IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/report/rp-21-09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Policy Options to Enable an Equitable Energy Transition

Author

Listed:
  • Raimi, Daniel

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Barone, Aurora
  • Carley, Sanya
  • Foster, David
  • Grubert, Emily
  • Haggerty, Julia
  • Higdon, Jake
  • Kearney, Michael
  • Konisky, David
  • Michael, Jennifer

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Michaud, Gilbert
  • Nabahe, Sade
  • Peluso, Nina
  • Robertson, Molly

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Reames, Tony

Abstract

Daniel Raimi, Resources for the FutureAs the United States undergoes an unprecedented shift away from carbon-intensive energy sources and towards a clean energy future, federal policy will play a major role in supporting workers and regions that are affected, including low-income, rural, and minority communities. The transition to clean energy will have particularly significant implications for people and places where coal, oil, and natural gas serve as a major driver of jobs and economic activity, and where consumers may be especially burdened by changes in the energy system.This report lays out a variety of proposals to help enable an equitable energy transition. It is not intended to be a comprehensive strategy, but instead offers a menu of options that policymakers can choose among to enable this transition while enhancing energy equity and resilience, reducing environmental damages, spurring clean energy innovation, and supporting economic and workforce development in vulnerable communities.To download and read the full report, including references, please click "Download" above.1.1 Key PrinciplesIn the weeks, months, and years ahead, policymakers in the United States and around the world will make decisions about which policies to implement to support an equitable energy transition. The following principles will be essential to guide any successful transition strategy, regardless of the specific policies that are ultimately chosen:There is no silver bullet or one-size-fits-all solution. Because of the required scale and speed of the energy transition, multiple policy types will be needed to adequately support communities affected by a shift away from coal, oil, and natural gas. What’s more, affected communities differ widely in their histories, demographics, geographies, politics, and more. As a result, the federal government will need to use different tools in different contexts: the solutions that make sense for coal mining communities in Appalachia will differ from those in southwestern oil communities, low-income rural communities, environmental justice communities, and others.Two-way engagement with communities and intergovernmental coordination will be critical. Because solutions will vary widely, and because local stakeholders have the best understanding of what their communities need, federal policy must engage early and often with local leaders, businesses, civil society, and other stakeholders. This engagement will need to be a true dialogue, where federal policy is guided by local priorities, and local stakeholders in turn have a clear understanding of federal capabilities. In addition, deep and consistent engagement with local communities will be essential to overcome any distrust that stakeholders may feel toward federal intervention. To accomplish this crucial task, the federal government will need to coordinate across multiple agencies and with local, state, and tribal governments. Multiple options exist for structuring this engagement, but regardless of the mechanisms employed, federal efforts will need to be guided by local priorities, with substantive involvement from local communities, and also be perceived as guided by those priorities.Adaptive management, informed by research, will be needed. It is not possible to anticipate every aspect of how an energy transition will affect different workers and communities in the decades ahead. To effectively address new challenges and to seize new opportunities, policy efforts will need to adapt as new information becomes available. To facilitate this adaptation, federal funding for applied research, including data gathering and socioeconomic analysis, will be a critical input to guide policy changes over time.1.2 Scope of This AnalysisThis analysis recognizes that a transition to clean energy will affect the entire nation (and world) but focuses on four groups for whom the transition will have significant implications:those in communities whose economies have relied heavily on coal, oil, and natural gas as drivers of employment, prosperity, and public revenue;those who face challenges accessing reliable, affordable energy, both today and in the future;those who have faced historical environmental and energy injustices; andthose who, absent policy intervention, may not benefit from the rise of cleaner and more efficient energy technologies.As noted above, this analysis is not intended to be comprehensive. Instead, it offers a menu of options that policymakers may choose from to reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions while supporting an equitable energy transition. The specific proposals were selected by the authors and organized by the editor.For each policy proposal, authors draw from the available evidence to assess policy design and estimate policy outcomes. These outcomes are focused on implementation costs and timeline, along with estimates of benefits, including environmental, employment, economic, and other effects. Where relevant, we reference the relevant sections of US Code to identify which proposals are authorized under current law and which would require new legislative authority. Finally, we reference recently proposed (and in some cases, enacted) legislation that would implement some version of the policy under consideration.1.3 LimitationsThis analysis has several limitations. First—as noted above—it is not intended to be comprehensive. To ensure an equitable energy transition, additional policies will likely be needed, and careful consideration would need to be paid to the timing, sequencing, and interactions of multiple policies.Second, because it is broad in scope, it does not provide granular detail on policy design or implementation in most cases. Effective implementation and administration of the proposals included here would require careful consideration by policymakers in coordination with the relevant executive branch agencies.Third, for some programs, evidence on the likely employment, economic, environmental, or other outcomes is limited. In these cases, we provide directional and qualitative assessments on the policy outcomes, based on the judgments of the authors.Finally, because many of the proposals included here are currently under consideration in Congress and may be the subject of legislation in the weeks ahead, the authors believe it is valuable to share this analysis before it has undergone formal peer review. The document has been reviewed by all the authors, but each proposal is the product of the authors listed and is not necessarily endorsed by all authors.1.4. Programs ExaminedIn the sections that follow, we discuss 35 policy proposals (Table 1) spanning six major categories:energy infrastructure and resilience;environmental remediation;economic development;workforce;manufacturing and innovation; andother topics.Each section is introduced by one or more authors with expertise on the relevant topic, who provide context for how each policy type can play a useful role in supporting an equitable transition to a clean energy future.For brevity’s sake, we use abbreviations for major federal agencies and offices:DOC = Department of CommerceDOE = Department of EnergyDOI = Department of InteriorDOL = Department of LaborEPA = Environmental Protection AgencyFCC = Federal Communications CommissionFERC = Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionGAO = Government Accountability OfficeGSA = General Services AdministrationHUD = Housing and Urban DevelopmentHHS = Health and Human ServicesIRS = Internal Revenue ServiceUSDA = US Department of Agriculture

Suggested Citation

  • Raimi, Daniel & Barone, Aurora & Carley, Sanya & Foster, David & Grubert, Emily & Haggerty, Julia & Higdon, Jake & Kearney, Michael & Konisky, David & Michael, Jennifer & Michaud, Gilbert & Nabahe, Sa, 2021. "Policy Options to Enable an Equitable Energy Transition," RFF Reports 21-09, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:report:rp-21-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/2911/RFF_Report_21-09_Policy_Options_to_Enable_an_Equitable_Energy_Transition.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dennis Guignet, 2013. "What Do Property Values Really Tell Us? A Hedonic Study of Underground Storage Tanks," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 211-226.
    2. William Haden Chomphosy & Sofia Varriano & Luke H. Lefler & Varenya Nallur & Maureen R. McClung & Matthew D. Moran, 2021. "Ecosystem services benefits from the restoration of non-producing US oil and gas lands," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 547-554, June.
    3. Flannery, Brian & Hillman, Jennifer A. & Mares, Jan & Porterfield, Matthew C., 2020. "Framework Proposal for a US Upstream GHG Tax with WTO-Compliant Border Adjustments: 2020 Update," RFF Reports 20-14, Resources for the Future.
    4. James M. Williamson & Hale W. Thurston & Matthew T. Heberling, 2007. "Valuing acid mine drainage remediation in West Virginia: benefit transfer with preference calibration," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(4), pages 271-293, December.
    5. Janet Currie & Michael Greenstone & Enrico Moretti, 2011. "Superfund Cleanups and Infant Health," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 435-441, May.
    6. Gamper-Rabindran, Shanti & Timmins, Christopher, 2013. "Does cleanup of hazardous waste sites raise housing values? Evidence of spatially localized benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 345-360.
    7. Roemer, Kelli & Raimi, Daniel & Glaser, Rebecca, 2021. "Coal Communities in Transition: A Case Study of Colstrip, Montana," RFF Reports 21-01, Resources for the Future.
    8. Trevor Memmott & Sanya Carley & Michelle Graff & David M. Konisky, 2021. "Sociodemographic disparities in energy insecurity among low-income households before and during the COVID-19 pandemic," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 6(2), pages 186-193, February.
    9. Kiel, Katherine & Zabel, Jeffrey, 2001. "Estimating the Economic Benefits of Cleaning Up Superfund Sites: The Case of Woburn, Massachusetts," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2-3), pages 163-184, March-May.
    10. James Williamson & Hale Thurston & Matthew Heberling, 2008. "Valuing acid mine drainage remediation in West Virginia: a hedonic modeling approach," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 42(4), pages 987-999, December.
    11. James Williamson & Hale Thurston & Matthew Heberling, 2007. "Valuing acid mine drainage remediation in West Virginia: benefit transfer with preference calibration," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(4), pages 271-293, December.
    12. Timothy J. Bartik, 2020. "Using Place-Based Jobs Policies to Help Distressed Communities," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(3), pages 99-127, Summer.
    13. Klemick, Heather & Mason, Henry & Sullivan, Karen, 2020. "Superfund cleanups and children’s lead exposure," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    14. Paul Shrivastava & James Kenelly, 2013. "Sustainability and Place-Based Enterprise," Post-Print hal-01514515, HAL.
    15. Adele C. Morris & Noah Kaufman & Siddhi Doshi, 2020. "Revenue at Risk in Coal-Reliant Counties," NBER Chapters, in: Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, volume 2, pages 83-116, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Aviv Nevo & John L. Turner & Jonathan W. Williams, 2016. "Usage‐Based Pricing and Demand for Residential Broadband," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 411-443, March.
    17. Paul Shrivastava & James Kenelly, 2013. "Sustainability and Place-Based Enterprise," Post-Print hal-01515221, HAL.
    18. G. Jason Jolley & Christelle Khalaf & Gilbert Michaud & Austin M. Sandler, 2019. "The economic, fiscal, and workforce impacts of coal‐fired power plant closures in Appalachian Ohio," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 403-422, June.
    19. Spencer Banzhaf & Lala Ma & Christopher Timmins, 2019. "Environmental Justice: The Economics of Race, Place, and Pollution," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 185-208, Winter.
    20. Sanya Carley & David M. Konisky, 2020. "The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 5(8), pages 569-577, August.
    21. Adele Morris & Noah Kaufman & Siddhi Doshi, 2020. "Revenue at Risk in Coal-Reliant Counties," NBER Working Papers 27307, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. David M. Konisky & Sanya Carley, 2021. "What We Can Learn From The Green New Deal About The Importance Of Equity In National Climate Policy," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(3), pages 996-1002, June.
    2. Helmke-Long, Laura & Carley, Sanya & Konisky, David M., 2022. "Municipal government adaptive capacity programs for vulnerable populations during the U.S. energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    3. Best, Rohan & Marrone, Mauricio & Linnenluecke, Martina, 2023. "Meta-analysis of the role of equity dimensions in household solar panel adoption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    4. Klemick, Heather & Mason, Henry & Sullivan, Karen, 2020. "Superfund cleanups and children’s lead exposure," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. Guignet, Dennis & Jenkins, Robin R. & Nolte, Christoph & Belke, James, 2023. "The External Costs of Industrial Chemical Accidents: A Nationwide Property Value Study," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    6. Daniel Raimi & Emily Grubert & Jake Higdon & Gilbert Metcalf & Sophie Pesek & Devyani Singh, 2023. "The Fiscal Implications of the US Transition Away from Fossil Fuels," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(2), pages 295-315.
    7. Gazze, Ludovica, 2021. "The price and allocation effects of targeted mandates: Evidence from lead hazards," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    8. Muñoz, Pablo & Cohen, Boyd, 2017. "Towards a social-ecological understanding of sustainable venturing," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-8.
    9. Howard, Mickey & Böhm, Steffen & Eatherley, Dan, 2022. "Systems resilience and SME multilevel challenges: A place-based conceptualization of the circular economy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 757-768.
    10. Tello, Mario A., 2020. "Conceptualizing social impact: A geographic perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 562-571.
    11. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Liu, Xiangping, 2016. "Disentangling property value impacts of environmental contamination from locally undesirable land uses: Implications for measuring post-cleanup stigmaAuthor-Name: Taylor, Laura O," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 85-98.
    12. Farhana Ferdousi & Nuren Abedin, 2023. "Strategic Human Resources Management for Creating Shared Value in Social Business Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.
    13. Margo P. M. Enthoven & Aleid E. Brouwer, 2020. "Investigating spatial concentration of sustainable restaurants: It is all about good food!," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 64(3), pages 575-594, June.
    14. Hannia Gonzalez-Urango & Enrique Mu, 2025. "Entrepreneurship centers in the development of sustainable innovation: two country perspectives," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-33, December.
    15. Vona, Francesco, "undated". "Skills and human capital for the low-carbon transition in developing and emerging economies," FEEM Working Papers 338778, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    16. Jacob LaRiviere & Matthew McMahon & Justin Roush, 2019. "Second-Best Prioritization of Environmental Cleanups," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 1225-1249, April.
    17. Kumari, Alka & Singh, Manvendra Pratap, 2023. "A journey of social sustainability in organization during MDG & SDG period: A bibliometric analysis," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    18. Moritz A. Drupp & Ulrike Kornek & Jasper N. Meya & Lutz Sager, 2021. "Inequality and the Environment: The Economics of a Two-Headed Hydra," CESifo Working Paper Series 9447, CESifo.
    19. Heleno, Miguel & Sigrin, Benjamin & Popovich, Natalie & Heeter, Jenny & Jain Figueroa, Anjuli & Reiner, Michael & Reames, Tony, 2022. "Optimizing equity in energy policy interventions: A quantitative decision-support framework for energy justice," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 325(C).
    20. Francesco Vona, 2023. "Skills and human capital for the low-carbon transition in developing and emerging economies," Working Papers 2023.19, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rff:report:rp-21-09. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.