Building a clean energy deployment framework: Analyzing infrastructure deployment models to inform a new model for clean energy

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has made significant progress in implementing clean energy policies from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Inflation Reduction Act, and other previous legislation. These laws enable the commercialization of affordable, reliable energy options with the participation of many federal and state agencies, and stakeholders ranging from businesses to local government. Yet implementation is siloed across federal offices and local stakeholders are often reacting to – instead of planning for – clean energy deployment. Other sectors, like transportation, have developed systems for infrastructure deployment. DOE should study how other sectors operate to create a deployment framework for clean energy. 

Models for infrastructure deployment 

The transportation, disaster, and civil works sectors are illustrative of different models for infrastructure deployment that could be adapted for clean energy infrastructure: 

Transportation model 

The transportation model integrates local needs into local and state planning. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and rural planning organizations (RPOs) decide which projects to include in their Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for inclusion in their State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This planning step is a requirement for federal funding. 

Opportunities to learn from this model: Drivers of community interest in and demand for infrastructure can vary significantly by community. DOE and other federal agencies should prioritize funding where communities want clean energy projects when making project selections.  In the right geographies, federal funding can help develop clean energy projects that align with community needs and values.  

Disaster model 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed models for infrastructure deployment pre- and post-disaster. These models demonstrate how local, state, and federal agencies work together in joint field offices and other disaster-focused operations that require multi-agency coordination. 

Opportunities to learn from this model: DOE should work collaboratively to manage federally funded projects, considering other federal and state funding streams and regulatory authorities. DOE could better support related project needs like connective infrastructure and supply chains through federal, state, and local collaboration. 

Civil works model 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) spans regional geographies with local points of contact and operating procedures. USACE recently began a modernization initiative for civil works. Through this initiative, it leaned into its geographic presence by delegating authorities to non-federal actors. USACE also makes permitting decisions and some grant decisions public.  

Opportunities to learn from this model: The federal government needs to modernize to manage operations with limited resources. Local points of contact, and delegation of work to local non-federal organizations, could leverage non-federal resources to advance energy deployment. Federal agencies must also embrace transparency, through dashboards and accessible webpages, to support developing projects nationwide. 

Recommendations for clean energy infrastructure deployment 

The models above offer helpful recommendations for DOE and clean energy deployment: 

• Deploying clean energy must integrate local demand. Centering local demand catalyzes deployment from the ground up. 

• Managing clean energy requires the whole of government. Navigating local siting authorities and state and federal requirements require coordination across the local, state, and federal levels.  

• Accelerating clean energy necessitates modernization and innovation. Local, non-federal support and a focus on transparency will enable DOE to do more with its resources. 

DOE should offer a point of contact to coordinate across developing projects and local, state, and federal agencies. A local engagement lead could identify available federal funding, explain federal processes, support local engagement, and coordinate compliance processes. This role could be delegated to non-federal organizations familiar with local conditions and stakeholders. 

A new deployment structure could establish a team of representatives from different government agencies. This interagency deployment team could operate at a regional scale to closely support energy projects. Alternatively, a regional ombudsman could coordinate engagement across government agencies. This role could similarly support regions and develop relationships with state and local agencies. A third alternative could be a regional task force of agency representatives that come together to jointly discuss regional projects and solve barriers to deployment, informed by a local engagement lead. Local demand could inform each of these models to deploy resources effectively. 

Clean energy is a benefit for the economy, states, and communities. It’s critical to take lessons learned to efficiently build out the infrastructure needed to meet our clean energy goals.