CELS Playbook: Clean Electricity for Local and State Governments
State and Local Actions to Make Government Work for People, Reduce Utility Bills, and Deploy Clean Energy
Elected leaders across the country are staring down interlocking crises. Families and businesses are struggling to pay skyrocketing utility bills. Large new demands are straining the grid and overtaking the buildout of new power plants. And the public’s faith in government has hit new lows. We need a new playbook to solve these problems and make the government responsive to peoples’ needs.
What’s going wrong?
Utility bills are rising rapidly for households and businesses due to an administrative state ill-equipped to protect customers from costs and risks. The cost of power supply is increasing due to growing demand, long timelines to build new cheap clean energy, and volatile natural gas prices. Utilities are spending more money on the transmission and distribution grid for both maintenance and recovery from wildfires and other disasters. Today’s regulatory construct allows utilities to drive spending decisions and pass on all these costs to customers, and regulators are under-resourced and unwilling to find alternative solutions.
Meanwhile, we are not building clean energy nor upgrading the grid fast enough to meet demand growth and address climate change. And this problem will get worse as power-hungry data centers connect to the grid and electrification of buildings, vehicles, and factories adds additional electricity demand.
The old climate policy playbook is not equipped for this moment. While it has driven significant deployment of low-cost clean energy, it was not designed to address non-financial obstacles to building projects and upgrading the grid nor to fully mobilize the suite of finance tools needed for the energy transition, nor to demonstrate that the government can make peoples’ lives better, now and long term.
Where do we go from here?
Policymakers and advocates need an expanded playbook. One that addresses the full set of barriers impeding financing and construction of clean energy and grid modernization projects. One that targets the root causes of high energy costs. One that reworks the administrative state to make government work for the people.
FAS, with the help of partner organizations spanning ideology and function, launched the Center for Regulatory to Ingenuity to build a vision for a government that is agile and responsive and delivers affordable energy, abundant housing, and safe transportation for all Americans.
As part of this work, we have developed an updated set of policies and actions for state and local leaders to meet this moment. We started by identifying the barriers to deployment and the flaws in the old playbook, published in our report Barriers to Building. Now we are developing the “plays” in a new playbook—tangible actions that state and local leaders can take now to make near-term progress and pilot new solutions. These plays will live on this landing page, which we will continue to update with additional actions.
This playbook is not a laundry list of policies but rather a cohesive strategy to achieve two goals: (1) deploy the clean energy and grid upgrades necessary to make energy affordable and combat climate change and (2) create governments that tangibly improve peoples’ lives.1
Contents (click to jump to a section)
- Main Character Energy: Make Regulators Main Characters in Planning and Ratemaking
- Improve State Government Responsiveness to Clean Energy Projects
- Build Administrative Capacity to Plan for an Affordable & Reliable Grid
- Fix Broken Incentives to Expand Distributed Energy Resources
- Wield Creative Finance Tools to Drive Investment and Reduce Capital Costs
Main Character Energy: Make Regulators Main Characters in Planning and Ratemaking
Utilities and their regulators are responsible for major decisions about what infrastructure we build and how much people pay for energy. Utilities—which can be owned by investors, the public (e.g., municipal utilities), or members (i.e., electric cooperatives)—conduct detailed analysis and provide proposals on planning and ratemaking to their regulators. The set of solutions below focuses on investor-owned utilities, who are incentivized to prioritize projects that maximize the returns for their shareholders. As a result, they underutilize solutions that could save customers money but do not earn companies a profit, like rooftop solar or technology-or maintenance-based upgrades to existing transmission lines.
In a well-functioning system, regulators—whether Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) or locally elected officials—would rigorously interrogate utility analyses and direct the utilities to shape or revise their proposals to maximize benefits to the public at lowest public cost. This lens is needed to ensure that utilities are spending money wisely in the public interest and prevent unnecessary bill increases from overspending on the wrong solutions. Active regulators are also needed to incorporate long-term considerations in planning and ensure consideration of strategies that provide long-term benefits. However, regulators are often not well-equipped or politically willing to conduct detailed analysis and push back on utility proposals. Other intervenors, like consumer advocates and environmental organizations, are outspent by the utilities, who can recover the costs of their analysis and interventions through customer bills in most states.
The result is a reactive, short-term-focused administrative state that leaves the public frustrated. Regular people are frustrated with skyrocketing bills, clean energy companies are frustrated with slow processes and broken incentives, and both are frustrated with the government’s ability to solve big problems. The administrative state itself—the officials and staff who make up regulatory body and state and local governments—are also frustrated with their perpetually reactive role and with limited say in outcomes.
We should not accept the status-quo regulatory process as a given. As representatives of the public, regulators should have both the ability and motivation to actively drive toward an abundance of cheap clean energy, affordable bills, and a modernized reliable grid. Achieving this vision requires the right personnel, clear direction and support from governors, and adequate analytical capacity.
Solutions
I. Direct Regulators to Use All Tools to Lower Energy Bills and Deploy Clean Energy (Governors and Legislatures)
When regulators take a backseat and let utilities drive, they narrow the toolkit of resources that can help meet demand and as a result leave savings on the table. Regulators with a mandate to prioritize affordability and clean energy buildout can reduce bills by both better scrutinizing utility plans and taking a more active role in enabling clean energy deployment. This includes finding creative tools to get more out of the grid through distributed energy resources, alternative transmission technologies, and flexible sources of demand like electric vehicle charging and factories with electric appliances.
Governors can direct PUCs to audit utility investments to find opportunities for savings, re-evaluate utility business models and incentive structures, consider distributed energy resources and alternative transmission technologies in planning, and consider climate impacts in planning and ratemaking decisions.
Legislatures can set statutory requirements for PUCs to consider these opportunities and expand their mandates to include clean energy goals and highest net benefit criteria.
Legislators can require PUCs to find savings across the gas and electric systems, including by using beneficial electrification to reduce costs.
In 2021, the Maine legislature directed the PUC to consider emissions reduction targets and equity impacts in regulatory decisions.
Oregon Governor Brown directed its PUC to integrate the state’s climate pollution reduction goals and promote equity by prioritizing vulnerable populations and affected communities.
New Jersey Governor Sherrill directed the PUC to review utility business models and assess whether they are aligned with cost reductions for customers.
In 2024, Minnesota S.F.4942 mandated that the PUC establish standards for sharing utility costs for system upgrades, ensuring fair cost-sharing and advancing state renewable and carbonfree energy goals along with provisions for energy conservation programs for low-income households.
II. Even the Playing Field by Providing More Resources to the PUC and Consumer Intervenors and Increasing Data Transparency (Governors, Legislatures, and PUCs)
Electricity rates are determined by proceedings called rate cases, in which utilities submit proposals and justifications to regulators, other intervenors (such as consumer advocates, environmental organizations, and state and local elected officials) submit testimony, and the regulators hold hearings and make a decision. Most rate cases end in settlement agreements between the utilities and other intervenors, facilitated by the PUC. Utilities drive this process—they file initial proposals and have more information about their system than other participants. Well-resourced PUCs and public interest intervenors are important to interrogate utility proposals and ensure that settlement agreements are a good deal for regular people.
In order to take on more responsibility in grid planning and utility oversight, PUCs need additional staff and analytical capacity. For example, a legislative commission in Texas found that the PUC needs more staff and resources to independently analyze utility sector data and provide sufficient oversight to ensure reliability. Funding for staff and analysis has a great return on investment—state leaders can save customers money and get better outcomes for a relatively small price.
Moreover, consumer advocate intervenors are typically underfunded compared to utilities and so cannot compete with utility proposals. This disparity in funding places consumer advocates in a position of exclusively reacting to utility requests, rather than having the bandwidth to interrogate existing system inequities or to develop potential innovative solutions to address ratepayer needs. Utilities also determine the pacing of their rate case applications, which can put consumer advocates even more on their heels. For example, in a 2019 rate case in Colorado, Xcel Energy brought 21 witnesses, while only a few consumer advocate intervenors testified.
Utilities in most states can recover the full costs of analysis and intervention legal fees from customers, giving the utilities significant resources to drive the process. States can prohibit this practice, directly reducing bills for customers and reducing utility influence over the process.
In addition to resources for PUCs and intervenors, data transparency can help even the playing field. Utility data are often difficult to access, embedded in filings that often run thousands of pages, and not standardized. This lack of data transparency makes it difficult for PUCs and consumer advocates to track utility spending and effectively intervene in rate cases.
Legislatures can provide additional funding for PUCs to hire additional staff and conduct independent analysis.
Legislatures and PUCs can prohibit utilities from recovering the costs of political activities from customers and limit the amount of legal fees that are recoverable from customers.
Legislatures can establish mechanisms to ensure that low‑income, consumer, and environmental justice advocates can participate meaningfully in PUC proceedings. Several U.S. states have implemented intervenor compensation programs or similar initiatives that reimburse reasonable costs for nonprofit organizations and community groups engaged in utility regulatory processes.
PUCs can charge utilities to fund independent analysis of utility proposals on behalf of customers.
PUCs can assess their processes with an eye toward reducing participation barriers for non-traditional docket participants, such as groups representing low-income or environmental justice communities.
PUCs can standardize reporting on utility costs and increase data transparency both during and in between rate cases.
Governors can direct agencies to conduct analysis to inform PUC proceedings and hire technical talent to engage with the PUC. Legislators can authorize and fund state agencies to conduct independent, proactive analysis to inform PUC proceedings, with opportunities for public input on the analysis.
California passed AB 1167 in 2025 that put an end to the use of ratepayer funds for political lobbying and strengthening enforcement against investor-owned utilities (IOUs) that illegally use ratepayer funds.
A 2023 Colorado law prohibited utilities from charging customers for lobbying expenses, political spending, trade association dues, and other similar activities.
In Illinois, a 2021 law expanded the Consumer Intervenor Compensation Fund to compensate consumer interest intervenors in planning and rate cases.
The Oregon PUC provides both Intervenor Funding and a dedicated Justice Funding program, supporting groups representing environmental justice communities and low‑income customers, with clearly defined funding caps for eligible participants.
Improve State Government Responsiveness to Clean Energy Projects
To build a clean energy project, developers must navigate a complex mix of state environmental permits, local and/or state siting approvals, and utility and grid operator interconnection processes. While federal permitting reform receives the most attention, most clean energy projects do not require federal approval and often get stuck due to state processes and local restrictions. For example, 73 percent of wind and solar projects that faced opposition in the 2010s were contested only at the state and local level, not federally.
In many places, these federal, state and local processes are not working for anybody—the clean energy developers who seek to build projects, the local communities in need of jobs and economic development, and the families and businesses struggling with rising utility bills.
What is going wrong? State agencies are often stretched thin, and outdated processes make it difficult to respond quickly to new projects. Most states lack a single designated authority at the state level who can oversee and enforce timelines. Permitting approvals often involve regional offices who take different approaches, increasing complexity and uncertainty for developers applying for permits. Inconsistent decision timelines increase risk for projects, raising costs.
In most states, local governments have control over siting, and each municipality has different processes and requirements, adding complexity for developers. Most states also lack a state authority that can ensure local governments do not unreasonably block or delay projects. About 20 percent of U.S. counties now have formal restrictions on clean energy projects.
State and local leaders can play a critical role in addressing these challenges. Governors can target agency capacity where it is most needed and legislatures can complement these efforts by funding permitting offices, creating statutory timelines to standardize reviews, and giving them enough decision-making power to actually meet those deadlines. State governments can leverage their capacity to evaluate costs, risks, and benefits—across timescales and geographies—of projects to inform decisions. Local governments can similarly improve and standardize their processes and support state implementation.
This brief focuses on a subset of solutions that help states be more responsive to clean energy projects. These solutions expand and improve government capacity to build clean power faster, lower utility bills, and demonstrate that the government can be an active and effective partner in solving problems.
Solutions
I. Increase Permitting Certainty and Consistency (Governors and Legislatures)
Uncertainty and inconsistency in permitting processes increases costs and delays projects. Timelines to hear back from an agency might vary considerably from one project to another, which adds uncertainty to project timelines. Some review processes are run by regional offices which may take different approaches to project evaluation (e.g., using different assumptions for modeling the impact of a project) and mitigation requirements. As a result, the same developer might go through a bespoke process for two very similar projects in different parts of the same state.
In addition, the scopes and goals of state environmental laws are often outdated. For example, environmental review often does not consider system-wide effects or second-order emissions impacts. As a result, environmental review often gets stuck on project-by-project analysis and lacks an overarching vision for the system.
States can address these issues minimal to no cost and without sacrificing the quality of environmental review by increasing certainty and consistency of permitting processes, centralizing capacity to run processes across agencies, and adjusting the goals and scope of environmental statute to include system-wide impacts and overarching climate goals.
Governors can issue clear guidance and standard operating procedures for analysis of impacts for different clean energy project types required under different laws (e.g., state clean water or environmental review statutes) and set timelines that agencies must follow for review and decisions.
Governors can set clear permitting goals for agencies and empower the “machinery” expertise (e.g., staff engineers, lawyers, environmental specialists, etc.) to meet those goals. Governors can also develop programs to upskill existing staff to expand the technical capacity needed for permitting operations.
Governors can issue guidance on mitigation requirements that projects can take to shorten review.
Legislatures can also set statutory decision timelines and limitations on what impacts are considered to further increase certainty for projects. In some cases, legislatures may need to provide agencies with the authority and resources required to standardize mitigation requirements and speed up timelines.
Legislatures can re-align the goals and requirements of permitting statutes and environmental review to prioritize system-wide goals.
Legislatures and governors can exempt certain clean energy projects from state environmental permitting or create simplified permitting pathways for such projects.
Legislatures can mandate and support adoption of instant digital permitting for distributed energy resources located at homes and businesses, drastically reducing the cost to install rooftop solar and energy storage.
Governors and legislatures can consolidate agency authorities, reducing the number of process steps for developers and conflicts between agencies.
In Pennsylvania, solar developers must obtain a stormwater permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), a process that involves working with regional conservation districts on stormwater analysis and agreement on mitigation requirements. Developers have struggled with inconsistent approaches among conservation districts on modeling assumptions and mitigation requirements. In December 2025, DEP issued updated its Solar Panel Farms Frequently Asked Questions to clarify key analytical inputs for solar developers and will increase consistency in conservation district approaches.
The New York State Legislature passed the Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act, mandating specific timelines for permit reviews, consolidating authority across agencies, and providing funding to support dedicated staff. This statutory framework has significantly reduced approval times for large-scale renewable projects.
Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro also directed state agencies to evaluate the timelines for each permitting process and set a specified maximum timeline for eligible projects by which applications will be processed.
In 2025, state legislatures in New Jersey, Texas, and Florida passed laws requiring local governments to adopt instant digital permitting processes for distributed resources.
Arizona House Bill 2003 allows utilities to replace conductors or structures on an existing transmission line without needing to apply for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) as long the line has a valid CEC (or has been grandfathered in) and all original conditions continue to be met.
In Minnesota, HF 4700 consolidated certain permitting responsibilities into a single law and shortened the timeline for state regulators to review and permit clean energy projects.
Texas passed SB 20 in 2005, establishing Competitive Renewable Energy Zones that smooth the process of developing and integrating renewable energy projects into the grid. This program has helped bring more than 18 GW of wind capacity online.
II. Increase Siting Certainty and Consistency (Governors, Legislatures, Local Leaders)
In most states, local governments handle siting of clean energy projects. Municipalities and counties within the same state may take wildly different approaches to siting, including different fee structures, setback requirements, public input requirements, approval processes and timelines, etc. This variability makes it harder to build clean energy projects without added benefit to communities. State leaders can improve certainty and consistency without sacrificing project quality or local benefits.
Legislatures can standardize processes across local governments, including by setting standard timelines for decisions, prohibiting excessive restrictions on clean energy projects and grid upgrades, and limiting the reasons for which a project can be denied approval.
Legislatures can move siting authority to the state level for large projects or projects that meet certain criteria (e.g., projects that create good jobs and economic benefits).
State lawmakers can create a streamlined, one-stop permitting process for distributed energy resources. This process would consolidate building, zoning, and environmental approvals. Such a framework reduces delays, lowers costs, and provides developers and homeowners with greater certainty.
Governors can develop model siting ordinances and encourage or incentivize local governments to adopt them.
Local governments can voluntarily work together to align processes.
Colorado developed a clean electricity code repository that included principles for smart local code design for clean electricity deployment.
Michigan HB 5120 financially incentivizes local governments to avoid overly restrictive ordinances and creates a state-led pathway for projects to by-pass overly restrictive local ordinances.
Arizona House Bill 2019 standardized timelines for municipalities to make permit decisions and took steps to ensure municipalities are responsive, including requirements on providing contact information and communicating with permit applicants.
A bill introduced in the Oregon legislature would exempt clean energy projects eligible for soon-to-expire federal tax credits from the state’s onerous state siting process.
Hawaii’s proposed SB588 creates a self-certification and standardized permitting system for behind-the-meter solar and storage projects.
Illinois HB 4412 set statewide renewable energy project siting standards that takes supremacy over unduly restrictive local decisions.
Indiana’s SB 411 set voluntary siting standards for wind and solar power projects. If communities meet those standards, they’re pre-cleared for project development.
New Mexico’s Renewable Energy Transmission Authority established an MOU with the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council to improve coordination and receive assistance on eligible permitting projects.
III. Create Dynamic Agencies that Can Respond to Project Needs (Governors and Legislatures)
States should build dynamic, flexible agencies that are responsive to evolving barriers to clean energy deployment. Government responsiveness is often thwarted by limited or outdated information, poor information sharing across agencies, and lack of centralized decision-making. Governors and state agency leads often do not know which specific processes are causing delays or uncertainty for projects. Where agencies have that information, it is often not shared among agencies or with the governor’s office without intervention. Agencies often do not have the mandate or the capacity to track and share this information.
A mandate and resources to collect detailed information on project barriers, and to share that information across agencies, allows states to be more responsive to clean energy industry needs. Using this information, states can ensure that limited agency capacity is targeted where it can have the greatest impact and helps agencies anticipate, rather than react to, common obstacles.
Governors can identify the specific government processes and other barriers that are holding up projects and increasing uncertainty through direct engagement with developers and formal processes like Requests for Informations. Governors can survey developers for specific information on the failure points in the process of getting projects built, across permitting, siting, interconnection, etc. Governors can then address the critical bottlenecks by adjusting the processes that are outdated or not serving the public or shifting capacity where processes must be maintained but are moving too slowly.
Governors can build centralized processes—for example by designating a senior official as state-wide lead for permitting coordination—that can quickly respond to bottlenecks and share information across agencies. Governors and legislatures can designate a single agency as the lead on permitting, siting, and project assistance and provide that agency with the authority to make decisions. For these steps to work, governors must provide the lead official or agency with the adequate decision-making authority and capacity to run the process.
Legislators can provide the resources for the above-referenced information collection and the authority for centralized permitting processes.
The Colorado Energy Office and Department of Natural Resources conducted an extensive survey of developers, local governments, community organizations, and other stakeholders to detail clean energy siting and permitting issues and develop a plan to address them.
Following passage of HR 1 in Congress, which rapidly phased out tax incentives for certain renewable energy technologies, Governors’ offices in states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania organized inter-agency dialogue with private sector stakeholders to identify and accelerate projects that could form cost-saving federal incentives before they expire.
The California Energy Commission runs a consolidated permitting process that centralizes staff capacity to manage permitting, with specified review timelines for clean energy projects that meet certain job quality and community benefits criteria.
Washington House Bill 1216 authorized the Department of Ecology to run a consolidated permitting process to collect all relevant information from developers and coordinate across agencies to speed up review. That bill also created an interagency Clean Energy Siting Council to improve how projects are sited in the state.
In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul directed state agencies to accelerate renewable project approvals by reviewing and reforming agency processes to reduce backlogs and coordinate efforts across departments, from environmental review to project eligibility screening, focusing agency attention on projects ready to leverage expiring federal tax incentives.
IV. Speed Up Interconnection Timelines (Governors, Legislatures, and Public Utility Commissions)
Long timelines for approvals to connect to the grid and to complete necessary transmission upgrades are one of the largest drivers of project cancellations and delays. States have little control over the interconnection process for projects connecting to the bulk transmission system, which is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. However, states can help projects use surplus interconnection processes, which enable faster approval for projects that are using excess interconnection capacity at existing generators. States also have control over the interconnection process to connect smaller projects to the distribution grid, which is run by utilities and regulated by the PUC.
Governors can direct state energy offices proactively identify and map surplus interconnection capacity and use state procurement authority, expedited permitting processes, and incentives to encourage clean energy development at those sites. This analysis should also include sites that may have excess interconnection capacity because projects (generators or new large load sources) fell through or shut down after triggering grid upgrades
Legislatures can require PUCs and utilities to consider using sites with underutilized transmission (e.g. sites of peaking gas-fired power plants that operate very infrequently) for clean energy development.
Governors and PUCs can identify zones where load is likely to increase (e.g., due to data center deployment, electrification of ports, and heavy-duty freight trucking) and fast-track distributed interconnection for projects in those areas.
PUCs can require that utilities develop rapid procurements for clean energy resources at sites with surplus interconnection.
In California, AB 1408 would have required state agencies, the state grid operator, and utilities to incorporate surplus interconnection capacity into long-term planning, but it was vetoed by Governor Newsom.
Virginia HB 1065, introduced in the 2026 legislative session, would task the State Corporation Commission with conducting a study of available surplus interconnection potential, and requires the state’s largest utility to procure new capacity via surplus interconnection.
In Indiana, HB 240, proposed in 2026, would require utilities in their integrated resources plan to analyze how much extra interconnection capacity they have and how they can use that existing capacity to bring more generation resources online. And, it would require such analysis to be done before permitting new power plants.
V. Provide Additional Funding for Siting and Permitting (Governors and Legislatures)
Clean energy permitting delays often stem from understaffed or under-resourced agencies struggling with outdated processes and technology. Legislatures can address this by increasing dedicated funding for permitting offices, enabling agencies to hire technical staff, invest in modern permitting platforms, and reduce backlogs. Allocating funding for targeted reforms can substantially shorten approval timelines. Potential examples of such include digital permit tracking systems, programmatic environmental reviews for common project types, and training specialized clean energy reviewers. States can start by digitizing permitting processes and making it easier for projects to submit the required information. States can then collect information from developers on the processes that are causing the most difficulty and provide targeted staffing and resources to address these bottlenecks.
Governors and legislatures can digitalize state permitting processes to improve transparency and interagency workflow management.
Governors and legislatures can institute state-level digital permitting platforms.
Governors and legislatures can create shared staff resources to hire the high-demand technical expertise necessary for permitting and enable those experts to move quickly between agencies in response to need.
State agencies and legislatures can initiate programmatic environmental reviews for clean energy projects subject to state environmental review laws.
Virginia’s Permitting Enhancement and Evaluation Platform (PEEP), now expanded as the Virginia Permit Transparency (VPT) system, was enacted by executive order. The VPT provides a public dashboard to track permits through state processes and workflow management tools for agency staff.
The Washington State Legislature created the Clean Energy Siting and Permitting (CESP) Grants Program, providing roughly $4.85 million to local governments, tribes, and state agencies to hire staff and modernize permitting workflows for solar, wind, and storage projects. By funding technical staff and process improvements, the legislature helped agencies reduce backlogs and provide more predictable permitting timelines for developers.
In 2025, Washington’s Department of Ecology, under direction from the legislature, completed programmatic environmental reviews for clean energy projects to speed permitting application and review of onshore wind, solar, and hydrogen projects in the state.
In Arizona, digitization of several environmental permitting processes helped reduce decision timeframes by 91 percent.
Build Administrative Capacity to Plan for an Affordable & Reliable Grid
Today, the U.S. bulk transmission system faces significant constraints that limit where new clean energy projects can be built and threaten overall grid reliability. 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. 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.
Transmission buildout is thwarted by barriers such as long planning timelines of 7 to 15 years, route identification, environmental review, litigation, supply chain constraints, and fragmented and inadequate planning processes.
While the permitting reforms described elsewhere in the playbook would help, we won’t build the transmission system that we need without improved planning. Building transmission lines requires utilities, developers, customers, and grid operators to work together to determine where a transmission line is needed and appropriately allocate costs across different stakeholders. Without a strong administrative state that can facilitate the process and collect and share all the required information (such as congestion on current lines, hotspots of demand growth, areas with high potential for cheap clean energy, etc.), this process often fails and very rarely results in optimal expansion of the transmission system. Today, states and grid operators lack administrative capacity to conduct this planning process, which is hamstringing our ability to expand the grid.
States can build the capacity to improve planning in order to spur development of transmission lines with the greatest benefit for the public.
Solutions
I. Include Advanced Transmission Technologies in Planning (Legislatures, Governors, and Public Utility Commissions)
Advanced Transmission Technologies (ATTs) can be used to increase grid capacity on current rights-of-way, alleviating congestion and allowing for more efficient energy transfer without building new infrastructure. Utilities being able to increase efficiency and cost effectiveness of their infrastructure is especially important as load growth continues to increase across the country and raise retail electricity bills. For example, installing high-performance conductors increases the amount of electricity that can be transferred over an existing transmission line. By one estimate, reconductoring with these technologies could double transmission capacity on the current grid. Dynamic line ratings allow lines to carry more electricity when weather conditions are good, rather than defaulting to conservative limits on line capacity. Each type of ATT has its own advantages and benefits.
PUCs can dictate standards, enforce rules, conduct studies, and establish new policies that require and incentivize utilities to evaluate and deploy ATTs.
Legislatures can require utilities to include evaluation of ATTs in planning processes, conduct studies on ATT potential and deployment opportunities, and analyze ATTs as potential enhancements to new transmission infrastructure.
Governors can petition ATT rulemakings to the PUC via an executive order, can integrate ATTs into funding criteria for grid or resilience projects and direct economic development agencies to study the economic impacts of ATTs, and convene ATT task forces to set direction and collaborate with educational institutions to develop workforce training programs focused on ATTs installation, operation, and maintenance.
Utah’s SB 191 requires utilities to conduct an alternatives analysis for ATTs in IRPs and also provides language that the Commission can approve cost-recovery for ATTs if it is determined the deployment is cost-effective.
Ohio’s HB 15 requires that utilities summarize ATT evaluation in power siting board certificates and furnish annual 5-year reports on ATT deployment opportunities, including congestion mitigation studies and that the PUC evaluate the potential of ATT deployment including consultation from stakeholders via two public workshops.
Governor Wes Moore’s December 2025 Executive Order Building an Affordable and Reliable Energy Future creates a Transmission Modernization Working Group that makes ATT policy recommendations to the Maryland Energy Administration, which in turn makes formal petitions to the PUC.
Montana House Bill 729, adopted in 2023, enables the state PUC to set cost-effectiveness criteria to allow utilities to deploy advanced transmission conductor technologies and recoup the cost via their ratepayers, similar to investments in new energy generation.
II. Create a New Transmission Planning Authority (Governors and Legislatures)
Lack of coordination between transmission and generation planning creates inefficiencies and prevents smart clean energy development. In deregulated markets—and in 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. While the federal government has authority to set the rules for planning regional and interregional transmission lines, state leaders have tools at their disposal to expand transmission buildout and improve planning.
Legislatures can create transmission planning authorities explicitly authorized to identify transmission corridors that can expand low-cost clean energy generation, lead on the permitting and siting of transmission lines, secure project finance, negotiate and collaborate with other states on interstate transmission plans, provide advice on transmission priorities and planning needs for the state, and enter into public or private partnerships to help with project development. These authorities must be empowered and resourced to collect all the necessary information (e.g., congestion on the existing system, load forecasts, sites of cheap clean energy, etc.) and to attract top talent with expertise in utility planning, project development, and financing.
Governors can create a transmission advisory or coordinating committee and reorganize state agencies, boards, and commissions to serve the purpose of a transmission authority or to create one.
New Mexico passed the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority (RETA) Act in 2007, creating RETA and authorizing it to “plan, license, finance, develop and acquire high-voltage transmission lines and storage projects to help diversify New Mexico’s economy through the development of renewable energy resources.”
In Colorado, SB21-072 created the Colorado Electric Transmission Authority (CETA) to plan and develop transmission lines to increase reliability and deploy more clean energy. CETA has very similar powers to New Mexico’s authority.
III. Require Integrated Transmission and Generation Planning (Governors, Legislatures, and Public Utility Commissions)
Coordinated planning is essential to ensure that transmission is expanded in the right places and that new clean energy investments can flow to areas with sufficient transmission capacity. Around 35 states require their utilities to develop Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs), which act as a roadmap for how the utility will meet future forecasted electricity demand over a specific time period. Although transmission and generation are key inputs for energy supply, they are usually not included in these plans. 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.This shortcoming is a product of both process—regulators and state agencies have not been mandated to link transmission and generation planning—and capacity, where the administrative state lacks the right staff and resources to conduct integrated planning.
Integrating these processes can ensure better coordination between load and generator interconnection, a more holistic understanding and roadmap of current and future grid reliability and supply chain needs, help avoid duplicative investments and ensure costs for upgrades remain reasonable, and can lower the likelihood of stranded or undersized assets. This integrated planning is especially important in places with projected load growth, whether from data center buildout or electrification of buildings, heavy-duty transportation, or factories.
Governors can direct relevant agencies to work with grid operators, PUCs, and utilities to encourage integrated planning.
Legislatures in vertically integrated states can require utilities to conduct IRPs where they don’t already do so and further require generation and transmission planning to be integrated.
PUCs can require utilities to link transmission and generation planning.
Enacted in 2021, Nevada S.B.448 requires an electric utility to amend its most recently filed resource plan to include a plan for certain high-voltage transmission infrastructure construction projects that will be placed into service before 2029.
In 2022, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the California Independent System Operator (California ISO), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the California Energy Commission (CEC) ensured that the planning and implementation of new transmission and other resources were linked, synchronized, and transparent.
IV. Ensure Effective Implementation of FERC Order 1920 (Governors, Legislators, and Public Utility Commissions)
Recent federal actions, such as FERC Order 1920, have the potential to be a useful tool for states if implemented correctly and efficiently. FERC Order 1920 requires long-term, forward-looking, multi-value regional planning. It was designed to improve transparency in local transmission planning, including by conducting local stakeholder meetings. Under this filing, transmission providers must produce long-term, at least 20-year, regional transmission plans at least every five years, which must utilize seven specific categories of forward looking factors, select projects based on different economic and reliability benefits, and consider the use of grid-enhancing technologies.
Governors can take a more active role with PUCs to guide their involvement in regional transmission planning processes established under FERC Order No. 1920.
State legislators can hold hearings with PUCs on how utilities, regional transmission planners, and state officials plan to participate and support regional planning and put the order into action.
In the mid-Atlantic, 69 legislators from 10 states called on PJM to implement FERC Order 1920 without delay due to the benefits of reliable, affordable and clean electricity it will bring to their constituents.
Fix Broken Incentives to Expand Distributed Energy Resources
Misaligned incentives for utilities have limited the types of technologies and solutions in play to meet demand growth and maintain reliability.
Distributed energy and grid flexibility solutions—such as rooftop solar, flexible demand, smart charging for electric vehicles, and distributed storage, as well as alternative transmission technologies—can help meet demand growth faster and cheaper than solely relying on large power plants and bulk transmission upgrades. Distributed energy resources are particularly useful in an era when interconnection delays and economic pressures on rate payers have slowed down efforts to build large-scale transmission projects and generation facilities.
Investor-owned utilities make a profit based on a fixed rate of return on certain expenditures. Utilities typically do not earn a return on distributed energy resources and grid flexibility programs so many utilities have underinvested in these solutions and underutilized them for grid planning.
Largely because of these broken incentives, there’s a lack of capacity to value, procure, and orchestrate these distributed resources, thus limiting their ability to scale as a utility resource. In most states, utilities and regulators do not consider distributed resources in planning processes. Where distributed resources are considered, it is often only through voluntary offerings and limited pilot programs.
Leveraging distributed resource solutions requires state leaders to fix broken incentives and build new government capacity tools to facilitate uptake and utilization of these technologies.
Solutions
I. Incentivize adoption and use of distributed energy resources (Legislatures and Public Utility Commissions)
States can correct misaligned incentives by creating mechanisms to value the benefits of distributed energy resources and incentivize optimal utilization of distributed resources to reduce spending on new generation and grid upgrades.
Legislatures can establish Virtual Power Plant programs—run by utilities, public developers, or partnerships between public developers and utilities—to aggregate distributed energy resources to best serve the grid and compensate these resources accordingly.
Legislatures can incentivize adoption of appliances and customer energy systems, like smart chargers and thermostats, capable of supporting the electricity grid.
Legislatures and PUCs can require utilities to create mechanisms to value the benefits of distributed resources and adjust profit motives through performance-based ratemaking to align utility incentives with expanding distributed resources.
In Colorado, SB24-218 required Xcel Energy to create a new mechanism to compensate customers for distributed energy resources that can benefit the grid.
In New Jersey, Governor Sherill issued an Executive Order directing the PUC to establish a Virtual Power Plant program to aggregate distributed energy resources and use them to benefit the grid.
II. Require procurement of distributed resources (Governors, Legislatures, and Public Utility Commissions)
Utilities generally do not procure distributed resources, focusing instead on procurement and buildout of large-scale generation. Formal procurement of distributed resources can maximize use of the existing grid and get new generation onto the grid fast, which can avoid spending on the distribution grid and save customers money.
Legislatures can set statutory requirements for minimum procurement amounts.
PUCs can require utilities to conduct procurement of distributed clean energy.
Governors can direct PUCs to initiate solicitations for distributed clean energy and set timeframes and minimum procurement amounts that PUCs and utilities must meet.
In Minnesota, Xcel Energy has proposed a Distributed Capacity Procurement of 50-200 MW of distributed energy storage. Under the procurement, the utility would contract with a developer to build small-scale batteries and pay households, businesses, and non-profit organizations to host them.
In Illinois, the Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act required the procurement of 3 GW of storage and created a mechanism to compensate households and businesses for customer-owned storage. The state has a government agency—the Illinois Power Agency—that develops procurement plans and runs competitive procurement processes.
In Maine, the PUC issued a Request for Proposals for solar projects on PFAS-contaminated farm land.
In New Jersey, Governor Sherill directed the PUC to procure an additional 3,000 MW of community solar through the NJ Community Solar Energy Program.
III. Improve interconnection processes for distributed resources (Governors and Public Utility Commissions)
The interconnection process is a major hurdle for new clean energy projects. Utilities run the process to connect projects to the distribution grid, and PUCs regulate this process. Because utilities typically do not profit from distributed generation, they have generally deprioritized improvements to the interconnection process for distributed generation. PUCs have not had the mandate to push utilities on improving the interconnection process for distributed resources, which means capacity has not been channeled toward this goal. State leaders can force utilities to speed up the interconnection queue to get more clean energy on the grid.
Governors can direct PUCs to improve the interconnection process with specific goals (e.g., reduce the application approval time by a specified amount) and penalties for non-compliance.
PUCs can work with utilities to make improvements to the interconnection process to shorten timelines and provide more certainty to developers. PUCs can dedicate staff resources to this issue to ensure rapid improvements to the process.
Colorado Governor Polis in an August 2025 directive tasked state agencies to pursue flexible interconnection and voluntary curtailment for distributed energy and community solar projects; work to facilitate the pre-purchase of project equipment and/or affiliated electric transmission and distribution infrastructure; and to pursue updates to interconnection standards for customer-sited projects, including the use of meter collar adapters and other measures to minimize the cost and time. The Colorado PUC is now working to allow projects to use flexible interconnection agreements—alowing projects to connect to the grid in constrained places if they agree to use technologies that can operate flexibly and avoid straining the grid—which can speed up timelines and reduce interconnection costs.
In New Jersey, Governor Sherrill directed the PUC to take several steps to standardize and speed up interconnection of clean energy projects to the distribution grid.
IV. Improve data and analysis and increase transparency to optimize deployment (Governors, Legislatures, and Public Utility Commissions)
Expanding distributed energy resources in the right places is key to maximizing benefits to the grid and reducing costs for customers. States can help inform strategic adoption through data collection and analysis on the optimal places to deploy customer-owned resources and increase transparency of those data for the public.
Policymakers can analyze opportunities that will make the most impact through avoided costs of updating the grid or building bulk generation. Distributed energy projects are most useful when they minimize constraints on the distribution system and reduce peak demand. Information sharing can be facilitated through either Integration Capacity Analysis or regular Integrated Distribution Planning.
State leaders can also identify potential projects to provide tailored support by engaging developers and site hosts directly through Requests for Information. States can then use this information to direct support to projects. For example, data collection can enable aggregation and standardization of information about siting readiness, interconnection considerations, terms and conditions, and resilience needs which can then be converted into a pre-qualified inventory for procurement or financing.
Governors can direct agencies to engage with developers and other stakeholders to identify barriers to getting distributed projects built and identify solutions to support projects (e.g., connecting host sites with developers and financiers).
Governors and PUCs can improve distribution system planning to better anticipate infrastructure needs and ensure that distribution system planning is synced with grid operator interconnection processes and transmission planning.
PUCs can require utilities to conduct and publish analysis on hosting capacity and locational value of distributed clean energy resources and establish a market for distributed energy resources.
In Massachusetts in 2024, the PUC directed utilities to incorporate “non-wires alternatives”, including distributed energy resources, into system planning. Now, one of the state’s largest utilities has launched an innovative mechanism to quickly procure distributed energy resources that provide the greatest costs reductions and grid benefits.
The New York Build‑Ready program identifies potential host sites and shifts early development duties (i.e., negotiate the initial lease and start the interconnection process) from private developers to the state, which accelerates the move of renewable energy projects from the idea stage to construction.
In New Jersey, Governor Sherill directed the PUC to work with the utility to improve hosting capacity maps for distributed energy resources.
V. Create a Municipality or Sustainable Energy Utility in lieu of an Investor Owned Utility (Legislatures and Local Leaders)
Creating a municipal utility or sustainable energy utility (SEUs) can address bypass misaligned incentives and focus on the technologies and strategies that most benefit the public. These entities differ from traditional investor owned utilities because they are not-for-profit, owned by the communities they serve, and are run by local government. Benefits of this utility model include securing more affordable electric rates for consumers, achieving renewable and clean energy goals more quickly, increasing local control and governance over energy decisions and infrastructure, and contributing to local economic development.
Legislators and local leaders can spearhead the effort of municipalizing by developing a concept and authorizing or establishing a municipal utility. State and local leaders can explore different options, including developing a supplemental utility that procures generation but still uses the private utility’s poles and wires or fully acquiring the private utility and creating a public entity to run the full system.
In 2024, residents of Ann Arbor, Michigan voted to authorize Proposal A: Creation of a Sustainable Energy Utility. The Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU) will be an opt-in, supplemental, community-owned energy utility that provides 100% renewable energy from local solar and battery storage systems.
In 2005, residents of Winter Park, Florida voted to authorize the city’s use of bonds to buy the local distribution facilities from the incumbent utility.
The state of Nebraska receives all of its electricity from publicly owned sources.
Wield Creative Finance Tools to Drive Investment and Reduce Capital Costs
Rollbacks of federal financial support have threatened the viability of many clean energy projects. State and local leaders can help keep projects alive and build new ones with creative financing tools. In some cases, this means taking a more active role in coordinating across public and private sector actors, while in others that means building entirely new administrative capacities to perform more ambitious financial transactions or act as a public developer.
In addition, the grid is facing new challenges that require massive investments. For example, recovery from and preparation for wildfires is inflating energy bills in the west. Gulf states are facing similar costs from hurricanes. States need creative finance tools to ensure that these costs do not continue to raise bills for regular people and small businesses.
Beyond merely acting as a source of capital, governments of every shape and size actively participate at every stage in the project development and planning lifecycle to bring down the total cost of projects. These include lowering financing costs, securing stable or catalytic financing, and providing an avenue to complement other functions the state is undertaking. Local governments can engage in public development functions, including through creative finance tools and engagement with community choice aggregators, rural electric cooperatives, and energy service companies.
Solutions
I. Empower development entities with the legal authority and staffing to pursue high priority projects (Governors, Legislatures, Local Leaders)
State leaders can help ensure that infrastructure authorities, city and county development corporations, or energy departments of a given jurisdiction have the relevant borrowing authority, ownership and operation powers, and partnerships capabilities to support project development.
To be successful, state financing entities or public developers need clarity and certainty on how projects they support can participate in electricity market operations, including whether projects can participate in utility procurement processes or interact with grid operator interconnection processes. State financing also must be coordinated with other grid planning processes.
Given the overlapping interests state and local economic development agencies may hold, this process will demand adequate staffing resources and may require significant stakeholder engagement with private sector actors, government officials, and others.
Legislators can write or amend enabling authorities to explicitly provide state and local entities with the financing, bonding, ownership, and partnership authorities necessary to support, finance, own, and/or operate projects. These authorities should include co-financing and co-development options to blend public and private support. Legislators can also make sure that these authorities are flexible and broad so that state development can be competitive with private developers.
Legislators can allow use of public financing tools to support certain projects. In particular, legislators can expand the bonding authority available to state agencies for use on clean energy projects.
Legislators can establish state and/or utility procurement targets for clean energy, storage, and grid projects and provide direction and clarity for state financing entities to service these procurements.
Governors can use their authority over appointments and interagency coordination to align disparate entities around specific tangible objectives.
Governors can draw on recent public private partnerships in the offshore wind industry to structure offtake, procurement, and other commercial activities with utilities and developers across a range of clean energy projects. State entities can seed virtual power plants, solar, wind, energy storage and other clean power projects that mutually derisk projects for both public and private developers alike.
Governors and legislators can provide expedited permitting and siting processes for publicly sponsored projects.
City and county officials can form project-specific entities or special purpose authorities to make projects financeable.
In New Mexico, the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority (RETA) was established in 2007 and was granted statutory power to exercise eminent domain to acquire property or rights of way for eligible renewable energy projects. This authority has been critical in overcoming fragmented land acquisition barriers.
The Connecticut Green Bank’s Solar Marketplace Assistance Program (Solar MAP) serves as a public developer to finance and build solar projects for K-12 schools, allowing the state to own the assets and sell power back to districts at a discount. While the Green Bank has acted as a public public developer in some form since 2014, projects from Solar MAP are projected to deliver tens of millions of dollars in savings all without incurring any upfront costs for districts.
In Colorado, SB 21-072 in 2021 created the Colorado Electric Transmission Authority as a special-purpose development authority granted power to issue bonds and corridor acquisition tools.
II. Use pooled loan funds like state bond banks to lower borrowing costs and build project pipelines (Governors, Legislatures, and Local Leaders)
Pooled borrowing authorities offer transaction efficiency and credit strength for cities, counties or small utilities paying the fixed costs of a standalone bond issuance by aggregating relatively modest projects into standardized pools. This reduces the issuance and underwriting costs, and can often enhance credit resulting in lower borrowing costs.
Bond banks are valuable in practice because they are a repeatable financing infrastructure that can be improved and expanded over time. Governors offices, county executives, and mayors can direct agencies to build a steady pipeline of eligible projects (using Requests for Information or direct engagement) and then work with relevant financing authorities to standardize project intake, selection, and reporting and make the whole process more repeatable.
Once local governments experience lower borrowing costs and faster execution through a standardized conduit, the model becomes politically sticky and easier to scale, especially when paired with complementary tools like revolving funds or credit enhancement that can serve smaller borrowers and accelerate project turnover.
Legislators in states that lack a bond bank can establish one capable of pooling local loans, issuing bonds, and relending the proceeds. They can further work to standardize project solicitation, underwriting, and closing cycles to ensure the institution creates a regular cadence.
Legislators in states that have a bond bank can expand eligible project types (to include clean energy projects and resilience priorities like building retrofits, microgrids, etc.) and create standard project templates.
Governors can work with state agencies to centralize the origination of bonds for a public developer in their state’s bond bank or otherwise help public developers and other financing agencies exercise their bonding authority.
Governors can make regular use of bond banking authority a priority by directing agencies to run a standing intake process, and appoint or empower relevant state personnel to highlight pooled lending as an innovative solution.
City and county officials can create a rolling inventory of eligible projects, bundle them into multi-jurisdiction project aggregators and engage with existing bond banks on technical assistance for project scoping and diligence.
Vermont’s Bond Bank issues bonds backed by repayments of its loans to individual municipalities, school districts, etc. and maintains a dedicated Municipal Climate Recovery Fund. The bank has the ability to backstop non-payment by municipal or county entities that fail to pay based on state funds allocated to municipal or district borrowers in what is known as an “intercept mechanism.”
Virginia Resource Authority’s Resilient Virginia Revolving Fund was established in 2022. Jointly administered with the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation, the pooled borrowing platform provides financial assistance for flood-mitigation projects across the state.
III. Require energy utilities to supplement portions of their debt or equity with public bonds (Governors, Legislatures, and Local Leaders)
A unique characteristic of public development is that strategic capital deployment has the potential to derisk private investment. Mandating that utilities replace a portion of their high-cost equity with state backed public debt or revenue bonds optimizes the project’s capital stack, thereby reducing the average cost of capital and reducing the total financing costs for capital-intensive grid infrastructure. Investor-owned utilities typically finance large infrastructure projects through a mix of debt and equity with regulators guaranteeing a return on equity (ROE) to attract private investors. Because this ROE is significantly higher than the interest rates on public debt, requiring public bonds to supplement the capital stack can dramatically reduce the long-term costs that are ultimately passed on to ratepayers.
This mechanism leverages the state’s superior credit rating and tax-exempt status to fund the most expensive portions of development while leaving the utility to focus on its core competencies of construction and grid operation. Establishing a public financing facility in this way allows the public sector to act as a sponsor investor for projects of high public interest, such as interregional transmission lines. By providing lower cost debt, states can ensure that critical energy targets are met without placing an undue financial burden on households. This approach creates a more stable investment environment and allocates risks more effectively across public and private stakeholders.
Legislators can mandate investor-owned utilities make use of state-backed revenue bonds or other forms of public debt to finance high-priority capital investments such as grid resilience or interregional transmission.
Legislators can authorize state infrastructure banks or other financing authorities to act as sponsor investors and displace high cost equity of a project’s capital.
Governors can establish dedicated clean energy project finance working groups to examine the full scope of infrastructure financing tools needed to derisk capital investment in transmission, generation, distribution and other electricity assets.
Regulators and state energy offices can lower the costs passed along to ratepayers by integrating public financing facilities directly into RFP processes, allowing bidders to access lower-cost capital.
City and county officials can pass local resolutions advocating for a specific local utility project to be financed via public bond rather than traditional utility equity to ensure the lowest possible rate impact for their residents. A similar strategy can be pursued via written submission or intervention within PUC docket proceedings.
City and county officials can collaborate with state energy offices to identify projects that are ideal candidates for public debt supplements.
California’s 2025 law SB 254 establishes a state public financing facility (the Transmission Infrastructure Accelerator) to replace high-cost utility equity with lower-cost public debt for new transmission projects, directly reducing the ratepayer impact of CAISO’s multi-decade development plans. The law requires utilities to finance billions of dollars of grid hardening investments using bonds instead of utility equity financing, reducing costs for customers and preventing the utility from excessively profiting off of this set of expenditures.
Maine’s Clean Energy Financing Study recommends operationalizing state revenue bond authority and establishing a working group on large clean energy project finance to optimize the capital stack for clean energy and transmission projects.
IV. Develop greater public understanding about the development levers available to public or quasi-public entities (Governors, Legislatures, and Local Leaders)
Some financial functions like loan issuance, co-financing, and non-dilutive debt financing may be well known to state energy offices, green banks, and certain infrastructure authorities. But in general, public financing is hampered by a lack of clarity, information, and standardization of different agencies’ authorities.
States can maximize the impact of public resources by establishing clear financing authorities and responsibilities, providing state authorities with broad powers to flexibly support projects, ensure that public finance is prioritizing the right investments, and providing clear direction on how publicly sponsored projects support utility procurement or grid operator processes. In addition, standardizing state and local financing entities drives down costs by making processes more repeatable and can pave the way for more effective federal support in the future. By surfacing all the capabilities public entities currently have and may wish to develop in the future, policymakers and advocates can align on objectives to strengthen the public developer toolkit and bring clean energy projects closer to fruition.
Governors can inventory borrowing, contracting, and financing authorities and provide clear guidance on roles and responsibilities between agencies.
Governors and legislatures can require reporting on key performance metrics like deal volume, borrower participation, and time-to-close to help encourage institutionalization.
Governors and legislators can publish analysis and information on areas to focus energy project development and create special zones for the installation, procurement, manufacturing, or operation of energy projects of various kinds. These industrial zones could provide access to a variety of benefits: expedited permitting, siting, interconnection, specific public finance facilities, funds for resiliency + operation, and various other coordination benefits from other interested state agencies.
Legislatures can provide agencies with clear financing authorities, direction on what types of projects to support, and a broad set of tools to flexibly support projects.
City and county officials can examine if there are relevant state laws that require additional ordinance/resolution to use. Some tools to activate and then specify rules to create repeatable administrative playbooks.
Houston, Texas had to pass an authorizing city ordinance to activate a state program known as Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE). The program allows commercial and multifamily property owners to finance energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation improvements and has invested over $540 million dollars statewide since its inception in 2016.
Montgomery County, Maryland created a green bank in 2016. In 2022, the county passed a statute to direct 10% of the county’s fuel tax revenue to the Montgomery County Green Bank each year. The green bank completed a new bus depot for EV buses in 2022 co-located with a 6.5 MW microgrid that can run independent of the local utility.
Colorado has an EPC program that lends against a project’s anticipated cost savings to finance building retrofits.
A cohesive strategy to achieve two goals: (1) deploy the clean energy and grid upgrades necessary to make energy affordable and combat climate change and (2) create governments that tangibly improve peoples’ lives.
How DOE can emerge from political upheaval achieve the real-world change needed to address the interlocking crises of energy affordability, U.S. competitiveness, and climate change.
As Congress begins the FY27 appropriations process this month, congress members should turn their eyes towards rebuilding DOE’s programs and strengthening U.S. energy innovation and reindustrialization.
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.