Building Justice into Clean Energy Policy: A Checklist for Policy Makers, Advocates, and Organizers

Updated January 31, 2025

Author: Jessica Juarez Scruggs, Training and Capacity Building Director (jessica@progressivecaucuscenter.org) 

These questions are intended to help guide you in evaluating or designing policy that cleans our air and water, mitigates the climate crisis, creates good green jobs, builds power for ordinary people, and centers racial justice. This is far from a comprehensive list but should at least give you a place to start in understanding impact and ensuring we push for the strongest policies possible.

Structural Checklist

  • Shifting Power: Does this policy shift power from wealthy corporations and shareholders to the public? Could it do it more?  

    • Is it actively shifting resources, rights or power to historically marginalized communities? Is it building public control of energy sources or is it putting new energy sources in the same hands that profit from fossil fuel extraction?

    • Is it actively correcting for past exclusion and harm? Does it actively reserve funds for BIPOC communities? For example, housing policies must recognize that redlining denied Black and Brown families the opportunity to build generational wealth and proactively address those historic harms. 

    • Is it a reform that actually adds more funding or control to a problematic agency or power structure? For example, does it give more authority to a regulatory body that is largely captured by industry or for-profit utilities? Does it rely on public-private partnerships that will only create profits for shareholders when it could keep a program or service public and keep profits for the public? 

    • Is anyone improperly exempt from this law? For example, Congress exempted itself from labor laws and exempted the President from most ethics rules. 

    • Do tribal governments and territories have parity with states in funding? 

  • Hidden Barriers: Are there hidden structural barriers that could shut our folks out? For example, does the program exclude people with past convictions, non-citizens, trans people, homeless people, non-homeowners, people with bad credit, etc. Some questions to begin to explore hidden barriers include:

    • Does it require you to travel with a car, speak English or understand complex applications in order to navigate this policy? 

    • Does applying for a benefit require an application fee, up-front costs, access to complex records or the help of a lawyer? Can it be simplified? If not, can free assistance be built into this program?

    • Does it require paperwork the most marginalized people are unlikely to have?  For example, the 1980s IRCA law required paperwork to qualify for a green card that most people who worked in individual homes like domestic workers (mostly women) didn’t have. Or many family economic benefit programs require the parents to have a social security number in order to qualify.

    • Does it preference businesses over communities or utilities over customers? 

    • If it is a benefit program, who is responsible for applying? For example, in a rent relief program, do tenants need to apply or landlords? In an unemployment program, does it exclude gig workers or part time workers? Or in a paid leave program, does it exclude people who work at small businesses? 

    • How long is the application window? If people miss it, can they go back and fix it or apply later? How long is the program available for? Is community outreach included in the program? If not, why not?

    • Is this right/program/protection accessible to all? For example, guaranteeing access to counsel for immigrants is not the same as a right to counsel. 

  • Key Agency: Is this policy controlled by the right agency? Is there an agency, department or regulatory body that is friendlier to community interests or more directly controlled by elected officials? Does this policy put power in the hands of the agency most likely to work for our communities?  If the agency is not friendly, can it be moved to a friendlier body or can you add an additional agency or oversight body that can control part of this policy (e.g. if a policy is controlled by the often industry captured public utilities commission, can you ensure that the state environmental agency or community development commission has to approve or sign off?)

  • Who Pays: How is this policy funded and are the people who created and profited from the problem paying for the solution? If not, why not? Is funding guaranteed at a certain level or do you need to mount an appropriations fight every year?

  • Hidden Loopholes: Is this policy enforceable? 

    • Can you change “may” to “shall”? In other words, are all the programs, targeting of funding, environmental justice assessments etc. mandatory or are any voluntary or up to the discretion of the agency/government/utility etc?  Can you turn any language with wiggle room into an enforceable mandate? 

    • Can you turn any incentives or disincentives into a requirement? If it has to be incentive based, are the incentives strong enough to be real? 

    • Are there situations where it can be violated and how easy would these be to exploit? 

    • Who has standing to sue to enforce it? 

    • Is the law dependent on having a friendly executive in office or can outside groups force the government to uphold this law?  

    • Does a marginalized individual need to get a lawyer and mount an expensive court case or can a public interest law group or other advocacy group bring a case?  

    • Are the consequences for violating the law going to be absorbed as “cost of doing business” or are they significant? 

    • Are there sufficient inspectors or checks on this law to ensure it is enforced?

  • Is it really “clean”? Are all the definitions as strong and specific as possible? For example a definition of clean energy must be specific enough to exclude dirty energy sources like LNG or a definition of an energy efficiency program can be written to either include or exclude inclusive finance. 

    • Definitions should INCLUDE: solar, especially small-, commercial-, and community-scale solar, wind, geothermal, battery storage, EVs and EV chargers, heat pumps, weatherization and building envelope upgrades, etc.

    • Definitions should EXCLUDE: coal, oil, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, petroleum, kerosene, carbon capture, carbon capture and use, enhanced oil recovery, direct air capture, incinerators, waste methane incineration, blue natural gas, blue hydrogen, renewable hydrogen, hydrogen fuel cell, renewable natural gas, geoengineering, etc.

    • Do any of the community definitions rely on previously exclusionary statutes? For example, do you need to qualify for a program that excludes non-citizens or people with convictions in order to qualify for this program?

Target Benefits to the Hardest Hit People

Low income communities and communities of color are the hardest hit by nearly every crisis and disaster in our society from health disparities to climate to lay offs in an economic downturn. At the same time, the same communities get the least investment, least access to resources and opportunities. New policies must include resources reserved for the hardest hit communities.

  • Include a Racial Justice Screen and Assessment of Impact - Any structural reform should include built in processes for understanding racial, gender and economic impacts and creating intentional plans to improve these impacts. For example, an environmental law should include an assessment of how pollution and toxicity is distributed currently and regular assessments of the impact of the new policy. See EJLF and WE ACT’s recommendations on how to do this well. 

    • Require an assessment of current impacts AND cumulative burden

    • Require an assessment of impact before new projects or phases commence AND require changing the plan or at least mitigation if negative impacts are found 

    • Require periodic assessments to ensure that resources are fairly distributed and that any impacts are also fairly distributed. Include a mechanism to correct for any harmful impacts that are found.

  • Include Set Aside Resources for the Hardest Hit Communities - Structural racism has been building advantages for white people into our institutions and programs for generations. To get to any kind of parity, any new policy must include investments designed to begin to counter that and move resources towards marginalized communities, particularly BIPOC people. In best practices, especially at more local levels of governments, the community in question has some level of control of these resources and can direct how they are spent. Funds can be grants or programs designed to benefit individuals or investments in communities harmed by structural oppression.  Care should be taken that these types of programs do not unintentionally fund gentrification or the dispossession of marginalized people if they are directed at the community level.

  • Doesn’t Ask the Most Marginalized to Bear the Cost - Truly progressive policy should raise revenue from progressive sources such as wealth taxes, income taxes, or corporate taxes or fees, not regressive sources like fines and fees or sales taxes.  If this is a fee driven program (such as a public utility or a citizenship program), ensure that no one is cut off from this service because of lack of ability to pay and require a public process with impact assessment to justify future hikes in cost.

  • Mandates Our Communities are First to Transition, Not Last - We know what happens if we let the market or government decide who gets investment. The policy needs to ensure our communities who’ve lost the most get invested in first.

  • Doesn’t Shut People Out - We want inclusive policies our communities can access. That means not excluding undocumented people, non-citizens, renters, people with bad credit, people with past convictions, people who earn too little to pay taxes (and therefore can’t typically use a tax credit), has parity for tribal nations and territories, and doesn’t exclude either rural or urban communities etc. 

Good Green Jobs Checklist

  • Good Quality Jobs - Job creation goals/targets should require union labor wherever possible, or at a minimum must include job quality language about prevailing wage, benefits, registered apprenticeships, neutrality on collective bargaining, etc. See here for a guide to the worker protections within the IRA with more information. 

  • Not Just Training, Employment - Job goals must be specific, measurable and (especially if tied to corporate incentives) verifiable.  We want permanent jobs that our people can access (job training programs are targeted to our communities and to formerly incarcerated people, former fossil fuels workers etc). NOT short term jobs, NOT jobs that a new trainee can’t access and NOT jobs that only exist on paper.

  • Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) - Workers and communities should have a say in program design, program benefits and more. See here for a guide on CBAs from BlueGreen Alliance. 

  • Benefits - Wherever possible, programs should mandate not only good wages but access to benefits such as healthcare, retirement benefits, paid family and medical leave, childcare, and more. 

Public Participation

In general, the more direct public participation, the better chance we have to influence the process and organize our people to get what they need.  Below are just a few ways to boost public participation:

  • Participatory Budgeting - This allows direct spending decisions to be in the hands of communities.  We would target this for all/part of the funds reserved for frontline communities or E communities.

  • Requiring community-based organization partners for implementation - Can the public participate in this policy process? Could they participate more? See IL Climate and Equitable Jobs Act or NYSERDA program for examples. The use of community navigators in the ACA not only helped many people access healthcare but also provided critical funding and infrastructure building for community organizations. 

  • Community Oversight Board or Community Advisory Board - These can be useful tools but make sure it has actual power not just to give input and that community can influence who goes on that board. When included, these boards should have meaningful power, not just symbolic. 

  • Listening Sessions - Try to ensure these are in multiple areas and at times that working people can attend.  If possible, mandate translation, childcare, and geographic spread of these sessions. Include mandates about accessibility and virtual participation options wherever possible. 

  • Public Comment Period - This is an excellent organizing handle and allows for direct input from the community at a mass scale.  However, this is also challenging to organize around because it is dry and wonky.

  • Continued Engagement - Is there a review process where the public can drive changes or reforms if the law is not working? Work to build in input not just at the beginning of the law/policy but also across the life of the law. Examples include a re-assessment process after a set implementation period, mandated impact and program reporting with community input built in. Whenever possible, give community input “teeth” so it isn’t just a comment period but something that allows communities to enforce their views.

Community/Public Ownership/Benefit for the Public

  • Directly Move Towards Community and Public Ownership - Community-centered policies should give people and elected representatives MORE control, not privatize resources or move towards business-driven solutions. Our basic needs shouldn’t be a for-profit business; they should be a public good we can all rely on. 

  • Public Bid Process - One of the ways wealthy special interests have gutted public jobs and public owned infrastructure is by forcing in laws that mandate choosing the cheapest option and then rigging cost-benefit analyses to benefit short term cheap costs and ignore the costs to health, to community, in climate mitigation etc. Cost-benefit analyses must include long-term public costs, costs over the lifetime of a program, costs on a climate-relevant timeline, and the costs to people’s wellness.

  • Include Requirements for Accessing Public Money - If industry is accessing public funds in the form of relief payments or loans or tax breaks, this must come with strings attached.  Public programs must include requirements that businesses who access these benefits must obey wage and labor laws, create good jobs (see above), support collective bargaining and include worker voices in leadership such as including workers on corporate boards. Similarly, no business should be getting public money for things that harm our communities health or wellbeing. We should fight against public subsidies for fossil fuels, polluters and other industries that do harm and ensure that public money also includes community input and ways for communities to challenge or block harmful projects. 

  • Public Money Should Serve the Public - Public money should be prioritized to the places which won’t be able to access these benefits without a program.  That means that public money should go where private money does not.  For example, in some renewable energy programs, they have been structured to fund places where the biggest gains will be made first, even if that is using public money to upgrade the energy of WalMart.  We believe this is the wrong approach. WalMart will pay for its own EE/RE upgrades because it is cost effective for them (unless of course they can get us to pay for it for them). We believe renewable energy should go to the places that can’t pay for it themselves first without funding - in other words low income communities and public buildings. 

Be careful of ‘you need money to make money’ - Some programs require that the public have money to cover costs up front and then be reimbursed, for example a tax credit. Tax credits shut out anyone who doesn’t have the money to cover the cost up front and wait for repayment or who is too poor to pay taxes.  Tax credits should be fully refundable and programs should front costs rather than reimbursing wherever possible.  For example,the Direct Pay tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act are structured as fully-refundable tax credits at the federal level. State and local level grant funding is critical to fill this gap and allow under-resourced communities to access this historic opportunity by providing the up-front funding they need to complete their project and qualify for Direct Pay rebates.