American policy conflict in the greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and climate change policy

Byrne, John; Hughes, Kristen; Rickerson, Wilson; Kurdgelashvili, Lado

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.02.028

Cited by 166 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We build upon Rabe's (2004) elaboration since (see e.g., Rabe, 2006;PCGCC, 2007;US EPA, 2007;Byrne et al, 2007) this paper adds a quantification component by estimating the cumulative potential impacts of lower-level government actions in the US. In analyzing the potential impacts of state and local climate change mitigation policy, we examine more broadly the advantages and limitations of this decentralized ''bottom-up'' approach in the context of environmental federalism.…”

Section: Literature Review and Research Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

America's bottom-up climate change mitigation policy

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many diverse actions can be taken to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Increasingly in the United States, policy-makers at subnational levels are setting emission targets and implementing plans for sector-specific GHG reductions. In this paper, local, state, and regional policy actions in the US are inventoried and analyzed as to their potential effect on national emissions. The realization of all existing subnational initiatives, as of September 2007, could stabilize US emissions at 2010 levels by the year 2020. The scale of these many decentralized mitigation actions, and their tendency to follow consistent steps, provide a counterpoint to oft-cited drawbacks of decentralized environmental policy. It also indicates that the US has been more committed to climate change mitigation than is generally acknowledged. r

show abstract

Section: Literature Review and Research Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

America's bottom-up climate change mitigation policy

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Framing the issue as a local issue increases citizen involvement in the clean energy discussion because they have the ability to be more directly involved in the local decision-making process than they often do at the federal level (Saha 2009). Furthermore, powerful lobbies frequently have less influence over state and local governments, allowing for greater citizen influence of policy development at the local level (Byrne et al 2007). As social acceptance of clean energy grows in many localities, it may then become easier to implement clean energy policies at the state and national levels.…”

Section: Summary Of Main Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With little action at the national level, state and local governments have led the way in climate change policy in the United States (Byrne et al 2007). These actions have included the promotion and adoption of clean energy technologies.…”

Section: The Status and Influence Of Local Climate Change Mitigation mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clean Energy Policy Analyses: Analysis of the Status and Impact of Clean Energy Policies at the Local Level

Busche

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In addition to these reviewers, the author appreciates the assistance of NREL's Technical Communications Office and would specifically like to thank Mary Lukkonen for providing editing support and Stacy Buchanan for designing the graphics. Of course, any remaining errors are the responsibility of the author. NREL's Clean Energy Policy Analyses (CEPA)The CEPA suite of analyses and activities explore clean energy development and policy implementation at the regional, state, and local levels and disseminate that information to interested stakeholders. The activities gauge the effectiveness of and interactions between clean energy policies, provide insight into regional activities, investigate the interactions between local and state-level policies, and convene leading thought leaders to develop innovative regional, state, and local clean energy policies. The goal is to provide information to decision makers, researchers, and other stakeholders regarding the status of, barriers to, and possibilities for increased energy efficiency and renewable energy development at various levels of governance. For more information, see http://www.nrel.gov/cepa. Local governments can play an important role in developing an environment conducive to clean energy adoption because decentralized policy development allows for policies to be designed to better meet the unique needs of various municipalities. Decentralized policy development also provides an opportunity for greater policy experimentation than policy development does at the federal level alone. Furthermore, local governments are uniquely positioned to frame the clean energy discussion in a way that connects it to the values of local citizens, building support for clean energy technology adoption. Policy development at the local level may also be initially more effective than pursuing policy development at the state or federal levels because it could be easier to address social acceptance issues on a smaller scale. While local governments can play an important role in driving market transformation, policy implementation at both the state and federal level continues to be important. As such, complementary policy development at multiple levels of government is critical to developing a consistent market for clean energy. This report aims to provide an initial overview of the current local clean energy policy landscape to develop a better understanding of the current policy environment and identify areas for further research.State governments are implementing policies to drive market transformation in the clean energy sector through the adoption of market transforming clean energy policies. Between 2008 and 2010, there was a nearly 30% increase in the number of states that had implemented all three renewable energy market transformation policies (renewable portfolio standard, interconnection standards, and net-metering policies) with 28 states having implemented the policies as of February 2010, as shown in Table ES-1 (DSIRE 2010). As of July 2010, 13 states had adopted the most...

show abstract

“…Moreover, the federalist system permits states to enact programmes or regulations that are more stringent than those at the federal level; indeed, California has taken the lead with innovative climate policies as well as renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives (Byrne, Hughes, Rickerson, & Kurdgelashvili, 2007). Such decentralized provision may be economically efficient.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Budgeting for climate change: obstacles and opportunities at the US state level

Gilmore

Clair

2017

Climate Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

State governments in the United States are well placed to identify opportunities for mitigation and the needs for adaptation to climate change. However, the cost of these efforts can have important implications for budgets that already face pressures from diverse areas such as unfunded pensions and growing health care costs. In this work, the current level of spending on climate-related activities at the state level are evaluated and policy recommendations are developed to improve financial management practices as they relate to climate risk. An examination of state budgets reveals that climate mitigation and adaptation activities represent less than 1% of spending in most states. The data collection highlights the obstacles to collecting accurate spending data and the lack of budgetary and accounting procedures in place. More importantly, the difficulty in benchmarking these activities poses challenges for the analysis of state-level policies as well as planning and modelling future climate-related spending. Other policy contexts, including public pensions and infrastructure, can provide guidance on budgetary and accounting tools that may help states prepare for and more efficiently manage climate-related expenditures. Key policy insights. Climate change mitigation and adaptation will require substantial investments across many levels of government on a wide range of activities. . Currently, US states are not clearly demarcating climate expenditures, hindering the identification of climate-related budgetary risks. . In the absence of guidelines, these longer term fiscal outlays may remain chronically underfunded in favour of more near-term spending priorities. . Establishing appropriate financial management and data collection practices is important for more sophisticated cost-effectiveness and policy analyses.ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

American policy conflict in the greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and climate change policy

Cited by 166 publications

References 21 publications

America's bottom-up climate change mitigation policy

America's bottom-up climate change mitigation policy

Clean Energy Policy Analyses: Analysis of the Status and Impact of Clean Energy Policies at the Local Level

Budgeting for climate change: obstacles and opportunities at the US state level

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About