On June 11, the United States Department of Energy announced $60 million in Recovery Act Funding will go to Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) to support efforts in 20 communities across the country.  Under the competitive grantmaking process, communities were chosen for their innovative approaches to harnessing energy efficiency for both its environmental benefits and for its ability to create much-needed jobs.  Specifically, the funding will go towards developing energy efficiency retrofit efforts and necessary financing programs that can easily deliver energy and cost savings to homeowners, renters, and families.  The grants also support transportation programs that promote alternative transportation options, as well as a host of recycling, clean water, and renewable energy systems efforts.  Support for these programs is another example of how Recovery Act funding is helping to invest in a clean energy future and to give local communities the resources to simultaneously address the pressing environmental and economic issues facing them.

"These projects will stimulate the economy and create jobs on the main streets of local communities across the nation through innovative investments in energy conservation, efficiency and renewable power generation," said Under Secretary of Energy Kristina Johnson. "We already have proven technologies to reduce energy use at home and at work. These projects will provide access to those tools for more Americans, saving money for thousands of families and businesses."

• For a full list of grants and the Department of Energy press release, please click here.
• For a complete description of the EECBG program, please click here.

After Hurricane Katrina, Earth Economics set out to assess the value of restoring the Mississippi River Delta.  The newly released report, "Gaining Ground - Wetlands, Hurricanes and the Economy: The Value of Restoring the Mississippi River Delta," evaluates 11 natural system goods and services.  They include: water supply, water flow regulation, hurricane protection, food production, raw materials production, recreational value, carbon sequestration, atmospheric composition regulation, waste treatment, aesthetic value and habitat value.

Earth Economics proposes these factors be taken into consideration when defining the importance of restoring the delta, its ecology, and its potential for commerce.  Additionally, the report urges restoration of the Mississippi River Delta wetlands that have lost more land area since 1930 -- 2,300 square miles, greater than the size of the state of Delaware -- by using the energy, water and sediment of the Mississippi River to rebuild them.  By providing the economic justification for these large scale restoration projects, this analysis strengthens ongoing planning efforts proposed by the State of Louisiana's Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast and the Multiple Lines of Defense strategy developed by the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation and Surdna grantee the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana.

The study points out the threatening confluence of oil pipelines, flood protection and Mississippi River levees that collectively have degraded the wetlands that protect against hurricanes, climate change, and sinking land. By protecting assuring water supply, buffering climate instability, supporting fisheries and other food and fur stocks, maintaining critical habitat, and providing waste treatment, these natural systems can provide $12 billion to $47 billion in benefits every year.

To view the full report, please click here.

By Robert Pollin, Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts-Amherst

On March 22, the Surdna Foundation convened a small conference of researchers at its New York City headquarters on the topic of "Major Economic Challenges Ahead in Building a Clean-Energy Economy in the United States."  I had the opportunity to work with colleagues at the Surdna Foundation in helping to organize this event.

The aim of the conference was to bring together a wide range of researchers whose work either directly or indirectly addresses the economic challenges of transforming the United States into a clean-energy economy over the next 20-30 years.  The conference participants who have been working explicitly on matters of clean energy included Marilyn Brown of Georgia Tech, Mark Delucchi of UC Davis, Gary Gereffi of Duke, Skip Laitner of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and Robert Repetto of the UN Foundation, as well as my University of Massachusetts colleagues James Heintz and Heidi Garrett-Peltier.  Those who work in other areas related to clean energy included Eileen Appelbaum of Rutgers, who works on labor markets and gender issues; Fred Block of UC Davis, whose recent research is on U.S. industrial policy; Richard Freeman of Harvard, whose research covers a wide span of issues in labor economics; and Chad Stone of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who is interested in linking a clean-energy agenda with measures to reduce poverty.  The other conference participants, offering important perspectives as non-specialists, included John Hawkins and Beth Herz of Surdna and Debbie Zeidenberg of PERI.

The debates over major issues of concern started spontaneously and immediately in the morning, even before the first presentation (my own) began.  The high energy level was maintained non-stop throughout the full day meeting.  At the same time, the discussions were focused, both around strictly methodological issues and broader concerns about policy.

In terms of the policy ideas coming out of the discussion, as well as written comments provided by participants after they had time to reflect on our discussions, I think the main ideas can be summarized as follows:

Stress energy efficiency. Media portraits of a clean-energy agenda concentrate on images of windmills or solar panels.  Obviously, renewable energy sources, in particular wind and solar power, will be major factors in building a clean-energy economy in the U.S.  But investments in energy efficiency will play at least as important a role.  This includes investments in retrofitting our existing building stock; enhancing the efficiency of our electrical grid transmission system, through "smart grid" investments; and dramatically expanding our public transportation systems.

At least in the short-run, there are several major advantages of such investments in energy efficiency relative to renewable energy investments.  These include:  1) The technologies are known and reliable, so that the risks associated with such investments are low; 2) Energy efficiency investments will necessarily take place in all communities, and the spending will be concentrated within those communities as opposed to leaking out of the communities through imports; and 3) These investments are major engines of new job creation, with a wide range of opportunities becoming available in all communities.

Industrial Policies. Fred Block stressed the point that the February 2009 economic stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), incorporated for the first time in the U.S. a broad set of measures to stimulate private investments in clean energy.  But the ARRA is designed only as a two-year program.  Thus, Block asks, "What additional policy steps are required to catalyze the high levels of private investment and spending in clean energy and infrastructure that are needed from 2011 onwards?  How do we assure that the right tax incentives, financing structures, and regulatory rules are in place to assure the levels of "clean investment" needed on both economic and environmental grounds?"

Incorporating Private and Public Funding Sources. The ARRA provided an unprecedented level of federal financial support for a clean-energy investment agenda.  That support was financed through federal deficit spending.  Moving forward, we certainly cannot expect comparable levels of support for clean-energy investments coming from federal deficit spending.   A major policy research question will therefore be how to design an approach to financing that will maximize whatever is likely to be available for this agenda.  For example, Chad Stone suggested that we focus on ways of redirecting the existing levels of federal R&D spending to support a clean-energy agenda.  A broader question is how to create incentives for the private sector to redirect a significant share of their investment funds to clean energy.

Low-Wage Workers and the Poor. If, at least in the short-run, the primary effect of a clean-energy policy agenda is to raise energy prices for low-income households, then this will certainly undermine any long-term prospects for the clean-energy project.  By contrast, my PERI colleagues and I have proposed that there are three basic ways in which a clean-energy investment agenda can benefit low-income people:  1) by creating abundant new job opportunities; 2) by lowering home energy costs through building retrofits; and 3) by significantly lowering transportation costs through major investments in public transit.  Beyond these channels, Chad Stone emphasized that a cash assistance program is still a vital ingredient in a climate and energy program designed to put a price on carbon, since low-income people will disproportionately feel the effects of any increase in fossil fuel prices.

Improving Communications. Several conference participants stressed the central role of improving communication of our research findings and policy recommendations.    This is certainly an area that will require much more effective work, including joint efforts between researchers and those with more expertise in broadly-based communications initiatives.

The overarching purpose of our conference was to explore more deeply the ways in which a clean-energy investment agenda can become a centerpiece of economic policy in the U.S. over the next generation.  Lots of important ideas came out of the conference.  Most importantly, the conference enabled us to see more clearly both how much we have achieved to date and the major challenges that we face moving forward.

In October 2009, the Surdna Foundation adopted a new mission focused on the creation of just and sustainable communities-communities guided by principles of social justice and distinguished by healthy environments, strong local economies, and thriving cultures.  In considering possible areas of focus that would bridge many of these issues, the Foundation decided to explore the potential of a strategy aimed revitalizing America's manufacturing sector.

To further its understanding of what a strategy to support manufacturing could include, Surdna convened a Manufacturing Roundtable in January 2010.  This roundtable was comprised of 17 national experts, including local practitioners, policymakers, academics, and individuals representing the unions and the manufacturing business community.  This white paper provides a summary of key takeaways from the roundtable, including potential actions for the manufacturing field as a whole and the philanthropic community in particular.  To view the paper, please click here.