IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v171y2022i1d10.1007_s10584-022-03335-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advancing bipartisan decarbonization policies: lessons from state-level successes and failures

Author

Listed:
  • Renae Marshall

    (University of Colorado Boulder
    Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder
    University of California Santa Barbara)

  • Matthew G. Burgess

    (University of Colorado Boulder
    Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder
    University of Colorado Boulder)

Abstract

U.S. political polarization is at a high point since the Civil War, and is a significant barrier to coordinated national action addressing climate change. To examine where common ground may exist, here we comprehensively review and characterize successes and failures of recent state-level decarbonization legislation, focusing especially on bipartisanship. We analyze 418 major state-government-enacted bills and 450 failed bills from 2015 to 2020, as well as the political contexts in which they were passed or defeated. We use bivariate analyses and regressions to explore correlations and partial correlations between the policy characteristics and political contexts of bills, and their passage or failure, their bipartisanship, and vote shares they received. Key results include (i) nearly one-third of these state-level decarbonization bills were passed by Republican-controlled governments. (ii) Bipartisan or Republican co-sponsors disproportionately passed financial incentives for renewable energy, and legislation that expands consumer or business choices in context of decarbonization goals; Democrat-only co-sponsors disproportionately passed bills that restricted consumer and business choice, such as mandatory Renewable Energy and Efficiency Portfolio Standards (REEPS) and emissions standards. (iii) Bipartisan bills were disproportionately proposed in “divided” states, did not restrict consumer and business choice, had environmental justice components framed economically, and lacked environmental justice components framed either using academic social-justice jargon or non-neutrally with respect to immutable characteristics such as race. (iv) Bills that expand consumer or business choice were disproportionately enacted. Though climate change is a polarized issue, our results provide tangible insights for future bipartisan successes.

Suggested Citation

  • Renae Marshall & Matthew G. Burgess, 2022. "Advancing bipartisan decarbonization policies: lessons from state-level successes and failures," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 1-22, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:171:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-022-03335-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-022-03335-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-022-03335-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-022-03335-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Nathan & Stecula, Dominik, 2020. "Subnational Bipartisanship on Climate Change: Evidence from Surveys of Local and State Policymakers," OSF Preprints znr52, Center for Open Science.
    2. Kyle C. Meng & Ashwin Rode, 2019. "The social cost of lobbying over climate policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(6), pages 472-476, June.
    3. Barbose, Galen & Wiser, Ryan & Heeter, Jenny & Mai, Trieu & Bird, Lori & Bolinger, Mark & Carpenter, Alberta & Heath, Garvin & Keyser, David & Macknick, Jordan & Mills, Andrew & Millstein, Dev, 2016. "A retrospective analysis of benefits and impacts of U.S. renewable portfolio standards," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 645-660.
    4. Rose, Adam & Wei, Dan, 2020. "Impacts of the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program on the economy of California," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grace D. Kroeger & Matthew G. Burgess, 2024. "Electric utility plans are consistent with Renewable Portfolio Standards and Clean Energy Standards in most US states," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 1-18, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yushchenko, Alisa & Patel, Martin Kumar, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs: How to better understand and improve from multiple stakeholder perspectives?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 538-550.
    2. Marek Vochozka & Veronika Machová & Eliška Sedmíková, 2021. "Fixing a payout ratio by dividend policies: a case of the utility sector," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 9(2), pages 416-432, December.
    3. Lim, Taekyoung & Guzman, Tatyana S. & Bowen, William M., 2020. "Rhetoric and Reality: Jobs and the Energy Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    4. Shan Zhou & Douglas S. Noonan, 2019. "Justice Implications of Clean Energy Policies and Programs in the United States: A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, February.
    5. Li, Wei & Lu, Can & Zhang, Yan-Wu, 2019. "Prospective exploration of future renewable portfolio standard schemes in China via a multi-sector CGE model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 45-56.
    6. Hu, Yu & Chi, Yuanying & Zhou, Wenbing & Li, Jialin & Wang, Zhengzao & Yuan, Yongke, 2023. "The interactions between renewable portfolio standards and carbon emission trading in China: An evolutionary game theory perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 271(C).
    7. Mills, Andrew & Wiser, Ryan & Millstein, Dev & Carvallo, Juan Pablo & Gorman, Will & Seel, Joachim & Jeong, Seongeun, 2021. "The impact of wind, solar, and other factors on the decline in wholesale power prices in the United States," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    8. Aotian Song & Lin Lu & Zhizhao Liu & Man Sing Wong, 2016. "A Study of Incentive Policies for Building-Integrated Photovoltaic Technology in Hong Kong," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-21, August.
    9. Jayadev, Gopika & Leibowicz, Benjamin D. & Kutanoglu, Erhan, 2020. "U.S. electricity infrastructure of the future: Generation and transmission pathways through 2050," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    10. Shabbir, Noman & Usman, Muhammad & Jawad, Muhammad & Zafar, Muhammad H. & Iqbal, Muhammad N. & Kütt, Lauri, 2020. "Economic analysis and impact on national grid by domestic photovoltaic system installations in Pakistan," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 509-521.
    11. Rafaty, Ryan & Dolphin, Geoffroy & Pretis, Felix, 2021. "Carbon Pricing and the Elasticity of CO2 Emissions," RFF Working Paper Series 21-33, Resources for the Future.
    12. Nathaly M Rivera & Cristobal Ruiz Tagle, Elisheba Spiller, 2021. "The Health Benefits of Solar Power Generation: Evidence from Chile," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2021_04, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    13. Rountree, Valerie, 2019. "Nevada's experience with the Renewable Portfolio Standard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 279-291.
    14. Srivastav, Sugandha & Rafaty, Ryan, 2021. "Five Worlds of Political Strategy in the Climate Movement," INET Oxford Working Papers 2021-07, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    15. Michaela Makešová & Michaela Valentová, 2021. "The Concept of Multiple Impacts of Renewable Energy Sources: A Critical Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-21, May.
    16. Yulia Alexandrovna Nazarova & Natalya Yuryevna Sopilko & Rimma Shoidorzhievna Bolotova & Natalya Sergeevna Shcherbakova & Vladimir Borisovich Alexeenko, 2017. "Increase of Social Impact Due to the Development of the Renewable Energy Industry in Russia," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 7(5), pages 263-270.
    17. Zhou, Shan & Solomon, Barry D., 2020. "Do renewable portfolio standards in the United States stunt renewable electricity development beyond mandatory targets?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    18. Dongmin Son & Joonrak Kim & Bongju Jeong, 2019. "Optimal Operational Strategy for Power Producers in Korea Considering Renewable Portfolio Standards and Emissions Trading Schemes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, May.
    19. Byeong Gwan Bhang & Gyu Gwang Kim & Hae Lim Cha & David Kwangsoon Kim & Jin Ho Choi & So Young Park & Hyung Keun Ahn, 2018. "Design Methods of Underwater Grounding Electrode Array by Considering Inter-Electrode Interference for Floating PVs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, April.
    20. Jeff Deason & Sean Murphy & Charles A. Goldman, 2021. "Empirical Estimation of the Energy Impacts of Projects Installed through Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing Programs in California," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-23, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:171:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-022-03335-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.