Want a Green New Deal? Start With Government Purchases
© 2018 Gregory C. Staple
As Democrats plan for a new majority in the House of Representatives and the Governor’s office in seven additional states, there has been growing talk among environmental groups about a “Green New Deal” to help mitigate America’s current and worsening climate crisis.
Some imagine an ambitious Washington-led investment program for renewable energy, clean transportation and climate adaption. Others favor doubling down on state and municipal actions to reduce global warming emissions given the scant chance of gaining bi-partisan agreement for federal legislation under a Trump Presidency.
So what is to be done? Why not start with greening government procurement? That can provide common ground for both state and federal partisans of a new sustainability-based deal. Public entities at every level — cities, states and federal agencies — are among the largest purchasers of electricity and transportation, as well as construction goods. And new spending decisions must be made day-in and day-out whether fresh programs are adopted or not.
Hence, a concerted effort to shift the current annual energy and materials budgets of government buyers to greener alternatives would have a direct, near-term impact on global warming pollution. It will also save the public billions of dollars as renewables undercut the cost of fossil energy.
In addition, targeted public purchases of low or zero-carbon products can encourage more private sector actions and generate greater scale economies. All of which would accelerate the transition to sustainable energy and green products already underway in local and regional markets.
Put simply, governments can lead by example. Here are two ways this might be done in 2019. I’ll start at the federal level; some suggestions about state buying practices will follow.
The House Should Zero In On Trump’s New Rules For Agency Procurement
To provide context, some history may be helpful. In March 2015, President Obama sought to expand the federal government’s sustainability efforts through a landmark Executive Order 13693. It required most federal agencies to boost their purchases of renewable electricity to 30% by 2025 (up from just 13% in FY 2016).
The Order also directed agencies managing Uncle Sam’s 600,000 vehicles to increase fuel efficiency and reduce harmful tailpipe emissions by 30% against a 2014 baseline. To achieve these targets, agencies were expected to sharply ramp up their use of alternative fuel vehicles, especially electric vehicles (EVs). (These measures built on a prior Executive Order by President George W. Bush that also set alternative fuels targets for the federal fleets as part of a bi-partisan effort to boost America’s energy security. )
Obama acted, in part, because Congress had failed to legislate a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for electric utilities. The Order’s greenhouse gas emission goals for federal fleets were also more aggressive than the national CAFE standards Obama helped negotiate for auto manufacturers.
Fast forward to 2018. After years of disparaging climate science, on May 17th, President Trump issued a far- reaching Executive Order (№13834 ) that expressly revoked Obama’s prior sustainability-oriented buying rules. (Earlier, Trump had also directed federal agencies to revisit the CAFE rules.)
On his watch, Trump said, spending by federal agencies should be guided solely by current statues which, the White House pointed out, have no numeric renewable energy or auto emission targets. Instead, agencies should simply apply existing laws “in a manner that increases efficiency, optimizes performance, eliminates unnecessary use of resources, and protects the environment. “
Trump’s Order then went on, somewhat incongruously, to mandate the appointment of new Chief Sustainability Officers for all federal agencies to advise on agency actions. It also tasked a new White House Office of Sustainability, housed in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to implement the new directive.
So what has happened since? Not much it seems. While a slate of Chief Sustainability Officers has been named (they are all listed here), their impact on agency actions is unclear. Moreover, the CEQ has issued no further guidance on implementing E.O. 13834 and the Council’s new Office of Sustainability appears to lack permanent staff.
But let’s be positive. On paper, Chief Sustainability Officers are a step in the right direction — scores of Fortune 500 companies already have them. And, on its face, there is nothing incompatible about efficiency and sustainability. Indeed, one should buttress the other. Moreover, as noted above, as the price of green energy and sustainable goods continues to fall, carbon-heavy options may be the most costly and least efficient choices for federal agencies.
Beyond that, for some years the nation’s military bases have been actively switching to renewable energy sources in order to save money and improve their resilience in the face of grid failures.
So, heads up House Democrats: if the Department of Defense can do it, let’s see how other federal buyers are doing under Trump’s new spending rules. Use your new committee assignments to take a hard look at each agency’s existing and proposed budgets for environmentally-friendly goods and services, such as renewable electricity, low-carbon transport services and construction goods. And let’s see what our new batch of federal Chief Sustainability Officers are all about.
Is agency spending truly efficient? Does it “optimize performance, eliminate unnecessary use of resources, and protect the environment”? If not, then the House should use the power of its purse strings (i.e., appropriations) to insist that agency practices be reformed and greened-up so that the public gets the sustainability benefits this nation so urgently needs.
Now what about the state and local level?
States and Cities Should Use Public Spending To Back Stretch Green Energy And Transport Goals
In 2019, even as the House grapples with Washington’s buying practices, cities and states are likely to remain the leading test-beds for green new deals.
Indeed, since Trump moved to withdraw the U.S. from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, hundreds of mayors and governors have stepped up their own plans to reduce global warming pollution to help meet the Obama Administration’s climate pledges.
Most of these state and local plans involve expanded commitments to use renewable power for government facilities and to green transportation. With the falling price of wind and solar resources, stretch goals of 50% to100% community-wide renewable (or carbon-free) energy have become increasingly popular, with states like California and Hawaii leading the way alongside cities like Atlanta, Salt Lake City and Washington D.C.
But, as early movers, such as California have learned, running a large, prosperous economy solely on green energy is not easy. Simply buying more and more renewables won’t do the trick. Among other things, it requires large, targeted purchases of energy storage and grid reliability resources (to maintain a standard voltage and frequency for consumers). Hence, complimentary legislation along with a slew of regulatory reforms at both the state and regional level may be essential.
Thus far, however, few municipal or state energy buyers have stepped up to address these looming challenges. In other words, if governments are serious about moving to 50% or more renewables, they will need to start purchasing (or providing strong private-sector incentives for) a grid-smart, forward-looking portfolio of zero-carbon resources. They also will need to actively engage electricity regulators.
That is equally so when it comes to greening transportation options. That’s because a very low or zero carbon electricity grid is one pre-requisite for ratcheting down the tailpipe emissions of millions of new EVs. Otherwise, every EV charging station will simply boost emissions from legacy fossil-fuel generators powering our grids.
To summarize, when it comes to green deals (new or old) they are mostly what they buy. Thus, if we want better deals, we’ll need to get smarter about how our state and local officials are spending our tax dollars, especially when it comes to electricity. By showing that power grids can be reliably operated with high levels of renewables, we are also likely to overcome the doubts of many citizens who may favor more ambitious climate action in principle, but remain skeptical that very low carbon grids are currently practical.
