Assessing U.S. Government Efforts to Support Fossil Fuel-Dependent Communities

Key Chapter Title List

1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Recent Federal Programs Supporting Fossil Fuel-Dependent Communities
4. Federal Spending in Fossil Fuel-Dependent Communities
5. Economic Performance of Fossil Fuel-Dependent Regions
6. Research Findings and Recommendations
7. Appendix A: Recent Federal Programs Supporting Fossil Fuel-Dependent Local Economies
8. Appendix B: Methodology Related to Federal Funding and Economic Analysis
9. References
10. Notes

Document Introduction

The decline in domestic fossil fuel production in the United States poses significant economic risks to communities that rely on the fossil fuel industry for employment and public revenue. Many such communities lack the resources and capacity needed to independently manage these risks. The absence of viable economic strategies in affected areas hinders the formation of a broad, lasting coalition necessary for a nationwide equitable transition to clean energy. President Joe Biden has prioritized investing in fossil fuel-dependent communities as part of his administration's broader regional economic and climate change strategy. This research report aims to evaluate these federal efforts, examining the rationale, design, and current implementation status of key related programs.

The report is structured to first outline the research background and core questions, followed by a systematic review of support programs authorized under major federal legislation passed in the early 2020s. It then analyzes the actual expenditure of federal funds in these communities and assesses the economic performance of fossil fuel-dependent regions. Based on this analysis, the report presents a series of key research findings and policy recommendations. The analytical methods include utilizing open-source federal spending datasets and conducting empirical analysis of regional economic trends.

The findings can be summarized as a series of contrasting conclusions: Unprecedented funding authorizations contrast with limited fund disbursement; despite early legislation authorizing support on a scale far exceeding previous efforts, actual disbursements for many programs remain a small fraction of the authorized amounts, and existing data struggles to demonstrate that spending effectively targets the intended communities. The program portfolio is broad but contains critical gaps; while the support scope covers incentives for clean energy and manufacturing, legacy infrastructure remediation, public infrastructure investment, and general economic development plans—reflecting the diverse challenges faced by communities—this portfolio is shaped more by national legislative priorities than by bottom-up assessments of local needs, leading to significant gaps such as fiscal stabilization support for local governments facing severe revenue losses. Resources are concentrated on already distressed communities, overlooking long-term risks; programs primarily focus on areas already experiencing economic hardship (particularly communities affected by coal mine and power plant closures), which may represent an efficient use of limited resources but leaves many fossil fuel-dependent communities (such as those reliant on oil and natural gas) exposed to future risks. Transparency has improved but data remains insufficient; the federal government has made progress in increasing transparency, including providing the open-source federal spending dataset used in this study, but without more granular and reliable data on expenditures and economic outcomes, researchers cannot rigorously evaluate program effectiveness, compare different approaches, or help policymakers scale successful models.

Combined with existing literature, these findings point to several priorities for future federal strategies to support fossil fuel-dependent communities: Provide adequate resources and capacity to regions facing both short-term and long-term economic risks from the energy transition, while empowering local communities to tailor solutions based on their specific challenges, opportunities, and preferences. Embed data transparency, rigorous evaluation, and mechanisms for program adjustment based on iterative learning into policy design. Where possible, design programs with durability and resilience to changes in political control, such as by securing bipartisan support.