As the presidential election approaches, we are grounded in the work that has been done in the first half of this decade to advance clean energy policy and jobs, reduce household energy costs, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. However, we want to acknowledge the real potential consequences of backsliding on these accomplishments under an administration that does not support the growth of clean energy. This blog will highlight some climate wins we have seen in the prior 4 years, and underscore the impact Project 2025 would have in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

A Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, more popularly known as Project 2025, is a 922-page report released by the Heritage Foundation outlining what policies they would like to see the next Administration implement. It covers areas ranging from foreign policy to managerial oversight in the Small Business Administration, and importantly to our work, it calls for drastic changes to US energy policy taking the focus away from clean energy deployment and achieving emissions reductions. If implemented, these energy policies would weaken Rhode Island and Massachusetts’ ability to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, as well as harm the economies of both states. 

Topline energy cost, jobs, and economic growth hits of Project 2025 in both states, according to Energy Innovation. 

Project 2025 is projected to cost the U.S. heavily. Energy Innovation, a non-partisan energy and climate policy think tank, modeled some of Project 2025’s energy policies’ economic impacts and found that it would result in fewer US jobs and lower GDP while increasing household energy costs. Project 2025 supports repealing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and as well as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and slashing clean energy investment and the creation of clean energy jobs and workforce training programs. Residents of Rhode Island and Massachusetts would be affected through job losses in the clean energy manufacturing and construction sectors.

Click here for details on the economic hit to Massachusetts and here for the details on the hit to Rhode Island.

Threatens Advanced Clean Cars II 

Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII) and Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) are regulations which specifically require car manufacturers to deliver an increasing percentage of electric vehicles to the state.

Rhode Island and Massachusetts were able to adopt ACCII/ACT policies because the Clean Air Act allows California to set their own vehicle emissions standards and allows other states to adopt California’s regulations instead of those set by the federal government. This provides opportunities for states to have more aggressive climate policies in the transportation sector. 

Project 2025 threatens ACCII/ACT by calling for limitations on California's ability to set greenhouse gas vehicle emission standards. If that happened, both Rhode Island’s and Massachusetts’ ability to ensure the increasing use of EVs would be put at risk, limiting an important tool for reducing their emissions. 

Threatens to Axe Low-Income Weatherization Assistance 

The Weatherization Assistance Program is the oldest whole-home energy efficiency program in the United States and provides funding to states, territories and tribal governments to improve energy efficiency in homes of low-income individuals, individuals with disabilities, and senior citizens. The US Department of Energy has administered the Weatherization Assistance Program since 1976 and the program is critical for increasing access to home improvements that can lower bills and make homes healthier.

The Office of State and Community Energy Programs retains data on the impact of these programs, and Massachusetts has received $66.8 million in funds since 2015 resulting in 8,216 homes weatherized, and 24.1 million square feet of building space retrofitted. Rhode Island has received $12.1 million from the same program, and has had 737 homes weatherized. 

Project 2025 calls for removing or reforming the Office of State and Community Energy Programs, including WAP, which could harm some low-income households' ability to afford energy efficiency improvements. 

Threatens Federal Climate Programs

In recent years, the federal government has begun playing a more active role in supporting regional efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Two large examples of this funding in the last few months are: 

• $450 million in funding to New England states to support heat pump adoption through added incentives and workforce training. 
• $389 million in funding from the Department of Energy went to New England in August to support offshore wind transmission projects and multi-day energy storage. 

Both of these are examples of projects that could help New England move away from fossil fuels and adopt non-emitting electric heating powered by renewable energy. 

Project 2025 explicitly wants to eliminate federal support for clean energy infrastructure, meaning that if its proposals were enacted federal support for similar projects would be unlikely in the future and more of the cost of decarbonization would fall on individual states. 

Pulling Support Away From Clean Tech  

Project 2025 calls for “reform or repeal of ARPA-E and DOE Loan Program” and to focus federal funding only on basic research. If that were to happen it would hurt the ability of clean tech companies to fund the applied research and expansion necessary for deploying new low-carbon technology quickly. 

In the last few years federal support has helped the expansion of several local clean tech companies. This support not only helps these companies grow and create local jobs but give us new tools with which to fight climate change. 

All in All

From transportation, to weatherization, to building a cleaner electric grid, to supporting the development of new clean technologies, federal efforts in the fight against climate change have helped Rhode Island and Massachusetts reduce their emissions while creating jobs. If enacted, Project 2025 would roll back this support and turn the federal government from an ally to adversary in the fight against fossil fuel dependency and climate change.