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.

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

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. 

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.

Philanthropy Partnerships Summit Report: Building Collaborations for Impact

Federal agencies such as the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and a set of entities from the philanthropic community share a commitment to advancing science for the public good. Yet these sectors have often operated separately, with one traditionally focused on fundamental research and the other on societal impact and field-building. The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 created NSF’s Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) in part to strengthen public- and private-sector partnerships to support economic growth and national security, with a particular focus on use-inspired and translational research – which aligns with priorities shared by many philanthropic funders. The Philanthropy Partnerships Summit hosted by the Federation of American Scientists in September 2025 convened 32 senior leaders from 27 philanthropic organizations alongside NSF leaders and representatives from across all its directorates to identify ways to enhance meaningful partnership by identifying new opportunities for co-investment, shared infrastructure, and joint experimentation. 

The goals of the Summit were to explore new and innovative models of partnership, including those that expand from 1:1 partnerships to partnerships with funder consortia, and to identify co-investment opportunities in areas of mutual interest.

Across breakout discussions, the conversation moved from abstract interest in partnership to concrete ideas for joint action. While the ideas spanned domains from artificial intelligence (AI) to biotechnology to STEM education and workforce development, they shared several characteristics that point to where a collaboration between federal agencies such as NSF and philanthropy is most likely to add value:

Participants continuously messaged that when philanthropy and NSF align around shared priorities and complementary assets, the combined impact exceeds what either could achieve alone. Federal agencies such as NSF traditionally bring scientific scale and reach, credibility, and infrastructure. Philanthropy brings their own unique expertise, flexibility, added risk tolerance, an openness to experimentation, and broad networks of partners. Together, they can create a complementary and robust partnership model that centers impact and accelerates how research informs and delivers real-world outcomes. At the same time, the discussion made clear that existing partnership processes and infrastructure are imperfect and will require continued work beyond the Summit.

The discussions and partnership exploration at the Summit point to several practical actions that would help translate shared interest into durable partnerships. These actions reflect both near-term steps and longer-term practices needed to move from exploration to implementation.

This report below provides additional detail for the recommendations above by distilling lessons and opportunities surfaced at the Summit. It highlights practical steps that both NSF and philanthropy can take to build trust, streamline processes, and co-create new partnership mechanisms across domains from AI to biotechnology, STEM education and workforce development, and more.

Background

For three-quarters of a century, federal agencies such as the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) have served as the cornerstone of America’s scientific enterprise. NSF has invested in fundamental research and education across nearly every field of science and engineering. NSF’s enduring mission is “to promote the progress of science … advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare … and secure the national defense.” Its investments have underpinned transformative discoveries, from the early development of the modern Internet to breakthroughs in AI and materials science and helped establish the U.S. as a global leader in scientific research excellence.

Recognizing that today’s most urgent challenges require not only new knowledge but also new pathways to accelerate advances to impact, Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act to create the TIP Directorate in 2022. TIP represents the most significant structural evolution at NSF in decades, designed to accelerate technology to the market and society, prepare a competition-ready workforce, harness the full geography of innovation across the nation, and strengthen U.S. competitiveness. Through programs such as the NSF Regional Innovation Engines, Translation to Practice (TTP), and NSF Tech Labs, TIP fosters collaboration across universities, industry, government, and philanthropy to turn ideas into impact.

The NSF Strategic Partnerships Hub (SPH) was created in 2024 to support and scale NSF’s capacity for collaboration with external partners, including philanthropic organizations. While housed in TIP, SPH coordinates across NSF’s research and education directorates to identify partnership opportunities and streamline engagement processes in an effort to make co-investment less complicated and more transparent.

Over the past several years, NSF in partnership with philanthropy has already demonstrated what’s possible when their strengths align. The Fire Science Innovations through Research and Education (FIRE) program with the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation expanded wildfire research capacity through a flexible co-funding and data-sharing arrangement that enabled rapid coordination across NSF and other federal partners including NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense. Similar philanthropic partnerships across NSF directorates have proven how joint investments can translate research into real-world solutions.

The Philanthropy Partnerships Summit was convened to build on the momentum of recent partnerships as well as the recently hosted Industry Partnerships Summit to explore new opportunity areas for shared investment. 

Philanthropy Partnerships Summit Overview

The Philanthropy Partnerships Summit, held in Washington, D.C. in September 2025, convened 32 leaders from philanthropy and 16 NSF representatives across all directorates to explore new ways to collaborate on advancing research and innovation for public benefit. The event was designed to move beyond discussion and toward identifying concrete mechanisms for partnership, co-investment, and shared learning.

The morning began with opening remarks from Daniel Correa, CEO of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), who welcomed participants and noted that growing industry and philanthropic investment creates significant opportunity for complementary partnerships that take advantage of what government and philanthropy each do best: to tackle problems that neither can solve alone.

Erwin Gianchandani, Assistant Director for TIP at NSF, outlined NSF’s broad vision for partnership across its directorates. He described how the SPH (within the TIP Directorate) is working to make collaboration easier, faster, and more transparent, and framed the day as an opportunity to co-design new partnership models that align the missions of NSF and philanthropy.

The first session featured a panel discussion on the FIRE program including Genny Biggs from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Barbara Ransom from the NSF Directorate for Geosciences, and Doug Kowalewski from the NSF Directorate for Geosciences on detail to the SPH. The panel was moderated by Gracie Narcho, Directorate Head for the TIP Directorate.  Together, the panel traced the development of the FIRE program, from initial concept to signed MOU, and described how a simple structure, shared review process, and strong communication enabled rapid collaboration. Panelists emphasized that the FIRE partnership evolved through repeated conversations, informal alignment, and early experimentation before formal agreements were finalized. Shared review processes, clarity on roles, and the ability to adapt over time were crucial, and trust was built through doing the work together rather than through contractual detail alone. 

Following the panel, Kumar Garg, President of Renaissance Philanthropy, facilitated a room-wide discussion in which attendees shared their own experiences, priorities, questions, and concerns about partnering with NSF. Questions covered included:

The discussion highlighted strong philanthropic interest in partnering with NSF across a wide range of models, from co-funding and parallel funding to data-sharing, field-building, and non-financial collaborations that extend NSF’s reach and impact. Participants emphasized NSF’s scale, convening power, and access to an extensive portfolio of research and innovation communities. They contrasted this with philanthropy’s flexibility, risk tolerance, and capacity to support implementation, coordination, and emerging needs. At the same time, the conversation surfaced recurring questions around clarity of partnership mechanisms, alignment of timelines and expectations for impact, and how success is defined and communicated across differing institutional incentives. There was broad agreement on the need for clearer pathways and ongoing dialogue to help partnerships form, evolve, and remain mission-aligned over time.

In the afternoon, participants were divided into three breakout groups focused on AI research and development (R&D) and education, biotechnology, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) talent and workforce pipelines. Each group was tasked with identifying partnership opportunities, articulating shared priorities, and developing preliminary “wireframes” for collaborative models that could be refined after the Summit. 

The day concluded with a synthesis discussion highlighting common themes: 

The room committed to continuing the conversations that took place throughout the day to explore meaningful partnerships, and NSF committed to addressing outstanding questions and working to build the infrastructure and information base necessary to maximize the knowledge, commitment, and relationships in the room. 

Emerging Themes

Over the course of the Summit, participants reiterated themes that reflect shared priorities, questions, and points of emphasis. Some highlight opportunities, others signal needs or expectations, but all represent what consistently rose to the surface.

Shared infrastructure, data, and proposal review are high-value assets for philanthropy

Philanthropy values NSF’s scientific infrastructure, including the peer review process, open data standards, and rigorous evaluation models. Collaborations such as the active public-private engagement on the National AI Research Resource (NAIRR) Pilot show how shared infrastructure can democratize access to innovation and ensure that researchers and educators can leverage large-scale systems for impact.

Aligning timelines, incentives, and metrics is essential

Differences in pacing and evaluation often stall collaboration. Philanthropy tends to measure results in cycles that can be two or three years, while NSF investments can unfold over a decade or more. This remains a topic warranting ongoing discussion.

Mechanisms, priorities, and boundaries

A pre-Summit survey of confirmed attendees indicated that the majority of participating organizations were new or relatively early in their experience partnering with federal agencies such as NSF. As a result, philanthropic leaders at the Summit reported limited visibility into NSF’s partnership pathways and decision processes. Practical tools such as frequently asked questions (FAQs), sample agreements, and a “menu of mechanisms” would help clarify how funding can flow, what legal structures are possible, and where philanthropy can fill gaps. They also desire a clearer picture of NSF priorities as they evolve, as well as any boundaries around partnership formation that may exist. At the same time, NSF would benefit from understanding philanthropy’s ongoing priorities, pointing to a need for increased two-way communication.  

Alternative models are emerging

New or less commonly used modalities such as prize challenges, field trials platforms, metascience projects, and alternative science organizations like focused research organizations (FROs) were viewed as promising vehicles for experimentation. These models leverage philanthropy’s flexibility to complement NSF’s long-term funding and evaluation rigor.

MOUs and simplicity build trust while preserving speed and flexibility

MOUs can create the scaffolding for partnership while preserving flexibility. The experience of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation’s FIRE Program partnership shared during the panel demonstrated how a simple MOU allowed rapid collaboration and trust-building.

SPH can serve as the entry point for NSF partnership exploration

NSF is open to collaboration through both monetary and non-monetary models, including shared infrastructure, aligned solicitations, collective action, and data partnerships. SPH is both a primary entry point for philanthropic organizations as well as a central node for navigating the flexibility of options available for partnership structures, processes, and timelines.

Public and private partnerships can build bridges across education and workforce efforts

Participants emphasized that education, research, and workforce development function as an interconnected ecosystem. Even though many funders and agencies support work across this development continuum, the stages often operate in silos, limiting the ability of learners and communities to move smoothly from early exposure to advanced training and career opportunities. NSF and philanthropy have an opportunity to work together on mechanisms that intentionally link these stages, strengthening coordination among K–12 systems, higher education, workforce programs, and regional innovation efforts. By building bridges across this full pipeline, partners can help ensure that education and talent development aligns with scientific and technological opportunities.

Public trust in science is foundational

Philanthropy and NSF both see public trust and legitimacy as essential to science’s long-term health. Joint efforts can strengthen communication, visibility, and the societal relevance of research outcomes.

Areas for Ongoing Clarification Raised by Participants

The Summit surfaced a set of practical questions that, if addressed over time, could lower barriers to partnership and support more informed engagement on both sides. These include:

Shared understanding of partnership options and processes

Internal case-making

Expectations-setting to streamline the process

NSF partnership needs

Common Barriers to Partnership

Moving from Pitching to Co-Design

Both NSF and philanthropy are accustomed to being in the position of receiving proposals rather than submitting them. This dynamic can slow collaboration, since each side may wait for the other to initiate or define the opportunity. Effective partnership requires shedding those traditional roles and jointly identifying areas of mutual interest, shared objectives, and pathways for partnership.

Unpredictable federal funding and risk tolerance

Philanthropic boards can be hesitant to partner where federal funding cannot be guaranteed across budget cycles. Several participants noted that internal board approval processes require clarity on funding continuity and risk exposure, which can slow or prevent engagement even when strategic alignment exists.

Process opacity and communication gaps

Limited clarity on how to start, who to contact, and how decisions are made continues to slow collaboration, particularly for first-time partners.

Mission alignment and equity

Concerns remain about potential misalignment between philanthropic missions and NSF priorities, especially given the shifting landscape around diversity, equity, and inclusion and which areas of science are to be prioritized and pursued. 

Timelines and incentives

Differing timelines on when outcomes are expected and how impact is measured, ranging anywhere from rapid response funding to multi-decade basic research, can cause challenges in partnership formation.

Mechanisms for Partnership

The Summit surfaced several partnership mechanisms that NSF and philanthropy have used or expressed interest in exploring beyond traditional grantmaking. This is not an exhaustive list of options, and these are not simple plug-and-play models as each comes with its own legal considerations, administrative requirements, and operational constraints. Instead, they represent starting points for dialogue and prototyping, illustrating the range of structures that could support more coordinated collaboration.

Memoranda of understanding (MOUs) 

MOUs function as low-risk, non-binding frameworks that create space for information sharing, coordination, and experimentation without obligating either party to specific funding commitments. Participants noted that while MOUs can take time to develop and require alignment of priorities on both sides, they often serve as an important foundation for trust, enabling and creating a platform for downstream activities such as joint solicitations, co-sponsored convenings, or aligned funding strategies. In practice, participants described MOUs as taking months rather than weeks to finalize, but emphasized that once in place they enabled faster downstream coordination.

Fiscal sponsorships

Fiscal sponsorships emerged as a practical solution when philanthropic compliance requirements or gift-making practices do not align with federal funding rules. By routing funds through an intermediary, philanthropies can maintain outcome expectations and reporting structures while supporting NSF-aligned activities. Participants noted that while this adds an additional layer of coordination, it can significantly expand what is feasible and has, in some cases, exceeded fundraising or impact expectations.

Shared infrastructure and data agreements

Non-monetary partnerships, particularly around shared infrastructure or data access, can deliver significant value without requiring fund transfers. Examples included data-sharing agreements that expand research transparency or enable meta-science analysis. These arrangements were seen as attractive for donors seeking leverage and learning, while also raising the importance of clear consent, privacy protections, and shared expectations around data use.

Dear colleague letters (DCLs)

NSF’s DCLs were discussed as a useful signaling mechanism to surface shared priorities, invite aligned philanthropic engagement, and catalyze collective action. While these letters do not guarantee partnership outcomes, they can reduce coordination costs, attract multi-partner interest, and create a common reference point, particularly when paired with prior relationship-building or enabling agreements like MOUs.

Pooled funds

Pooled or jointly governed funds were highlighted as a way to align multiple philanthropies around shared priorities while leveraging NSF’s solicitation and merit review infrastructure. Such approaches can reduce duplication and individual risk, but require upfront alignment on governance, decision-making, and staff capacity, which can be a limiting factor for smaller or leanly staffed organizations.

Aligned Areas of Interest for Attendees

Discussions throughout the Summit, along with conversations and surveys prior to the Summit, revealed a wide range of shared interests across philanthropy and NSF, with strong alignment around several key domains where collaboration could accelerate progress and expand impact.

Artificial intelligence (AI)

AI emerged as a priority as both an enabler of discovery and a driver of educational and societal change. Priorities included advancing AI literacy and proficiency from K–12 through higher education, improving data access and representativeness, and creating benchmarks and evaluation tools to assess the quality and impact of AI systems. Participants also highlighted responsible AI development, governance, and assurance frameworks to manage societal effects. Many viewed AI as a research accelerator, capable of improving scientific discovery across disciplines and sectors, including health, quantum, and climate applications.

STEM education and talent

Expanding access to STEM education, training, and workforce development was a central theme. Priorities included high-quality computer science and STEM education nationwide, educator capacity-building, and strengthened school district infrastructure. Interest areas included K–12 education R&D, postdoctoral and workforce pipelines, and evaluation of educational strategies using AI and other emerging tools. Broadening participation across all stages of the STEM pipeline and creating opportunities for everyone everywhere were recurring priorities.

Biotechnology and the life sciences

Philanthropy expressed interest in biomedical and health research, physical and life sciences, and biotechnology applications that connect basic science to clinical or translational outcomes. Opportunities were identified in integrating biotechnology with adjacent fields such as AI, quantum, and education, and in supporting both discovery and the pathways that bring new technologies to market.

Regional innovation and entrepreneurship

Participants discussed the role of philanthropy and NSF in fostering regional innovation ecosystems that link invention, entrepreneurship, workforce development, and economic development. There was interest in coordinating regional philanthropic and federal investments to build commercialization pipelines and talent networks, especially in emerging technology fields.

Alternative science models and metascience

Several attendees emphasized the value of experimenting with new forms of scientific organization and funding. This included support for focused research organizations (FROs), metascience initiatives studying how science is conducted, and alternative selection and evaluation mechanisms that could complement NSF’s existing processes.

Conservation and natural disaster mitigation 

Attendees described opportunities for parallel funding between NSF and philanthropy to translate research into practice. Areas of shared interest included community-based resource management and wildfire resilience.

Scaling basic research through impact

Participants underscored the need to move fundamental discoveries toward societal application. Priorities included use-inspired research in the physical and life sciences, civic and engaged science, and approaches that bridge discovery with impact in materials, health, and environmental systems.

Partnerships as a practice

Finally, several participants identified the practice of partnership itself as an area of focus. They emphasized the value of funder collaboratives, shared learning networks, and coordination mechanisms that make philanthropy–government collaboration more effective. Attendees expressed interest in frameworks that enable collective problem solving, co-funding, and knowledge exchange across sectors and disciplines.

Specific Partnership Ideas to Explore

Breakout discussions yielded a range of concrete partnership concepts, from sketched out partnership “wireframes” to kernels of partnership ideas illustrating how NSF and philanthropy could jointly advance scientific research, education, and innovation. While exploratory, these ideas demonstrate practical ways to align resources, expertise, and priorities across sectors.

National K–12 AI learning trials platform

One breakout group created a partnership wireframe highlighting the potential impact of establishing a national platform to test and evaluate educational technologies and strategies that integrate AI. Such a system could coordinate trials through networks of charter or public schools, addressing challenges like parental consent and fragmented data collection. The platform would enable representative, ethical research on what technologies most effectively improve learning outcomes, supported by NSF’s academic networks and philanthropy’s flexibility to build and maintain the platform itself.

Research-to-impact pipeline

Participants developed a wireframe for a collaborative mechanism that could strengthen the movement of promising academic research toward application. Through joint review and funding, NSF and philanthropy could identify high-impact ideas suited for translation, leveraging existing programs such as the NSF Innovation Corps (NSF I-Corps™), Translation to Practice (TTP), and Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) programs. The goal would be to create a more resilient pipeline that carries research outcomes into the marketplace or public use.

Regional STEM ecosystem pathways

Another wireframe described how co-investment at the regional level could align K-12, higher education, and workforce ecosystems more generally to improve student outcomes and strengthen local economies. Partners would support networks that link educators, universities, employers, and communities, ensuring that STEM learning translates into career opportunities and regional prosperity.

Revaluing higher education

One wireframe outlined an effort to reaffirm the societal value of higher education. Partnerships could highlight success stories, promote alternative pathways, and strengthen the public perception of postsecondary education as a vital source of innovation and civic well-being.

“Imagine-if” fund for unconventional research

Participants wireframed a fund to surface and support bold, unconventional research ideas that fall outside traditional funding mechanisms. By pooling philanthropic and NSF networks, the fund would identify investigators and labs pursuing high-risk, high-reward ideas and provide flexible, early-stage support.

Unconventional research support through aligned ecosystems

Pulling on a similar thread around unconventional research, another idea developed during the Summit describes aligning entire ecosystems around unconventional or underappreciated research. This could include multi-sector consortia, grand challenges focused on specific topics, and alternative metrics for success that extend beyond publications or patents. The objective is to create systems that reward long-term, high-impact breakthroughs.

Prize challenges and pull mechanisms

Prize challenges were identified as efficient tools for driving innovation and attracting new talent to scientific problems. NSF and philanthropy could jointly design prize competitions, challenge platforms, or pull mechanisms that reward progress toward measurable outcomes, fostering experimentation and accelerating solutions in priority areas.

Data collaboration and infrastructure

Participants proposed improving data accessibility and reproducibility through shared infrastructure. Ideas included opt-in exposure of research proposals for broader collaboration, standardized data stewardship systems, and distributed databases jointly managed across federal and private partners. These mechanisms could reduce duplication, increase transparency, and accelerate collective learning.

Targeted funds and joint solicitations

Expanding the use of co-funded programs and DCLs was another actionable concept. These tools could help align NSF and philanthropic investments around shared agendas in areas like AI, biotechnology, and STEM education/workforce development, creating clear pathways for coordinated funding and engagement.

Field-building and program design support

Participants noted opportunities for philanthropy to assist NSF and research communities in building new fields of study or standing up grant programs in emerging domains. This could include seed funding for capacity building, convenings, and early-stage infrastructure that enable future NSF or philanthropic investment.

Biotech grand challenges and applications

Several participants emphasized opportunities for joint challenge-driven initiatives in biotechnology. These included applying AI and big data to accelerate drug discovery or agricultural innovation, developing next-generation medical devices for continuous monitoring, creating safer and more efficient synthetic biological methods, and expanding fundamental biochemical understanding through new research infrastructure.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The Philanthropy Partnerships Summit demonstrated both the urgency and the opportunity of deeper collaboration between sectors that share a common goal of advancing discovery and ensuring that its benefits reach people and communities everywhere. Participants affirmed that NSF’s scale and scientific infrastructure, combined with philanthropy’s flexibility and willingness to take risks, create a uniquely powerful foundation for collective action.

The conversations demonstrated that partnership is not limited to shared funding and that the strongest collaborations emerge when partners bring their comparative strengths to a common purpose and build mechanisms that make collaboration replicable.

The Summit surfaced two near-term actions and two guiding practices that will be important for sustaining momentum.

Near-term actions

Guiding practices for partnership development

The Summit was designed not to conclude a conversation but to begin one. NSF and the philanthropic community have already demonstrated what is possible through efforts like FIRE and other such partnerships that accelerate research to impact. The challenge now is to turn promising ideas into lasting frameworks that create a more connected, responsive, and impactful national research ecosystem.

Partnership is no longer an experiment at the margins of science policy, or an unintended outcome of a program. It is central to how the U.S. can accelerate discovery, expand opportunity, and ensure that innovation serves the public good.

DOE 4.0: Rethinking Program Design for a Clean Energy Future

DOE’s mission and operations have undergone at least three iterations: starting as the Atomic Energy Commission after World War II (1.0), evolving into the Department of Energy during the 1970s Energy Crisis to focus on a wider range of energy research & development (2.0), and then expanding into demonstration and deployment over the last 20 years (3.0). The evolution into DOE 3.0 began with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which authorized the Loan Programs Office (LPO), and accelerated with the infusion of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Finally, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) crystallized DOE 3.0’s dual mandate to not only drive U.S. leadership in science and technology innovation (as under DOE 1.0 and 2.0), but also directly advance U.S. industrial development and decarbonization through project financing and other support for infrastructure deployment.

While DOE continues to support the full spectrum of research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D) activities under this dual mandate, the agency is now undergoing another transformation under the Trump administration, as a large number of career staff leave the agency and programs and budgets are overhauled. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is launching a new initiative to envision the DOE 4.0 that emerges after these upheavals, with the goals of identifying where DOE 3.0 missed opportunities and how DOE 4.0 can achieve the real-world change needed to address the interlocking crises of energy affordability, U.S. competitiveness, and climate change. 

Crucial to these goals is rethinking program design and implementation to ensure that DOE’s tools are fit for purpose. BIL and IRA introduced new types of programs and assistance mechanisms, such as Regional Hubs and “anchor customer” capacity contracts, to try to meet the differing needs of demonstration and deployment activities compared to R&D. Some were a clear success, while others faced implementation challenges. At the same time, the majority of funding from these two bills was still implemented using traditional grants and cooperative agreements, which did not always align with the needs of the commercial-scale projects they sought to support. Based on lessons learned from the Biden administration, this report provides recommendations to DOE to improve the implementation of different types of assistance and identifies opportunities to expand the use of flexible and novel approaches. To that end, this report also advises Congress on how to improve the design of legislation for more effective implementation.

The ideas and insights in this report were informed by conversations with former DOE staff who played a role in implementing many of these programs and experts from the broader clean energy policy community.

Distribution of BIL and IRA Funding

Before diving into program design, it’s helpful to first understand the range of technologies and activities that BIL and IRA programs were meant to address, especially where that funding was concentrated and where there may have been gaps, since programs should be tailored to the purpose.

Authorizations and Appropriations

Congress intentionally provided the lion’s share of BIL and IRA funding to demonstration and deployment activities. The table above shows the distribution of BIL and IRA authorizations and appropriations for DOE. The table excludes DOE’s revolving loan programs – the Tribal Energy Financing Program (TEFP), the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (ATVM), the Title XVII Innovative Energy Loan Guarantee Program (Title 1703), the Title XVII Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Financing Program (Title 1706) – which are discussed in the following section.1 The Carbon Dioxide Transportation infrastructure Finance and Innovation program (CIFIA) was included in the table above because that program’s appropriations could be used for both grants and loan credit subsidies. 

The technology areas that received the most DOE funding from BIL and IRA (excluding loans) were building decarbonization, grid infrastructure, clean power – combining solar, wind, water, geothermal, and nuclear power, energy storage systems, and technology neutral programs – carbon management, and manufacturing and supply chains, which each received over $10 billion in funding. 

Below is a breakdown of the funding distribution for each sector/technology. 

Grid Infrastructure received a total of $14.9 billion, second only to building decarbonization. All of the funding went towards demonstration and deployment programs, the majority ($10.5 billion) of which went towards the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) program. The remainder of the funding went towards Grid Resilience State and Tribal formula grants, the Energy Improvement in Rural and Remote Areas, Transmission Facilitation Program, and transmission siting and planning programs. No funding went to R&D or workforce programs. Grid infrastructure was also eligible for the Title 17 and Tribal loans programs.

Power Generation received a total of $13.2 billion, with funding unevenly distributed across technologies and stages of innovation. Nuclear power received the largest share, with over $9.2 billion allocated to the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program and the Civil Nuclear Credit Program, supporting demonstration of advanced reactors and production incentives to maintain existing nuclear plants, respectively. Geothermal energy received the least funding among power generation technologies, with only $84 million allocated to the Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) Demonstration Program and no other support for R&D or deployment. 

Modest amounts were provided for RD&D in solar ($80 million), wind ($100 million), and water power technologies ($146 million). For deployment, hydropower also received production and efficiency incentives to support existing facilities ($754 million); wind energy received funding for Interregional and Offshore Wind Electricity Transmission Planning and Development ($100 million); and solar qualified for the Renew America’s Schools program ($500 million). To complement these technologies, $505 was provided for energy storage demonstration programs to enable reliable deployment of variable renewables. 

Power generation was also eligible for the Title 17 and Tribal loan programs.

Manufacturing and Supply Chains received $10.8 billion in funding from BIL and IRA. The majority of that funding, $6.3 billion, went towards battery supply chains, primarily for the Battery Materials Processing Program ($3 billion) and the Battery Manufacturing and Recycling Program ($3 billion). Additional focus areas for funding included EV manufacturing ($2 billion), advanced energy manufacturing and recycling ($750 million), high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) supply chains for nuclear power plants ($700 million), and heat pump manufacturing ($250 million). Energy manufacturing and supply chains are eligible for Title 1703 loans, while EV and battery manufacturing and supply chains are eligible for ATVM loans. 

Critical Minerals received a total of $6.9 billion, of which $6 billion was allocated for the Battery Materials Processing Program and the Battery Manufacturing and Recycling Program, which funded demonstration and commercial-scale critical minerals processing and recycling projects. The remainder of the funding went to R&D programs on mining, processing, and recycling technologies; technologies to recover critical minerals from coal-based industry, mining and mine waste, and other industries; and technologies that use less critical minerals or replace them with alternatives. Critical minerals were also eligible for all of DOE’s revolving loan programs, except for CIFIA.

Industrial Decarbonization and Efficiency received a total of $7.5 billion. Six ($6.0) billion of this funding went towards the Industrial Demonstrations Program (IDP), which was sector and solution agnostic and accepted projects for both new facilities and retrofits, making the money extremely flexible. Much smaller funding amounts were allocated to deployment and workforce programs like rebates for energy efficient technologies and systems, decarbonizing energy manufacturing and recycling facilities, and Industrial Training and Assessment Centers. No funding was allocated to R&D programs. 

Hydrogen and Clean Fuels received $8 billion for the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs program to support near-term demonstration and commercialization of hydrogen production, transportation, and usage. Hydrogen and clean fuels were also eligible for all of the loan programs, except for CIFIA. Investment across the full research-to-deployment (RDD&D) continuum was lacking. Dedicated funding for clean fuels besides hydrogen was also missing. 

EVs and Transportation funding from BIL and IRA was largely focused on light-duty personal EVs. By contrast, investments in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and urban transportation were limited. 

EV manufacturing and supply chains received $8.3 billion in funding. The largest single allocations went to the Battery Materials Processing and Battery Manufacturing & Recycling Programs ($6 billion), strengthening domestic battery supply chains for EVs. Domestic Manufacturing Conversion grants ($5 billion), further supported downstream manufacturing of advanced EV technologies. Additional funding supported R&D for battery recycling and second-life applications. EV and battery manufacturing were also eligible for ATVM loans. 

A notable new focus for DOE under BIL was the deployment of EV charging infrastructure. Charging infrastructure was eligible for $1.05 billion in DOE funding through the Renew America’s Schools program and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program. DOE played a key role in the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation’s implementation of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program, funded by DOT ($5 billion), and other charging programs. This marks a shift from DOE’s previous focus on developing vehicle technologies and fuels to a broader focus on all of the technology and infrastructure needs for widespread EV adoption. 

Building Decarbonization and Efficiency received the most non-loan funding from BIL and IRA at $15.2 billion. The largest share of this funding, $12 billion, went towards deployment and affordability programs such as the Home Energy Efficiency Rebate Program, High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Program, and the Weatherization Assistance Program – all of which aim to reduce energy costs for low-income households by increasing the energy efficiency of their homes. Additional funding supported workforce training and the improvement of building codes. Little to no funding went to R&D and demonstration programs, signaling the relative maturity of building decarbonization and efficiency technologies compared to other sectors. District heating and cooling facilities are eligible for TEFP loans. 

Carbon Management received a total of $11.6 billion. The majority of the funding went towards demonstration and deployment activities, of which $2.1 billion went towards CIFIA to support the deployment of transportation infrastructure, $2.5 billion went towards carbon storage validation and testing, $3.0 billion went towards carbon capture pilots and demonstrations, and $3.5 billion went towards the development of Regional Direct Air Capture (DAC) Hubs. Carbon management was also eligible for loans from the Title 17 programs. 

Loans

DOE’s loan programs operate differently from the way authorizations and appropriations work for traditional assistance programs, which is why they are not included in the chart above. These programs receive both a certain amount of loan authority, which set limits on the size of their portfolios, and appropriations for program administration and credit subsidies, which allows the office to provide low-cost financing. The IRA appropriated $13.8 billion total for these four programs and provided an additional $310 billion in loan authority for Title 1703, Title 1706, and TFP. CIFIA was established in the IRA without a cap on its loan authority. The IRA also repealed the cap on ATVM’s loan authority, which remains uncapped.2

During the four years of the Biden administration, the Loan Programs Office (LPO), now renamed the Office of Energy Dominance Financing (EDF), issued a total of 24 loans and 28 conditional commitments, worth over $100 billion in total. Energy storage, battery manufacturing, clean power, and the grid received the greatest number of loans and conditional commitments, while nuclear energy, carbon management, and non-battery or EV manufacturing received the least. No loans were issued for CIFIA, which is why that program is not shown in the following figures.

Program Design & Implementation

Flexible Contracting Mechanisms: Grants vs. Other Transactions

The majority of BIL and IRA funding (excluding loans) was implemented in the form of grants and cooperative agreements governed by 2CFR 200 and 2CFR 910. Even for programs for which the legislation did not specify the exact type of assistance mechanism that DOE should use (i.e., unspecified or “financial assistance”), the agency largely defaulted to those grants and cooperative agreements. One argument for this approach was that program officers and contracting officers are trained and experienced in using these mechanisms, which may have helped programs deploy faster. 

However, these grants were originally designed for R&D programs and faced some drawbacks when used for demonstration and deployment programs. 2CFR 200 and 2CFR 910 are almost 200 pages long, requiring extensive compliance that smaller organizations and organizations new to federal applications may not be equipped to navigate. Additionally, some terms and conditions required by those rules (e.g. for intellectual property, real property, and program income) were not compatible with private sector needs for demonstration and commercial-scale projects. Most consequentially, they require a termination for convenience clause, which allows the government to cancel an award without providing a reason. The Trump administration is now using that clause to terminate awards. 

Alternatively, DOE could have more frequently used its Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to enter into contracts without 2CFR regulations, allowing the agency to negotiate contracts more like the private sector would, developing terms and conditions as they make sense for the purpose of the specific purpose. This can enable DOE to design and implement more creative arrangements, such as for demand-pull or market-shaping mechanisms. DOE could have also leveraged OTs to make process improvements, rethink the traditional solicitation and evaluation process, and potentially accelerate implementation.3

DOE 3.0 missed a major opportunity to leverage these benefits of OTs. The few exceptions were the Hydrogen Demand Initiative (H2DI), the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, and Partnership Intermediary Agreements. Towards the end of the Biden administration, DOE discussed transitioning some of OCED’s awards to OT agreements, but did not get a chance to follow through before the presidential transition.4

DOE 4.0 should pick up where DOE 3.0 and deploy OTs more broadly among demonstration and deployment programs to overcome the challenges of traditional financial assistance regulations and processes. Congress should ensure that future authorizing legislation is designed to enable this flexibility–for example, by not specifying the type of assistance that DOE should use to implement new programs. 

Flexible Funding

BIL and IRA authorized and appropriated funding for a wide range of programs, many with very specific goals and eligible uses. That approach allows Congress to provide detailed direction to DOE on legislators’ priorities. However, DOE should also be able to respond dynamically to industries and markets as they develop. For example, when BIL and IRA were being developed, next-generation geothermal technologies were still quite nascent and received very little funding from these bills. Within two years though, the technology rapidly advanced, thanks to the success of the first few demonstration projects, and now shows enormous potential for meeting clean, firm energy demand, but DOE has limited funding available to support the industry.

In future legislation, Congress should consider establishing a few flexible funding programs that would give DOE a greater range of options to support the development of energy technologies and infrastructure as the agency’s experts know best. This could look like a pooled pot of funding with broad authority for DOE to use across technologies and/or activities, such as a single fund for demonstration and deployment activities broadly, or a single fund for grid infrastructure needs. If Congress is wary about this, legislators could start with creating flexible funding programs designed to fit within the scope of a single DOE office, before testing programs that cross multiple offices, which may come with intra-agency coordination challenges.

Program Design: Regional Hubs

The Hydrogen Hubs and Regional Direct Air Capture (DAC) Hubs were a new type of program established by BIL, designed to fund clusters of projects located in different regions rather than individual, unrelated projects. BIL invested $7 billion and $3.5 billion in these programs, respectively, and they made some of the largest awards by dollar amount – on the order of $1 billion per award – out of all of the BIL and IRA programs. 

The hub approach aimed to foster an industrial ecosystem, including not only multiple projects aiming to deploy the technology, but also future suppliers, offtakers, labor organizations, academic partners, and state, local, and Tribal governments. Concentrated regional investment and greater coordination would not only accelerate commercialization of hydrogen and DAC technologies but also help distribute the benefits of new clean energy industries across the nation. 

Due to the ambitious size and complexity of their goals, the Hydrogen Hubs and DAC Hubs required, and still require, a long timeline to develop. The structure and oversight DOE applied to the hub development process also extended timelines further. When the Trump administration began re-evaluating Biden-era programs and Congress started looking for funds to rescind, these two programs became appealing targets because of the large amount of funding they held and the lack of on-the-ground deployment progress – even though that was to be expected based on the program timeline.5 

Project cancellations and funding rescissions are a massive waste of both federal and private sector resources. In the future, before creating any other large-scale programs modeled on the Hydrogen Hubs and DAC Hubs, policymakers should first determine whether there is long-term bipartisan commitment to the program’s goals to avoid the possibility that a change of administration will jeopardize the program. If that commitment isn’t guaranteed, this model may simply be too risky to use; other types of assistance may be easier to implement or more resilient to changes in administration.

An alternate regional hub model that Congress and DOE could consider is the CHIPS and Science Act’s Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs and NSF Engines. These programs had a much lower level of ambition, providing awards – on the order of tens of millions instead of one billion – to seed early-stage innovation, build a research ecosystem, and support workforce development, rather than deploying specific technologies. 

Program Design: Demand-Pull 

Demand-pull mechanisms have emerged in conversations between FAS and former DOE staff as a very underutilized but promising tool for enabling the scaling and deployment of clean energy technologies and large-scale infrastructure projects. Confidence in long-term offtake is a requirement for private lenders to provide financing at a viable rate for projects. DOE can help provide that certainty through a wide range of tools, including purchase commitments and capacity contracts, contracts-for-difference, and other financial arrangements. 

By unlocking private sector investment, demand-pull mechanisms can reduce or eliminate the need for DOE to provide additional financing for project construction. However, public sector funding is still useful for pre-construction stages of project development, such as planning, siting, and permitting, which can be hard to get private sector financing for when other risks to a long-term revenue model have not been addressed yet.  

There are three primary use cases for demand-pull mechanisms: building shared infrastructure, demonstrating innovative technologies, and expanding industrial capacity. 

Shared infrastructure projects require a large number of customers and can sometimes struggle with securing them: customers are afraid to commit without the developer demonstrating that they’ve secured other customers first. DOE can help address this challenge by serving as an anchor customer for these projects and help attract additional customers. This also makes it easier to finance the project. 

A successful example of this from BIL is the Transmission Facilitation Program, which authorized DOE to purchase up to 50% of the planned capacity of large-scale transmission lines for up to 40 years. Once the transmission line is built, DOE can then sell capacity contracts to actual customers who need to use the transmission line and recoup the agency’s investment. This approach could be used for other types of shared infrastructure, such as hydrogen or carbon dioxide transportation, or even large clean, firm power plants (e.g., nuclear) for their generation capacity. 

First-of-a-kind projects often struggle to secure offtakers due to the unproven nature of their technology and the lack of a pre-existing market. For example, H2DI was designed to complement the Hydrogen Hubs program by directly supporting demand for select hydrogen producers and also helping establish a transparent strike price for the nascent market that would benefit all hydrogen producers. Other demonstration programs (e.g. IDP) would have also benefited from DOE support for demand and market formation.

Lastly, the development of new industrial capacity for producing energy technologies and their inputs can also face demand challenges because while there may be a pre-existing global market, the domestic market may be small or nonexistent, and existing offtakers may not be willing to reroute their supply chains without market or policy pressure to do so. This was most obvious with the critical minerals and battery supply chain projects that DOE tried to support. 

One successful model from the IRA was the HALEU availability program. DOE set up indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts with companies developing HALEU production capacity and set aside $1 billion to procure HALEU from the five fastest movers. The purchase commitment created demand certainty, while the competitive model incentivized faster project development and ensured that the DOE’s funding would only go towards the most viable projects. More programs like this would be transformative for domestic supply chain development.

In designing demand-side support programs for these latter two categories, DOE must tailor the programs to the unique challenges of different technologies or commodities, and whether or not there are additional goals of domestic market formation and/or market stabilization. For example, auctions are a great tool for price discovery, while contracts-for-difference can help projects hedge against price volatility and overcome domestic price premiums. 

There are also double-sided market maker programs where DOE serves as an intermediary between producers and buyers, entering into long-term offtake commitments with project developers up front to provide demand certainty, and then reselling the product to buyers on a shorter-term basis when the project comes online This helps make supply chain connections and address mismatches between project developer vs. buyer timelines. For example, for low-carbon cement and concrete, buyers typically procure building materials on a short-term basis as needed for each project, but developers of first-of-a-kind production facilities require long-term offtake commitments in order to secure project financing.

Authorizing language and/or appropriations can be a barrier to DOE using demand-pull mechanisms. To address this issue, Congress should factor the following considerations into the design of legislation:

  1. Flexible Authorities. Due to the variety of demand-pull mechanisms and the need to tailor them to the unique market challenges of different technologies or commodities, they are best implemented using OT agreements. Statutory language that prescribes the exact type(s) of assistance (e.g., grants) for a program can prevent DOE from using demand-pull. Instead, Congress should provide clear goals for a program to achieve and leave DOE with the flexibility to determine the best type of assistance mechanism. 
  2. Budget Scoring and Timelines. Demand-pull mechanisms often involve multi-year advance commitments of funding, but the exact amount and timing of transactions may be uncertain, since it is conditional upon project performance and overall market conditions (e.g. contracts-for-difference payments are based on the market price at the time of the transaction). This results in budget scoring issues. Legally binding commitments of money can typically only be made if the agency has enough funding to obligate the full amount of the contract when it is signed, even if that funding probably won’t be paid out until much later.6 This results in the need for a significant amount of upfront funding, which can be difficult to obtain from Congress, and long timelines before the outcome of that funding is fully realized, which can make it difficult to manage congressional expectations. These long timelines also mean that no-year funding is ideal for DOE to be able to run demand-pull programs without the funding expiring.7
  3. Revenue Management. Some demand-pull mechanisms are designed with the potential for revenue generation, so legislation should ideally be designed to include the authorization of a revolving fund to allow revenue to be reused for program costs. Alternatively, DOE may contract with an external entity to manage the program funds, as it did with H2DI, so that the revenue can stay with the partner entity and be reused. 

Program Design: Prizes

Unlike most financial assistance, which operates on a cost-reimbursement basis and requires cost-share, prizes reward performance and are awarded after activities are completed and criteria have been met. This means there are no strings attached to the funding and no IP requirements, making these programs easier for applicants to work with.8 Prizes are also of a fixed amount, which incentivizes innovators to find least-cost solutions in order to maximize revenue from the award. On the flip side, innovators are responsible for any cost overruns, and DOE is not required to shoulder that risk. 

In the past DOE has used prizes wrongly to try and reach potential applicants that struggle with the application process for traditional assistance. It’s important to keep in mind the best use cases for prize programs. For example, prize programs rely on clear milestones, but are agnostic on the approach, making them great for interdisciplinary innovation. They can be beneficial for incentivizing new innovators to get involved with problem areas that don’t have many pre-existing solvers. They are also well-suited for small dollar amount awards that otherwise may not be worth the administrative overhead, since the overhead costs for prize programs are lower than traditional assistance programs once they have been designed.

Moving forward, DOE should keep in mind best practices for designing equitable prize programs. Prize programs should ideally be designed as stage-gated competitions with incremental prize payments for each phase, rather than one big payment at the end, so that innovators with fewer financial resources can participate. For example, the first stage could be the submission of a whitepaper with a proposed plan for developing and testing the technology, then the second stage could be lab work, and so on. Participants would be whittled down between each stage to hone in on the most competitive projects.

Program Design: Loans

DOE 4.0’s loan programs could be improved by setting clearer expectations on risk, clearer guidance on State Energy Financing Institution (SEFI) projects, and a strategy for using additional tools such as equity. 

Risk Tolerance. Discrepancies between statutory language and congressional oversight for DOE’s loan programs have historically made it difficult for the agency to determine the right balance of risk. For example, Title 1703 is designed by legislation to fund innovative, higher-risk, hard infrastructure projects that the private sector is typically reluctant to fund. A high-risk, high-reward program should, by nature, be allowed to have some failed projects and still be considered a success. However, Congress has historically been extremely critical of any defaulted loans, making DOE hesitant to use Title 1703 and ATVM to its full potential.

DOE 3.0 made some attempts to improve communications on its approach to risk management, but the agency could do more to communicate the success of its loan programs. Congressional authorizers should help the agency by building risk into the statute of DOE’s loan programs and budgets and better managing the expectations of oversight members.

State Energy Financing Institution (SEFI) Projects. Another area of reform that DOE 4.0 should tackle is the SEFI-supported projects under Title 17, authorized by BIL, which allows DOE to finance any energy project that also receives “meaningful financial support” from a SEFI, such as state energy offices or green banks. However, ambiguity in the statute behind this new carveout caused confusion among states on how exactly to partner with DOE’s loan program. What is considered meaningful financial support? What qualifies as a SEFI? To clarify these questions from states, either DOE 4.0 should create model SEFI guidance or Congress should amend the statute with clear definitions. 

Equity and Other Financing Tools. The Trump administration’s restructuring of the Lithium Americas Thacker Pass loan to include an equity warrant, which gives DOE the right to acquire equity of the company at a set price in the future, has raised questions as to what DOE’s role should be if it were to become an equity owner in a company and what guardrails and visibility is needed in such a scenario.9 Policymakers may also want to consider the risks and benefits of expanding DOE’s loan program authorities to include direct equity investments and other financing tools that agencies like the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) have access to.10

Program Design: Technical Assistance

DOE 4.0 should expand its technical assistance offerings in three primary ways: technical advising and verification, navigating federal funding, and talent and workforce needs.

Technical Advising and Verification. DOE’s in-house scientific and engineering expertise is a major draw for funding applicants. For example, according to FAS conversations with former agency staff, the project developers behind Vogtle Units 3 and 4, which received a loan guarantee from DOE, would seek advice from LPO engineers when they had engineering questions. Private investors, who may lack the expertise needed for technical due diligence, often use DOE awards as a proxy for assessing project risk. As a result, some project developers will apply for DOE funding to prove their credibility to private financiers and negotiate lower financing rates. 

In the face of potential budget cuts, DOE 4.0 could leverage this strength by offering project certifications that would entail the same technical support and verification as a demonstration award or loan, without the funding support. This would provide a similar market signal to private investors, without costing DOE as much – just staff time. And since DOE is not taking on any project risk, the application and negotiation process could also be simplified and streamlined to align better with private-sector timelines. 

Navigating Federal Funding. DOE should dedicate increased resources to conducting outreach to underserved communities, small businesses, innovators, and new applicants about funding opportunities and shepherding them through the application process. For example, despite awareness of available funding opportunities, some Native American tribal organizations in Alaska were unable to pursue them due to a lack of bandwidth or expertise to participate in resource-intensive (and often times confusing) application processes, and the awards sizes were too small to make them worth the costs of external private consultants to support. Community Navigator Programs and other forms of technical assistance could help communities overcome these barriers to accessing federal support. PIAs can also help with reaching small businesses and new applicants to apply for programs.

Talent and Workforce Needs. DOE has had success with placing talent at state energy offices and other critical energy organizations like public utility commissions through the Energy Innovator Fellowship to embed expertise in under-resourced offices. DOE should consider expanding this program or establishing new programs to place experts at other institutions, such as grid operators, investor owned utilities, and local governments, to advise and support them in adopting new energy technologies and accelerating infrastructure deployment. 

Program Design: Community Benefit Plans

For all of its demonstration and deployment programs, DOE 3.0 introduced a new requirement that awardees create community benefit plans (CBPs) to ensure that communities would share in the benefits of local clean energy projects. CBPs have been both lauded and criticized by community and labor organizations: they praised their intent, but expressed frustration over their limited influence on companies’ plans and that allowable cost limits constrained what could be included in awards. Where CBPs were most effective, they encouraged developers to consider local communities and jobs, though this often required significant internal coordination to use DOE’s funding contracts as leverage. At the same time, CBPs were seen as an additional administrative burden on program implementation, contributing to delays. Under the Trump administration, CBPs will no longer be enforced and are no longer required for future funding opportunities. 

DOE 4.0 presents an opportunity to restore and improve CBPs as a mechanism for both distributing the benefits of federally-funded projects and improving project quality. To maximize impact, DOE 4.0 should focus on a smaller set of high-priority outcomes with clear, measurable success metrics. DOE 3.0’s broad mandate, which spanned jobs, justice, climate, and deployment across multiple programs, sometimes diluted effectiveness and created confusion for staff managing both program design and operations. In DOE 4.0, these outcomes should be closely linked to actual project success, whether through facilitating social license to ease permitting, or supporting workforce development to train and retain workers, as developers themselves emphasized when aligning with program goals. Providing actionable guidance, including templates and real-world examples of successful community benefits plans, can further improve project outcomes. The advocacy community can help lay the groundwork for DOE 4.0 by documenting successful case studies and model agreement language. Congress could help embed key priorities in statute, providing clear, practical guidance that reflects DOE’s administrative capacity and enhances the likelihood of successful implementation.

Additionally, it is critical that future CBP mechanisms account for community preferences, including local prohibitions on certain technologies and other expressions of community priorities. By proactively respecting local concerns, DOE can foster trust and strengthen the long-term impact of projects. DOE 4.0 will also need to navigate tensions around labor preferences. While the department cannot explicitly require union labor, questions about labor practices may signal preferences that vary across states, including right-to-work contexts. This underscores the importance of sensitivity to local norms and expectations.

Where resources allow, DOE 4.0 should hire and dedicate staff with expertise in labor engagement and community partnerships to review applications and provide technical assistance, supporting applicants in navigating the CBP process and designing high-quality, community-centered projects. Technical assistance needs to be done carefully though to avoid perceptions of bias and influencing the award selection process. 

Lastly, clear and consistent guidance across DOE offices is essential. For example, applicants have reported a lack of clarity about what activities qualify as “allowable costs” in CBPs, and different offices have applied inconsistent standards. Establishing a unified, expansive approach to allowable costs—including activities that indirectly support clean energy workforce development, such as community child care programs—can unlock transformative opportunities for local communities. This standardization should be done for other aspects as well. In general, official guidance needs to find a better middle ground between the overly technical, lengthy documents and vague webinars produced by DOE 3.0, so that ideally applicants can understand requirements without staff intervention. 

Conclusion

Good program design is fundamental to effectively engaging with researchers, industry, state and local governments, and communities, in order to realize the full potential of DOE funding. Though much of the real-world impact of BIL and IRA is still yet to come, DOE can already begin learning from the challenges and successes of program design and implementation under the Biden administration. The recommendations in this report are just as applicable to the remaining funding from BIL and IRA that DOE has yet to implement, as they are to future programs. Moving forward, Congress has the opportunity to reconsider the way that programs are designed in future legislation, especially those targeting demonstration and deployment activities, and make sure that DOE has clear direction and the right authorities and flexibility to maximize the impact of federal funding.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Arjun Krishnaswami for coining the idea of DOE 4.0 and his insightful feedback throughout the development and execution of this project. The authors would also like to thank Kelly Fleming for her leadership of the clean energy team while she was at FAS. Additional gratitude goes to Claire Cody at Clean Tomorrow, Gene Rodrigues, Keith Boyea, Kyle Winslow, Raven Graf and all the other individuals and organizations who helped inform this report through participating in workshops and interviews and reviewing an earlier draft.

Appendix A. Acronyms

ATVMAdvanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
BILBipartisan Infrastructure Law (a.k.a the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act)
CBPsCommunity Benefits Plans
DACDirect Air Capture
DFCInternational Development Finance Corporation
DOEDepartment of Energy
DoWDepartment of War
EDFOffice of Energy Dominance Financing
EGSEnhanced Geothermal Systems
FEOCForeign Entity of Concern
FERCFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
FORGEFrontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy
GDOGrid Deployment Office
GETsGrid Enhancing Technologies
GRIPGrid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships
GTOGeothermal Technologies Office
H2DIHydrogen Demand Initiative
HGEOHydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office
IDPIndustrial Demonstration Program
IRAInflation Reduction Act
LPOLoan Programs Office
NARUCNational Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
NASEONational Association of State Energy Officials
OBBBAOne Big Beautiful Bill Act
OCEDOffice of Clean Energy Demonstrations
ORISEOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
OTOther Transactions
OTAOther Transactions Authority
PPAsPower Purchase Agreements
SEFIState Energy Financing Institution
TEFPTribal Energy Financing Program
TFPTransmission Facilitation Program
Title 1703Title XVII Innovative Energy Loan Guarantee Program
Title 1706Title XVII Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Financing Program
USGSU.S. Geological Survey

Appendix B. BIL and IRA Funding Distribution Methodology

The funding distribution heat map at the beginning of the report includes all of the BIL and IRA programs with funding authorized and/or appropriated directly to DOE, excluding loan programs. The following were not included in this table:

  1. Loan programs, which are funded differently than traditional programs;
  2. Tax credits that DOE helped design (e.g., 45X), which are also funded through a different mechanism; and
  3. Programs implemented by DOE, but funded by other agencies’ appropriations, such as the Methane Emissions Reduction Program funded by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Programs were tagged according to their sector or technology area, their activity area, and type of assistance based on key words in their statutory language. Programs could be tagged with multiple sectors/technologies, activity areas, and/or types of assistance.

To determine the amount of funding for each sector/technology and activity area combination, all of the programs with the corresponding tags were included in the sum. Because of this duplicative counting, the sum of the dollar amounts in the table exceeds the total amount of funding for all of these programs. Sector/technology totals were calculated without this duplication, which is why those amounts are less than what one would obtain by summing all of the activity area amounts for a sector/technology. 

Activity area categories:

Sector/technology categories:

One Year into the Trump Administration: DOE’s FY26 Budget Cuts and the Path Forward

This piece is the last in a series analyzing the current state of play at DOE, one year into the second Trump administration. The first piece covers staff loss and reorganization; the second piece looks at the status of BIL and IRA funding and the impact of award cancellations.

Overview of DOE Funding for FY26

On January 15th, Congress passed the FY26 E&W Appropriations as part of a second minibus along with the Commerce, Justice, Science and the Interior and Environment Appropriations (bill text and joint explanatory statement). Assuming the President signs this package into law, it will dictate DOE’s funding through the rest of FY26, which ends in September, and potentially into FY27 if any continuing resolutions are passed in the next appropriations cycle. 

Though the administration originally requested drastic cuts to all of DOE’s offices involved in clean energy RDD&D, the FY26 E&W Bill takes a much more restrained approach to budget cuts and reprograms some BIL funds to bolster EERE, NE, FE, and SC budgets. Notably, Congress increased appropriations levels for SC, NE, and SCEP, despite DOE’s request to zero out the budget for SCEP. Overall, compared to FY25, the FY26 Appropriations enact a 1.4% cut to the agency’s budget – a modest amount compared to DOE’s original request for a steep 7.0% cut. 

The passage of the FY26 E&W Appropriations is a major accomplishment for Congress, especially given the short timeline over which the conferenced bill came together and the rejection of the deep cuts advocated for by this administration. Nevertheless, even minor cuts threaten to decelerate progress on energy innovation, manufacturing, and infrastructure necessary for the United States to meet energy demand growth, reliability, affordability, and security challenges – precisely when we need it the most. As we begin the FY27 appropriations process this year, it’s all the more important that Congress not only maintain stable funding levels for DOE, but also begin to rebuild momentum for energy innovation and technological progress.

Reallocation of Unobligated BIL Funds

Section 311 of the FY26 E&W bill repurposes $5.16 billion in unobligated funding from BIL for the following programs:

The Civil Nuclear Credit Program is a new addition that was not present in either the House or the Senate’s original versions of the E&W bill. The other programs targeted for reallocation and the corresponding amounts were all proposed in either the House and/or the Senate’s original versions of the E&W bill. Notably, funding for the Hydrogen Hubs was spared after conferencing, despite previous inclusion in both chambers’ E&W bills.

The reprogrammed funds are to be used as follows:

These moves reflect Congress’ emphasis on advanced nuclear demonstration projects, growing concern over grid supply chain bottlenecks, and continued commitment to funding EERE activities, as well as skepticism about the goals and execution of carbon management demonstration programs. 

Zooming in: EERE Suboffices

DOE’s FY26 budget request proposed a major contraction of the EERE portfolio, explicitly requesting zero funding for four sub-accounts Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies, Solar Energy Technologies, Wind Energy Technologies, and Renewable Energy Grid Integration. For the first three, the Department argued that these technologies had reached sufficient market maturity to rely primarily on private capital—which is definitely not the case for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, and inconsistent with DOE’s continued funding for more mature technologies such as nuclear, coal, and gas. For Renewable Energy Grid Integration, DOE argued that the work would be absorbed into other programs. DOE also sought to near-eliminate the budget for the Building Technologies Office (BTO) and the Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) by requesting only $20 million and $25 million, respectively, signaling a broader retreat from technologies that would support electrification, energy efficiency, and affordability.

Congress largely rejected wholesale eliminations in the FY26 bill they passed. Compared to FY24 and FY25 enacted levels, the deepest cuts for FY26 were for Solar Energy Technologies (31%) and Wind Energy Technologies (27%). Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies was also targeted for deep cuts in the original House and Senate appropriations bills, but ended up with only a 6% budget cut after conferencing and passage, putting the office in a better position than many of the other EERE suboffices that lost more than 10% of their annual budget. The only two offices that received budget increases were Geothermal Technologies (27%) and Water Power Technologies (10%), reflecting Congress’ prioritization of clean firm energy technologies. 

EERE suboffice funding amounts are dictated in the Joint Explanatory Statement, a report that accompanies annual appropriations bills and provides detailed guidance on how funds are to be allocated within the topline account numbers set by the appropriations bill. Historically, agencies have always adhered to report language; even under full-year continuing resolutions, agencies would still follow the funding guidance set in the prior fiscal year’s report language. 

The second Trump administration broke this precedent: DOE’s FY25 spend plan – released more than three-quarters of the way through the fiscal year – shifted more than $1 billion away from core clean energy programs under EERE, disregarding Congressional direction in the FY24 appropriations report.1 DOE moved funding away from Vehicle, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell, Solar, Wind, and Building Technologies, towards Renewable Energy Grid Integration and Water Power, Geothermal, Industrial, and Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies. These actions have raised concerns about whether the administration will attempt to do the same in FY26.

Zooming in: National Labs

The Joint Explanatory Statement does not provide guidance on how DOE allocates funding to national labs, though there tends to be a trickle down effect depending on which offices labs are reliant on funding from. DOE proposed drastic cuts to the FY26 budgets of many national labs, particularly those that get a significant amount of funding from EERE. Under the proposed budget cuts, the national labs would reportedly plan to lay off 3,000 or more scientists and other staff. 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) – recently renamed the National Lab of the Rockies, or NLR for short – faces the largest proposed budget cut of 72% because it’s affiliated with EERE and gets the majority of its funding from that office. Such deep cuts would require NLR to lay off up to a third of its staff and shut down many of its facilities and ongoing activities. 

With the passage of FY26 appropriations, hopefully, DOE will reconsider funding for national labs and adjust budgets upwards to reflect the much milder cuts that Congress passed.

Long-Term Impacts

Sustained budget cuts to DOE pose significant long-term risks to the nation’s scientific enterprise and ability to compete globally. Because DOE is the federal government’s primary engine for energy research and advanced technology commercialization, reductions in funding have both immediate operational consequences, as well as lasting structural ones. 

Budget cuts translate directly into workforce attrition across DOE program offices, national laboratories, and partner institutions. When staffing levels fall, the federal government’s capacity to execute world-leading scientific research diminishes. Essential functions like managing user facilities, overseeing complex R&D portfolios, and ensuring the continuity of long-term research programs are all jeopardized, slowing the pace of innovation and limiting the nation’s ability to respond to emerging scientific and energy challenges.

Loss of program funding and workforce capacity raises a broader strategic concern: the U.S. may no longer retain the scientific and engineering talent necessary to develop next-generation energy technologies. DOE plays a critical role in cultivating and sustaining technical talent pipelines through early-career research programs, national lab fellowships, university partnerships, and long-term R&D initiatives that span decades. When the continuity of these programs is disrupted, students, postdocs, and mid-career researchers may exit the field entirely or shift their expertise abroad, diminishing the domestic talent base. These losses cannot be quickly reversed as rebuilding a skilled scientific workforce takes sustained investment, stability, and opportunity signals that cuts fundamentally undermine. 

Attrition is not limited to DOE itself. The broader U.S. science and innovation workforce – spanning clean energy startups, universities, private-sector R&D, and communities that host national laboratories – absorbs the shock of federal retreat. Reduced research funding forces universities to shrink labs, scale back graduate cohorts, and limit collaborations with DOE facilities. National laboratory communities, often in rural or specialized high-tech regions, face economic consequences when jobs disappear or major facilities reduce their operating capacity. The ripple effects of lost researchers, technical staff, and support personnel weaken the entire innovation ecosystem that underpins clean energy deployment. 

Quantifying these long-term losses is essential. Each scientist or engineer who leaves the field takes with them years of specialized training, intellectual and institutional capital, and future contributions to technological advancement. The economic value of these foregone innovations – from delayed commercialization timelines to missed breakthrough discoveries – can be substantial. A shrinking innovation pipeline also slows private-sector investment domestically and increases dependence on imported technologies at a moment when global competition in clean energy, advanced computing, and critical minerals is accelerating. 

In the long run, sustained budget cuts compromise the United States’ ability to remain a global leader in science and innovation. They jeopardize advancements in energy innovation, undermine national competitiveness, and reduce the nation’s capacity to deliver affordable, secure, and clean energy solutions. Protecting DOE’s workforce and research infrastructure is therefore not only a matter of annual appropriations, but also a long-term investment in America’s economic strength and technological leadership. 

Conclusion: The Path Forward

As we begin the second year of the second Trump administration, DOE sits upon the precipice of transformation. Over the past year, the rapid pace and unprecedented scale of changes to the agency’s staff, organizational structure, programs and awards, and budget have generated waves of uncertainty and volatility that has rippled out across the energy sector, destabilizing commercial projects worth billions of dollars, as well as DOE’s relationship with the private sector, state and local governments, its own career staff.

After all these changes, whether DOE transforms for better or worse will depend on the decisions this administration makes over the next three years. Realizing this administration’s priorities of energy dominance and abundance will require DOE to rebuild its technical and organizational capacity to design and implement programs, oversee loans and awards, and engage in public-private and intergovernmental partnerships. 

This should start with carefully managing the agency’s reorganization and providing clearer, more detailed explanations to the public on the mandate and internal structure of new offices and where existing programs and activity areas have been moved, and guidance to employees about how the reorganization will impact their roles and the programs on which they work.  DOE leadership should then evaluate the functions and capacities missing under the new organizational structure and rehire for those roles, ideally with the reinstatement of remote work flexibility.

As the agency rebuilds internal capacity, it should reorient efforts away from reacting to the previous administration and towards actions that will build the infrastructure necessary to modernize and expand the energy system, ensure reliability and affordability in the face of demand growth, secure energy supply chains, and maintain U.S. leadership in energy innovation. The wave of funding opportunity announcements for BIL critical minerals programs over the past few months was a good start, but that is not DOE’s only mandate. DOE must also restart activities across other technologies and sectors. Luckily, the agency still has $30 billion plus in funding from BIL and IRA that has yet to be awarded. In implementing the remaining funding, DOE can learn from the many lessons learned reports on the previous administration’s experience and adopt internal reforms. The agency should also make sure to adhere closely to the statutory intent behind this funding.

Lastly, stable year-to-year funding is essential for progress. As Congress begins the FY27 appropriations process this month, congress members should also turn their eyes towards rebuilding DOE’s programs and strengthening U.S. energy innovation and reindustrialization. Higher DOE funding levels will be necessary to put the United States back on a growth trajectory with respect to global energy leadership and competitiveness. 

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Megan Husted and Arjun Krishnaswami for their pivotal roles in shaping the vision for this project, planning and executing the convenings that informed this report, and providing insightful feedback throughout the entire process. The authors would also like to thank Kelly Fleming for her leadership of the project team while she was at FAS. Additional gratitude goes to Colin Cunliff, Keith Boyea, Kyle Winslow, and all the other individuals and organizations who helped inform this report through participating in workshops and interviews and reviewing an earlier draft. 

One Year into the Trump Administration: DOE Awards Cancelled and Programs Stalled

This piece is the second in a series of analyzing the current state of play at DOE, one year into the second Trump administration. The previous piece on staff loss and reorganization can be read here.

Introduction

$25.8 billion in BIL appropriations, over a third of the total amount, have yet to be awarded, plus up to $4.3 billion in IRA funding left after OBBBA rescissions. Yet, for the entire first year of the Trump administration, DOE has focused primarily on undoing the work of the prior administration. Politically motivated award cancellations and the delayed distribution of obligated funds have broken the hard-earned trust of the private sector, state and local governments, and community organizations. DOE also carried out a significant internal reorganization that eliminated many of the commercialization and deployment focused offices and moved their programs into other offices, leaving their futures unclear. 

The implementation of remaining BIL and IRA funding has been stalled across the board (except for critical minerals-related programs), and the administration has attempted to push the limits of legislative interpretation by redirecting funds for carbon capture and rural and remote energy improvements towards bringing inactive coal power plants back into service and/or extending the life of coal plants near retirement. 

Overview of BIL and IRA Funding Status

BIL and IRA appropriated $71 billion and $35 billion, respectively, in funding for DOE clean energy programs. Once appropriated, DOE funding moves through three phases before being received by awardees:

  1. First, funding is awarded when DOE selects and announces the recipients for a program. Only 57% of BIL funding and 52% of IRA funding was awarded by the end of the previous administration.
  2. Then, funding is obligated when DOE legally commits the amount to the recipient through a contractual agreement. Obligations may be made in phases over time, especially if the award is of a large amount. Thirty-three percent (33%) of BIL funding has been obligated as of December 17th, 2025.
  3. Finally, funding is outlayed when the money is paid to the recipient(s) and officially transferred out of the federal government’s account. This can occur in installments over the course of the period of performance or through a single up-front payment. Four point eight percent (4.8%) of BIL funding has been outlayed as of December 17th, 2025.

Under the current administration, at least $11 billion, or 32%, of unobligated IRA funding was rescinded through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), including the IRA credit subsidy appropriations for DOE’s loan programs, while $5.16 billion in BIL funding was transferred for other purposes by the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Energy and Water Development (E&W) bill. Mass rescissions and reallocations of funding on this scale have been unheard of in the past.

A further $6.8 billion in BIL awards and $2.5 billion in IRA awards have been cancelled by the Department of Energy, primarily because they do not align with the new administration’s priorities. For BIL, the cancellations will impact 17% of awarded funding, 14% of obligated funding, and 3% of outlayed funding. For IRA, the cancellations will impact 7% of awarded funding. While DOE has in the past made one-off cancellations of individual awards for various reasons, mass cancellations on this scale are unprecedented and uniquely destructive to the relationship between DOE and the private sector, not to mention state and local governments and community organizations.

Award Cancellations

The first round of DOE award cancellations were announced in May 2025. The 24 cancelled awards, worth $3.7 billion, all came from OCED programs funded by BIL and IRA. The Industrial Demonstration Program (IDP) was the most severely impacted: 18 awards worth $3 billion, half of the total for the program, were cancelled. The other primary targets from this round of cancellations were the Carbon Capture Demonstrations Program and the Carbon Capture Large-Scale Pilots Program.

In early October 2025, DOE announced the cancellation of another 321 awards, worth over $8 billion. Of those awards, five from the IDP were duplicates from the May announcement. Once again, OCED’s programs were the most heavily impacted, with GDO a close second. The largest awards cancelled were the two west coast Hydrogen Hubs, each worth at least $1 billion and three of the Grid Resilience and Innovation Program (GRIP) awards located in California, Minnesota, and Oregon. Unlike the first round, other DOE awards not funded by BIL or IRA, roughly half of the list, were also cancelled. These awards primarily came from EERE and FE.

Only about 1.5% of the funding for these BIL and IRA awards was outlayed before they were cancelled. Non-BIL and IRA awards fared slightly better, with 38% of funding outlayed before they were cancelled. As a result of these cancellations, awardees may decide to abandon their projects entirely, which would end up wasting the hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding that has already been spent.

The most direct impact of these cancellations is that communities that were promised jobs and other benefits will no longer get them. DOE is breaking its commitment to companies, workers, and other stakeholders, taking away the economic opportunity that new investments provided. 

Moreover, federal funding would not be the only funding wasted: many of the canceled awards came with matching private-sector investments, totaling over $5.7 billion. In order for those private-sector investments to be put to use, project developers would need to seek additional funding to close the gap left by cancelled DOE awards. Even in the best case scenario, that process requires additional time and effort, resulting in delays and higher overall project costs. 

The vast majority of these private-sector investments were intended to fund grid resilience and modernization projects. In the face of demand growth and grid reliability challenges, particularly from data centers, it seems counterintuitive to pull funding from these projects rather than doubling down on investments to improve and expand our grid infrastructure. These cancellations also run counter to the administration’s stated priority of “unleashing American energy” and will make it harder to provide the electricity needed to power the AI applications and innovations touted by this administration.

An additional list of projects has been circulating since the beginning of October, said to contain an additional $16 billion worth of projects being considered by DOE for cancellation. In late October 2025, Politico’s E&E News reported that DOE confirmed the cancellation of five of the projects on that list, totaling $718 million in funding, because they were not “economically viable.” All of the projects were funded by the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains (MESC), which had been largely spared by the previous rounds of cancellations. Four of the cancelled awards were from the Battery Materials Processing and Battery Manufacturing Grant Programs, while the other award came from the Advanced Energy Manufacturing and Recycling Program. Since then, at least one of the projects, a lithium iron phosphate plant in Missouri, has folded, partially as a result of the DOE award cancellation.

In response to the cancellations, most companies are challenging the decision and seeking as much compensation as they can through the courts. The Supreme Court has ruled that challenges to the termination of specific awards must be filed through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which is understaffed and struggling with significant backlogs and delays. However, while large companies may be able to wait six months or up to one year for compensation, many small businesses and startups will go under if they cannot get recourse in time and run out of funding to keep paying their employees. Furthermore, the Federal Claims Court does not have the authority to reinstate terminated grants or contracts, which is what companies actually want.

A coalition of energy and environmental organizations filed a lawsuit over seven of the cancelled grants and won, arguing that DOE’s termination decisions were politically motivated and thus illegal, targeting awards primarily because they were located in blue states and/or funded clean energy technologies that the administration opposes. Those seven award cancellations have now been blocked by the judge’s decision, but the hundreds of other cancellations will continue unless additional lawsuits are brought forth.

All of this has resulted in a growing belief across the private sector (and also local governments and community organizations) that federal grants and contracts are no longer guaranteed to survive a change in administration. This destroys the trust built by 50 years of DOE upholding its contracts and commitments to the private sector. The Biden administration expanded this partnership with the private sector further, conducting significant outreach to improve interest from top tier companies in BIL and IRA programs. Now, all of that hard-won trust has been undone. 

Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have been watching these cancellations with concern. Section 301 of the FY26 E&W Bill introduces a new requirement that DOE must notify both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees at least three full business days before the agency issues a letter to terminate a grant, contract, other transaction agreement, or lab call award in excess of $1 million. The same requirement applies to any letter to terminate nonoperational funding for a national lab if the total amount is greater than $25 million.

Loan Cancellations, Delays, and New Terms

In addition to reevaluating and cancelling awards, DOE leadership also reevaluated the loans and conditional commitments made under the Biden administration, slowing down the evaluation process. So far, DOE has publicly terminated a $4.9 billion conditional commitment for the Grain Belt Express transmission. DOE was also reported to have plans to cancel six more conditional commitments and one active loan, totaling $8.5 billion. Former LPO staff have shared that these terminations were mutually agreed upon between the borrowers and DOE due to project economics. Some of this administration’s policies (e.g. the permitting ban on wind energy projects) may have indirectly contributed to worsening project economics.

Under the current administration, DOE has moved some projects that align with the White House’s priorities from conditional commitment to close – namely, AEP’s transmission upgrades and Wabash Valley Resources’ Coal-Powered Fertilizer Facility – and fast tracked a loan to restart the Three Mile Island Crane nuclear unit directly to close. However, for other projects less aligned with this administration’s priorities, DOE appears to be delaying the process to move conditional commitments forward and close out the loans. Former agency staff from the office claim that this is a way to softly cancel loans by putting timelines in limbo and waiting out the borrower, since conditional commitments have a maximum window of two years to either move to close or be rejected.

Changes to the term sheet when closing a loan is another way to force applicants out of the pipeline. Applicants typically receive an initial term sheet with the conditional commitment and then a final term sheet when closing the loan; applicants may not be able to accept or accommodate drastic changes between the two.

Notably, this administration restructured Lithium Americas’ Thacker Pass loan after it was closed, but before funds were disbursed. LPO has the right to restructure loan terms and get new conditions or concessions to protect taxpayer resources if there are concerns, but this is rarely done. LPO negotiated the right to 5% equity in Lithium Americas and 5% equity in the Thacker Pass joint venture in the form of a warrant. The agency statement points to LPO’s loan to Tesla in 2010 as precedent for using warrants. This move raises the question of whether LPO will be negotiating additional equity stakes in future loan agreements, given this administration’s many other equity deals. 

Remaining BIL & IRA Funding and Awards

Loans are not the only thing DOE has slow-walked: recipients of active BIL and IRA awards have complained that DOE also delayed the distribution of obligated funds and was not paying invoices in a timely manner. This issue was especially acute in the beginning of 2025, when many grants and contracts were frozen and recipients were told to stop all work while new DOE leadership reviewed their funding. While some projects were allowed to move forward, some remained in limbo even towards the end of 2025, causing significant uncertainty and financial stress to awardees.

As for the remaining unobligated BIL and IRA funds, DOE has not issued any new funding opportunity announcements (FOAs), except for critical minerals-related programs, which have been favored by this administration, and a repurposing of BIL funding to support coal power plants:

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Megan Husted and Arjun Krishnaswami for their pivotal roles in shaping the vision for this project, planning and executing the convenings that informed this report, and providing insightful feedback throughout the entire process. The authors would also like to thank Kelly Fleming for her leadership of the project team while she was at FAS. Additional gratitude goes to Colin Cunliff, Keith Boyea, Kyle Winslow, and all the other individuals and organizations who helped inform this report through participating in workshops and interviews and reviewing an earlier draft. 

Appendix: Methodology for BIL and IRA Funding Analysis

Data on total BIL and IRA appropriations and award amounts was obtained from the archived Invest.gov website created by the Biden administration’s White House. Loan amounts were not included, since loan authority is separate from appropriations. The archived Invest.gov website has not been updated since the end of the Biden administration. As of December 17th, 2025, the Trump administration has not made any new awards yet with BIL or IRA funding, so the data should be accurate up to that date.

Data on obligations and outlays came from the Department of Treasury’s USA Spending database. The total amount of obligations and outlays of BIL funding for DOE was determined by filtering for the Disaster Emergency Fund Codes for Infrastructure Spending associated with BIL and DOE as the Awarding Agency. All assistance awards and contracts that resulted from these filters were included in the total amounts. 

The obligations and outlays for cancelled BIL and IRA awards in October were determined by searching the database for each unique award ID found in the list obtained by Latitude Media. The total amount of obligations and outlays for cancelled BIL and IRA awards in May was determined by searching the database for the awardees in the list reported by The New York Times and matching the award amounts, award location, and/or award description. All available data up until December 17th, 2025 was included. USA Spending tracks the amount of obligations and outlays for each award that came from BIL; this data was used to determine whether or not a cancelled award was funded by BIL. Whether or not a cancelled award was funded by the IRA was determined based on whether or not the award description explicitly mentions IRA and/or searching official DOE announcements and other public documents for the specific award using the recipient name and award description available on USA Spending. Any remaining awards were assumed to be funded by neither BIL nor IRA.

In this report, the total amount of unobligated funding rescinded by OBBBA is a minimum estimate. The minimum rescission amount for every loan program listed in Section 50402 of the OBBBA was determined by subtracting the total funding obligated from the loan program account between FY23 and FY25 (found on USA Spending) from the total appropriations for the program from the IRA (found in the bill text). The minimum rescission amount for every other program listed in Section 50402 of the OBBBA was determined by subtracting the total funding awarded for the program from the total appropriations for the program (both obtained from Invest.gov).

One Year into the Trump Administration: DOE’s Diminished Organizational Capacity

This piece is the first in a series analyzing the current state of play at DOE, one year into the second Trump administration.

As the heart of energy innovation and infrastructure policy in the federal government, the Department of Energy (DOE) and its national labs play a crucial role in ensuring that the energy sector can meet the needs of the American people and the economy. DOE serves as a key funder of R&D for not just energy technologies, but also basic science and emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing. DOE’s 17 national labs are key supporters of that mission, conducting R&D in house and hosting facilities used by tens of thousands of researchers and innovators from the private sector and academia. 

Over the course of 2025, the second Trump administration has overseen a major loss in staff at DOE; the cancellation and slow-walking of awards across the agency, primarily from Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) programs but also others; the rescission of billions of dollars from IRA programs through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Most recently, Congress passed FY26 appropriations for DOE, reducing funding levels and reallocating BIL funding.

These changes will not deliver the energy and innovation impacts that this administration, or any administration, wants. The departure of seasoned career staff takes with them significant technical expertise and institutional knowledge; while the loss of new talent recruited from the private sector diminishes DOE’s industry and project finance expertise. Reducing DOE’s organizational capacity like this undermines DOE’s fundamental ability to carry out its mission and implement programs crucial to U.S. energy security, innovation and abundance. 

Staff Loss

DOE has experienced deep and systematic cuts to its career staff. Early in the administration, the President issued an executive order calling for “large-scale reductions in force” (RIFs) across all executive branch agencies.1 As a part of that effort, the administration launched the Deferred Resignation Program (DRP), which was first offered on January 28th, 2025 and then again at the end of March 2025. This “fork in the road” gave career staff the option to resign or, if eligible, retire voluntarily in return for retaining their pay and benefits through September or December 2025, respectively. Expectations of upcoming RIFs incentivized many career staff to opt in to the program, rather than risk being laid off without the DRP benefits. Congressional leaders have questioned the legality of this program.

Nevertheless, the DRP was fully implemented by the Trump administration over the course of 2025, driving the majority of staff departures at DOE during the first six months of the administration. Staff data obtained by FAS indicate that 21% of DOE staff departed the agency between January 16th, right before the Trump administration began, and June 6th of 2025.2 Nineteen percent (19%) of DOE staff participated in the DRP, far outnumbering those who left the agency through other paths (e.g. layoffs, other resignations or retirements, etc.).3,4

The largest number of departing staff came from the offices under the former Under Secretary for Infrastructure (S3), which lost 52% of its staff due to the DRP and 55% of staff overall. At the most extreme end, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), established by BIL under the Biden administration, lost 80% of its staff due to the DRP and 84% of its staff overall.  Other new offices established under the Biden administration, such as the Grid Deployment Office (GDO) and the Office of State and Community Energy Programs (SCEP), also suffered heavy losses.

In addition to the DRP, the S3 offices lost a number of staff to the Trump administration’s decision to end remote work, despite a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report finding that remote work policies improve talent attraction and retention, while reducing costs and enhancing productivity. Under the Biden administration, remote work policies enabled DOE to hire early- and mid-career staff who were unable or unwilling to move, especially those from the private sector who had valuable experience with commercial project development and finance.5 The new S3 offices established under the Biden administration benefitted the most from this, since they needed to rapidly hire qualified staff to design and implement programs for the large amounts of funding they received from BIL and IRA.

By attracting many industry leaders from the private sector, the S3 offices were able to build trust with major energy companies, leading to much higher participation from top companies in BIL and IRA programs compared to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Many of the staff responsible for this heightened private sector trust have now left the agency. 

Offices under the former Under Secretary for Science and Innovation (S4) also suffered greater than average loss of staff: 28% due to the DRP and 29% overall. Even the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) and the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) lost nearly a third of their staff. According to former DOE staff, some people moved from S3 to S4 in anticipation of the transition to the Trump administration.6 In particular, many of them moved to NE, which is why the number of staff in NE on January 16th actually exceeded the number of total positions the office was supposed to have.

During the October government shutdown, the Trump administration directed agencies to move forward with another round of RIFs. DOE leadership informed staff in OCED, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), the Office of State and Community Energy Programs (SCEP), and the Office of Minority Economic Impact that they may be fired, transferred, or reassigned due to their involvement in implementing programs under the Biden administration. The Data Foundation estimated that 187 staff were impacted by the RIF. However, the Continuing Resolution, passed on November 12th to end the shutdown, rescinded the RIF notices and guaranteed backpay to impacted federal workers.

The Impacts of Staff Loss

Staff changes and resignations at DOE will inevitably slow down implementation and threaten DOE’s ability to fulfill its mandate. DOE has struggled over the past few years to obligate funding from its budget due to its lengthy application and award negotiation process. Crucial to that process are the institutional knowledge and cohesion between technical and legal contracting teams that career staff build up over time. Every staff member lost creates a gap in the implementation process; the loss of so many staff members threatens to break down DOE’s operations entirely. Even if new staff are hired, that institutional knowledge and working dynamic can’t be recovered.

Contracting in particular is a major bottleneck for implementation. Career staff with decades of contracting experience have now left the agency and national labs. In particular, this loss will make it more difficult to implement demonstration and deployment programs like those funded by BIL and IRA, which require novel and very detailed contracting work.

Furthermore, the deep cuts to S3 call into question DOE’s ability to implement the remaining BIL and IRA funding for demonstration and deployment programs, not to mention DOE’s ability to oversee the billions of dollars worth of demonstration and deployment awards it has already made. Many of the new S3 staff were intentionally hired from the private sector for their industry knowledge and connections. These federal workers were subsequently the first to leave after the presidential transition. They took a risk in working for the federal government, and then were made to feel expendable by the new administration’s heavy-handed attempts to push people out. That experience will color any future attempts by DOE to rehire private sector talent.

The damage to implementation from staff losses will have direct impacts on peoples’ lives. For example, a 63 percent cut to SCEP staff means that whichever new office in charge of its programs post-reorganization (see next section) will not have enough capacity to run key energy affordability programs, like rebates to low-income households for cost-saving appliances or weatherization programs that keep peoples’ homes warm and reduce utility bills. Gutting of OCED and GDO will mean that major projects have a smaller chance of getting built, denying communities the new jobs and energy infrastructure they were promised. 

In addition to implementation capacity, DOE is losing technical expertise that is crucial to informing its research and innovation agenda. DOE’s S4 offices have historically housed the top experts on technology areas from battery chemistry to solar panel design to advanced turbines. Many of these industry-leading experts have now left the agency, which will hamstring DOE’s ability to support private sector innovation in technologies that are critical to building an affordable and reliable energy sector and maintaining U.S. leadership globally.  

The loss of crucial staff can also be expensive. For example, DOE has traditionally relied on internal counsel for the majority of its programmatic work. Now, however, roughly 50% of the field lawyers at DOE who run contracting and oversee the national labs are gone. In September 2025, DOE issued a solicitation for up to $50 million worth of external counsel in support of the agency’s day-to-day needs.

Lastly, the management of national labs (NLs) from DOE headquarters is becoming significantly harder. As seasoned program managers leave, DOE is losing the deep institutional knowledge necessary to manage the Government-Managed Laboratory Complex and to execute core functions, especially the allocation and oversight of funds that Congress intends for the labs. The flow of funds requires experienced staff who understand authorizing statutes, lab agreements, and budget execution mechanics; losing them creates the risk of both bottlenecks and misalignment.

Reorganization

In November 2025, DOE leaders announced a sweeping reorganization that eliminated, consolidated, and rebranded major program offices while creating several new ones, formalizing a significant shift in the Department’s priorities (see Figures 1 and 2).7 Several of DOE’s most recognizable clean energy innovation and deployment offices — including EERE, OCED, SCEP, the Grid Deployment Office (GDO), and the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains (MESC) — were dissolved as standalone entities. Their programs were redistributed across a new set of divisions organized around broad technology themes rather than the previous approach of differentiating between developmental stages (i.e. R&D vs. demonstration and deployment).

Figure 1. DOE organization chart prior to November 20th, 2025 (Source: DOE).

Figure 2. DOE’s new organizational structure after November 20th, 2025 (Source: DOE)

As part of this shift, DOE created or elevated new offices focused on emerging priorities. A new Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation now centralizes critical minerals programs, which were previously spread across EERE, FE, and MESC, while also seeming to be a catch-all office for remaining EERE, OCED, MESC, and SCEP programs. A Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Office merges FE with the Geothermal Technologies Office. The reorganization also expanded the department’s work on emerging technologies by splintering off programs that used to be contained within the Office of Science: pairing AI and quantum programs into a new office and creating a dedicated fusion office with a more prominent role than before.

These changes significantly alter DOE’s internal map. Programs that once lived together are now split apart, while other functions have been consolidated under new leadership structures. The result is a department whose mission areas are organized very differently than they were even a few months ago, leaving open questions about how core clean energy, deployment, and innovation functions will be staffed and managed going forward.

Though previous administrations, including the Biden administration, have conducted reorganizations of DOE in the past, this reorganization was implemented with significantly less transparency. As of late December, the brief initial announcement and new organization chart are the only information the public has received on the reorganization. DOE’s website is currently inaccessible. Career staff have reported that they still lack clarity as to how their chains-of-command will be affected and whether or not the programs they work on will continue or change. 

These structural changes are unfolding at the same time DOE is experiencing substantial workforce losses, which heightens uncertainty about staff capacity. It remains unclear how remaining staff are being reassigned within the new organizational chart. With offices being renamed or re-scoped — and in many cases merged, split, or relocated — advocacy and stakeholder communities cannot easily determine whether DOE retains the necessary expertise or institutional knowledge to carry out ongoing work. 

Basic information like program areas and suboffices within each office, program leadership, and staffing data is now outdated, making it difficult to track where core functions have moved. Managing this transition is essential for retaining remaining staff and preventing further loss of expertise. DOE leaders must clearly communicate roles, reporting lines, and program continuity to restore internal morale and ensure the agency can continue driving energy innovation and promoting energy abundance amid an unprecedented U.S. energy affordability crisis.

This uncertainty underscores the need for greater transparency from DOE. Providing updated information on each new office’s missions and internal structure, staffing data, and explanations of how programs map onto the new structure would help rebuild trust and give stakeholders a clearer understanding of the agency’s operational capacity. Without this information, questions about DOE’s ability to execute its mission will persist at precisely the time when federal leadership on clean energy, innovation, and energy affordability is most needed.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Megan Husted and Arjun Krishnaswami for their pivotal roles in shaping the vision for this project, planning and executing the convenings that informed this report, and providing insightful feedback throughout the entire process. The authors would also like to thank Kelly Fleming for her leadership of the project team while she was at FAS. Additional gratitude goes to Colin Cunliff, Keith Boyea, Kyle Winslow, and all the other individuals and organizations who helped inform this report through participating in workshops and interviews and reviewing an earlier draft.

Appendix: DOE Staff Data

On the Precipice: Artificial Intelligence and the Climb to Modernize Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications

The United States’ nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) system remains a foundational pillar of national security, ensuring credible nuclear deterrence under the most extreme conditions. Yet as the United States embarks on long-overdue NC3 modernization, this effort has received less scholarly and policy attention than the modernization of nuclear delivery systems. This paper addresses that gap by providing a critical assessment of the U.S. NC3 enterprise and its evolving role in a rapidly transforming strategic environment.

Geopolitically, U.S. NC3 modernization must now contend with issues including China’s rise as a nuclear near peer, Russia’s deployment of increasingly threatening hypersonic and counterspace capabilities, and the erosion of norms restraining limited nuclear use.

Technologically, the shift from legacy analog to digital architectures introduces both great opportunities for enhanced speed and resilience and unprecedented vulnerabilities across cyber, space, and electronic domains.

Bureaucratically, modernization efforts face challenges from fragmented acquisition responsibilities and the need to align with broader initiatives such as Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) and the deployment of hybrid space architectures.

This paper argues that successful NC3 modernization must do more than update hardware and software: it must integrate emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), in ways that enhance resilience, ensure meaningful human control, and preserve strategic stability. The study evaluates the key systems, organizational challenges, and operational dynamics shaping U.S. NC3 and offers policy recommendations to strengthen deterrence credibility in an era of accelerating geopolitical and technological change.

Read the complete publication here.

This publication was made possible by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.

Tracking the DF Express: A Practical Guide to Evaluating Chinese Media and Public Data for Studying Nuclear Forces

Observers of Chinese nuclear politics and force posture are old friends with information challenges. Open-source analysts of China’s nuclear force drew heavily on published Chinese-language writings, footage, and interviews by official Chinese media or private Chinese citizens, as well as commercial satellite imagery. These powerful open-source tools enable scholars to gain insight into some of the Chinese government’s most closely guarded secrets, such as the construction of 119 nuclear missile silos. Reports from well-regarded institutions, such as the PLA Rocket Force Order of Battle report by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, offer open-source research that provides concrete data on the Chinese nuclear force, using thoroughly analyzed imagery and Chinese-language materials. Other studies, such as several reports by the RAND Corporation and the Air University’s China Aerospace Studies Institute (CASI), extensively used Chinese military and technical writings to identify patterns in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)’s strategic thinking in its own words. Combined with the Federation of American Scientists (FAS)’s annual report on nuclear forces, there is a growing and vibrant open-source intellectual community on the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF).

While researchers continue to dissect new information from China, obtaining reliable data has become increasingly difficult for two reasons. First, the Chinese government has curtailed foreign access to sources like academic databases that were previously fair game for scholarly use, complicating the already dense “information fog” over China’s political and military apparatus. Second, unverified, digitally altered, and AI-generated disinformation and misinformation are commonplace on popular social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter). Combined with the multitude of Chinese social media and video websites, weeding out the noise and distraction has become an increasingly challenging task for new researchers in this field.

This essay provides introductory guidance on the usefulness of Chinese social media and video platforms for observers and researchers of China’s nuclear force. This guide may assist researchers in identifying what to look for and on which platform, especially for those who are not advanced or native speakers of Mandarin. In the sections below, I compare a set of popular Chinese social media platforms and discuss the usefulness of each with respect to open-source study of the Chinese nuclear force. I also present a brief glossary of nicknames and vernacular terms related to nuclear matters in Mandarin, along with their translations. I conclude with a brief discussion of the use of AI-enabled translation tools for open-source research on the PLA.

Chinese media and OSINT: What’s good for what?

Sina Weibo (新浪微博)

Weibo is useful for providing timely, authoritative, and chronologically documented information on training exercises, operations, and policy changes that are of propaganda or morale-promoting value. The equivalent of X in China, Weibo is the biggest Chinese-language social media with over 500 million monthly active users as of 2024. It is likely the most influential social media platform in China, as indicated by the vast number of users and a highly agile and effective censorship system. Due to Weibo’s ability to rapidly disseminate information, all major state and military organs, including the PLA Daily, the Ministry of Defense, individual service branches, and all five PLA Theater Commands (战区), maintain official accounts on Weibo (Figure 1). These accounts are directly managed by dedicated propaganda or public affairs teams and authorized to post military content, which sometimes features approved footage and photos of training exercises. Details revealed in the footage or pictures may help researchers identify the unit leadership and the weapon systems used during the exercise. Additionally, Weibo is often the first platform to announce state media PLA news. The People’s Daily, CCTV, and the Xinhua Agency regularly post links to news articles and updates on Weibo to facilitate dissemination.

For researchers, Weibo contains a reasonably reliable search system. Researchers may use the Weibo search bar to look for mentions of “strategic deterrence,” “nuclear force,” or names of nuclear missiles and use the filter function to screen for content released by official accounts. For well-publicized events like a missile exercise, the topic may be included in the trending (热搜) section for real-time updates. However, a significant limitation of Weibo is that scholars must distinguish whether the content posted by the official accounts directly reflects the Party’s policy or simply shows a lower-level interpretation of the policy by individual units. These official accounts are likely managed by young, tech-savvy officers or civilian employees trained in public affairs.

Figure 1. An example of PLARF Weibo post on 17 May 2025. A link is embedded in the picture that leads to an article.

Sometimes, these individuals might improvise and go beyond what they were prescribed. Some more active accounts, such as the Eastern Theater Command official account, have interacted with random Weibo users in the past and have eagerly implied their belligerent stance toward Taiwan. This led many Chinese netizens to interpret the official account’s posts as a sign of imminent military action, which thankfully was not the intention. Additionally, state-run accounts have also taken down content (primarily propaganda material) for reasons other than revealing unapproved or sensitive information. Again, since the accounts are likely managed by younger personnel at the lower level, contents could be removed when it was later found to be too politically sensitive or too unpersuasive. In 2019, the People’s Liberation Army Army (PLAA) official account posted a propaganda article on Weibo aimed at inspiring nationalistic fervor. It quoted a passionate patriotic poem written by Wang Jingwei (汪精卫), whom the Chinese government considered a “traitor (汉奸)” for cooperating with the Imperial Japanese invaders, most likely because the editor had known about the poem but not its authorship. The comment section quickly pointed out this “political mistake (政治错误)”, leading to the content’s prompt removal. As such, researchers should be aware that removed content does not necessarily suggest valuable information worth hiding.

It is also important to note that accessing Weibo sometimes involves more than typing in the URL. Aside from the content available on the front page (e.g., the trending section), the rich content of the platform is only accessible after logging in. One does not need a mainland Chinese phone number to create an account on Weibo. A virtual number from a trusted provider is also sufficient. Even without an account, researchers could still access the Weibo homepage of many accounts by searching the account’s name in a search engine (for instance, here is the direct link to the official PLA Eastern Theater Weibo page). However, Sina Weibo’s search bar will not be available for unregistered users.

CCTV.com (央视网)

CCTV.com is a webpage that gives scholars access to the state media’s TV programs without a registered account. In addition to live-streamed news stories, the webpage also serves as a large but incomplete archive of past TV programs. CCTV.com has high-definition PLA video footage and interviews, which may be particularly useful for open-source analysis. Some of the CASI reports made clever use of video footage released by Chinese state media to identify key information regarding training exercises and unit deployment, particularly the CCTV-7 channel dedicated to military content. Other open-source intelligence analysts were able to map out key personnel, location, and weapon system information from CCTV news broadcasts and military TV programs. The search bar supports keyword searches and includes government-sponsored TV programs from various channels. The search also returns results from CCTV webpages and the Xinhua Agency. This is the most useful for finding information related to specific missile systems. For instance, among the top results for “DF-26” include footage of a DF-26 missile from a documentary (Figure 2). The search result for “dual-capability” also returned a video by a Chinese military commentator who states that China’s hypersonic vehicle is dual-capable (Figure 3). For open-source analysis, having the ability to revisit footage that might contain useful information on the PLARF is a major advantage of this platform. At the same time, the search function is limited to the titles of the program, not necessarily the content. Furthermore, many of the videos available on CCTV.com are commentaries from Chinese military experts. While the commentary from the Chinese experts may be useful, the visual component may not always be the latest developments. Because of the length requirement of the TV program, the visual element may only have looped videos of known weapon testing or parade footage. Researchers may consider comparing the footage from different programs to remove the repeated material.

Figure 2. An example of searching for the DF-41 ICBM on CCTV.com. Note that the research results contain programs from multiple TV channels.
Figure 3. A screenshot of search results for “dual-capability”. Note that the Chinese official media also uses this term for the submarine force.

Bilibili (哔哩哔哩), Douyin (抖音), Kuaishou (快手)

Bilibili, Douyin, and Kuaishou are among the most used entertainment video-sharing and short-video platforms in China. Bilibili is a video service primarily for animation, comics, and games (ACG) content. It has a “bullet comment (弹幕)” function that allows users to inject text over the video content in real time. The platform attracts over 100 million daily users as of 2024. Douyin (the Chinese mainland version of TikTok) and Kuaishou are short-video platforms with a significantly larger user base than Bilibili, with Douyin content reaching over 1 billion active users monthly. Unsurprisingly, the PLA, the individual Theater Commands, and the Chinese government and Party organs maintain an active presence on these platforms for propaganda, news updates, and publicity programs, often repeating the same message sent across other outlets.

However, despite these platforms’ popularity, they are not great resources for open-source nuclear force research for two reasons. First, there is overwhelming noise from private click-farming content creators who would grossly overstate or fabricate China’s military capabilities to profit from nationalistic sentiments. A researcher may find many videos speculating about the capabilities of the H-20 bomber with no credible source to back up the claims. Private content creators typically have no privileged access to information. In the rare cases where some villagers filmed a rocket booster falling from the sky (some Chinese rocket boosters in the past landed in populated villages), the video is often quickly censored on these closely watched platforms. Second, official government accounts on these platforms almost always repeat information that has been released on Weibo and other traditional news platforms. Some Party organs, such as the Communist Youth League (共青团), which pushes propaganda to the younger generation, would convey the same approved message using CGI videos to boost nationalist sentiment, but the content itself is no more useful than reading the official news release. Overall, there is little added advantage of using the entertainment-based services for potentially useful open-source information.

Combining Sources

While Chinese video and social media platforms could assist OSINT research on China’s nuclear forces, researchers could also combine the visual element of weapon systems with textual data gathered from authoritative Chinese platforms like China Military Online (中国军网), PLA Procurement website (军队采购网), and Qi Cha Cha (企查查). The visual data can help identify many technical aspects of the PLA’s nuclear weapons, but the textual information can greatly inform the acquisition, production, and deployment of the weapon and support systems. Provinces with robust military and heavy industries, such as Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Shandong, and Shaanxi, sometimes release contracting and procurement information locally on provincial and municipal government websites. The information found on local government websites is admittedly sporadic, making broad, systematic collection difficult. Still, such information could serve as valuable first-hand sources for OSINT researchers. For more technical analysis of weapon systems, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (中国国家知识产权局) has a patent database that could be useful to track the development and ownership of certain enabling technologies for nuclear systems. This may be further enhanced by using the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (中国知网CNKI) to locate academic articles on the relevant technology, though access to CNKI articles usually requires an institutional subscription through a university library. Note that many of the Chinese government and military websites do not support a secure HTTPS connection. Some, like Qi Cha Cha, may require the user to access its content from a Chinese mainland IP address. Researchers should deploy cybersecurity tools to take full advantage of these resources.

Nicknames and Vernacular

In addition to the advantages and limitations of different social media platforms, researchers should be aware of the common nicknames and vernacular related to the Chinese nuclear force. Much like how the F-16 is commonly called “viper” instead of the official name “fighting falcon,” there are also nicknames for weapons and systems in the PLA. The table below summarizes several common terms and explains their meaning and primary usage.

Nickname/VernacularDirect TranslationUsed byMeaning
东风快递“East Wind Express” or “DF Express”Private citizens, but later adopted by the official PLARF Weibo Account and official state mediaA common vernacular for any modern DF ballistic missiles, to include both nuclear and conventional missiles. The term is a reference to the express courier and takeout services in China, which are known for their timeliness and accuracy. A common usage of the term is “sending [a country] a DF Express”, which refers to delivering a fast and precise attack using a DF ballistic missile. While this could refer to any DF missile, the DF-17, DF-26, and DF-41 are the most common systems dubbed with this nickname due to their roles in a potential conflict with the United States.
关岛快递“Guam Express”Private citizens, some state-run mediaLargely based on the same logic as the above, this term specifically refers to the DF-26 IRBM, which can range Guam.
真理“The Truth”Private citizens, but also used and discussed by official Chinese mediaThis usually refers to long-range nuclear weapons for strategic deterrence, but can also describe long-range conventional systems. The origin of reference is from the phrase “the truth is only within the range of the cannon,” which is possibly misattributed to Otto von Bismarck. The phrase is popularized in China by late Nankai University professor Ai Yuejin (艾跃进), who repeatedly gave lectures saying, “dignity only exists on the edge of the sword, and the truth is only within the range of the cannon 尊严只在剑锋之上, 真理只在大炮射程之内.”

Additionally, the official Chinese commentary for the strategic missile forces during the 2019 military parade used the phrase “[we] insist on convincing others with the truth (坚持以真理说服人)” which further added to the term’s connection to a show of strength.

Regardless of the origin, this highly realpolitik perception of international security resonates well among the Chinese people, leading many to dub nuclear ICBMs as “the truth” due to their long ranges and destructive power.
大国重器“The Pillars of a Great Power”Official state mediaThis term may refer to any strategic or critical technology that is not only vital to China’s national interests but also demonstrates China’s status and prestige as a great power. In the PLA context, this usually refers to missile systems that can give China a strategic advantage over its potential adversaries. Examples may include the dual-capable DF-26 and the nuclear ICBMs.

Note that the same term is also used to describe China’s achievements in non-nuclear heavy industry. There is a state-sponsored documentary of the same name that traces the history of China’s heavy industry.
战略武器“Strategic weapon”NonspecificWhile this term is usually reserved for major nuclear deterrence systems in the U.S. context, it is used a lot more liberally in China. It may be used to describe any weapon that could gain China a decisive advantage in war, which could be a dual-capable missile like the DF-26 or an advanced conventional missile. In the 2015 military parade, the DF-21 ASBM was among the “strategic attack phalanx (战略打击方阵)”, though the missile was not known to be nuclear-capable.

A Note on Using AI Translation Services

There is little doubt that AI-enabled translation services like DeepL offer convenient and mostly accurate translations of Chinese texts. However, users should exercise caution when asking the AI to translate lengthy or complicated Chinese texts. Since the Chinese written language system is not space-delimited and often contains a mix of recently invented slang words, formal, and classical Chinese (文言文) phrases and quotes, the translation software sometimes cannot adjust properly to the context in which the classical phrases are used. This could easily lead to misinterpretation.For instance, translating and searching for the phrase “nuclear force (核力量)” may return results that contain the phrase “hardcore power (硬核力量)”, which is unrelated to nuclear weapons. In another example, a PLA Daily article uses the phrase “北约军费连增虚实几何” as the title, which mixes the classical grammar with modern Mandarin. DeepL would translate the word “几何” as “geometry” because it is the most used meaning in modern Mandarin, whereas the correct interpretation is “to what extent” or “by how much” in this context (Figure 4).

Figure 4. A screenshot of DeepL translation confused by classical Chinese grammar regarding context

In a similar instance, DeepL entirely fails to translate the part that contains classical grammar and offers an incorrect translation (Figure 5). This is most likely because the software treats the original Chinese phrase as a statement, whereas the classical grammar indicates a question.

Figure 5. Another example of DeepL translation confused by classical Chinese grammar and punctuation

Therefore, it is prudent to cross-reference and look up phrases individually when using AI-enabled translation tools. Inserting complete paragraphs is likely less accurate than looking up difficult phrases or individual vocabulary.

Conclusion

This paper  provides a preliminary guide on using Chinese social media and video platforms for nuclear-related open-source research by reviewing the usefulness and credibility of the content released by various official and privately owned platforms (Table 2). In sum, there is no singular most useful platform for information on the Chinese nuclear force, but some may help piece together interesting findings upon cautious review and cross-reference. While advanced Chinese language proficiency and cultural familiarity remain irreplaceable skills that can greatly enhance the accuracy and speed of open-source analysis, they are neither necessary nor sufficient for successful open-source analysis on China’s nuclear forces. Researchers can still make effective and efficient use of publicly available information by applying analytical due diligence and having context-specific awareness of Chinese sources.

PlatformOwnershipGreat forLimitations
Sina WeiboPrivatePrompt, official releases of the Chinese government and the PLA

Evaluating the salience of nuclear issues in the Chinese community		Need to determine if official accounts are getting ahead of central guidance

Official accounts may take down content arbitrarily

Requires an account to use the search function and browse smoothly, though much content is available via direct search through a search engine.
CCTV.comGovernmentHigh-definition footage of training exercises and test launches of nuclear-capable missiles

Search function returns cross-platform results from government-run sources		Footage tends to be reused for different TV programs

Some programs are meant for a foreign audience (e.g., CCTV-4), with a higher concentration of nationalist propaganda.
BilibiliPrivateUnderstanding how the Chinese nuclear force is viewed by young Chinese citizensExcessive nationalist propaganda and content farming by private accounts

The search bar is not always reliable for specific terms.
DouyinPrivateLimited understanding of how the Chinese nuclear force is viewed by the general Chinese populationExcessive nationalist propaganda and content farming by private accounts

The search function often returns the most viewed but low-quality content

Comprehensive censorship
KuaishouPrivateLimited understanding of how the Chinese nuclear force is viewed by the general Chinese populationExcessive nationalist propaganda and content farming by private accounts

The search function often returns the most viewed but low-quality content

Comprehensive censorship

This publication was made possible by a generous grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.

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.