Our Blog

Climate action lowers bills…and that opens up new opportunities for clean energy leaders. We’re living in a moment of major economic instability. Lawmakers are feeling heat from their constituents who want their leaders to take action. And because clean energy policies provide the answers lawmakers are looking for, new opportunities are possible.  For a long time, winning pro-climate action required lawmakers to take primarily values-based votes. This took decades of advocacy to invest in a “green premium” — the then near-term cost of sustainable energy and products, in return for longer-term, society-wide payoff. It was not easy. It required political courage to stand up to well funded opponents for social benefit. Today, political courage is still required: climate and clean energy remain heavily outspent by anti-climate interests. But there has been a fundamental shift in the landscape. Today, climate action lowers bills. Here’s a staggering fact. Over 50% of American household expenses and over 50% of America’s climate pollution have the same sources: housing, transportation, electricity, and insurance. Even more importantly, they now have shared solutions. We can make progress on both fronts – costs, and climate. The Four Big Bills Platform THE PROBLEM THE SOLUTION Electricity costs are up 29% compared to 2021 all across the country as inefficient fossil fuel plants, rising demand, and global energy risks leave consumers on the hook. As a result, 1 in 4 Americans have foregone food or medicine in the past year in order to pay energy bills. Get prices down by connecting clean energy to the grid. Reform outdated rules that incentivize costly fossil fuels over cheaper renewables. Ensure large energy users like data centers bring their own new clean energy to the grid and pay their fair share. Learn more: Navigating Electricity Demand in Amidst the Climate Crisis Transportation is the #2 household expense in the US, and the #1 cause of pollution. Gas prices are soaring and families are left looking for answers. 20% of Americans now spend over a third of their income on transportation. Increase EV sales. Fund zero-carbon transportation in rural, suburban, and urban areas. Eliminate red tape and modernize to help people get where they need to go. Learn more: Driving Local Economies through Clean Transportation Housing is the #1 household expense in the US. Rent is rising and home ownership is increasingly out of reach. Long commutes are leading to pollution and pain at the pump. Build walkable, transit-accessible communities. Embrace zoning reforms like permitting Accessory Dwelling Units and duplexes while eliminating parking minimums. Learn more: Housing Policy That Solves Climate Change Insurance markets are collapsing under the weight of lax regulation and climate catastrophes – and families are footing the bill. An average American household will spend almost $3000 on home insurance costs in 2026, 17% more than just two years ago. Stabilize markets by integrating climate risk into insurance regulations and aligning incentives for both states and insurance companies to embrace pro-climate investments and transparency. Learn more: Protecting Against Financial Threats from Climate Change The clear alignment between cost-saving investments and climate investments has quickly transformed what is politically possible in red, blue, and purple states. This shift stems from major improvements in clean energy technology. (I worked in solar up until 2019, and I’m still shocked at how effective and cheap battery storage has become.) It’s also a response to the realities of a war in the Middle East and a bruising housing crisis.  For all these reasons and more, clean energy policies now lower families’ bills. This means that lawmakers no longer have to agree with us about the dangers of a warming climate in order to vote for pro-climate bills. They just need to agree with us that getting their constituents’ cost down is a worthwhile goal.   Just look at the “Montana Miracle.”  In 2021, Montana’s Republican legislature adopted a broad sweep of pro-climate housing policies, reducing the required number of parking spots and building multifamily housing. When scaled nationwide, these kinds of policies are estimated to be equivalent to two-thirds of the United States adopting California’s zero-emission vehicle targets. Despite vocal opposition, these policies were ultimately popular. In 2025, Montana lawmakers kept going and passed another batch of similar bills. If you go from Red Montana to Blue Illinois or Purple Virginia, you can see the same thing happening on electricity. When Governor Pritzker signed the Clean and Reliable Grid Act (CRGA) into law, Illinois adopted the infrastructure that would make their previous 100% clean electricity goal (CEJA) possible. The result for Illinois families? An average savings of $130.00/year, totaling to an estimated $13.4 billion over the next 2 decades. A similar transition is happening as we speak in Virginia, where local leaders are passing laws that implement the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA)’s 100% clean electricity standard, making solar siting easier and piloting virtual power plants.  At CCE, we find outsized opportunities to drive forward climate solutions. In this moment, the answer is clear: we can reduce pollution today by helping solve the most pressing economic challenges of our day. We have creative solutions. We have an economic advantage to press. Let’s go. Read the Full Platform

Americans often cite economic concerns as a top political issue, implying support for investments and programs that economically benefit themselves and their local communities. However, the politics of climate change complicate this idea: while Republican voters generally oppose climate investments and Democrats support them, our analysis finds that Republican voters actually live in communities that stand to benefit the most from these investments. In this report, Climate Cabinet Education’s data team investigated this question by looking at the political lean of all state legislative districts compared to their potential for renewable energy. Additionally, we looked at the number of existing renewable energy infrastructure projects—specifically solar and wind energy— across the U.S. Here’s what we found: Overwhelmingly, rural districts across the middle of the country have the most solar and wind energy potential, as shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. This is expected as rural areas have more land mass, thus greater sun radiation and area for wind. Rural districts in the middle of the country are also a key base of the Republican Party, as indicated by the average Republican-leaning partisan voter index (PVI) of >R+0 across midwestern statewide district averages from Illinois to Kansas to Ohio. Despite this, members of the Republican Party have typically opposed investment into renewable energy. Just last year, Republicans voted against the Inflation Reduction Act that provided millions of federal dollars for climate projects in their own districts. Indeed, these rural middle-America districts are by and large represented by Republicans in state government. So the very districts with the most to gain from clean energy infrastructure projects are the districts least likely to have representatives that support them politically. In the country with the highest energy consumption per capita in the world, we need to be doing everything we can to support clean energy development, not hinder it. In other words, the districts that tend to vote for politicians who most oppose climate investments are actually the very districts that stand to benefit the most from climate investments, and would be the backbone of America’s clean energy transformation. Methodology To analyze this, we compared the renewable energy potential of every U.S. legislative district with the districts’ historical political lean. To assess renewable energy potential, we gathered data on global horizontal irradiance (GHI) and wind speed 100 meters off the ground by geography to measure solar and wind power potential, respectively. We aggregated this to each state house district to calculate the net potential solar and wind energy per district. We also gathered data on existing solar and wind power projects across the U.S. This was then compared to each district’s partisanship. Taken together, we can see the clean energy potential, existing clean energy projects, and voter partisanship for every state house district. Figure 4 shows the partisanship of every state house district with a high wind and solar energy potential, overlaid by the existing solar and wind energy projects. We see that, for example, Texas has relatively few clean energy projects despite many districts having extremely high levels of solar and wind energy potential. Most of these districts have Republican-leaning partisanship scores. Solar Energy Taking a look into solar energy, it is particularly in the southwest—Arizona, New Mexico, Southern California—that solar energy potential is at its highest, as seen in Figures 5 and 6. These states have a mix of Democratic and Republican political leanings, but the majority lean Republican. There are many solar projects in these regions, particularly in California. However, there is a lot of potential for growth in solar energy projects, particularly in rural districts. It’s medium-sized districts outside of central urban centers that have the most solar energy projects right now, but the most sparse districts comparatively lack solar projects. Northern Arizona, Southern Florida, rural Nevada, and Western Texas stick out as places with significant untapped solar potential. Further, we found these southwestern regions have far fewer solar energy projects than states with Democratic PVI leanings like Minnesota, Massachusetts, and New Jersey despite these northern states having significantly less solar potential. Wind Energy For wind energy, there is the most energy potential in states across the middle of the country, particularly in the Great Plains and extending into Texas, as shown in Figures 7 and 8. Like solar energy, the larger the surface area of the district, the more wind potential there exists. We specifically measured wind energy potential and projects at 100 meters off the ground (standard height for common US wind turbines). These high-wind-potential states did have more wind turbines, particularly Iowa, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Texas. However, some states with very high wind energy potential had a comparative lack of turbines, namely North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Nebraska, Michigan, Wyoming, and Montana. In particular, rural districts in these states have the most untapped potential. Every one of these states have a Republican trifecta in state government and a majority of their districts have a Republican partisan lean. Minnesota is an interesting example, as it has passed policies to increase clean energy in the state, but inefficiently so. There are relatively more solar than wind projects in Minnesota despite having much more wind potential than solar potential, as shown by comparing Figures 5 and 8. Without a thorough look into Minnesotan energy markets, it appears that Minnesota could optimize their energy markets by shifting future investment into more wind energy projects. Minnesota is a great example of policy shaping renewable energy development, not energy potential. In other words, it’s public policy, not energy statistics, that drives clean energy projects. So it’s crucial we have representatives—particularly from rural middle America districts—that will vote for clean energy investments to tap into the clean energy potential that exists there, regardless of political party. Conclusion The major finding here is that while rural, western and southwestern districts with Republican PVI have the most economic and energy potential from clean energy projects, they overwhelmingly do not tap into that potential, as shown by Figures 9 and 4). Climate legislation and infrastructure development

After years of building the groundwork and proving our model, our work this year reached an inflection point.

Growing up in Houston, Texas – a city commonly referred to as the “Oil and Gas Capital of the World” – I always thought there was no future for my city other than fossil fuels. Like many Houstonians, my dad worked in oil and gas for almost two decades, and leaving my house I was often reminded to take my inhaler due to the fumes rising above the skyline. In 2017, I watched as my city was devastated by Hurricane Harvey, and I spent the first two weeks of 8th grade mucking out the ruined houses of my friends and neighbors instead of going to school.  Recently, something else has happened in my home state. Renewable energy generation has boomed across Texas, to the point that it is the top wind energy-producing state in the country and is second only to California in solar production. The City of Houston also passed its Climate Action Plan in 2020, and for the first time, I wondered if maybe a different, cleaner future was possible for my home. This year’s legislative session at the Texas Capital proved otherwise. Clean energy investments – which mean more jobs and less pollution – are becoming more common by the day. Because of this, the fossil fuel industry and its Republican allies at the Capital have done their best to thwart this growth. Anti-climate politicians, especially state legislators, have been attacking clean energy development through the passage of preemption laws.  Preemption is ultimately a fight about which level of government gets to make certain decisions. Preemption laws allow a higher level of government, like a state legislature, to revoke or limit the governing power of a lower level of government, like a City Council. While these laws could be used to incentivize the development of clean energy, we are seeing a pattern of Republican-controlled state legislatures weaponizing preemption to restrict local climate leadership and even civic engagement. Preemption laws such as these do not solve existing problems, but instead, create new problems by stopping or restricting local governments from passing policies that would serve their communities.  A great example of this strategy can be seen in Texas House Bill 17, a piece of legislation passed by the Texas Legislature and signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on May 18, 2021. This law restricts the ability of counties, cities, and towns to regulate utility services and infrastructure based on the energy source. This means that local governments working on building electrification, for example, cannot transition away from natural gas appliances and heating.  Preemption laws haven’t just been focused on energy, though. This year, the Texas legislature has proved that any policy and debate-of-the-day can be on the table. At a time when the state’s electric grid is unstable, public schools are critically underfunded, roads are deteriorating, water supply is unreliable, and gun violence is making national headlines, Texas lawmakers focused on ripping apart voting rights. Senate Bill 1933, signed by Abbott on June 18, 2023, allows the secretary of state (an Abbott appointee) to take over elections in Harris County if they prove to have “good cause to believe that a recurring pattern of problems with election administration or voter registration exists in the county.” The bill originally applied to all Texas counties but was amended to only apply to those with a population of over four million–a qualification that applies only to Harris County. This is a clear attempt to target the largest county in Texas (third largest county in the US) and the county that contains the most diverse city in the country. Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo criticized the bill, describing it as  “a shameless power grab and dangerous precedent.”  It’s easy to see how preemption legislation can be weaponized to limit voting rights and our ability to fight climate change. In fact, climate and voting rights go hand in hand. SB1933 will likely decrease voter turnout and increase voter apathy. This gives anti-climate politicians the advantage and jeopardizes climate action should climate champions lose at the ballot box. Because of this, climate activists are the first to make a stand on protecting voting rights. In fact, when President Trump was attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, it was climate activists who led the creation of the Houston Election Defenders Coalition to raise awareness about what was happening and lobby our elected officials to protect our voting rights.  Texas is far from the only state to target localities through preemption laws. Florida’s state government has practically made preemption its favorite strategy. In an effort to slow the progress of clean energy, the Florida Legislature passed HB839 in 2021, a bill preventing local governments from banning gas stations (which is not and has never been an issue in Florida). The law also prevents local governments from requiring electric vehicle charging stations by fuel retailers, complicating the electrification of the transportation sector. In addition to this bill, the legislature passed HB919, which, similar to HB17 in Texas, blocks municipalities from banning natural gas in new buildings. This inhibits the ability of localities to participate in the energy transition and even opens up the possibility of lawsuits if they try to move away from using fracked gas.  Preemption bills such as these have become increasingly common in Republican state legislatures. They are part of an effort to increase state oversight and counteract progressive laws passed in large cities. In their most extreme form, preemption bills remove the ability for cities to govern themselves. When HB2127 goes into effect on September 1st, despite being advertised as “relief”, municipalities in Texas will be prohibited from passing city ordinances or regulations that conflict with existing state policy. This means that cities can’t be a voice for marginalized communities, provide workplace protections for labor, or even revitalize underutilized city lots. It is easy to see how bills like these threaten our democracy and have the power to seriously impact the energy transition.  Harris County approved its Climate

By Sophie Donnellan It is near impossible to avoid the climate crisis in our daily lives. Phrases like “the world is going to end” and “climate apocalypse” get tossed around on social media, in the news, and even in everyday conversation with friends and family. As a young person, being surrounded by this rhetoric can lead to feelings of climate anxiety and uncertainty toward my future. I simply cannot imagine what my life will look like in 20 or 30 years when our world may surpass projected tipping points of climate disaster. Too many of my friends have told me they also feel helpless toward such a large problem. This leads me to think about what meaningful action I can take to fight for our future. One way in which I am empowered to make a difference is through voting. As a new voter, climate change is a large priority for me in local and state elections, and I am not alone. In fact, climate is increasingly becoming a top issue for young voters across the nation. But what happens when democracy disappears? In many U.S. states, the right to vote is becoming less and less accessible, thanks to a recent surge of voter ID requirements and limits on mail-in ballots. Even worse, these anti-voting laws often disproportionately target communities of color – the same communities that systemically experience extreme heat and less livable conditions in America’s cities. In the 2021-2022 legislative session across 26 states, the Climate Cabinet National Bill List found that 30 state-level bills introduced and recognized by lawmakers restricted ballots and voter access. This includes states like Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan – three so-called “battleground” states for state and federal elections. Let’s take a deeper dive into some of the recent legislation that was introduced in these three states. Arizona Following the 2020 presidential election which saw Democrats win statewide for the first time since 1992, the Arizona Legislature introduced several bills to curtail voting rights in the state. To begin, Senate Bill 1003 (passed in 2021) requires election officials to resolve mail ballots with missing signatures – otherwise known as “ballot curing” – by Election Day, discarding the previous five day post-Election Day period. Other legislation that undermined long-standing Arizona election law included Senate Bill 1485, which removed the “Permanent” part of Arizona’s Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL) – a policy that an upwards of 80% Arizonans use. Additionally, Senate Bill 1241 requires ballots with mismatched signatures to be sent to the Office of the Attorney General for potential investigation, another attempt at voter suppression, and Senate Bill 1713 requires voters submitting early ballots to include an additional form of identification, making early voting harder to access. These are only a handful of the many bills that recently made their way through the Arizona legislature, signifying a democracy crisis in the state. Wisconsin Wisconsin also recently faced a series of disenfranchising legislation following the 2020 presidential election. Policy like Assembly Bill 173 would have created barriers for grants that primarily focus on voter turnout in urban communities. Legislation like Senate Bill 203, would have limited absentee voting access, and Senate Bill 212, would have restricted county clerks from fixing defective absentee ballot certificates – effectively increasing the number of rejected ballots. Absentee voting removes obstacles to voting such as lack of transportation and work or family responsibilities, making it a vital component of democracy. Had it not been for Governor Tony Evers’s veto (or threat of), these anti-voting bills would have become law – a clear sign of the Wisconsin Legislature’s anti-democracy priorities. Michigan Finally, several anti-voting bills were introduced in the Michigan Legislature following the 2020 presidential election, before Democrats won chamber control in Michigan. Many of these bills were passed by their respective chambers, but then were vetoed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer. This includes House Bill 4127, which would have required thousands of voters to re-verify their identity in order to remain on the qualified voter file and Senate Bill 303, which would have required voters to submit identification with absentee ballot applications while removing the option for voting by signed affidavit, thereby eliminating options for election day voting. Again, like Wisconsin, Governor Whitmer’s vetoes kept these bills from becoming law, but they are a clear example of how out of touch some State Legislatures are with young voters’ priorities. Climate Implications How do anti-democratic laws impact the fight against climate change?  Disenfranchising voters diminishes overall turnout for elections up-and-down the ticket. Climate action is overwhelmingly popular among Americans, even more so than we may realize, so restrictions on the right to vote limit opportunities for civic engagement to advance the fight against climate change. In order to fight for a livable future, our nation’s voting laws must remain free and fair. Now is the time to take action. 2023 is on track to be the hottest year on record globally.  Arizona specifically is experiencing unprecedented heat waves. In midwestern states like Michigan and Wisconsin, poor air quality has become the new normal this summer, as a result of climate change-induced wildfires. But with many new barriers to voting and threats of disenfranchisement, it becomes harder for those experiencing the effects of climate change in these states to express their concerns through voting. Every U.S. citizen can start by taking simple steps to combat disenfranchisement. First, learn about your state legislators: who they are and how they vote. You can reach out to your state representatives to let them know how important the issues of climate change and democracy are to you. Finally, show up to Election Day prepared. Research any changes to voting requirements your state may have recently undergone, and prepare accordingly to ensure you have eligibility to vote in your state election. Together, we have the power to make a difference. If more of us participate in our local and state elections, we can protect both our democracy and our planet.

Climate Cabinet Education, the go-to resource for state and local climate policy, released the following backgrounder to the media that highlights how state and local leaders are leveraging the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) historic climate investments – an effort that has created more than 170,000 clean energy jobs in 44 states.  As the media continues to share how the Biden Administration’s climate law is delivering new jobs, cutting utility costs for families, and lowering pollution rates, this background document is intended to spotlight specific examples about how the law is fighting the climate crisis in all areas of the nation. This includes in rural, suburban, and urban communities and for areas perceived as conservative and progressive.  Take a look at how policymakers are leveraging the Inflation Reduction Act:  ARIZONA: Arizona Office of Resiliency Project: When Governor Katie Hobbs took office, one of her first directives was to create the Office of Resiliency, a state energy office necessary to unlock millions in Inflation Reduction Act and other federal program funding. While originally the office just consisted of the Director and energy, land use, and water policy advisors, unlocked federal funding has allowed the office to hire an additional six full-time employees working to implement Inflation Reduction Act programs promoting clean energy infrastructure, electric appliances, energy efficiency, and more.  COLORADO: Colorado Springs, Colorado Project: Mayor Yemi Mobolade leveraged IRA funds for a new solar cell plant. The solar cell production facility is getting $1.4 billion in IRA funding, creating 380 new jobs in Colorado Springs. Mayor Yemi Mobolade: “Meyer Burger has stated that the fastest possible market entry is important. Don’t worry, we got you covered — our city’s rapid response service is ready for this project” INDIANA Project: AES is building an Indiana battery storage at a retired coal plant. The utility is using the site of their retiring coal plant for battery storage. The project, Pike County Energy Storage, will utilize the IRA’s Investment Tax Credit to cover an estimated 40% of the project cost. Local governments now have access to these same tax credits thanks to the IRA’s updated eligibility rules for Direct Pay.  IOWA: Ames, Iowa Project: The City of Ames published an analysis of their Climate Action Plan, predicting the Inflation Reduction Act would reduce the net cost of their Climate Action Plan—which invests in energy efficiency, building retrofits, battery storage, rooftop solar and EVs—from $900 million down to $300 million. Graphic shows IRA savings for Ames Climate Action Plan implementation, by category.  From City of Ames Climate Action Plan: Supplemental Input Committee on Implementation Report KENTUCKY: Bowling Green, Kentucky Project: Kentucky was one of four states in the country to refuse the Environmental Protection Agency’s $3 million grant for Climate Pollution Reduction projects, so the opportunity was then provided to Bowling Green—which qualified as the third largest community in the state. The City Council voted unanimously to pursue the funds. The City’s Public Works Department would be the recipient of the grant and is accepting input from their community for ways the funding could be used to lower pollution. MINNESOTA: Minnesota Legislature Project: Signed into law by Governor Tim Walz, The State Competitiveness Fund will use $156 million to help connect state, local, and tribal communities as well as electric cooperatives and utilities with non-federal matching dollars needed to access funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law. This increases total funding on the table and increases access to create clean energy projects throughout the state.  WASHINGTON: Washington State Legislature Project: House Bill 1777, a bill that allows energy saving projects at public schools to be funded by private entities which can leverage funds from the Inflation Reduction Act, was passed unanimously in the legislature, garnering support from Republicans and Progressive Dems alike. Schools typically spend a significant budget on utility bills. Other Potential IRA Implementation Opportunities Columbia, Missouri: Columbia, Missouri and its municipal utility – Columbia Water and Light –  are owners of a retired coal plant and ash pond site, which is eligible to receive loans under the IRA’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Financing. This, plus taking advantage of Direct Pay investment tax credits, gives Columbia a prime opportunity to invest in battery storage at their retired plant site with the help of federal funds. Read more about this opportunity on our blog! Seattle and King County, Washington: These two government organizations have been partnering on a transit electrification project over the last few years, looking to convert the county’s bus fleets to electric vehicles. The project could be eligible for a number of the IRA’s tax credits and grants. More info on this partnership can be found on our blog.

By Nick Arnold, Legislative Program Manager The 2021-2022 Climate Cabinet Bill List consists of 476 bills across 26 states focused on the top climate, environmental justice, and democracy legislation in the United States. To build this list, Climate Cabinet Education does two things: first, we collaborate with on-the-ground state partner organizations about the top environmental legislation facing their state. Then, we narrow those lists to our priority criteria – climate & democracy – and categorize them into energy, buildings, transportation, environmental justice, ballots & voter access, and preemption & power grabs. This process allows us to take a closer look at national and cross-state trends, see which states are taking action on each of these issues, and – based on state partner input – assess each bill as pro- or anti-climate. The legislative process is often confusing or too time-intensive to follow for the people who are affected by it most: constituents. The Climate Cabinet Bill List is one tool to help make this process more accessible and help Americans understand what’s going on issues like climate and democracy in their state legislature. While this data represents 476 bills, the total number in the charts is greater than that. That’s because these issues don’t exist in siloes, there are plenty of bills that address energy, buildings, and transportation through a preemption or power grab policy change.  Similarly, many energy bills also touch on environmental justice, transportation, and buildings. Energy From the national landscape, it’s clear the biggest area of climate legislation is energy, with a total of 130 bills included from 2021 and 2022 legislative sessions – including a mix of bills that are pro-climate and anti-climate. Everything from defining what counts as clean energy (e.g. Senate Bill 896 in Florida, which sought to define landfill and factory farm gas as “renewable”) to whether electric service should be competitive (e.g. House Bill 2101 in Arizona, which repealed retail electric competition) is showing up in state legislatures and influencing the future of our electric grid. All 26 states heard at least 1 energy bill in 2021-2022. Under the umbrella of decarbonization, we also keep an eye on legislation affecting the future of buildings and transportation, with a total of 34 and 116 bills respectively. While many think of electricity generation as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, it’s actually only 25% of U.S. emissions, coming in second to transportation at 28% with commercial and residential uses (largely buildings) at 13% (U.S. EPA). Transportation Public transit and electrifying light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles are the best ways to reduce emissions in the transportation sector. State legislatures regularly invest in large infrastructure projects, but often money for transit comes from the same pool as money for roads and highways. Out of the 58 bills on transportation nationally, the biggest piece of pro-climate transportation legislation is adopting California’s Clean Car Standards, a more stringent requirement than the current federal standards. Minnesota and New York worked to adopt updated standards while Virginia heard bills working to roll back Clean Cars, which ultimately failed. Electric vehicle (EV) planning and accessibility are also big features of transportation bills. This ranges from policies to support EV charging station installation and access (e.g. Nevada’s Senate Bill 448 which, among many other clean energy transition policies, increases access to EV chargers) to bills directing state agencies to develop a plan for the higher EV use future (e.g. Arizona’s Senate Bill 1152), including electrifying state fleets (Virginia’s Senate Bill 575). Buildings We say 17 bills about buildings ranging from proactive climate policy supporting energy efficiency that helps reduce emissions (e.g. House Bill 1286 in Colorado that establishes building energy performance standards) to anti-climate policy like blocking local governments’ ability to help the transition from gas to electric appliances (e.g. House Bill 220 in North Carolina, which is also a preemption bill that prevents municipalities from establishing electric-only building ordinances).   Housing affordability and how housing units are developed is increasingly a priority for climate policy because on top of the urgency of solving the housing crisis, climate-minded development offers long-term cost-savings and emissions reduction benefits by prioritizing energy and water efficiency. Pairing requirements for efficiency with incentives for dense, affordable housing can help address both housing and climate with one policy. Bills like New Mexico’s House Bill 15 expands and extends the Sustainable Building Tax Credit do just that. Environmental Justice Historically marginalized communities are disproportionately affected by environmental harms like air and water pollution. Environmental justice (EJ) legislation, like the 77 bills in the National Bill List, helps repair these historic harms and ensure access to clean air and clean water, among other equity issues. Colorado, Oregon, and Illinois are at the forefront of these issues, each hearing eight or nine pro-climate bills each ranging from Colorado’s funding for just transition for coal-impacted communities (House Bill 1290, which allocates a combined $15 million to the just transition fund including coal worker transition assistance funding), connecting disadvantaged youth to outdoor recreation opportunities (House Bill 1318, which creates an annual $3 million fund that can take private donations for outdoor youth programs), and targeted air and water quality regulations to ensure access to clean air and water for marginalized communities (Senate Bill 193, which funds electric school buses and e-bikes to reduce transportation emissions, and House Bill 1322, which requires impacted community engagement to hold water polluters accountable). Similarly, Illinois passed its landmark Climate and Equity Jobs Act (CEJA) in 2021 that provides a structure for equitable, good-paying jobs to achieve a 100% clean energy goal. Oregon’s EJ bills cover a broad range of topics including community-based energy (House Bill 2021, which among other policy calls for utility support and studying of community-based energy systems), electric vehicles (House Bill 2165, which extends EV programs and adds incentives for low-income customers), and home improvements for efficiency and electrification to make homes healthier (House Bill 2842, which created the Healthy Homes Program).     Protest, Preemption, & Power Grabs One trend we

A resource for policymakers that’s aimed to provide the full scope on a specific issue climate leaders are facing in state and local offices: clean hydrogen and its possible uses in the overall clean energy transition. view the resource