March 16, 2017 Leave a comment
The Trump Administration released today what is known as the “skinny” budget because of the lack of specifics, and, while this is more of a political statement than a political reality, it is clear that any program remotely related to climate or clean energy is recommended for the chopping block. Climate programs like the Global Climate Change Initiative and Green Climate Fund were expected targets, but also eliminated were popular programs like Department of Energy’s flagship ARPA-e initiative; TIGER grants for transportation innovations; the Low Income Home Energy Assistance and Weatherization Assistance Programs that pay for and reduce energy bills for low-income families; and Energy Star whose labels are ubiquitous at appliance retailers. Dozens more are slated for refocus, reduction or elimination.
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are saying this is “dead on arrival”, but a concern is that such a high number of programs across all sectors—not just climate and clean energy—are eliminated that it will be impossible to save them all and have the President still sign the final appropriations bills. In fact, the President has a great deal of leverage given that Congressional Republicans are eager to push to his desk both the healthcare repeal and tax reform. Congress, not the President, will pay the price for government inaction and shutdown in the 2018 mid-term elections.
So, what should we do as a community of clean energy and technology advocates and innovators? Since the agencies will be fighting against rather than on behalf of their own programs, it will be the job of Congress and all of us outside the government to stand up for our own federal government. Let’s figure out which programs have strong constituencies that Members of Congress are well-aware of and clearly support. We have to assume many of those will be restored. We find programs that industry has benefitted from and continues to engage in—and put those businesses to work being heard. The challenge will be identifying those programs that fall into the gap—that have clear benefits but not constituencies that can realistically fight for them—leaving them more vulnerable to deep cuts. Those are the programs we should be worrying about and that we will need to be more creative about supporting.
It will be critical to tell success stories, to engage everyone from grassroots to grass-tops and top brass, and to make the case that clean technology is good for the economy and for the transition into well-paying jobs in parts of the country that most need them. The private sector can’t do that alone; the federal government brain trust is crucial to enable research, development, and deployment partnerships that spur innovation and scale technology. Let’s work together to make sure the fiscal haircut does not include decapitation—that in the effort to reduce government spending we do not also diminish U.S. global leadership in clean energy.