Search

Though President Donald Trump and President-elect Joe Biden have fierce disagreements in many areas, the energy storage industry is one that they both enthusiastically support. The Trump administration launched the Energy Storage Grand Challenge earlier this year to bolster American leadership in the battery sector, while Biden has featured domestic battery manufacturing as a frequent talking point for how America can address climate change while still focusing on job creation. They both have explicitly identified a secure domestic supply chain as a critical component of an American battery industry.

A path toward scaling up renewables across the U.S.

The energy storage market is expected to grow to $30.4 billion with 52.5 gigawatt hours in installations by 2023. Global electric vehicle (EV) sales are also expected to skyrocket, growing from 2.5 million sold in 2020 to over 31 million by 2030. Tapping into this market opportunity and establishing a domestic supply chain offers the potential to create millions of jobs; develop more American-made products; and make a sustainable future using renewable energy resources more accessible — a key focus in Biden’s climate plan. 

In order to establish a domestic supply chain that can support a strong energy storage sector, the U.S. will need to break free of its dependence on China for both processed battery materials and fully built batteries. As it is, China produces the majority of the world’s batteries while producing an even greater majority of the materials that go in them. To achieve the bipartisan goal of a strong domestic battery industry, the U.S. needs innovation — beyond the standard lithium-ion battery — to build new designs that leverage materials sourced right here in North America. 

U.S. climate ambitions depend on access to scarce materials

Biden has set a goal of a completely decarbonized electrical grid by 2035. California Governor Gavin Newsom has also banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles beyond that date as well. Lithium-ion batteries are critical for both of these ambitions — they power the EVs that replace gas cars, and they store renewable energy when it is abundant for later consumption. Lithium mining in America is practically nonexistent, and the processing of lithium into battery-grade chemicals is similarly limited. China produces most of the world’s battery-grade lithium chemicals in addition to the majority of the world’s batteries.

The recent trade war highlighted risks in the long-term trade relations between the U.S. and China. The pandemic further highlighted the risks that dependence on a global supply chain pose for critical infrastructure. In addition to both of these risks, the rapid increase in demand for batteries has not been met with a similarly rapid investment in mining and processing of raw materials. Most industry analysts expect widespread shortages of critical lithium-ion materials by mid-decade.

New battery technologies can bolster America’s climate ambitions. Lithium-ion batteries were designed for highly portable applications. While this makes them a good fit for cars, it offers little value for the stationary energy storage required by the electrical grid. To empower a domestic battery supply chain, the Biden administration should identify lithium-ion alternatives that are capable of meeting or exceeding performance while using inexpensive and domestically abundant materials. One such promising alternative is the zinc-ion battery.

Creating a scalable, domestically available alternative for energy storage

Zinc is so cheap and abundant that it is used to make pennies. The other material used in zinc-ion is manganese, which is similarly cheap and abundant. Unlike the materials used in lithium-ion batteries, both materials are produced in sufficient abundance in North America to support U.S. climate ambitions. Since they are water-based, zinc-ion batteries offer the additional benefit of complete and total safety. The result is a safe, low-cost, long-lasting lithium-ion alternative that can easily be built with a secure domestic supply chain. As an additional benefit, zinc-ion batteries use the same manufacturing process as lithium-ion, meaning it is a technology that can be rapidly and inexpensively scaled.

Both the current and incoming administrations understand the value of creating a domestic supply chain for energy storage technologies. Not only is the market opportunity significant but scaling up battery production is critical to meet environmental and economic goals in the coming years. Batteries that are built with more domestically abundant materials — like zinc — offer an alternative that supports this shifting supply chain.

Image credit: Science in HD/Unsplash

One of the hardest hit industries during the course of the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic has been the travel and leisure industry. With rolling lockdown orders, quarantine requirements in various parts of the world, and airline services curtailed due to a lack of demand, the travel industry has seen a huge contraction throughout the year. Could an electric RV help boost the travel industry’s prospects?

A dismal time for the travel industry, with the exception of one niche sector

The U.S. Travel Association’s research shows that November concluded with a $40.2 billion reduction in travel spending, representing a 44 percent year-on-year decline, while warning new surges of COVID-19 cases as the winter season progresses will likely force further declines still.

One bright spot in this gray landscape, however, has been a spike in popularity in the use of recreational vehicles (RVs) for domestic travel this year. Business Insider reported during the summer that 20 percent of U.S. residents surveyed had become more interested in RV travel instead of flying, tent camping, taking cruises or spending vacations in rental properties. A way to stay socially distanced but still allowing families to safely head for a change of scenery, RV rentals spiked by an astounding 1,000 percent in May this year.

Potentially good timing, then, for startup electric truck maker Lordstown Motors and Camping World to announce a partnership to electrify the RV space.

An electric RV in the near future?

Initially, the partnership will focus on building an electrified travel trailer to go on sale by 2022. The trailer will feature on-board batteries to power appliances, replacing the typical fossil-fuel generator. To be clear, travel trailers still need to be towed by a truck, so it’s the planned next phase which offers the potential for full electrification.

In the next phase, the two companies eventually intend to produce a fully electric RV which they will designate as a “Class E” electric RV, which should be considerably more energy efficient than ones powered by internal combustion engines.

Traditional diesel RVs are not exactly miserly with fossil fuels and though mileages will vary by class of vehicle, at the low end, RVers typically have to live with single-digit miles per gallon. Consequently, an electric RV alternative is an exciting proposition - providing the partnership builds something which can cover a decent range between charges. Since campgrounds typically have electric hook-up points at each site, though, presumably the existing infrastructure lends itself to recharging vehicle batteries, too?

A fitting partner for Lordstown

In addition to product development, the partnership dovetails nicely with Camping World centers taking on board servicing requirements for Lordstown Motors’ Endurance electric pickup. This arrangement sidesteps the need for Lordstown to build out its own servicing network and down the line, offers the ability for Camping World to serve as retail locations for Lordstown’s vehicles as well as the partnerships’ electrified trailer and RV.

It seems there is a fair amount of detail yet to be filled in with respect to the specifications of the proposed electric RV that will be birthed from this partnership, though it’s expected that Lordstown will adapt its electric pickup platform to accommodate an RV body. But whatever is in the pipeline, in these dismal times, it’s nice to think that COVId-19 might slingshot one of the few buoyant sectors of the leisure industry into a more sustainable future.

Image credit: Rob Hayman/Unsplash

The announcement last week of Michael Regan as President-elect Joe Biden’s pick for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator was historic: he will be the first Black American man to lead the EPA.

Michael Regan rounds out a heavy-hitting climate team

He will also be an integral part of the first-ever Climate Team, made up of some heavy hitters, including Representative Deb Haaland as the first Native American Secretary of Interior, former Governor Jennifer Granholm as the second woman Secretary of Energy, Brenda Mallory as the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy as the National Climate Advisor, and Ali Zaidi as the Deputy National Climate Advisor.

Beyond the Climate Team, Biden is assembling experts across the administration: from former Secretary of State John Kerry as climate envoy to the announcement the first climate official who will sit on the National Security Council.

Michael Regan is well-suited to lead EPA in tackling tough environmental problems. His resume is impressive, but I make that statement based on my own history with him. I worked with Michael at Environmental Defense Fund for eight years and consider him a friend. His prior work at EPA and his current position as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality have been rightly highlighted as providing his qualifications for EPA Administrator.

Beyond those qualifications, however, my time working with him showed me what a clear goal of inclusion and equity can do for helping to achieve climate goals, especially done with determination, intellect and empathy. Michael has all of those qualities in abundance.

Another step toward engaging communities of color

In 2008, the year both Michael and I joined the organization, EDF launched a program called Climate Corps (EDFCC), which embedded MBA students in companies to find energy efficiency savings. It quickly became one of the most successful projects at EDF. To date, its participants have uncovered $1.6 billion in energy savings, equivalent to 2.2 million metric tons of carbon emissions.

Michael was one of the people that saw EDFCC’s potential reach beyond Fortune 500 companies to the public sector and nonprofits, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) other Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) and municipally-owned and cooperative utilities, many of the latter of which are often in rural areas.

As Jim Marston, former Vice President of Clean Energy at EDF - and Michael’s boss and mine - said, “Michael had the foresight to see that nonprofits and public sector institutions didn’t have the budgets that corporate hosts have to pay for fellows, so he developed a successful fundraising plan to enable EDF to pay for the fellows’ salary and training,” and therefore allow participants who would have otherwise been shut out of the process to participate.

He led the team that started this work, and his passion and drive made it a success. In 2009, the public sector work launched, and within five years, half of the country’s top HBCUs had participated in the program, including Michael’s alma mater, North Carolina A&T University. As an energy efficiency specialist, I was engaged with EDFCC from the early days, and as a former public sector employee myself, I fully supported Michael’s efforts to expand it. I led the team that engaged the first Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) - the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College and the University of Texas at El Paso.

Michael was determined from the outset that engagements at HBCUs and MSIs drew their EDFCC fellows from their own student body when possible. He recognized that it gave the fellows skin in the game, but it also raised the profiles of the institutions themselves and other students who might consider careers in climate change.

Further, the public sector work expanded from including only MBA students to include engineering and public policy students. This is an important point: engaging students from different backgrounds and with different expertise enables a system where climate change is addressed from multiple angles. It’s necessary because climate change is multi-faceted problem that has implications across the economy. Relying on traditional solutions by traditional actors isn’t enough.

Why the selection of Michael Regan is important

Michael is tough negotiator—as evidenced by his brokering a multibillion-dollar settlement for coal ash cleanup with Duke Energy while Secretary in North Carolina. But like the good parent that he is, he also knows when to pick his battles. He’s pragmatic and inclusive in every sense of the word. When thinking about how to engage others in climate and energy work, not only did he go to HBCUs and MSIs, he and his team also went to African-American churches, public housing authorities and rural cooperative electric utilities.

He recognized that every person in this country has a stake in solving the climate crisis, even if they don’t yet know it. And he also saw that engaging those who will bear the brunt of the impact of climate change aren’t often at the table when solutions are discussed. His work engaging diverse communities not only brings more perspectives in the conversation, but it also sets an example for students who want to work in climate change but may be better suited to jobs other than climate science. And for students looking for role models in positions of influence who look like them. 

Another thing that profiles of Michael Regan won’t tell you is that every person who worked for him knew their voices were valued. Every colleague will tell you that he is collaborative, whip-smart, and strategic. Every stakeholder will tell you that he is fair and inclusive. And every friend will tell you that you could have no better person to help lead this country and its people and economy to solve a big environmental challenge with compassion and humor. As Marston noted, “Michael is a special person, not just because of his knowledge about climate science and policy, but that he cares about people—those who work for him and those whose lives are affected by his work.” 

Image credit: NCDEQ

U.S. Sens. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) introduced the Trillion Trees and Natural Carbon Storage Act earlier this month. The bipartisan legislation aims to advance the nation’s climate action agenda and the preservation of forests.

An improvement in the Trillion Trees Act

The bill comes 10 months after U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) brought the Trillion Trees Act to the House of Representatives and was met with backlash from environmental groups. In response, the National Parks Conservation Association wrote a letter of opposition on behalf of its millions of members and supporters, and Greenpeace pulled together a petition to National Resources Committee Chairman Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.). A major criticism of the bill was its supposed greenwashing of the logging industry.

This new bill comes a long way from that first attempt. According to the National Audubon Society, the legislation now includes a more sophisticated system of support for ecosystems and sequestering carbon, including caring for old-growth forests, wetlands and grasslands. It relies on a “net carbon stock” metric rather than a tree count, Audubon writes, and establishes a funding mechanism to support reforestation. While Audubon opposed Westerman’s bill, the organization supports this current legislation, while noting that planting must work in coordination with pollution reduction measures, not as a substitute.

“While it’s true that reforms to other sectors like electricity, transportation, and industry will play a critical role in addressing climate change, we must not forget that important gains can be made through natural solutions like climate-smart forestry,” Michael Obeiter, senior director of federal climate strategy at the National Audubon Society, said in a statement. “We thank Senators Braun, Coons, Young, and King for introducing this bill, which can have a tangible and positive impact for both birds and people in the fight against climate change.”

The benefits of this bipartisan climate legislation

This act relates to a worldwide effort to plant more trees. Just this year, the trillion trees platform was launched during the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. The initiative was designed to support global efforts such as the U.N. Decade on Ecosystem Restoration beginning next year, led by the U.N. Environment Program and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.

What measures would this Senate bill instate to support a trillion trees in its own way? Included are an authorized $10 million in support of USDA Forestry Nursery Revival programs to supply seeds and saplings; amendments to international conservation programs to include carbon sequestration and forest management as approved technical assistance; and requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish objectives for increasing the net carbon stock of American ecosystems such as forests, grasslands, wetlands and coastal habitats.

The ecological impetus for replanting? There is a need to replant, not only to restore the forests that burned in wildfires this summer, but also to combat climate change. Research has shown that nature-based solutions such as building up forests and other ecosystems can contribute up to a third of the emissions reductions required to meet Paris Agreement targets by 2030.

The economic impetus for planting extends to the need for a multi-pronged approach to climate action that will bring us to a cleaner and more resilient economy. The costs of inaction are real. Every one degree Celsius increase in average global temperature costs about 1.2 percent in gross domestic product, finds a study published by Science Magazine.

Planting trees, of course, cannot suffice on its own in counteracting climate change

Time, scale, accounting and permanence are some of the challenges to planting solutions that James Temple identifies in his January article in the MIT Technology Review. Time — even common sense must admit that it takes time, decades, for trees to grow to their full carbon sequestering potential. Scale — based on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions the U.S. currently emits, Temple notes the country would have to dedicate an area of land over twice that of Texas to offset those emissions. Accounting — accurately measuring the impacts of reforesting is nearly impossible, and mostly overestimated, even by the United Nations, Temple writes. Permanence — as we saw this year with widespread wildfires, trees are not necessarily a perennial carbon sink, and when a tree burns, all the carbon that was stored returns right back into the atmosphere.

Thus, the importance of not just offsetting emissions, but reducing them — developing new needed technologies for the clean energy sector and implementing them, promoting best practices in agriculture, transforming transportation, reducing waste — there is so much to do, and there is no quick fix.

Image credit: Jason Leem/Unsplash

In the future, the year 2020 will be remembered primarily for COVID-19, the devastating global pandemic that ran rampant for most of the year. But we’ll also recall 2020 as the year the United States finally got serious about social justice, starting with diversity.

The coronavirus pandemic has exposed numerous social inequities in our culture. That, coupled with the social unrest sparked by the senseless killing of George Floyd by a white police officer, has resulted in a strong majority of Americans demanding systemic change throughout society, including the corporate sector. 

Recent Porter Novelli research revealed that 71 percent of Americans believe companies have more responsibility than ever today to address social justice issues. Moreover, 73 percent say companies need to be willing to take risks to address these issues. 

Silence is complicity. Staying quiet on socio-cultural-environmental issues is no longer a viable option for companies. The corporate world must move beyond traditional corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs - which too often have just been glorified public relations efforts – and create actionable and measurable systemic change initiatives.

Lack of diversity remains a large problem

One issue needing attention is the makeup of corporate boards of directors. There is a clear lack of gender and racial diversity on corporate boards of directors. At the 3,000 largest publicly traded companies, underrepresented racial groups make up only 12.5 percent of board seats and women only 21 percent.

Recently, Nasdaq leveraged its influence for a social good. It filed a proposal with the SEC to implement new listing rules, which would require all companies listed on Nasdaq’s U.S. exchange (3249 companies) to publicly disclose transparent diversity statistics regarding their board of directors. In addition, the rules would require listed companies to have – or explain why they don’t have – at least two diverse directors, including one who self-identifies as female and one who self-identifies as either an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+. 

Nasdaq research from the past six months revealed that more than 75 percent of its listed companies currently don’t meet its proposed diversity requirements.

The case for diversity and why it needs to go beyond the public sector

The Nasdaq proposal is great news. But the same diversity initiatives need to be implemented in the private sector. In addition to the proposed rules for companies on its exchange, Nasdaq has also lobbied the SEC to make diversity disclosure a rule for all companies, public and private.

“The ideal outcome would be for the SEC to take a role here,” said Adena Friedman, Nasdaq’s CEO. “They could actually apply it to public and private companies because they oversee the private equity industry as well.”

It’s important to point out that this isn’t simply a diversity initiative. It’s a corporate performance initiative. Numerous studies have shown that companies with diverse boards of directors and executive teams perform better in multiple ways.

Nasdaq’s SEC proposal included an overview of over two dozen studies that found an association between diverse boards and better financial performance and corporate governance.

A 2020 McKinsey report revealed that companies with executive teams in the top quartile of gender diversity were 25 percent more likely to have above-average profitability than companies in the bottom quartile.

Bernile, Bhagwat and Yonker found that greater board diversity correlated with lower stock price volatility and better overall performance. 

FCLTGlobal researched firms on the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI) between 2010 and 2017 and found that the most diverse boards added 3.3 percent to return on invested capital (ROIC) as compared to peers with less diverse boards.

Implementing diversity from top to bottom

It’s also vital that diversity and inclusion initiatives go beyond the boardroom and C-suites, down to entry-level hires, in order to ingrain diversity into the corporate culture. That’s the only way meaningful change will happen in the long-term.

A commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion and justice are pillars at CoPeace, and these pillars support our mission to positively impact society in multiple ways. We believe both social diversity – as in gender, race and ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and age - and professional diversity are important for maximizing the diversity of perspectives in our company and the companies in which we invest.

Companies that fail to act when it comes to diversity and inclusion will suffer a missed opportunity in terms of company growth, innovation and talent retention. 

The events of 2020 have shown that traditional CSR programs aren’t enough to bring about necessary systemic change in corporate America. For companies, both public and private, which claim to be stakeholder-driven and not just shareholder-driven, diversity, equity and inclusion need to be key components of how they systemically conduct business. That must occur from the board level through entry level, if they truly desire to help bring about a more just society.

Image credit: Unsplash

2020 is the year of net zero. We are at a tipping point for companies (and countries) pledging to get to net zero carbon emissions, with commitments doubling in less than a year, as the world increases its focus to avoid irreversible climate change. The growth in net zero pledges has created unprecedented interest in carbon removal strategies – and interest in what viable and scaled markets for carbon might look like.

The Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets consultation document, published last month and chaired by the Institute of International Finance, confirms the need to scale voluntary carbon markets, and highlights the importance of removal/sequestration projects as a core part of these markets.

Yet, as leading NGO Carbon180 noted earlier this month, there are a number of notable challenges facing carbon removals as a solution today. Carbon180 points out that it is very time-consuming to find projects and companies with a proven method to remove – not just avoid emitting – carbon from the atmosphere, and so companies face difficulties finding credible carbon removals among all the carbon offset options. 

Moreover, companies are expected to meaningfully navigate terms such as emission reduction, avoided emissions, carbon sequestering, storage, usage, and removal. It can be overwhelming, and this confusion can lead to paralysis: no action is taken at all. 

Carbon removal vs carbon offsetting to reach net zero

A key issue is that carbon removal is too often confused or combined with carbon offsetting – when in reality, carbon offsetting and carbon removal offer two very different outcomes when it comes to reaching net zero. With offsets, when one metric ton of CO2 is emitted, 1 metric ton of CO2 is avoided elsewhere, which can still lead to a positive increase in emission overall. Through carbon removal, when one metric ton of CO2 is emitted, one metric ton is removed completely from the atmosphere.

This is how we reach net zero. Fundamentally: even if a corporation makes concerted efforts to reduce their own emissions, relying on offsetting to compensate unavoidable emissions does not remove them from the atmosphere.

Organizations such as the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which is developing the first global science-based guidance for companies to set net-zero targets, advises companies to be accountable for their own emission reductions first and neutralize any residual GHG emissions with an equivalent amount of carbon removals.

Indeed, a corporation’s reductions and search for removals really needs to start in parallel in order to minimize the time it takes to reach their net zero moment, when their residual emissions are neutralized with an equivalent amount of carbon removals.

Creating a new carbon market asset class

It’s time for carbon removal to come out from under the shadow of carbon offsetting. Differentiation would lead to a new carbon market asset class, based only on removal, that would grow quickly in liquidity in the carbon markets. The current problem of buyer paralysis due to lack of clarity would be addressed.

Growth in liquidity is imperative because at the moment we are facing a supplier-constrained carbon removal market. All the net zero pledges are raising the pressure to scale up carbon removal, but this industry is still in its infancy. We must boost investment in the form of offtake agreements, a mechanism to channel capital to the suppliers of carbon removal, or carbon ‘transformers’ (as we call them), to enable them to scale faster.

The Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets consultation identifies that at a minimum, 2 gigatons of carbon removal is needed by 2030. Achieving this requires a 15-fold surge of voluntary action by 2030, compared to what occurred in 2019. There’s a clear argument to scale up carbon removal in the carbon markets. It’s time for governments and businesses to recognize that carbon removal, specifically, is the real key to achieving our net zero targets.

Image credit: PxHere

The Biden-Harris transition team has laid out four priorities in their Build Back Better platform for their incoming administration: COVID-19, economic recovery, racial equality and climate change. Arguably, those four priorities are intertwined, and addressing climate change in a just and equitable way will move the needle on all of them. The incoming administration has already picked an economic team with an eye on climate change and climate justice, and the recent cabinet picks for the energy and transportation are the latest team members to have a role in crafting a climate agenda.

An DOE pick that shows a focus on a clean energy future

The Biden-Harris team has tapped Jennifer Granholm (shown above), former Governor of Michigan, to lead the Department of Energy (DOE). Beyond being only the second woman to hold the position since the agency’s inception in 1977, she has been a vocal proponent of transitioning U.S. industry into a clean energy economy. In particular, she has experience with the auto industry and was governor during the auto bailout in 2009. Expertise in and relationships with the auto industry will be important as national priorities will encourage more electric vehicles (EVs) and charging stations. Further, it creates opportunities for job growth in those sectors, paving the way for a potential rejuvenation of Rust Belt economies.

Granholm’s stance on projects such as the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines has won her praise from the various environmental groups. “Her selection would mark progress toward a cabinet capable of delivering on climate and environmental justice,” Greenpeace said in a public statement. “Jennifer Granholm has forcefully spoken out against both the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines and advocated for shifting investment from oil and gas to renewable energy solutions. That’s the kind of leadership the Department of Energy has been sorely missing.”

The largest share of DOE’s budget goes to its nuclear programs, but the department also has jurisdiction over fossil energy, renewable energy, energy efficiency and electricity. The Biden-Harris ticket pledged to reach net-zero emissions in the U.S. by 2050, and that will not be possible without the engagement of all facets of the energy sector. A critical component of the department’s work is in research and development and deployment (RD&D): both in the national laboratories across the country that it manages as well as in the technical assistance and funding it gives to states for a wide range of projects. And while the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan to cut emissions from the electric sector was a policy driven by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), close coordination with DOE is essential to make any successor to that plan work.

For transportation, looking beyond merely automobile emissions

Former presidential candidate and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is set to be the next Secretary of Transportation. As mayor, he advocated for more rail transit and the deployment of EVs and related infrastructure; as a presidential candidate, he spoke often about climate change and infrastructure. He would also be the youngest Biden-Harris cabinet member and the first openly LGBTQ cabinet secretary in history.

During his presidential campaign, Buttigieg's climate action platform included calls for ending subsidies to fossil fuel producers, net-zero emissions for all vehicles - including heavy trucks, ships and aircraft - and setting a price on carbon.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for the nation’s roads, bridges, airports and railways. When we think of emissions, we correctly tend to think of the emissions that come from driving and operating vehicles.

But there is another component that is often left out of the conversation: the emissions related to construction and maintenance. State DOTs receive huge sums from the federal agency through several different mechanisms, and those funds have, in the past, been tied to policies  that have taken priority at the federal level.

For example, in 2008, DOT sponsored research into the climate impacts on transportation infrastructure and the agency subsequently directed states to operationalize climate change considerations in their state highway plans. It is likely that the Biden administration will require climate-related efforts to again be tied to federal funding. 

The Biden-Harris team’s priorities: tying it all together

The largest connection between these two agencies is the future of electric vehicles, with both having a stake in the development and deployment of the technologies and infrastructure - through RD&D funding, technical assistance, and policy directives tied to assistance. But there is another throughway; climate change is a critical component to the industries overseen by both agencies. Transportation and electricity are the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters in the U.S., at 28 and 27 percent, respectively. The EPA will also play a role as that is the agency that sets vehicle emissions standards.

Any attempt to meet a net-zero target will require considerable work by both agencies. Further, with a transition to a clean energy economy, both sectors will need to help train and support workers for that new economy. Moving from fossil fuels and traditional methods of construction and operation to clean energy and sustainable infrastructure jobs will mean further coordination with such agencies as the Department of Labor as well.

Tackling climate change will require the engagement of every aspect of the American economy and government, but that also means opportunities to shift to more efficient, cleaner ways of doing things. With an eye on meeting a net-zero emission goal, DOE and DOT can help build and maintain transportation and energy infrastructure to be more resilient to the climate change effects we already experience while at the same time, use more sustainable means and methods that won’t add to the emission tally. Energy efficiency - in both transportation and electricity - means using less energy (and thus reducing emissions) to perform the same task.

With climate action in mind, these two departments and their secretaries could provide an efficient blueprint for a Biden-Harris climate action plan that could help reduce emissions, build resilience and create new job opportunities.

Image credit of Jennifer Granholm: TechCrunch/Wiki Commons