States have broad authority to solve emissions in line with the Green New Deal

This review of pre-pandemic mini-GNDs highlights the significant legislative activity on issues of climate and economic justice around the GND [*340] "moment" - just before and (mostly) after the early 2019 launch of the federal resolution. It illuminates the diversity of approaches, while also revealing important policy continuities. With respect to environmental policy, there are three major takeaways. First, most states and localities align with the federal GND by proposing to eliminate or reduce carbon emissions, albeit with different goals and timetables. Following a core GND tenet, most mini-GNDs propose renewable and clean energy targets economy-wide or in more limited fashion - for example, in relation to electric power. This sometimes involves public investments in improving the efficiency of renewable energy sources, such as Minnesota's plan to invest $ 16 million to install solar panels in public schools. Second, most mini-GNDs focus on upgrading the energy efficiency of buildings through retrofits, eliminating glass walls, mandating efficient lighting, and following LEED standards. And third, state and local GNDs devote significant resources to clean transit: spending to purchase and retrofit buses, upgrade subway lines, and promote high-speed rail. Clean transit initiatives include state-level incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles, like Nevada's rule increasing weight limits for electric trucks.

As for the labor provisions, there are also three important takeaways from my review. First, less than half of the mini-GNDs explicitly promote job creation and better wages, and those that do generally set goals and standards, often without specific enforcement mechanisms. For instance, California's AB 1839 calls for green jobs that are "family-supporting with career ladders," without providing a roadmap for implementation. One exception is Oregon's proposed GND, HB 2020, which would mandate that clean energy projects funded with public dollars meet specified labor standards. Second, there is very little that mini-GNDs have to say about unions and collective bargaining, outside of reference in a few plans, such as OneNYC, to supporting workers' right to bargain collectively. One example of a more direct link comes from Washington state, where SB 5116 provides a tax exemption for clean energy projects that pay workers at rates determined by collective bargaining. Third, almost all of the mini-GNDs reviewed place a significant focus on "just transition." However, there is wide variance in what precisely is covered by those provisions. In New York and California, mini-GNDs create advisory boards to promote equity in the distribution of funds to protect workers displaced by the shift from fossil fuels, focusing on public benefits and retraining. Colorado's HB 19-1314 creates a Just Transition Office and mandates benefits to coal transition workers to support education and retraining. Other jurisdictions seek to dedicate just transition funding streams to ensure that marginalized communities gain the benefits of clean energy [*341] projects. In this vein, Illinois's proposed Clean Energy Jobs Act commits $ 750 million for low-income communities to access solar power and other clean energy sources.

Stepping back from the policy details highlights five broader themes from my review of mini-GNDs. First, there is strong evidence that the federal GND has helped propel forward analogous policies at the state and local level. While some of these proposals preexisted the federal resolution, mini-GNDs largely coalesced after its announcement, which galvanized social movements and policymakers, giving them ready-made language and an available frame to shape public opinion. Indeed, across the policies I reviewed, the GND frame was either explicitly invoked by proponents or used by commentators to describe the program in nearly every case.

Second, my review reveals that mini-GNDs have been able to leverage legal tools available to state and local government to meaningfully (though still modestly) address climate change. Specifically, states and cities have been able to add value to the fight against climate change by mobilizing their specific powers to complement federal efforts (or act in the absence of federal leadership). These powers include state authority to set emissions standards above federal floors, control over public utilities, control over state and local procurement that directs government funds into clean projects, authority to spend and offer tax incentives to support renewable and clean energy transition, and authority over building codes and other land use decisions to reduce high-carbon development. In short, the diverse range of legal tools available to state and local government over environmental and land use regulation gives localities policy space to reduce carbon emissions.