Much literature on federalism and multilevel governance argues that federalist institutional arrangements promote renewable energy policies. However, the U.S. case supports a different view that federalism has ambivalent effects. Policy innovation has occurred at the state level and to some extent has led to policy adoption by other states and the federal government, but the extent is limited by the veto power of fossil fuel interests that are rooted in many state governments and in Congress, buttressed by increasing Republican Party hostility to environmental and climate policy. This argument is supported by a detailed analysis of five periods of federal and state renewable energy policy-making, from the Carter to the Trump administrations. The negative effects of federalism on national renewable energy policy in the United States, in contrast to the West European cases in this special issue, are mainly due to the interaction of its federalist institutions with party polarization and a strong domestic fossil fuel industry.
BangG. (2009, February). Does public policy set the scope for U.S. international climate negotiation mandates? Paper presented at the 50th ISA Annual Convention, New York.
BraunD. (2000a). Territorial division of power and public policy-making. In BraunD. (Ed.), Public policy and federalism (pp. 1–26).
Burlington, VT:
Ashgate.
8.
BraunD. (2000b). The territorial division of power in comparative public policy research. In BraunD. (Ed.), Public policy and federalism (pp. 57–77).
Burlington, VT:
Ashgate.
9.
BroschekJ. (2016). Federalism in Europe, America, and Africa. In HofmeisterW.TayaoE. (Eds.), Federalism and decentralization (pp. 23–50).
Singapore:
Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.
10.
BrownD. M. (2012).
Comparative climate change policy and federalism.Review of Policy Research,
29(3), 322–333.
11.
ByrneJ.HughesK.RickersonW.KurdgelashviliL. (2007).
American policy conflict in the greenhouse.Energy Policy,
35, 4555–4573.
ChirinkoR. (2000, August). Investment tax credits (CEsifo Working Paper Series No. 243). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=260009
16.
CollierD. (2011).
Understanding process tracing.PS: Political Science and Politics,
44(4), 823–830.
17.
CompstonH.BaileyI. (2013).
Climate policies and anti-climate policies.Open Journal of Political Science,
3(4), 146–157.
18.
CoxA.CarlB.GilbertR. (1991). Wind power in California. In R. Gilbert (Ed.), Regulatory choices (pp. 347–374). Berkeley: University of California Press.
19.
de AzuaC. R. (2001).
The future of wind energy.Tulane Environmental Law Journal,
14(2), 485–523.
20.
Derthick, M. (2010). Compensatory federalism. In B. Rabe (Ed.), Greenhouse governance (pp. 58–72). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
21.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M.YaroshJ. H. (2016).
The political divide on climate change.Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development,
58(5), 4–23.
EikelandP. O. (1993).
US energy policy at a crossroads?Energy Policy,
21(10), 987–999.
24.
Ejderyan, O., Ruef, F, & Stauffacher, M. (2020). The entanglement of top-down and bottom-up: Socio-technical innovation pathways of geothermal energy in Switzerland. Journal of Environment & Development. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1070496519886008
FisherD. R. (2006).
Bringing the material back in: Understanding the U.S. position on climate change.Sociological Forum,
21(3), 467–494.
29.
GeorgeA.BennettA. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
30.
GipeP. (1995). Wind energy comes of age.
New York, NY:
John Wiley.
31.
Goldfarb, J., Buessing, M., and Kriner, D. (2016). Geographic proximity to coal plants and U.S. public support for extending the Production Tax Credit. Energy Policy, 99.
32.
HagerC. (2016). The grassroots origins of the German energy transition. In HagerC.StefesC. (Eds.), Germany's energy transition (pp. 1–26).
New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
33.
HarborneP.HendryC. (2009).
Pathways to commercial wind power in the US, Europe, and Japan. Energy Policy,
37(9), 3580–3595.
34.
HessD. J. (2016, June).
The politics of niche-regime conflicts: Distributed solar energy in the United States.Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,
19, 42–50.
35.
HuberB. (2013).
How did RGGI do it?Ecological Law Quarterly,
40(1), 59–106.
JahnD., &. WältiS. (2007). Umweltpolitik und Föderalismus: Zur Klärung eines ambivalenten Zusammenhangs [Environmental policy and federalism: Toward a clarification of an ambivalent relationship]. In JacobK.BiermannF.BuschP.-O.FeindtP. H. (Eds.), Politik und Umwelt [Politics and Environment] (pp. 262–282).
Wiesbaden, Germany:
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
39.
JänickeM. (2013, December). Accelerators of global energy transition: Horizontal and vertical reinforcement in multi-level climate governance (Working Paper, Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam).
40.
JayantiS. (2012).
Learning from the leader: The European Union's renewable energy mandates as a blueprint for American environmental federalism.Rutgers Law Review,
65, 173–216.
41.
JoskowP. (2001, July). U.S. energy policy during the 1990s (Working Paper 8454, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA). Retrieved from https://economics.mit.edu/files/1144
42.
KarapinR. (2014). Wind-power development in Germany and the U.S. In DuitA. (Ed.), State and environment (pp. 111–145).
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
43.
KarapinR. (2016). Political opportunities for climate policy: California, New York, and the federal government.
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
44.
LauberV.MezL. (2006).
Renewable electricity policy in Germany, 1974 to 2005.Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society,
26, 105–120.
45.
LijphartA. (1984). Democracies.
New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
46.
LijphartA. (2012). Patterns of Democracy (2nd ed.).
New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
47.
MartinotE.WiserR.HamrinJ. (2005). Renewable energy policies and markets in the United States. San Francisco, CA: Center for Resource Solutions. Retrieved from www.martinot.info
48.
MatisoffD. (2008).
The adoption of state climate change policies and renewable portfolio standards.Review of Policy Research,
25(6), 527–545.
49.
McElroyM.ChenX. (2017, March).
Wind and solar power in the United States: Status and prospects.CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems,
3, 1–6.
50.
MenzF.VachonS. (2006).
The effectiveness of different policy regimes for promoting wind power.Energy Policy,
34(14), 1786–1796.
51.
MildenbergerM. (2015, December). Fiddling while the world burns: The double representation of carbon polluters in comparative climate policymaking (PhD dissertation). Yale University, New Haven, CT.
MormannF.ReicherD.HannaV. (2016).
A tale of three markets: Comparing the renewable energy experiences of California, Texas, and Germany.Stanford Environmental Law Journal,
35, 55–99.
54.
MulkernA. (2009, July 6). Coal industry sees life or death in Senate debate. New York Times.
55.
NemetG.KammenD. (2007).
U.S. energy research and development. Energy Policy,
35(1), 746–755.
56.
OhlhorstD. (2015).
Germany’s energy transition policy between national targets and decentralized responsibilities.Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences,
12(4), 303–322.
57.
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2009, June). The clean energy economy. Retrieved from www.pewtrusts.org
58.
PriceJ. (2002, May).
The production tax credit. Public Utilities Fortnightly,
15, 38–41.
59.
RabeB. (2004). Statehouse and greenhouse.
Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
60.
RabeB. (2006, June). Race to the top: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Retrieved from www.c2es.org
61.
RabeB. (2009). Governing the climate from Sacramento. In GoldsmithS.KettlD. (Eds.), Unlocking the power of networks (pp. 34–61).
Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
62.
REN21. (2019). Renewables 2019: Global status report.
Paris, France:
REN21 Secretariat.
RoselundC. (2018, July 3). California breakdown of electricity imports upholds state's clean reputation. Retrieved from pv-magazine-usa.com
65.
RunyonJ. (2015, December 16). Making sense of the tax credit extensions for wind, solar (and bioenergy, too). Retrieved from www.renewableenergyworld.com
66.
RyanG. (2016, April). Throwing shade: 10 sunny states blocking distributed solar development. Retrieved from Center for Biological Diversity website: www.biologicaldiversity.org
67.
SchafferL.BernauerT. (2014, May).
Explaining government choices for promoting renewable energy.Energy Policy,
68, 15–27.
68.
SchönbergerP.ReicheD. (2016). Why subnational actors matter: The role of Länder and municipalities in the German energy transition. In HagerC.StefesC. (Eds.), Germany's energy transition (pp. 27–62).
New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
69.
SchreursM. (2008).
From the bottom up.Journal of Environment & Development,
17(4), 343–355.
ScruggsL. (2003). Sustaining abundance.
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
72.
SelinH.VanDeveerS. (2012). Federalism, multilevel governance, and climate change politics across the Atlantic. In SteinbergP. &VanDeveerS. (Eds.), Comparative environmental politics (pp. 341–368).
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
73.
SherlockM. (2017, July 26). The renewable electricity production tax credit: In brief (CRS Report). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
74.
ShrimaliG.LynesM.IndvikJ. (2015, March).
Wind energy deployment in the U.S.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
43, 796–806.
SkodvinT. (2010). ‘
Pivotal politics' in US energy and climate legislation.Energy Policy,
38(8), 4214–4223.
77.
Stadelmann-Steffen, I., Rieder, S., & Strotz, C. (2020). The politics of renewable energy production in a federalist context: The deployment of small hydropower in the Swiss cantons. Journal of Environment & Development. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/1070496519886005
78.
StokesL. (2015, June). Power politics: Renewable energy policy change in US states (PhD dissertation). Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
79.
StokesL.BreetzH. (2018, February).
Politics in the U.S. energy transition.Energy Policy,
113, 76–86.
80.
StrebelF. (2011).
Inter-governmental institutions as promoters of energy policy diffusion in a federal setting.Energy Policy,
39(1), 467–476.
81.
SwisherR.PorterK. (2006). Renewable policy lessons from the U.S. In MallonK. (Ed.), Renewable energy policy and politics (pp.185–198).
Sterling, VA:
Earthscan.
82.
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2010). Production tax credit for renewable energy. Retrieved from ucsusa.org
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2018). Annual energy outlook 2018, February 6. Washington, DC: Author.
86.
van der HeidenN.StrebelF. (2012).
What about non-diffusion? The effect of competitiveness in policy-comparative diffusion research.Policy Sciences,
45(4), 345–358.
87.
VasiI. (2011). Winds of change.
New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
88.
VasseurM. (2014).
Convergence and divergence in renewable energy policy among U.S. states from 1998 to 2011.Social Forces,
92(4), 1637–1657.
89.
VogelD. (2018). California greenin': How the Golden State became an environmental leader.
Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
90.
WeidnerH. (1995). 25 years of modern environmental policy in Germany: Treading a well-worn path to the top of the international field (Working Paper FS II 95-301). Berlin: Social Science Center Berlin.
91.
WilliamsonJ.SayerM. (2012, Summer).
Federalism in renewable energy policy. Natural Resources & Environment,
27, 1–5.
92.
WirthH. (2018, June 14). Recent facts about photovoltaics in Germany. Retrieved from Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems website: www.pv-fakten.de
93.
YorkD.NarumD. (1996). The lessons and legacy of integrated resource planning. Presented at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (Proceedings 7.179-88). Retrieved from www.aceee.org
