Collective Solar Purchasing Campaigns: Addressing Socioeconomic Barriers to Residential Solar Power

By Rachel Pemberton, Law & Policy Clerk

Solar power has been touted as the future of energy, but its high upfront costs have long been one of the largest barriers to the spread of residential solar energy systems in the United States. Only a decade ago, the cost for installing solar panels on a residential home could easily spiral into the tens of thousands of dollars before tax credits, and energy savings that helped defray those costs would take several years to offset the homeowner’s upfront costs. While solar panels have become more affordable in recent years, they remain a significant financial investment for most Americans.

In addition to hampering the deployment of residential solar power in general, the high upfront cost means that low-income communities—often those who spend the highest portion of their incomes on energy bills—are less likely to be able to afford a solar energy system. This means that those who could most benefit from the long-term cost savings and environmental perks associated with solar power usually are not able to do so. Even for those who care about the environment, making such a large financial investment may simply not be feasible. This is especially true in communities where food insecurity and concerns about paying for healthcare are routine.

Access to solar power and renewable energy in general remains a luxury that is largely afforded to only the most privileged among us, although this is changing. Still, in addition to low-income communities, minority communities are far less likely than white communities to have widespread use of rooftop solar systems. This may bebecause people of color are less likely to know someone who works in the solar industry, or because they simply don’t see many solar panels in their communities.Whatever the cause, even after accounting for differences in income and homeownership, minority communities—those where at least 50% of the population is African American and/or Latino—have 30% - 69% less rooftop solar than communities that are primarily white or have no racial or ethnic majority.

So, how do we address the socioeconomic barriers to solar power for low-income and minority communities (and for the American people in general)?

Collective solar purchasing campaigns offer a promising opportunity to substantially reduce the procurement and installation costs of residential solar energy systems for millions of Americans. These campaigns not only reduce our country’s dependence on fossil fuels, but also save participating homeowners hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in energy bills every year. One of the first of these campaigns arose in Southeast Portland, Oregon, in 2009 as a grassroots effort among homeowners who wanted to confront the financial and logistical barriers associated with residential solar power. Within its first six months, the “Solarize Southeast!” campaign had installed solar systems on 130 homes. While the market price at the time for a single three kilowatt (kW) system was about $27,000, after bulk discounts and state and federal tax credits and incentives, each household paid only $2,000 to $3,000 for their system. The bulk discount alone was responsible for about $9,000 in reduced costs per residence.

Collective solar purchasing campaigns have had similar success across the country. In San Diego, about half of the 192 homes that make up the Broadway Heights neighborhood have rooftop solar systems. Residents in this predominantly African American community have seen their energy bills fall from $200 to $300 per month to $50 or less. In Washington D.C., more than half of the townhomes in the affordable Southern Homes and Gardens cooperative have rooftop solar systems. Another predominantly African American community, residents here have seen reduced energy bills to the tune of less than $20 per month.

Neighborhoods like Broadway Heights and Southern Homes and Gardens illustrate that in addition to overcoming cost barriers, collective solar purchasing campaigns built around community engagement can make access to solar power more attainable for minority communities. In Broadway Heights, with the help of the nonprofit GRID Alternatives, the neighborhood was able to incorporate community volunteerism and job training for local youth of color into their solar campaign. Additionally, at a majority-black and low-income high school in Nashville, Tennessee, clean energy advocates of color have built a solar array to serve as an educational model and engage the community in discussions about residential solar energy systems. Thus, regardless of what “engagement” looks like in a given community, using creative outreach strategies to increase participation in solar purchasing campaigns can help to overcome the racial and ethnic disparities currently associated with solar energy.

With solar panel prices continuing to fall, collective purchasing campaigns, especially when combined with tax credits and other incentives, offer homeowners the opportunity to invest in solar power for a fraction of the cost. Campaigns designed around community engagement are particularly effective at increasing participation and help empower marginalized communities to realize near-energy-independence. The reduced upfront cost of solar also means that homeowners can offset the cost of installing solar power with energy savings in as little as one to two years, and once the system has paid for itself, those homeowners will continue to enjoy savings on their energy bills for decades to come.

COVID-19 AND THE ENERGY SECTOR: EFFECTS AND IMPLICATIONS

By Wanter Uja, Law Clerk

COVID-19, which had not previously been identified in humans, recorded its first outbreak in December 2019 when authorities identified it as the cause for acute respiratory syndrome in Wuhan China. COVID-19, which was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization, is affecting more than the health and safety of the world; it is also putting a severe strain on commerce and industry- including that of the energy sector. For example, due to less demand, the energy sector might experience new coal retirements as fossil fuel generators are running less. The emergence and unprecedented nature of this pandemic has created uncertainties and raised a lot of questions, including how it has affected pollution levels, electricity production, energy efficiency and transition to clean energy. This blogpost gives an overview of some salient issues in the energy sector, brought on by COVID-19.

In the US, utilities are doing their part in supporting customers through this pandemic. Acknowledging that the pandemic has not only affected the health and safety of its customers but also caused significant economic impacts, many power companies like Xcel Energy have decided not to disconnect electricity from its residential customers who are having a hard time paying their bills. In Oregon, Pacific Power has also stated it will temporarily suspend disconnections and late fees for non-payment of bills when due. However, these charges are not going away; these utilities will simply defer their costs for future ratemaking treatment. The question of the financial viability of energy companies after the pandemic, especially renewable energy facilities, is one that cannot be ignored. Research shows that as at March 31^st 2020, solar installers in the US saw up to 30%cancellation or booking postponement. Whether it is because of social distancing, since installation requires face to face contact with customers, or financial uncertainty, it is troubling for renewable energy projects.

According to analysts, COVID-19 has further plagued the energy sector by causing supply chain disruptions. Projects have been stalled indefinitely because major equipment like transformers, batteries and solar modules originate from China. Even though china seems to be past this pandemic and is opening back up, existing tariffs on Chinese solar panels for example will likely contribute to more disruptions. In addition, because there are no viable alternatives, these delays could particularly be difficult for wind developers because it means they could be ineligible for the full value of their production tax credits. One question flowing from the above is, why the supplier base in the US not more diversified? Sad as it is, COVID-19 should be the dark horse that both drives regulatory change and forces the electricity sector to reduce its over dependence on China and create a new supply chain model going forward.

Lastly but by no means the least, the pandemic has caused utilities within the US to halt all retrofit programs and non-essential services, threatening over 2 million jobs and billions in capital created by the energy sector, according the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Businesses are shut down, oil prices are dropping daily and delayed construction of renewable energy projects due to both social distancing and global supply chain disruptions, raises the question of which will be more cost-competitive after the pandemic, fossil fuel or renewable energy. Regardless of the fact that clean energy jobs currently outnumbers those of fossil fuel, it is estimated that about half a million of these jobs will be lost by the end of the second quarter, as energy efficiency, renewable energy generators and clean fuel  companies have been hit he most by this pandemic. Clean energy appears not to be a priority to this Administration and the current Congress, since it was not included in the $2.2-trillion relief package signed by the President just last month. Shouldn’t the government be doing more to save as many jobs as possible and provide the much-needed support to the industry? The funding of clean energy that supports renewable energy growth, investment and other similar initiatives, as was done in the Obama era under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is a possible direction in which governmental efforts should be channeled.

Although this is in no way a sustainable, effective or welcome means of reducing emissions permanently, COVID-19 has contributed greatly to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. With travel restrictions, and mandatory shutdown/stay at home orders in many parts of the globe, pollution levels have plummeted a great deal. New York, the state most hit by the pandemic in the US, has experienced a 50 percent  reduction in carbon monoxide from cars, while an estimated reduction of carbon emissions was seen in China of 25 percentin just four weeks. The curve will eventually flatten, the economy will open back up, things will return to normal and just like that there will be a surge in greenhouse gas emissions. The question is how to achieve sustainable goals for clean energy moving forward, as experts have determined that the pandemic won’t reverse the current high levels of carbon emissions or help the world meet its climate targets. This is made clearer by the EPA’s current pandemic policy, which essentially gives power plant operators an “open license to pollute” if their  environmental violations are tethered to the pandemic.

COVID-19 was unexpected, and most of the world was unprepared for anything of this magnitude. In the unlikely event of a future occurrence such as this, how will the energy sector survive? What are the lessons? What are the necessary next steps? These and many more questions must be answered. One thing is undeniable, governments must work hard to support the continued growth and development of clean energy including backing industry efforts to permanently cut emission levels, if there is to be any hope of first maintaining then lowering current pollution levels, reaching the world climate goals, and minimizing additional severe harm to health and the economy. 

The blogs posted on Charged Debate reflect the writers’ opinions in their individual capacities, and do not necessarily reflect the perspective of the Green Energy Institute, Lewis & Clark Law School, Lewis & Clark College, or the writers’ past, present or future employers or other associations. Any legal information in any blog on Charged Debate is meant purely for general educational purposes, does not provide legal advice and should not be relied upon for any purpose. No representations or warranties, express or implied, are made with respect to any content in any blog posted on Charged Debate.

Let’s Not Wait for Covid-20 to Do the Right Thing

By: Eric Ini

Covid-19 has shut down the social and economic life of the entire world. Stock prices are down, interest rates are down, schools are suspended, and movement across the globe is restricted. Humanity seems helpless. Even the best public health systems, like those in the North of Italy, are failing.

The most widely affected countries are superpowers – along with Italy, the top of the list includes China, the USA, Germany, France, and Spain. But even the biggest powers cannot threaten the microscopic virus with nuclear weapons or discipline it with economic sanctions. Coronavirus knows no super power and respects none.

In China, where the virus was first discovered, manufacturing and services sectors plunged to a record low in February, automobile sales sank a record 80% and exports fell 17.2% in the past two months. Japan and the European Union are likely rushing into a recession. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicted that COVID-19 will lower global GDP growth by one-half of a percentage point for 2020 (from 2.9 to 2.4 percent); Bloomberg Economics warns that full-year GDP growth could fall to zero in a worst-case pandemic scenario.

Coronaviruses (CoV) are generally zoonotic diseases, meaning they are transmitted between animals and humans. They are part of a large family of viruses that cause illness, ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV). The new strain of coronavirus disease (also known as COVID-19) is a strain that was discovered in 2019 and had not been previously identified in humans.

If Covid-19 will finally be confirmed as having originated from a zoonotic disease, it might have originated from forests in China that are not so different from those I grew up next to in Cameroon. In pristine forests, wildlife is often poached and consumed by local communities and Indigenous People as a vital and possibly only source of protein. In the decades that followed my childhood, such forests have become ever more accessible through logging, mining and road building, bringing more people in close contact with such animals as rodents, pangolins, and monkeys. This new reality is exacerbating the first mass extinction since the time of the dinosaurs—and significantly increases the risk of exposing humans to viruses for which they have no immunity, and therefore the risk of pandemics.

If Covid-19 will finally be confirmed as having originated from a zoonotic disease, it will be a painful wake-up call to the high-income countries, which are also responsible for the planet’s highest outputs of pollution, highest-emissions of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and highest rates of deforestation.

Those countries have operated under the assumption that whatever the impacts of climate change caused by their economies, they will have the resources and capabilities to contain the impacts. They even have a new buzzword for it - “climate adaptation”.

For many high-income countries, it has been comfortable to believe that mostly poorer and so-calleddeveloping nations like mine will carry the burden: "we will adapt, and would also support them (people like me, E.I.) with aid payments." Who knows, maybe they will even pledge to plant a trillion trees to offset their emissions? Well, the coronavirus might be the proof that this wishful selfish thinking-- that rich countries can simply open their wallets and make global problems go away, or at least protect their own comfortable quality of life-- simply doesn’t have a chance.

Covid-19, the specific strain of Coronavirus that is causing so much misery now, can and most likely will be ultimately defeated. There are important preventive measures like social distancing and washing hands and the world’s leading scientists are united in finding a vaccine.

However, if Covid-19 comes from the wildlife that was until a few decades ago only to be found far from large population centers, that means the pandemic is actually just a symptom of a larger problem. Deforestation and the use of fossil fuels are drivers of climate change. The impact of climate change could make the relatively brief impacts we can expect from Covid-19—grounding aircraft, crashing the stock markets, crushing small business and suspending social and economic life—seem like minor mishaps. The impacts of climate change will be far more severe, and far longer lasting.

As governments prepare recovery plans, they should take this opportunity not just to stimulate the economy, but to move from the past. We should be forward looking, increasing investments in sectors like renewable energy that could help not just by providing jobs and revenue, but by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the risk of harm from future climate crises.

The coronavirus may end up sparking the systemic shift we need through very tragic circumstances, which countless peaceful marches for the planet did not. Super powers and low-income countries are all in this together. We are all in this together. Let’s move to 100% renewable energy. Let’s move towards protecting our forests, wildlife and biodiversity. Let’s not wait for Covid-20 to do the right thing to ensure a better future for everyone.

Eric Ini received an LLM in Environmental and Natural Resources Law from Lewis & Clark Law School in 2011. He has worked for Greenpeace in the Congo Basin  since 2014, and is currently on sabbatical from his position as Senior Forest Campaigner.

The blogs posted on Charged Debate reflect the writers' opinions in their individual capacities, and do not necessarily reflect the perspective of the Green Energy Institute, Lewis & Clark Law School, Lewis & Clark College, or the writers’ past, present or future employers or other associations. Any information in any blog on Charged Debate is meant purely for general educational purposes, does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon for any purpose. No representations or warranties, express or implied, are made with respect to any content in any blog posted on Charged Debate.

The Answer to Wildlife-Friendly Renewable Energy? Location.

By: Mikalah Singer, Law & Policy Fellow

Despite its potential to impact local ecosystems, renewable energy is the best energy technology to protect wildlife from the effects of climate change now and in the future. Efforts to protect wildlife should focus on a swift transition to renewable energy, but the shift should not come at the expense of vulnerable species and ecosystems. When siting renewable energy facilities like wind or solar farms, developers should therefore select locations that avoid negative impacts to local ecosystems. 

Renewable energy technologies are considered clean sources of energy because they have the ability to decrease the environmental impacts of energy production, produce minimal secondary waste, and are sustainable for current and future social and economic needs. There are a number of renewable energy sources that mitigate human impacts on the climate. The most common renewable energy sources are hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy. Solar energy is produced through photovoltaic cells and by concentrating solar power to produce thermal energy. Wind energy is produced by turbines that harness kinetic energy created by moving air. These renewable sources are available in near-limitless quantities when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. 

Renewable energy facilities have smaller carbon footprints than fossil fuel resources, making them better for wildlife. Carbon-free energy mitigates the impact of humans on climate change by minimizing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower when the global temperature is lower. 

Responsibly developed renewable energy is paramount in the fight against climate change to protect wildlife. While energy development of any type can be damaging to ecosystems, the benefits of renewable energy can outweigh the costs, particularly when wildlife is concerned. Some renewable energy opponents tend to point out the technologies’ negative impacts on wildlife. For example, wind energy is targeted for its impact on wildlife due to its land impacts and physical effects on birds and bats. Critics of solar energy development have concerns about the impact large arrays may have on the vulnerable desert ecosystems in which they are often sited. However, renewable energy developers can minimize these impacts by constructing wildlife-friendly facilities.

Future energy production must be renewable, but also wildlife-friendly. Wildlife-friendly renewable energy includes only renewable energy facilities that have minimal impact on wildlife and the environment. Photovoltaic (PV) solar panels constructed on current structures are a main wildlife-friendly energy source. Other main sources are well-sited and well-monitored PV and wind installations on previously degraded environments. 

Organizations such as Defenders of Wildlife promote the development of wildlife-friendly renewable energy to mitigate the long-term threat posed by climate change while protecting vulnerable habitats and wildlife. These organizations have determined that location is the key component to preventing negative impacts to wildlife. When renewable energy development begins, the location should be determined by not only the available energy resource but also the impacts on natural resources and wildlife. 

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, when renewable energy projects are planned with wildlife and sustainability in mind, they have a much smaller land use footprint than traditional energy sources. When PV installations are built on existing structures or previously degraded land, they can have minimal wildlife-related land use impacts because these sites typically provide little habitat for vulnerable species. Furthermore, even though wind energy projects can require a large amount of land use, the space surrounding the turbines can be used for multiple other purposes, including agriculture. The actual land use of wind farms can be minimal due to the extra land between the turbines.

There are notable factors for consideration when responsibly siting renewable energy installations. These factors include identifying and avoiding important wildlife areas generally and within a project footprint, placing renewable energy facilities close to population centers so fewer transmission infrastructure is needed, and developing renewable energy facilities on previously disturbed ground to protect habitat. These strategies will help produce sustainable, wildlife-friendly, renewable energy projects that will be beneficial for everyone in the fight against climate change.

Give Wind a Break

By Wanter Uja, Law Clerk

Wind energy is generating a lot of controversy because while most parts of a wind turbine can be recycled or at least repurposed on another wind farm, the turbine blades are a different story. Roughly 90% of a wind turbine can be recycled since they are made out of steel, copper and other materials that can be broken down. Made out of resin and fiber glass, turbine blades are built to withstand hurricane winds and cannot be easily recycled; as such, not many options exist to recycle them. The current methods of disposing wind turbine blades include burning them and burying them in landfills, neither of which are necessarily environmentally friendly. Some researchers have determined that over the next 20 years, roughly 720,000 tons of blade material will be disposed of, and this number does not include the new high capacity versions.

Wind turbines are built to last between 20-25 years, but since their efficiency reduces as their mechanical parts—including the blades—degrade, they have to be retired sometimes just 14 years after they are installed. As it stands, about 870 blades have been dumped in a municipal Wyoming landfill. The non-recyclability of these blades seems to run counter to the greenness of wind energy, and therein lies the problem. Given the rapid development of wind energy, it is understandable how this might be worrisome, especially considering the need to switch to non-emitting sources of energy in the coming years.

It is, however, important to look at energy production holistically. First of all, wind turbine blades are landfill-safe and represent only a small fraction of the overall solid waste contained in municipal landfills. Secondly, the company Global Fiber Glass Solutions has started the slow but steady process of breaking down fiber glass into pellets that can be used for construction, sparking the interest of numerous manufacturers. One of those manufacturers is IKEA, which has pledged to use only recycled plastic by 2030. This presents a potential opportunity to recycle used wind turbine blades into new materials and products.

More importantly, regardless of how seemingly environmentally unfriendly the disposal of wind turbine blades is, wind energy cannot and indeed should not be traded for other fossil fuels. It is now settled that if there is to be any chance of slowing down climate change, there must be a shift to renewables by 2035. Production of electricity from coal, for example, causes more harm to the environment than burying turbine blades. Burning coal in coal-fired power plants produces fly ash that is usually disposed of in waterways with a permit or in landfills. Coal contains trace elements of acidic matter like uranium, arsenic and mercury, including other substances that are toxic to human life. Fly ash, which comes from combustion of this coal, is more concentrated and especially dangerous to groundwater. Furthermore, particles from fly ash can become lodged in your lungs and trigger asthma and inflammation, and has been known to even cause death. Fly ash is especially harmful because the chemicals in the ash are able to escape and move through the environment.

Although natural gas produces methane emissions, there is no question that it produces way fewer emissions than coal. However, in addition to the fact that drilling gas wells disturbs vegetation, people, wildlife and sometimes water resources, gas flaring releases carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and many other toxic compounds. Natural gas is wrought with examples of methane release due to shoddy leaking pipes. Methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas, endangers the lives of people when it is released into the atmosphere. Hydraulic fracturing has also been linked to infertility, miscarriages and birth defects.

The world’s leading scientists have agreed that climate change is being hastened by the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, most of which are emitted from electricity production. Mitigation and adaptation plans include a shift to renewable or non-emitting energy resources. Flowing from the above, it is clear that burying wind turbine blades poses far less risk to the environment than the continued use of fossil fuels.

While acknowledging that burying turbine blades in perpetuity is not ideal, these blades as stated are landfill safe, and with the growth and development of wind energy, technology will advance that will enable them to be recycled faster and/or repurposed to some other use.  In the meantime, give wind a break—it is good for our planet.

But Electricity Comes from Coal: Why Electric Cars are Cleaner than Gas-Powered Cars, Regardless of Electricity Sources

By Mikalah Singer, Law & Policy Fellow

With Tesla becoming more of a household name now than when Nikola Tesla was contributing designs to electrical current, the idea of electric cars have been a hot topic. Although many may see switching to electricity from fossil fuel-based vehicles as a way to protect the planet and the future, electric cars have many skeptics. While there are a number of car brands that produce electric vehicles, with more being announced recently, the largest producer of electric vehicles (EVs) is Tesla Motors. Some of Tesla’s critics have questioned whether EVs will actually help the planet, since many are indirectly powered by fossil fuels. EVs are a better choice for the environment because their lifetime carbon emissions are significantly lower than a gas powered vehicle, even though EVs may still be powered by fossil fuels.

Clear from the name, EVs are powered by electricity rather than by petroleum fuels, and therefore get plugged into a wall socket to charge rather than fill-up at a gas station. While on the surface it may seem obvious that EVs do not use as much fossil fuel as traditional, non-electric vehicles, doubters of EVs are quick to point out that almost 64% of electricity in the United States is generated through the burning of fossil fuels. Since most electricity in the United States comes from unclean energy sources like coal and natural gas, some critics and consumers have come to the conclusion that EVs, including solely EV brands like Tesla, are not as clean as they claim to be. Additionally, critics have argued that buying a new car in general will likely produce more carbon than continuing to use an older petrol-fueled vehicle.  

While EV opponents have raised some legitimate concerns regarding the relative carbon footprints of EVs, recent studies have shown that not only are EVs better for the environment when the electricity they consume comes from renewable sources, but they are also more environmentally friendly when using electricity produced by fossil fuels. Researchers have found that EVs powered through the U.S. electric grid produce significantly less carbon emissions over their lifetimes than conventionally fueled vehicles. For example, a two-year study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that EVs generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when carbon emissions from battery manufacturing and disposal are taken into account.

The study by the Union of Concerned Scientists noted that the lifecycles of both EVs and petrol-powered cars begin the same way—raw materials are extracted, refined, transported, and manufactured into various components that are then assembled into the car itself. EVs are powered by lithium ion batteries that are material- and energy-intensive to produce. Due to the battery production, EVs usually have more emissions at the early stage of their lifecycle than conventional vehicles. However, EVs can make up for their high manufacturing emissions over a lifetime of zero emission driving. Short-range models can even offset the extra emissions within six months. Additionally, companies like Tesla are attempting to power their manufacturing plants with renewable energy to further decrease their impact on the environment.

Despite the fact that a majority of U.S. electricity is produced using fossil fuels, EVs still have a much smaller carbon footprint than comparable gasoline-fueled vehicles. Due to the smaller carbon footprint of EVs, Americans who choose to charge and drive EVs produce much fewer global warming pollutants than Americans who choose to drive a new gasoline-powered car. Furthermore, by the end of their lifecycles, EVs produce almost half as much pollutants than an equivalent gas-powered car. While the United States may continue to produce the majority of its electricity from fossil fuel sources, EVs are still going to be cleaner than gas-powered vehicles over their lifecycles as a whole. 

Federal Climate Action: Is Incremental Progress Better Than Nothing?

By Greg Hibbard, Energy Law Fellow

Whitehouse.gov

Since taking back the House in 2018, some Democrats in Congress have taken a strong

stance on climate change. Most are familiar with the efforts of Alexandria Oscar-Cortez and others to initiate the Green New Deal. However, the future of the Green New Deal remains uncertain. At the same time, Democrats have not slowed their efforts to create legislation to address greenhouse gas emissions. While relatively smaller solutions to climate change issues will create some progress, it may affect the ability to eventually move forward with the Green New Deal or a similarly ambitious program.

Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer continues to be among the Democrats leading the charge against climate change. On July 18^th, Representative Blumenauer (D-OR), along with Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), introduced legislation aimed at reducing emissions from the transportation sector at the state and local levels. Both representatives—who are also members of the Safe Climate Caucus—recognize that cleaning up the transportation system will play a significant role in reducing future greenhouse gas emissions because the transportation industry remains the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States.

The proposed legislation, titled the Green Transportation Act, would direct local and state action to reduce transportation emissions. Specifically, the bill would require both cities and states to set emission reduction goals through their long-term highway and public transit planning processes. The bill would institute reporting requirements to the Secretary of Transportation to monitor how greenhouse gas emissions are being accounted for. Unfortunately, however, the bill does not mandate any specific emissions reduction goals for cities and states. Instead, the bill provides that states and municipalities “shall provide for reductions in such emissions.” Therefore, cities and states would have discretion in setting their emissions reduction goals in their transportation plans.

Because the transportation sector is a primary source of greenhouse gas emissions, the Green Transportation Act could play a key role in reducing these emissions nationwide. Due to the discretion provided for setting emissions reduction goals and its limited applicability to states and municipalities, the bill is not a complete answer to reducing transportation emissions to an appropriate level in light of climate change.  However, other notable Democrats have recently introduced legislation pertaining to emissions from the transportation sector.  Earlier this year, Senator and presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D-CA) proposed legislation focused on increasing the use of electric school buses across the nation. In May, Senator Merkley (D-OR) proposed amending the Clean Air Act to create a national zero-emission vehicle standard. Together, these congressional actions could create a longstanding and meaningful impact on the currently carbon-intensive transportation industry. However, even if these actions do have a meaningful impact on transportation emissions, they will only represent a partial solution to a portion of the broader climate problem.

Comprehensive regulatory approaches like the Green New Deal will be necessary to curb climate change to the requisite degree. Such a broad paradigm shift, however, has proven to be politically difficult. In addition to approving the suite of policy reforms called for under the Green New Deal, Congress and federal agencies must then promulgate statutes and rules to effectuate the identified goals. Even if Democrats take both houses of Congress in the next election, it is difficult to anticipate whether and when such a sweeping climate program could take effect.

Representative Blumenauer and Senator Merkley should be commended for their efforts to take action against transportation emissions. However, combating climate change through the Green Transportation Act and bills with similarly narrow scope may present a dangerous dynamic. If legislation addressing climate change is passed incrementally, it could reduce political capital and political will to pursue a more comprehensive approach. For example, with multiple incremental policies in place, some politicians may believe that an inherently expensive, comprehensive approach would no longer be necessary. Even further, the political compromises made to pass those incremental acts may make it more difficult to garner enough support for broader legislation down the road.

With respect to combating climate change, some progress is better than no progress. It remains to be seen whether comprehensive environmental regulation will be easier to achieve following the next election. Either way, Representative Blumenauer, Senator Merkley, and other climate leaders of Congress should be strategic about their responses to climate change to avoid the risk of undercutting Congress’s ability to adopt a comprehensive climate policy framework like the Green New Deal.