资源环境科技发展态势分析平台

The increasing competitiveness of clean energy and growing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are reshaping the US energy economy. For energy communities—cities, towns, and regions with deep ties to fossil fuel production and electricity generation—this transition may pose significant costs for workers, businesses, and local governments. Federal investments through things such as workforce development and infrastructure expansion can mitigate such costs and provide new opportunities for prosperity.

A critical component of making such investments successful is tailoring them to the specific needs and unique circumstances of each community (Davis and Dumont 2021). Such tailoring can improve outcomes for workforce development programs (Harper-Anderson 2008; Pynes 2004) and possibly the cost-effectiveness of federal economic development efforts (Markusen and Glasmeier 2008).

Such tailoring requires mechanisms for coordination between local leaders and the federal government. Local leaders, often working through community-based organizations (CBOs), tend to have the most nuanced understanding of the needs and opportunities in their communities and the local relationships and trust needed to get projects done. However, especially in low-income and isolated rural communities, they often lack resources to fully engage with the variety of federal programs that could benefit from their expertise (Pipa and Geismar 2020; Ajilore and Willingham 2020; Haggerty et al. 2018). It is therefore reasonable to consider that a federal energy transition policy would not only invest in workforce, infrastructure, and economic development but also local capacity required to effectively implement such policies. Capacity is generally defined here as “increasing the ability of people and institutions to do what is required of them” (Murray and Dunn 1995).

This brief provides an overview of one option for building and supporting capacity in energy-dependent communities: creating a network of community “hubs” (Aspen Institute 2019; BlueGreen Alliance 2021) supported by a federally chartered development corporation. This concept leverages recent policy roadmaps produced by stakeholders from energy regions in transition emphasizing the importance of customization and investing in local leadership (Just Transition Fund 2020; BlueGreen Alliance 2021). Community hubs and the federal development corporation described here also share institutional design features with recommendations from the National Academies of Sciences (2021) related to just transition and a congressional proposal to reform the fiscal relationships between natural resources and rural economies (Forest Management for Rural Stability Act 2019; Iglehart 2018; Haggerty 2018).

The Biden Administration’s Build Back Better (BBB) framework recognizes the need for local capacity building in rural America. For example, BBB proposed a $1 billion investment in a Rural Partnership Program (RPP),For more information on the Biden Administration’s Build Back Better framework (the American Jobs Plan) and the Rural Partnership Program, see https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/. which is intended to build the capacity of local organizations. Flexible, multiyear grants could be used to support collaborative planning, staffing, and implementation of locally led economic development efforts. Collaborations may include rural and Tribal governments, nonprofits, philanthropic organizations, community colleges, and other CBOs.

These proposals and efforts reflect an embrace of place-based and people-centered models for economic development (Shambaugh and Nunn 2018; Topolsky 2021, Muro et al. 2021) and of government’s role in shaping markets and driving innovation (Mazzucato 2021). In the following sections, we provide detail on what we mean by a “community hub” and outline the key structural components of how a supported network of hubs might work—including the potential challenges.