How Public Policy Can Drive Climate Innovation and Business Opportunities: A Conversation with USEPA’s David Cash
Resources
Host and Guest
Climate Rising Host: Professor Mike Toffel, Faculty Chair, Business & Environment Initiative (LinkedIn)
Guest: David Cash, Regional Director, USEPA, New England (LinkedIn)
Transcript
Editor’s Note: The following was prepared by a machine algorithm, and may not perfectly reflect the audio file of the interview.
Mike Toffel:
David, thank you so much for joining us here on Climate Rising.
David Cash:
It’s such a pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me.
Mike Toffel:
So let’s begin by just understanding a little bit about your career journey and what led you to become the regional administrator of the New England region of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?
David Cash:
Well, it’s a long and winding path I took. And I’m not going to get into the fact that my first job was as a shepherd and a lumberjack, uh, and then a science teacher, in which I became very interested in environment and environmental science.
And from there I became very interested in environmental policy and spent time at the Kennedy School, I think, as you know, , and focused on the role of science and technology in environmental and energy policy, and from there was able to land a position in Massachusetts state government. I was there for ten years working in both the Romney administration and Patrick administration, and particularly in the Patrick administration, was just on the lucky to be on the ground floor of the clean energy revolution here in Massachusetts, passing, , helping pass a whole range of different, , legislative packages and growing the clean energy economy here, , increasing jobs.
All of that was an incredibly exciting time. And, and, , I spent some time after that at UMass Boston. I was a dean of the policy school there and then was lucky enough to land this position in the Biden-Harris administration at this incredible moment where there’s more investment in climate and, , leaning forward on solving some of our problems of environmental justice that we have. And I, I got to say, as I’ve been thinking, , thinking through my time in government, I just feel incredibly lucky that I have, you know, I’ve had the opportunity to work with state representatives and senators and with mayors and with Congress, people, Democrats and Republicans, urban districts, rural districts.
I’ve been yelled at public meetings, and I’ve also been thanked for the work that we’re doing. And it just given me an, you know, an incredible kind of sense of the value of what public servants do. And I know when I think about what drives me and what drives my colleagues in EPA and state agencies, you know, fundamental belief that everybody, no matter where you’re from, your zip code, the color of your skin deserves to be able to open up their tap and not worry about what’s in the water.
Deserves to be standing on a street corner waiting for a school bus, and to know that your kid is not going to breathe in stinky fumes from a smelly school bus, or to know that, , the clean energy opportunities that are coming in And jobs are going to be available to you. Those are all the things that we’re striving for. And, , I just feel very blessed that in the last couple of years, particularly with this moment that we’re in, , I’ve been able to kind of see those kind of changes happening on the street.
I’ve talked to people who now had the lead pipes replaced in their homes. I see people who have, , purchased electric vehicles. I’ve talked to kids who are at school districts where there’s a new electric school bus because of the bipartisan infrastructure law, who are now taking courses in, , in transportation technology, looking at the school bus and dreaming in the future about being an entrepreneur or an innovator. So that’s what gets me up in the morning, and that’s what gets me skipping to work every morning, which is what I do.
Mike Toffel:
That sounds ideal. So with your background in not, I don’t know how many senior folks are at EPA or other agencies that you work with have PhDs, bring an academic framing to some of the work, , or have worked in state government or municipal government. So how do those experiences shape the way that you do your work as a federal environment?
David Cash:
Yeah. So there are many of both in federal government of those people with all broad range of experiences academically and in state and local government and other federal agencies. I’d say there are a couple of perspectives that I bring. One is, you know, when you go through a PhD program, it’s about analysis and how to do analysis in a way that, , helps you make good decisions. And so that I always bring with me the substance of what I worked on when I mentioned earlier that I studied the role of science in environmental policy, a lot of what I focused on was what makes science salient, credible, and legitimate.
It’s not just about credibility. It’s not just about getting the right statistics and publishing a paper, or publishing a report that sits on a shelf somewhere. It’s about how do you engage decision makers? How do you engage the public in a way that they trust the science so that the science can be used effectively? So that’s something I am constantly thinking about. We’re always going into communities, always talking to business people, always talking to other elected officials who may or may not trust the science that underlies the work that we do.
So those kind of things are fundamental to how I approach my work. And having been in state government and now working in federal government, I think just provides me with this perspective of the importance of the impacts of what we do. You know, we are not just sheltered in a big federal building. The work that we do impacts the choices that a family can make, impacts whether someone can go swimming at a beach impacts. Whether a business person is going to make an investment, impacts whether somebody is going to look for a job for something.
And I think having been in, in state government, , has been really important to understand that. And, you know, we have a kind of interesting setup here in the United States, this thing called environmental federalism, where there are federal laws and rules that are often implemented by the state. So we’re seen as co regulators. So if I can’t see through the eyes of my colleagues in, , in the States where I work, that’s going to be a problem. And I’m in Region One, that is the New England region.
So it’s a six New England states and the ten federally recognized tribes that are here in New England. And I it’s just it helps me do a better job when I have that kind of perspective. And I gotta say, the staff at EPA are remarkable. Some of them have come from state government, but even those who have not, it’s just a fundamental part of their ethos that for them to understand where their colleagues in state government they’re, if they’re on the water team at EPA, that the water regulators from the state, they can really understand the challenges and opportunities that they have.
Mike Toffel:
Yeah. So I think some of our listeners may be familiar with the multi levels of government that we have in the U.S., but many may not be. I worked as an environmental health and safety person in Singapore where there’s one government, not levels of government like we have here. So we have a municipal government. I myself am a Town Meeting Member in the town of Brookline. Yeah, we’re passing clean energy, , building aspirations and sometimes getting rejected by the state, sometimes getting approved by the state. There’s the state levels and then there’s federal.
And even in federal you work for the regional administration. , whereas there’s also the headquarters of EPA. So maybe you can help unpack a little bit about this. Are they how do they avoid stepping on each other’s toes? Where are their areas of responsibility? Distinct versus? As you mentioned, there’s some areas where there’s like a supportive role.
David Cash:
Yeah, yeah. I mean, the first key rule is how do we not trip up is for there to be really good communication. That’s kind of the critical piece. And I meet with the state Commissioners of Environment once a month. Our staff meet with their staff very frequently. I mean, it depends on what the issue is. But, , you know, it can be daily in fact, or hourly, depending on the issue at hand. But the way that it’s been structured, essentially a federal law pass like pass is like the Clean Water Act.
And then the agency, the agency, particularly at headquarters, although with input from the regions crafts regulations so that those acts can be implemented. And so let’s say that I’m going to be super simple here. Clean Water Act says, you know, the water needs to meet this standard of cleanliness in terms of pollution. Then, , the federal EPA will draft regulations that says, okay, this is how you do that. This is what the standards mean. This is what kind of science you have to do. This is how often you have to test.
This is, you know, that makes really clear what needs to happen. And during that whole regulatory process, the crafting of regulations, which could take months to years, huge amount of input from the states, huge amount of input from your municipalities, a huge amount of input from non-governmental organizations. You’ve probably heard of the big federal or national organizations like Natural Resources Defense Council, but also local ones. A local environmental justice organization can weigh in, tribes can weigh in.
And in fact, there’s some particularly special ways that we provide consultation with tribes for them to, to weigh in. We see them as sovereigns. And we know that the that we’re going to have impact on the way they live their lives. And so they have a seat at the table as well. And so once those regulations are drafted, with all of that input, we work really closely with the states to implement them. And then when there’s conflict, it can go to the courts. And, you know, we try to work through those conflicts in a way that ends up reaching our collective goal, which is, , protecting human health and the environment and doing such in a way that doesn’t harm the economy and doing such a way, particularly now with the Biden-Harris administration and administrator Michael Regan advances justice and rights, the wrongs of environmental injustices, of the path of the past.
You know, rural, , you know, poor rural communities, poor communities, native communities, communities of color, all, , have the possibility of having a legacy of pollution and also have not had a seat at the table. And that’s something that we’re that we’re working on to correct as we move forward in the regulatory process. Now, what’s really interesting about EPA right now, and was not the case when I took the job, was through the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act.
EPA now is an incredible, , funder of clean energy activities. Between the two bills, we there’s about $110 billion that’s billion with a B. Yeah. That we’re getting out into communities that we’re getting to the states over.
Mike Toffel:
What time period?
David Cash:
So it depends on the program within. But 5 to 10 years okay. , and a lot of, you know, I don’t know the exact number, but billions of dollars have already gone out. Billions of dollars have already been spent to remove lead pipes. Billions of dollars have already been spent to get heat pumps in people’s homes. Billions of dollars have already been spent on electric vehicles. All of those are moving forward in communities. And, , and that’s something that EPA hasn’t had a history of on that scale. We’ve already always given our grants, but never to them at the scale that we’re doing now.
Yeah. And even there I mentioned before about the need to coordinate with city, state and federal here. There’s lots of federal to federal coordination. Right. Because some of these grants are being done through the Department of Energy, some through EPA, perhaps Dot the Department of Transportation might have a role.
Yeah. To, , a couple of weeks ago, I was down in, , , Central Falls, , Rhode Island, where I was meeting with my counterpart, regional administrator for Housing and Urban development. We were looking at brownfield sites. So these are sites that are polluted but not horribly polluted, but they’re polluted enough. Think about all of the old mills in New England that, , polluted the lands that they’re on chemicals, chemicals, heavy metals, things like that.
, where, you know, a private developer won’t touch because the risks are too high, and liability is too high. And so EPA will come in with funding, and it’s been boosted by the bipartisan infrastructure law. EPA will come in and spend dollars to assess and then clean up so that then the city, the state, private developers will come in and feel safe making an investment to convert an old mill into new apartments, or into a school, or into a playground or a river walk.
I mean, the creativity is only limited by the creativity of the communities and what they want and they and what they need. And there’s a really cool nexus with what’s going on climate. There’s an old mill up in Lincoln, Maine, that’s getting brownfields funding, and it’s going to be a converted part of it is going to be converted into a facility that has batteries that can be used to balance the grid, for example. And if I remember correctly, the battery technology was developed in Somerville at a startup in Somerville here in the Boston area. Yeah, in the Boston area. Right. So we have this incredible all government nexus of investments that are driving redevelopment in a, you know, in a in an eyesore, in a problem of a community and turning it into something really good. And I, I like to talk about these as a win win win win win win. I think they’re 7 or 8 wins. Every time I go to a new community, there’s a new win I hadn’t thought of. And here was here’s one. I was doing an event and I saw the chief of police and the chief of fire there.
And I was like, oh, I wonder why they’re here. I hadn’t really thought it through that much. And it’s because this decrepit mill was a place where people went and started fires. And so they’re really concerned about these kinds of issues. So there’s another win. We invest and these things are become less of a safety concern. And it’s an incredible return on investment in New England. About for every federal dollar. Eight other dollars come in. And whether that’s state or municipal or private sector.
I mean, that’s just remarkable. Who wouldn’t want an investment like that? Eight 8 to 1. So those things are just remarkable how they solve multiple problems at once with a really smart program that invests taxpayer money wisely and is driven by the community. It’s the communities that have to step up and apply for this funding.
Mike Toffel:
And this is a brownfield redevelopment funding example.
David Cash:
That’s exactly.
Mike Toffel:
And that’s coming from the Inflation Reduction Act.
David Cash:
That’s coming from the bipartisan infrastructure law. But maybe that battery I don’t know the example, this particular example that I gave you, but maybe that battery manufacturing facility or the or the startup in Somerville got some Inflation Reduction Act funding so we could see like a through the Department of Energy. Right. So you could see this all of government approach. Just like my meeting with the with the HUD, the Housing and Urban Development regional administrator. They’re interested in affordable housing in Central Falls, Rhode Island. So they see this redevelopment where they can use some bipartisan infrastructure law funding that they have to advance their goals of affordable housing while we’re cleaning up something and making something that the community wants.
Mike Toffel:
So the examples you’ve been talking through about brownfield redevelopment in New England these I imagine are going on across the country regions as well.
David Cash:
Yeah, they are although New England gets a large share of that funding, and you could understand why we have a long, much longer history than other parts of the country of these old manufacturing facilities. And but it is everywhere. These investments are happening everywhere.
Mike Toffel:
Got it. So, , let’s talk a little more about the role of EPA in distributing these funds that come through the Inflation Reduction Act, the bipartisan infrastructure law, and other ways it gets involved. So we’re talking about funding brownfields. , I know that the EPA and its partner agencies provide a variety of incentives for EVs, right? We talked about batteries, for example. Yeah, that’s on the on the component. Then I think there’s also some incentives for manufacturing and even for the purchasing of EVs.
Can you talk through a little bit about it?
David Cash:
Yeah. So our part of that supply chain and you’re exactly right. Part of the wisdom of the Inflation Reduction Act and bipartisan infrastructure law that, you know, the Biden-Harris administration wants to make the United States a leader in the clean tech space. And so you have to think all through the supply chain, the components, the mining, the components, the manufacture of all the parts, and then the selling into the market, creating the markets that where there will be demand for these. So on the actual purchase in the bipartisan infrastructure law, for example, there’s $5 billion nationally.
Again, it’s kind of crazy to be talking about these big numbers, big numbers, $5 billion nationally to purchase electric school buses. So diesel school buses are a huge problem. You know, they transport millions of students every day. , I was a school teacher. One of my jobs was bus duty. So I’d be standing out on the side of the school as the buses rolled in. At the end of the day, breathing in the particulates from the diesel, , Emissions, the diesel pollution.
And I also took a bus as a kid. So I remember that kind of sweet, acrid smell that you smell when a school bus comes. And, all of the evidence shows that there are a lot of emissions that get inside the school bus. So it’s a huge problem. Yeah. And if you look at these communities that I mentioned earlier, the low-income communities, urban communities, , higher rates of asthma than average. , and so the clean school bus program was designed to target rural and urban communities that needed to replace their diesel school buses sooner rather than later, with the idea being that when we hit a particular tipping point, the prices are going to come down.
I mean, this is the case with all of these technologies. Prices will come down as has been shown, and then everybody will be able to afford them. They’ll be competitive with diesel school buses. So, , we in New England, we’ve been getting out. I think hundreds of school buses now have been funded. , and of course, as I mentioned, that pushes the market that provides a market for the batteries that are being manufactured now and new battery plants. I think I’ve heard of them in Kentucky, in Tennessee, , you know, there are in New England, we have a lot of, , third-party bus companies.
, so some school districts own their buses. But, , there are companies that, , that are third parties that school districts, , contract with and they are all in. There’s a, there’s a combination. They have to combine with a school district to get of these, some of these funds. But now they’re all about I was up in Lawrence last year and the company up there, they’re going to put solar on their big bus depot. They have all of the infrastructure ready to go. And like I mentioned to you, , , some of the districts are combining this with their curriculum, um, so that students can avail themselves of this new technology, both the charging technology, the bus technology itself, so that when they’re in their automotive class, what they’re learning about is the technology of the future, not the technology of the past.
So bipartisan infrastructure law, that’s, , that’s one example of, , of how funding has gone out to make a real change in communities. And again, I go back I always go back with all of these things and think about the parent standing in a corner with their kid. Right. This is what this is about. They might not care about climate, might not think about it. Never heard of the Inflation Reduction Act. But you know, when they’re standing on the street corner and they hear a quiet bus come up. Yeah. And all they smell are the flowers, not the diesel fumes.
Yeah. That’s a big change. Yeah. Right. And that’s on all of these. That’s what we’re thinking about. Let me, let me explain. , one other , and we can get back to it because this is a big one and there’s a lot of detail about it. But the greenhouse gas reduction fund. So this is in the Inflation Reduction Act. It’s $27 billion. And that’s structuring, , a network nationwide of community organizations and financial institutions that essentially are going to supercharge capital to be available in these communities, supercharge financing so that these communities can make investments in a whole range of clean tech, , clean tech opportunities.
And, , when last year we did an event in Boston on this, Senator Markey was there, the administrator, Michael Regan, came and we toured an apartment complex. And, , the woman who showed us around was describing how in the winter, snow blows through the door and how in the summer, , you know, it’s incredibly sweltering hot. The systems are terrible. They’re old. There’s a natural gas power plant in the middle of this housing development.
And you know, later I was looking at some pictures and I hadn’t set it up this way. Or the person who said to me, I hadn’t said it this way, but there was a whole group of kids who were standing who happened to be now in an internship workforce development program on clean tech, who live in the community. , and in the background, you could see the stacks for these natural gas plants in their community, you know, surrounded by apartment buildings. And so what, the greenhouse gas reduction fund, you can imagine a developer that avails themselves of maybe low-interest loans or some loan forgiveness or something.
I don’t know how they’re going to be set up. There’s a lot of different there’s a lot of creativity on the financing that $27 billion can make available. But the idea would be that then this whole complex could be weatherized, it could be retrofitted with new induction stoves, it could get new windows, it will get new doors. It will, you know, all of the kinds of things that will make sure that that family won’t have to go through a bitter New England winter in the way they have, and that family won’t have to go through a climate-changing summer in Boston, in which they’re way more 90 degree days than there had been in the past, and can live a comfortable life, and we’ll have lowered electricity costs.
That’s the future that that we’re looking at. And of course, to do all that work, you can’t outsource that. You can’t outsource the, the, , bringing in of a new stove or, or putting in heat pumps. You can’t outsource that to a different country. Right? Right. And yeah. Yeah. And if this is done well, it’s going to be local. Like those kids, you know, can imagine those kids being trained to be the next installers of this, of this new clean energy technology. So that’s you know, that’s the kind of future that we’re looking at that’s going to, you know, get the kind of multiple benefits from these kinds of investments.
Mike Toffel:
So you mentioned you’ve done lots of community meetings. And I know that, , in your role, you don’t get into politics, but I imagine a question that you must feel. So I’ll. I’ll ask it. Sure. It must be. Why do we need government to do all these things? Why doesn’t the strongest economy in the world provide the capital that it needs to make these types of investments? If electric school buses are such a good idea, why don’t we let school bus providers Teslas of the world, or new startups that we haven’t heard of yet develop it? Why do we need billions of dollars flowing from the federal government?
David Cash:
So that’s a that’s a great question and a great question to be asking at a business school. And right across the river is the policy school. Right. And I’m going to give two quick, , answers to that. One is that problems like climate change, and problems like local air pollution, are the big ones that I’m talking about today. But we could talk about water pollution, those that the companies that pollute. That caused these problems essentially don’t pay for that. They don’t pay for the sick kids.
They don’t pay for the time off that the parent has to spend going to the hospital in the morning, and they miss a morning of work. It doesn’t pay for the fact that kids with asthma are going to have low earning potential in the future. So the companies, the polluters don’t pay for that. Right. So it’s not calculated in, you know, in the cost of what of how they do business. So that’s a really good place for government to step in and, and to take the kind of actions that we’re taking. The other is that, you know, there’s a hundred-plus years of an industry hard to break into.
And again, another place where government, when there are new technologies, particularly that have public benefits, can assist with that. And the other is again, I’m sensitive to being at a at a business school. And I’m also thinking, you know, of the kind of investments that the Biden-Harris administration is making is that, you know, sometimes, you know, it’s high risk to make some investments early on in the, in the development of a technology and for many products. Government should have no role in that. You know, whether there’s a public benefit or not, it’s, you know, government shouldn’t play a role in much of what goes on with research and development.
And companies do invest in research and development. But when you’re breaking into an area where the incumbents are not paying for their impact on the environment. Really good role for government to play, to spark it, to be the catalyst. And that’s exactly what we’re doing here. And of course, not all of the startups and new technologies are going to be successful, but we’ve got to level the playing field so that a new battery manufacturer can see that they can will have a future and can play in this.
And that’s exactly what’s been happening. And government will step back as we see the increase in these sectors in the manufacture and production of these new technologies. Government will step back because they’ll be able to compete. And already in many parts of the world and many parts of the United States, solar and wind are the cheapest form of electricity. And in the long run, having an electric vehicle is a lot cheaper than having a gas vehicle.
And that’s partly because of the energy costs, but it’s because they’re just cheaper to maintain. They don’t have as many moving parts. I can’t remember the exact numbers, but it’s something like a regular gas car has 6000 moving parts and an EV has like several hundred moving parts. And like, I’m, you know, you’re not going to have to replace your brakes as often an electric vehicle because the engine does the braking itself, the motor, it’s not an engine. I was corrected on that. The motor does the braking so. But even though maybe there’s long term savings, you own a car for 6 to 10 years, you’ll make it back.
There’s still that initial hump of the initial cost. And again, that’s where it’s not an EPA incentive for the cars, but the electric vehicle incentive will get consumers to try it. And I will bet anything as consumers try these cars, they’re going to love them. They’re great to drive. They’re comfortable. You don’t have to maintain them as much. You don’t have to bring them into the shop as much. All that kind of stuff. Yeah. And you’re not polluting the environment. Right.
Mike Toffel:
So you mentioned earlier about climate justice, um, and how that’s an emphasis on all of these programs. What does that look like in practice?
David Cash:
Okay. So let me give you another example. One was the school bus example. There’s an initiative cost called justice 40 initiative, which is government wide. , came from an early, , , President Biden executive order where all agencies that are making these investments, 40% of them should go to low income and disadvantaged communities, rural communities, urban communities, wherever, , there there’s a legacy of pollution, wherever there’s a, a legacy of, , health impacts, those kinds of things.
So I gave the school bus example. , another example is in the, in this, , greenhouse gas reduction fund, that network of, of investment institutions around the country, there are actually two parts. Well, there are three parts of that fund. $20 billion of it is like investments for lots of different technologies. 7 billion is just for solar, rooftop solar and community solar. That entire 7 billion has to go to low income and disadvantaged communities. And if you look at the data nationwide, many states have, you know, grown their solar programs.
And they often start by going to relatively well-off suburban areas. And, , and that’s great. That’s where they’re making inroads. But you can think of a lot of places where having solar on rooftops is going to decrease your energy budget. And for low income families, energy budget is a much larger portion of their budget than it is for wealthier families, right? So you get the economic benefit there. You get the local air pollution benefits by having renewable energy, clean, renewable energy in a in a community.
And you get the job benefits again where solar installation can’t be outsourced. Right. So and again, if we spend workforce development money correctly, which we also have, we can get kind of job growth in those communities as well. So that’s 7 billion is going all to low income and disadvantaged communities, so that’s what that looks like. The other 20 billion I believe something like 14 billion of it. So another huge percentage will be targeted to low income and disadvantaged communities. So these are the these are those you can think of them as green banks or climate banks that, you know, a communities all over the country can.
You know, you can you can imagine, for example, a company that’s in a rural part of a state that wants to invest in a fleet, you know, they’re a delivery company and they want to invest in electric fleet. They can go to one of these, , institutions, , and get funding to, to grow their fleet. And you can see the big benefits from doing that. But you can imagine, you know, again, I can go through a list of, of, , imagine this company that, that, that wants to weatherize its entire operation and get energy efficiency manufacturing facilities.
It can look at the greenhouse gas reduction Fund as an opportunity for that. Or think about a startup that’s looking for some funding. And one of the brilliant things about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is our analysis shows that for every dollar that’s in that fund, 7 or $8 will come from the private sector. So again, you can imagine let’s go back to that company that wants to electrify its fleet. If it can secure a greenhouse gas reduction fund chunk, but it still needs more, it can more easily than go to traditional forms of investment and say, hey, I got this chunk from greenhouse.
They trust what we’re doing. And so but we need another X million of dollars. Will you invest? And here’s what your return is going to be. And we’re going to see that all over the country in all manner of different kinds of investments. We’re going to see that in rural communities and urban counties. We’re going to see that in the tribes, , because the tribes have paths to get this kind of funding as well. So we’re just going to see that kind of stuff blossoming in an amazing way. , and let me give you one, , one other quick example. And, , I’m not expecting you or your listeners to remember all the names of these things.
There’s just so many. But there’s another that’s called the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants. Now, these were made available to every state territory, , as well. And they were made available to tribes. And, , again, I was at an event down in New Haven a couple of weeks ago that was phenomenal. Connecticut acted as the convener and pulled together four other New England states, and they got $450 million. Again, that’s a huge amount of money. Yeah. To get, , heat pumps all over New England.
I believe their analysis shows like in 500,000 homes. That’s a lot of homes. Yeah, yeah. And they’re going about it in a really interesting way because again, they want to be comprehensive and nurture the industry. So there will be some incentives for a homeowner that will reduce the upfront cost for these things as many states have. So it will kind of compound that. That’s great. But they’re actually going to be spending a lot of the funding going toward these kind of middle companies and the companies that develop the technology to support them, making them cheaper, more efficient, more effective.
, and the installers likewise to help them, you know, get to scale. Right. Because, again, one of the problems some of these HVAC companies have is they’re, you know, the heat pumps are competing with traditional HVAC systems. And, , and part of this funding is going to workforce development and training. Right. And , so there’s just like this really cool confluence of focus on the supply chain in a way that will end up with these heat pumps. Because, again, this is part of that grant that will go primarily to low income and disadvantaged communities, those communities who have the highest bills, who have the least comfort.
And so at the end of the day, we’re going to see families who are comfortable, comfortable in winter and summer and also have a reduced energy bill. So really exciting program. Yeah. The way you’re describing the role of EPA in the context, especially of these two new laws, is, , in the sense of you can think of regulators having carrots and sticks. Right? And so in traditionally, I think most people think about EPA is mostly in the business of sticks. And now you have lots of carrots as well.
We have baskets and baskets of carrots. It’s pretty remarkable. And we are also leaning in on the on the regulatory side. So at the same time we have been developing, , you know, , standards for cars and , medium duty and heavy duty trucks that are going to produce clean air.
In a way that greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions.
Yeah, yeah. And there are a variety of different ones of those. But yes, that’s exactly right. And, , you know, they’re not, , you know, they’re standards based on emissions, and companies have a lot of different ways of reaching them. But the signal is clear. The signal is clear to the market that we’re moving to low emission and low emission vehicles, and both on the heavy duty side and on the on the regular car side. And there also are all of these incentives, whether it’s through EPA or Department of Energy, tons of different incentives for all manner of vehicles.
So, you know, it’s we’re approaching this in a, in a really comprehensive way, in a way that we never have been able to because we haven’t had those baskets of carrots that we have now. And there’s a you know, there’s another interesting thing that we’re focusing on related to the carrots, and that is we’re way more sensitive to the needs of communities. We know that we’re a large federal agency that is often seen by communities as not being very sensitive to their needs.
That kind of top down approach here, you have to use this money in this kind of way. , no. The way that these grants have all been set up is that they are incredibly sensitive to the needs and interests of communities. Now, whether that community is defined as a state. So that Connecticut consortium that I mentioned, that was designed by the states who know how their, , energy efficiency programs and their utilities work, we didn’t tell them how to do it, what to do. We didn’t tell them to make it focused on installers and manufacturers have a focus.
They came up with that. And so I mean more power to them. Yeah. So it’s you know I’m not sure I can butcher the metaphor so much. But these are very tailored carrots to the interest of the, of the communities. And then if we take it down to some of the smaller grants where you have very specific communities that, you know, take a community in Boston, again, I’m hypothetical, where there’s lots of triple deckers, really hard to figure out how to do energy efficiency and solar in these. Maybe they’ll come forward with a with a proposal that, you know, allows him to working with the city who can help with whatever local ordinances they can do so that solar can be made available to these kinds of communities.
That might be a grant. That would be great. I mean, just the triple decker challenge is that it’s a three story single family. It looks like a single family home. Yeah, multi-family multifamily home. All multifamily homes are hard. Because they have different owners. And you have to coordinate and.
, so that’s those are the kinds of things that was the kind of nuts that we’re trying to crack with this, in a way. And we’re, you know, we’re making it work. And, , we’re staffing up with folks who, , are expert at working with communities and listening. And it’s a, it’s a role that, , that many on our staff have played in the past, particularly in a program like Superfund, in which we’re really embedded in communities for decades and very important to build trust and clean up the worst of the worst sites in a way that communities are not scared by, but see as a benefit. Yep. , but now it’s becoming infused in the entire agency in a really powerful way.
Mike Toffel:
So let’s use this as a pivot to talk about the future. Mhm. , what are the biggest opportunities that folks, business folks or people in the policy business intersection should be keeping their eyes on in terms of US regulation. And I imagine things on my mind or like offshore wind, are we gonna actually get to scale on that and sort of realize the potential off the East Coast grid capacity. You hear about the Electrify Everything movement, but then people say, well, it takes me six months or maybe even longer to get approved to hook up to the grid, and the grid capacity itself may need to be upgraded. Now, some of that’s, of course, outside of EPA’s purview, but nonetheless important for climate transition.
David Cash:
Yeah. So I you know, I think what all of these the investments that we’re making now, I guess I kind of think of it in a kind of iterative approach, and I think what the future is going to be is what we’re going to see in the future is, out of necessity, greater and greater coordination between municipal, state, federal and private sector so that we really can take advantage of those big opportunities. And we’re already seeing that. I mean, the example that you gave of interconnection often takes a long time.
We know that utility. That’s not an EPA purview. So I just want to be clear about that. That’s a state public utilities purview, which you may recall, I was a public utilities commissioner in Massachusetts. That was a perennial problem and a problem that many utilities and states are trying to figure out. And figuring out, by one way, is to align the incentives with the utilities. So the utilities have every incentive to make, , you know, not six months, but one month. Right. So that’s one of the kinds of things that that we’re working on. And we and we see that, you know, we see that with some school districts, for example, who are going to be installing charging infrastructure, which is a heavy user of electricity and may need to work with the utilities on that.
So we see the utilities sitting at the table with the municipal people, with the school district, with the state, to make those things happen faster and faster. So that I think that’s one thing that we’re going to see. I also think we’re at this incredible inflection point where, , a lot of these investments have are already out on the street investing in steel in the ground or steel in the water. And, , we’re just going to see more of that. So much of the greenhouse gas reduction fund is not yet on the street.
And we’re going to see companies, , and municipalities and private homeowners taking advantage of those kinds of funds in a way that that hasn’t. I think we’re also going to see you mentioned offshore wind. So I’ll mention that and I would recommend that you go down to the south coast of Massachusetts and get on a boat and, and ride out there, because there are several operating wind farms out there already at scale. This is industrial scale, commercial scale wind. And that’s providing clean electrons into the grid, both in New York and in New England.
And, , it’s amazing. I was at a, I was at a meeting in, , Newport, Rhode Island yesterday where the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Management was describing the development of ports just in Rhode Island, and I can’t remember all the ones he names as Port of Providence. There’s Newport, there are several others that are just booming because of the offshore wind industry. And it’s not just the you know, what’s happening offshore, it’s the onshore, right? It’s the service companies. It’s the manufacturers of components who want to be close to where the action is.
I mean, we’ve seen that all up and down the East Coast. And, you know, again, I was, , hearing from I was at the meeting I was at was all the commissioners from the country meet once or twice a year, and it happened to be in Newport. And the commissioner from Virginia was talking about all the growth that’s happening in Virginia. Same thing. They have ports that are being redeveloped, and particularly in New England, where some of these ports are on hard economic times. , this has been such a boon to their economic development, local workforce development.
And so I think we’re just at this I think what the future holds is these huge opportunities that we’re only seeing. It’s like crack the door open and we see a little sliver of light, but boy, that door is going to open wide and huge, huge opportunities in the future. Not to say it’s all going to be a piece of cake. I mean, these are big challenges and we’re still trying to figure out how to get communities, , engaged in a way that they trust what we’re doing. , and, , you know, they’re definitely going to be bumps.
They’re going to be failures. You know, that’s all part of this process. And, , but the opportunities are huge. And the benefits, as I’ve discussed, are going to be multifaceted across the value chain. There going to be benefits in terms of public health, in terms of economic development, in terms of job growth, in terms of cost savings. All of those are going to be huge.
Yeah. I think the coordination that you speak about is so important. And I do wonder whether some of the regulatory, regulatory successes in the environment space, which of course spans other regulatory agencies over the 50 year journey that we’ve had since we’ve really had bigger and more important regulations, whether we now whether they’re going to rethink some of those successes because they were kind of done in an era prior to climate change being really salient. So I’m thinking about like the big dam movement initially, you know, 100 years ago is like fantastic, cheap power.
And then people like, well, think about the aqua ecosystem and maybe we should take some of them down. And some of them came down and now we’re like, oh, now think about, you know, is the alternative fossil and global climate change. And so these are complicated. Yeah. Yeah. Things that kind of seem to go back and forth. We’ve given lots of local rights to think about what pipelines and wires go through, but that makes it very difficult for New England to get power from Quebec, which would be cleaner in some instances.
Yeah. No, I think you paint a dynamic landscape that, , I don’t know, as you were describing, all those things sounded like challenges. They all excite me because, you know, we’re a democracy that has lots of different perspectives, where our agency is based on science and understanding how the world changes. And so, of course, there going to be times where, you know, a hundred years ago, dams seemed like a great idea. Now, oh, maybe there are some problems.
And I will say I spend a lot of time, for example, up in Maine working with the tribes there for whom, , the migration of salmon was for millennia an important part of their culture and nutrition. And there are many dams that are blocking them. And where we are, we are taking down some of those dams. And we also know that offshore Maine is a huge wind resource. And so we’re looking at wind, and we’re trying to be wise and careful about how we move forward with that, knowing that there’s a fishing industry that’s concerned.
And, you know, I respect and honor their concern. And boy, we got to figure out how to expand this industrial scale wind in a way that doesn’t harm the fisheries. And we know that the tribes are concerned with what’s happening out there, too. And we have to honor and respect where they’re coming from and try to mitigate the impacts that will happen there. So, I mean, I think the dynamic you describe will never change.
That’s, you know, that’s where we are in a world where, , perspectives change and science changes and technology changes. But I feel like we’re at a moment where huge opportunity to seize these new technologies that we know are going to have big advantages that we’re already seeing will have big advantages. You know, I mentioned at the beginning that part of our, you know, our role is to protect human health and the environment and also to do so in a way that doesn’t hurt the economy, in fact, can help the economy.
When I was a Massachusetts DEP commissioner, my office was at, , Downtown Crossing, which is right in the heart of Boston. For those of you who don’t know, Boston. And I was on a corner office with these two huge plate glass windows that looked out right over Downtown Crossing, a major shopping area, people walking all over the place. And at one point my staff showed me this graph that showed, , emissions reductions over time since the 90s. , so you can think of CO2. You could think of sulfur dioxide.
You can think of nitrous and not nitrogen oxides. Bad things. And from the 1990s on, there’s just a decline over time as we got better technologies, as we put regulations in force. And then on the same graph was, , economic growth. This was just of Massachusetts. And that’s just going up like gangbusters. So I’ve never believed the notion that environmental protection and economic development can’t go hand in hand.
Sure, you want to be wise. You want to be smart with your environmental regulations, but the two can absolutely go hand in hand. And I, I made a huge graph of that graph, a big poster, that graph, and put it in that window that looked out and, , passersby would see it and have questions on their eyes. You know, sometimes I’d stand out there and talk to them about it. And I called it the kick ass graph because it just showed like, it just it debunked the myth that environmental protection and economic development can’t go hand in hand, because we’ve seen that in Massachusetts.
We’ve seen that in the, you know, the same graph you see in the United States, if you aggregate everything, and we’re just going to see that more and more as we move forward. Right.
Mike Toffel:
Well, your excitement and energy for the complexity that you described is palpable. , let’s talk a little bit about advice that you have for folks interested in getting into this game, either on the policymaking side or on the business side. People who engage with policymakers, either in a, , lobbying or rulemaking perspective. What pathways have you seen folks pursue to get into that, into that interface?
David Cash:
Yeah. So this is an incredibly dynamic and exciting time. So for those of you who are interested, more power to you. This is great. You’re going to have lots and lots of opportunities because this, , , you know, this unprecedented investment in this country and all over the world is not going to slow down. Right? So, , you know that I don’t have enough time to go through all the paths. If you’re, like, on the technology side, you’re an engineer. You’re a scientist. Great. Tap into, , what’s going on? , in, , in companies all over the world or in, you know, in, in research institutions, there’s some federal research institutions, there’s some state ones. , you know, obviously academia, that’s a that’s an absolutely good route if you’re interested in the kind of government and policy, try things out in turn in your local municipal government, in their sustainability office and their energy office, , get an internship and it’s state government office or federal government.
We all you know, and there are many different agencies that are doing this. Try it out, see what feels good to you. And of course, there, you know, there should be ample. And that by all levels of government you can find that kind of path. , and then there’s of course the non-governmental organization world as well. Also dabble in those, see what floats your boat. And, you know, and maybe you don’t need to dabble. Maybe you’re so passionate about city government, you know, what you want to do or maybe you want to be in an advocacy organization on the business side or on the environment side, or both.
Right. Because there are going to be more and more of those. And many, many environmental organizations have a business focus. And more and more business organizations have an environmental focus. Right? Because a lot of people believe what I believe that energy, that that environment and, and business can go hand in hand. So if there was one big piece of advice and you’re starting in this, it’s to try things out. Try things out and, , you know, see what fits, see what works. , and then. And then take it from there.
Mike Toffel:
Yeah. Big learn by doing.
David Cash:
Totally learn by doing. Yeah.
Mike Toffel:
Is the recruiting process in government similar to the recruiting process in private firms?
David Cash:
I don’t know it in private firms, but, , we are hiring like gangbusters. , both of the laws I mentioned, the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act is, , opening up positions. , and we’re at a phase in the demography of EPA that there are a lot of retirements as well. A lot of people came on in the 80s and 90s. , so I would recommend you go to USA jobs and, , and you can there are all kinds of searching and, , for you to get on notification so that when jobs open up, you can search by the region of the country that you want to work in.
You can search in Washington. There are lots of different ways and search in different agencies. You know, the Department of Energy, Department of Interior, , Housing and Urban Development, all of them, not all of them, but many, many federal agencies have environment, climate, energy, justice in their gambit. So, , so definitely check those out and stay tuned in. , I mean, if you’re in the area, stay tuned because you can get a lot of information on social media. So EPA New England has several social media platforms. You know, we’re at EPA underscore New England for Instagram.
So I would get on that. Not only do you see like what we’re highlighting as priorities, but we haven’t job announcements there too. , and so I would recommend that it’s a great way to kind of stay in touch with what’s going on. , and, and it’s fun.
Mike Toffel:
Great. David, thank you so much for joining us. It’s been a wide ranging, super interesting conversation.
David Cash:
Well, I’ve really appreciated the opportunity to talk to your listeners. And as you can tell, I think it’s an incredibly exciting time to be in this space, and we have lots and lots of opportunities and lots of hard work to seize those opportunities.
