science.org SCIENCEA complementary question to the ben-
efits assessment is to quantify costs associ-
ated with reaching the 2030 target and their
distribution. Analyses point in broadly com-
parable directions, but there are differences
in magnitudes and viewpoints about which
cost metrics are appropriate and how these
compare with public health and environ-
mental benefits ( 12 ). The two models in this
study that calculate levels of expenditures
on energy services required to undertake
this transformation (including investment
costs for supply- and demand-side resources,
along with fuels and maintenance) relative
to a reference scenario suggest that incre-
mental costs would be $90 billion to $100
billion (PATHWAYS) and $110 billion to
$280 billion (REGEN) per year by 2030.
Economic impacts and equity outcomes ul-
timately depend on policy implementation
details, which vary across scenarios (table
S2). For instance, one model examined how
a revenue-generating economy-wide emis-
sions cap can lead to net benefits for lower-
income households when permit revenues
are distributed to households in equal lump-
sum payments ( 9 ).
CONCLUSIONS
This study identifies robust findings across
models about actions to reach the US 2030
GHG emissions target, using different mod-
eling and policy approaches to provide more
detailed projections, actionable information,
and confidence about low- or no-regrets
strategies. It highlights the considerable pace
and scale of change needed—removing bar-
riers to expedite supply- and demand-side
buildouts (e.g., CCS technologies, EV charg-
ing infrastructure), maintaining reliability
with higher renewables shares, and design-
ing policies that encourage affordable and eq-
uitable decarbonization. These comparisons
also quantify differences across models in the
extent of renewables deployment, degree of
electrification, role of CCS, and mitigation
outside of the power and transport sectors.
These independent models can provide
greater confidence that the next decarboniza-
tion steps are clearer and more affordable.
The substantial cost reductions for key tech-
nologies such as EVs and renewables make
their roles larger than previously projected.
Although such changes have costs, they also
have substantial benefits—including immedi-
ate and localized benefits of air quality im-
provements—and present opportunities for
a more equitable distribution of both, which
warrant further investigation.
Realizing these benefits requires strong
supporting policies. Although this analysis
shows that there are many policy pathways
to reach 2030 targets, models agree that ad-
ditional federal policies and incentives are
necessary catalysts. The US Senate is cur-
rently debating whether to move forward
with tax credits, which could provide over
$500 billion to accelerate the deployment
of renewables, EVs, and other low-emitting
technologies. Public policy, private invest-
ment, and innovation today can help to
reach the 2030 target and scale the tech-
nologies of tomorrow to reduce emissions
not only from electricity and transport but
from across the economy. jREFERENCES AND NOTES- J. Rockström et al., Science 355 , 1269 (2017).
- US Government, “Reducing Greenhouse Gases
in the United States: A 2030 Emissions Target”
(2021); https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/
PublishedDocuments/United%20States%20of%20
America%20First/United%20States%20NDC%20
April%2021%202021%20Final.pdf. - US Government, “The Long-Term Strategy of the
United States: Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas
Emissions by 2050” (2021); https://www.whitehouse.
gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/US-Long-Term-
Strategy.pdf.
4. N. Abhyankar et al., “Illustrative Strategies for the United
States to Achieve 50% Emissions Reduction by 2030”
(Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2021).
5. J. Bistline et al., “Strategies and Actions for Achieving a
50% Reduction in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by
2030” (3002023165, Electric Power Research Institute,
2021).
6. “Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting
an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined
Contribution” (Environmental Defense Fund, 2021).
7. R. Fakhry, S. Yeh, “The Biden Administration Must Swiftly
Commit to Cutting Climate Pollution at Least 50%
by 2030” (IB: 21-03-A, National Resources Defense
Council, 2021).
8. N. Hultman et al., “An All-In Climate Strategy Can Cut
U.S. Emissions by 50% by 2030” (America Is All In,
2021).
9. M. Yuan et al., “Meeting Potential New U.S. Climate
Goals” (Report 351, MIT Joint Program on the Science
and Policy of Global Change, 2021).
10. I. B. Ocko et al., Science 356 , 492 (2017).
11. The White House, “Executive Order on Strengthening
American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks”
(2021); https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
presidential-actions/2021/08/05/executive-order-on-
strengthening-american-leadership-in-clean-cars-and-
trucks/.
12. S. Paltsev, P. Capros, Clim. Change Econ. (Singap.) 4
(suppl. 1), 1340003 (2013).
13. E. Grubert, Science 370 , 1171 (2020).
14. J. Bistline, Joule 5 , 2551 (2021).
15. C. Driscoll et al., “An 80x30 Clean Electricity Standard:
Carbon, Costs, and Health Benefits” (Clean Energy
Futures, 2021).
16. J. Bistline et al., Zenodo (2022); https://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.5874740.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Th e views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of
the authors alone and do not necessarily state or reflect those
of their respective institutions or funding agencies, and no
official endorsement should be inferred. T.W. is currently on
loan to the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and his
contributions were made while he was employed at EPRI.
The authors thank D. Arostegui, M. Lackner, I. Ocko, and
anonymous reviewers for feedback. L.C., H.M., and A.Z. were
supported by the Bloomberg Philanthropies. J.R. and M.Y.
gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the
Hopewell Fund and general support of sponsors of the Joint
Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change (https://
globalchange.mit.edu/sponsors/current). All data and mate-
rials associated with the analysis are available at Zenodo ( 16 ).SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn0661
10.1126/science. abn0661INSIGHTS | POLICY FORUM
020406080100120USREP-
ReEDSREGEN
E+GCAM- LBNLPATHWAYS REGEN
USA-APEDF-
NEMSAverage build rate to 20301960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020Capacity additions (GW/year)WindSolarStorageCoalGasGas CCSNuclearHydroOtherGRAPHIC: K. FRANKLIN/SCIENCE924 27 MAY 2022 • VOL 376 ISSUE 6596
Electric sector transitions by technology
Historical and projected electric sector capacity additions are shown. Projections show the average annual build
rates for utility-scale capacity through 2030. Historical values come from Form EIA-860 data. Additional information
on participating models and study assumptions can be found in materials and methods S1 and S2.