Some quick thoughts about climate action in the context of limited legislative possibilities, prompted by early reports on the transition plans. https://twitter.com/eilperin/status/1326543989332303872

The U.S. has never really had a comprehensive or centralized energy plan, rather it has been an aggregation of policies across various fuels and sectors. Without a clear legislative path, the Biden climate/energy program is likely to lean into this aggregation of many actions.

We should think about all of these diverse actions, taken together, as "the policy."

Distributing money and privileges has always been easier than imposing taxes and regulation in US legislative politics-- spending on infrastructure, R&D, deployment, etc may still get through Congress.

(But often spending just gives something to everyone, expanding highways while also boosting transit; supporting fossil fuels while also funding solar. Industrial advocates, including wind/solar, tend to push for their piece of an expanding pie, not to take pie from others.)

Environmental policy doesn't happen just at environmental agencies. It's also embedded in financial reg'ns, transportation, housing, tax policy, insurance, etc. Ramping up across the board will have a powerful aggregate effect, but also involve tough fights in obscure places.

States matter a great deal. By encouraging coalitions of states to pass laws that tighten regulations, Biden admin can ratchet up standards and intensify pressure on industry to demand national legislation. California, NY, and others have tremendous opportunity to lead.

Coalitions of states also may represent a large enough market share that they can drive significant market shifts, w federal encouragement. Market shifts change the political landscape, and may make national legislation easier to pass.

At the federal level, methane regulation, mercury pollution rules, restrictions and higher royalties for public land leasing, pipeline regn, regn of coal ash and other pollution, etc-- together these can reshape the fossil fuel market.

Historically, the bigger "subsidy" for fossil fuels is not the money directly spent by Congress but the legal regime that has sacrificed public and environmental health to encourage FF production and consumption.

Every one of these fights will be hard fought and threaten an entrenched and powerful interest, ranging from energy producers to homeowners (flood insurance, for ex).

Many, many tools and leverage points are available without a national "climate law"-- mustering the political will for these fights remains the challenge. Public health, equity and justice, and job creation, will be crucial elements of the struggle.