Smart Energy Stimulus Means Thinking Small

In 1968, a crisis loomed for the Pacific Northwest. FDR-era hydroelectric dams that had powered the postwar boom were reaching their limit, threatening blackouts and economic stagnation. Big challenges beget big plans: The Hydro-Thermal Power Plan called for 26 new nuclear and coal-fired plants to keep the region humming through the mid-1990s. But 15 years later, a public power agency tasked with building five nuclear power plants called WPPSS — dubbed “Whoops!” by the wags — triggered the then-largest municipal bond default in U.S. history.1Of the five plants, only one went into operation, while four were partly built at enormous expense and abandoned.

In 2020, the whole country faces a crisis — a public-health and economic debacle rolled into one. Once we get past this one, another still looms: climate change. The two are comparable in several respects, not least their utter indifference to politicization. They are also linked by the question of stimulus money: How much of any program will go toward climate-friendly initiatives such as electrification and renewable energy? Part of the answer must be another question: How can such resources be deployed most usefully?