The Energy Package Could Be a Popular Step in the Right Direction
By Data for Progress
Late Sunday night, senior lawmakers reached a compromise on a $900 billion coronavirus relief package which will be combined with a $1.4 trillion appropriations bill. The must-pass legislation will stave off a government shutdown and fund many federal programs for the next year while providing Members of Congress and organized interests the opportunity to get a variety of priorities across the finish line, including, among other things, bipartisan clean energy and climate policies.
The 5,500-plus page bill includes the remnants of a long-promised energy deal that has taken several forms throughout the 116th Congress. The most recent of these, the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act (HR. 4447), included major increases in clean energy research and development (R&D), tens of billions of dollars for transportation electrification, new funding for environmental and climate justice programs, the first-ever industrial decarbonization strategy, and more. But it also drew sharp criticism from some progressive and environmental justice groups frustrated by the rushed closed door drafting process as well as provisions for fossil fuels, nuclear, and carbon capture they view as a bridge too far.
While it will take some time before we can truly measure the effectiveness of this legislation — especially its impacts on the energy and industrial sectors, and by extension the climate — a Data for Progress analysis found a number of positive steps towards decarbonization in the bill. (Provided, of course, that policymakers actually appropriate funds to execute on its intent.) Our national polling also shows that these clean energy provisions are popular with voters of both parties — even when they are presented with opposition messaging.
Most of the new end-of-year bills’ climate-relevant provisions are clustered together in a section called the Energy Act of 2020, which, like Data for Progress’ Progressive Climate Innovation Agenda, largely focuses on the Department of Energy (DOE). Toplines include:
Increases in funding authorizations for wind energy R&D, solar R&D, and the successful ARPA-E program
A $1.7 billion reauthorization of the Weatherization Assistance Program, which reduces energy costs and pollution for low-income households by installing efficiency and clean energy technologies
New programs focused on industrial decarbonization, grid-scale energy storage and carbon dioxide removal technologies
The omnibus bill also features a handful of climate wins outside of DOE, such as:
Phase down of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) — short-lived climate “super pollutants” often found in refrigeration equipment — to 15 percent of historic levels by 2036
New pipeline safety rules to monitor and reduce methane emissions
Extension of critical solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, geothermal and energy efficiency tax credits
Extension of the fossil fuel taxes that fund the black lung disability and oil spill liability trust funds
Mass transit funding to help transportation agencies still reeling from the pandemic
However, the bill falls short in a few important ways—especially with regards to labor and environmental justice—an outcome that was largely driven by Senate Republicans:
Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have expressed concerns about inadequate Davis-Bacon provisions to guarantee prevailing wages in the energy portion of the package. For example, the bill extends clean energy tax credits but does not require the Department of Labor to certify that qualifying projects pay Davis-Bacon prevailing wages.
While HR 4447 included titles from Senator Tammy Duckworth and Representative Raul Grijalva’s Environmental Justice for All Act, environmental justice provisions were almost entirely stripped from this bill.
Don’t overlook the ability of President-elect Biden’s Administration to work some justice back into these policies. Biden campaigned on a promise to invest 40% of his Build Back Better plan in the communities most impacted by poverty and pollution. As Arjun Krishnaswami and Jake Higdon argue in our Progressive Climate Innovation Agenda, the Biden Administration could target these investments for disadvantaged communities to meet that target. (And if this doesn’t come naturally, progressives could also put pressure on his Administration to do so.)
While the bill includes substantial increases in authorized funding levels for some programs, funding for others is far too low. For example, the deal keeps funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program flat at $350 million per year for the next five years — only a small increase from today’s budget, despite the fact that the program can only retrofit a fraction of a percent of the eligible homes each year. Another gap is in expanded funding for clean transportation technologies. The bill raises funding for DOE’s transportation offices 9 percent by 2023, even though transportation innovation programs are severely underfunded compared to their share of the climate problem.
Overall, the package is sprawling: It includes provisions to protect the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, condemnation of Belarusian elections, a new Gandhi-King ‘Scholarly Exchange’ — laws that feel, as we read through them, a bit all over the place, leaving one to wonder why some common sense policies like energy storage tax credits were axed while others, like efforts to promote zero-emissions school buses, were curtailed significantly.
Despite these shortcomings, Data for Progress polling shows that voters will broadly support these bipartisan clean energy policies. Over two thirds of likely voters we surveyed think the U.S. should invest more in clean energy technologies rather than fossil fuels, for example. And support for clean energy investment is strongly bipartisan: A majority of Democrats (83 percent), a majority of independents (67 percent), and a plurality of Republicans (46 percent) all agree the U.S. should invest in clean energy innovation over fossil fuels.
Voters have also noted the federal government’s chronic underinvestment in clean energy R&D. A plurality of all likely voters (46 percent), including a majority of Democrats (66 percent) and a plurality of independents (50 percent), think the U.S. has not done enough to support the development of new clean energy technologies. While a majority of Republicans (63 percent) think the U.S. invests an appropriate amount, only a small fraction (10 percent) think the U.S. is investing too much. Given that Republicans actually tend to support further investments in clean energy R&D — it’s one of the few climate policies conservatives currently back — bipartisan support for raising the ceiling on clean energy investments can continue to grow.
Similarly, a majority of voters (63 percent) think the U.S. should prioritize investments in clean energy technologies to modernize our electricity grid and keep energy costs low, even when they are presented an alternative choice of not prioritizing these investments and keeping our current energy mix of fossil fuels. Support for prioritizing clean energy investments is highest among Democrats (81 percent) and independents (65 percent support), though well-over a third of Republicans (38 percent) support this proposal as well.
Finally, a truly bipartisan clean energy innovation and investment bill, like the Energy Act of 2020, earns high levels of support across party lines. Over two thirds (68 percent) of voters will support this bill even when they are shown opposition messaging arguing that such legislation does not go far enough to address climate change. Support for a bipartisan bill is, unsurprisingly, strongly bipartisan: A majority of Democrats (79 percent), independents (68 percent), and Republicans (57 percent) are all in favor.
Regardless of whether you fixate on the bill’s benefits, omissions or drawbacks, there is no doubt that the President-elect will inherit a measurably improved capacity to shape the energy system of the future. The optimists among us might argue that, with new and higher authorizations for the next five years, DOE can move more aggressively to reduce clean energy costs and increase deployment; tackle emissions from challenging sectors, like manufacturing; and improve energy justice. With extended tax credits, clean energy can continue its long march to displace incumbent fossil fuels. And with new restraints on methane and HFCs, we might slow the near-term warming that is fueling devastating western wildfires and intensifying hurricane seasons year after year. Together, these actions can reduce the costs of rapid and equitable decarbonization while growing the constituencies—businesses, organized interests, investors—who stand to benefit from more ambitious climate policy in the future.
Should Republicans retain their majority in 2021, moderate Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, term-limited as Chair of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, is likely to be replaced by a harder line conservative like Wyoming Senator John Barasso. This package may have eked through in the nick of time before the next Congress when prospects for legislation remain uncertain.
While this energy package doesn’t arm us with every tool we need to tackle climate change, it does sharpen the tools that we have. Ultimately, whether these tools amount to a step in the right direction — or a step not quite far enough — will be determined by the policymakers with the power to hone and wield them: namely President-elect Biden and the 117th Congress.
With input from Jake Higdon, Danielle Deiseroth, Jane Flegal, Julian Brave NoiseCat, Arjun Krishnaswami and others
Survey Methodology:
From December 16 to December 17, 2020, Data for Progress conducted a survey of 1,098 likely voters nationally using web panel respondents. The sample was weighted to be representative of likely voters by age, gender, education, race, and voting history. The survey was conducted in English. The margin of error is ±3.0 percentage points.