over emergency listing (i.e. one that is accelerated and bypasses the notice and public comment process); authority to list human and wildlife pathogens as injurious species; and authority to regulate interstate commerce in listed injurious species.
• Expand efforts to control illegal wildlife trade. President Obama’s July 2013 Executive Order on Combating Wildlife Trafficking resulted in the development of a holistic national strategy for tackling the entire trade chain of wildlife trafficking. The next administration should strive to implement elements of this strategy that have not yet been implemented, and to build on elements that have. This could include increasing the FWS’s enforcement capacity, strengthening measures to prevent and deter wildlife trafficking, increasing the severity of penalties for wildlife crime, and taking steps to reduce demand (media campaigns, behavior change) for imported wildlife.

Coordinate internationally to address diverse aspects of wildlife movement and emerging infectious diseases.

The next administration should direct USDA (primarily APHIS) and the FWS to lead the following efforts:

• Amend the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) treaty and accompanying resolutions to (i) consider disease risk as a factor in regulating wildlife imports and exports, and (ii) broaden the scope of CITES in tackling domestic markets.
• Strengthen efforts by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) to develop a systematic approach for early detection of (and rapid responses to) emerging infectious diseases of human, wildlife, and domesticated animals.
• Expand OIE’s ambit from simply assessing disease risk in livestock trade to one in which OIE works with CITES and country-based labs to expand disease surveillance in all live-animal trade, including by conducting tests. OIE should establish a publicly accessible, centralized, and curated system for monitoring the global incidence and spread of wildlife pathogens in order to facilitate early detection of disease emergence and to document disease spread. Such a system could be modeled on GISAID or EpiFlu.

Conclusion 

Regulatory gaps put Americans at risk of exposure to emerging infectious disease from unregulated and under-regulated imports of wildlife. The next administration should address these gaps by creating a White House task force, strengthening live-animal import regulations, and coordinating with international institutions to reduce the global movement of emerging infectious diseases. The result would be a nation that is healthier and safer—for humans and animals alike.

The United States lacks the basic information and digital infrastructure required to effectively respond to the emerging climate crisis. While the science and technology needed for sensible climate policy exists, efforts to leverage these technical resources are fragmented and undirected. Actors in the most important sectors of the U.S. economy are making long-term investment decisions based on inaccurate or outdated data as a result. In the past 10 years, for example, homes worth over $11.2 billion have been built in areas that are at risk from sea-level rise. Insurance companies have paid over $25 billion in claims resulting from the 2017 wildfires in California. Better information on environmental impacts of climate change will make it possible to mitigate losses from wildfires, droughts, floods, and extreme weather events. Therefore, the next Administration should invest in Earth observation to directly measure environmental change and greenhouse gas emissions.

The next Administration should also invest in modern data and information technology infrastructure to effectively and efficiently respond to climate change. Such digital infrastructure will make it easier to integrate climate science into decision making. These investments will not only strengthen the domestic economy, but will also reposition the United States as a global leader on one of the most pressing “moonshots” of our time—basic measurements of humanity’s impact on our home planet.

Challenge and Opportunity

By 2050, the cost of anthropogenic climate change to the United States is projected to be equivalent to the cost of a mid-scale pandemic, year-over-year. Yet American homeowners, small businesses, and even large enterprises are making investments with expected dividends in 10- 30 years as if the impacts of climate change are unknowable — they aren’t. The technology exists to measure the causes and effects of climate change at a resolution and frequency commensurate with economic decision-making. The challenge is to effectively organize disparate federal efforts to collect and distribute information about how our home planet is changing, so that Americans and American companies can make smart, forward-thinking choices.

Environmental information, especially about climate change, is a public good and should be provisioned by the public sector. In addition, there are sweeping economies of scale associated with Earth observation — with high upfront costs of data collection and data infrastructure, but low marginal costs to extend coverage from one state to the next. As such, the Federal Government is a natural home to lead and coordinate Earth observation.

Bolstering the Federal Government’s Earth observation will reposition the United States as a global leader on the most pressing “moonshots” of our time. Establishing capacity to collect basic information about the vital signs of our planet will be a clear diplomatic, scientific, and economic win for a new Administration. This document outlines feasible, measured, and near-term activities in support of that goal.

Plan of Action

The next Administration should take immediate and bold actions to elevate Earth observation at the federal level. Specifically, the next Administration should 

Deputize the next NASA Administrator to lead Earth observation for the Federal Government, with decisive support for budget-neutral reallocation of resources toward Earth science. NASA has the mandate, public trust, technical resources, and science budget to take a leading role in monitoring climate change. Currently, only 7% of NASA’s annual budget is dedicated to studying our home planet. The urgency of climate change requires that number to be much higher. The percentage of NASA’s annual budget allocated to Earth science should be doubled within the first year of the next Administration. Moreover, structures to support climate science within the Federal Government are insufficient. NASA leadership will organize, elevate, and operationalize existing efforts. For example, reallocation and refocusing of resources could be used within the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program to develop an ecosystem of firms capable of (i) collecting and processing climate data and (ii) creating decisionsupport tools to foster better understanding of climate change impacts and more effective adaptation responses.

Establish a Climate Corps to increase the pipeline of talent in climate-change mitigation and adaptation, with a specific branch dedicated to leveraging Earth observation data. The Climate Corps should adopt a tiered approach that puts members to work at the local, state, and federal levels, tailoring information and services delivered accordingly. The federal branch of the Climate Corps could be modeled on and work with existing programs such as the Presidential Innovation Fellows. The state and local branches of the Climate Corps would link federal investment in climate data and science with on-theground needs. Localities on the front lines of climate change require tailored scientific and technical expertise to support evidence-based decision-making. We recommend recruiting graduates with science and technical degrees to branches of the Climate Corps focused on serving such localities nationwide. Much like the Peace Corps embeds members within communities abroad, this Climate Corps branch would embed members within front-line communities at home to facilitate two-way communication about local needs, relevant scientific findings and capabilities, and informed investments at all levels of government.

Create a collaborative public-private partnership for climate data and science, much like the BRAIN Initiative brings together public and private entities to advance understanding of brain function. The partnership should be overseen by a civilian science board and should aim to allocate $5 billion over five years in applied research grants to universities and small businesses. These grants would spur development of innovative technologies to monitor Earth systems in response to community and industry needs. Supported by committed involvement from the Department of Defense (e.g., DARPA, IARPA), part of the partnership’s mandate should be to reinstate the MEDEA program (or follow-on incarnation) to make military data assets available to civilian researchers and data scientists.

Conclusion

There are moral and economic imperatives for the United States to take swift action, supported by consistent and credible data, on climate change. Global investment in Earth observation is insufficient to adequately respond to climate change. The United States can leverage its comparative advantage in scientific diplomacy and domestic talent to fill this information gap. By doing so, our nation can lead the world to the next great human achievement—a stable and productive climate.

Summary

Addressing inequality, closing achievement gaps, and tackling opportunity gaps in schools requires a highly effective educator in every classroom, a diversified teacher workforce, and an implementation of culturally responsive policies and practices. The 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires State Education Agencies (SEA) to identify and close gaps in equitable access to effective teachers but does not offer specific definitions about what constitutes teacher effectiveness. There is an opportunity to build on state equity plans and collaboratively work with districts, schools, educator preparation programs, and other stakeholders to close the gap in access to effective educators, diversify the workforce, and ensure that the training of educators includes a focus on culturally proficient practices.