The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as

Economic Development

Updated December 4, 2024

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

R46015

SUMMARY

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as

Economic Development

R46015

December 4, 2024

Julie M. Lawhorn

Analyst in Economic

With the decline of the U.S. coal industry, managing the economic effects of energy transition

Development Policy

has become a priority for the federal government. The Partnerships for Opportunity and

Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative, and the broader POWER Plus Plan

of which it was a part, represent the U.S. government’s efforts to ease the economic effects of

energy transition in coal industry-dependent communities in the United States, and especially in

Appalachia. Launched in 2015 by the Obama Administration as a multi-agency effort utilizing

various existing programs, the POWER Plus plan received partial backing through appropriations for Fiscal Year 2016

(FY2016) to the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Economic Development Administration, and for abandoned mine

land reclamation.

While certain proposed provisions of POWER Plus were never enacted or funded, other elements of the POWER Initiative

have continued under the Trump and Biden Administrations. Continuing programs include the Assistance to Coal

Communities program (now part of the Assistance to Energy Communities initiative) within the Economic Development

Administration, the POWER Initiative under the Appalachian Regional Commission (the only program to retain the original

branding), and a funding program for abandoned mine land reclamation. Of these efforts, the Appalachian Regional

Commission’s POWER Initiative is the largest of the initiative’s economic development programs, having funded over $487

million in projects since it was first launched. The Appalachian Regional Commission’s POWER Initiative is regionally

targeted to declining coal communities in Appalachia, unlike the Economic Development Administration’s Assistance to

Coal Communities (now the Assistance to Energy Communities) program, which has a national scope. To date, the initiative

has reportedly leveraged approximately $1.85 billion of private investment into the Appalachian regional economy. This

report provides background on the origins, development, and activities of the POWER Initiative.

Congressional Research Service

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1

The POWER+ Plan ................................................................................................................... 2

The POWER Initiative .............................................................................................................. 3

POWER Elements in the Current Administration ........................................................................... 4

The EDA Assistance to Coal Communities (ACC) Program .................................................... 4

Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization (AMLER) Reclamation Program ................ 5

The ARC’s POWER Initiative ......................................................................................................... 6

About the ARC .......................................................................................................................... 6

Scope and Activities .................................................................................................................. 7

Funding History ........................................................................................................................ 9

Policy Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 11

Concluding Notes .......................................................................................................................... 12

Figures

Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission............................................................... 6

Figure 2. Distribution of ARC POWER Initiative Projects, 2016-2024 (to date) ........................... 9

Tables

Table 1. POWER+ Plan, FY2015 Roll Out ..................................................................................... 3

Table 2. ARC POWER Initiative Appropriations, FY2016-FY2024 and FY2025 Request .......... 10

Table 3. ARC POWER Initiative Grant Awards, FY2016-FY2024 .............................................. 10

Contacts

Author Information........................................................................................................................ 14

Congressional Research Service

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

Introduction

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has forecast U.S. coal production to decline

through 2050, with the sharpest reduction to occur by the mid-2020s.1 Consequently, the coal

industry’s decline has contributed to economic distress in coal-dependent communities, including

increased unemployment and poverty rates.2

In response, the Obama Administration launched the Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce

and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Plus Plan, which addressed the coal sector’s decline

through funding for (1) economic stabilization, (2) social welfare efforts, and (3) environmental

efforts. The economic elements were organized within the POWER Initiative, a multi-agency

federal initiative to provide economic development funding and technical assistance to address

economic distress caused by the effects of energy transition principally in coal communities.

Although the initiative began as a multi-agency effort as part of the POWER Plus Plan, the

POWER Initiative currently operates as a funded program administered by the Appalachian

Regional Commission (ARC) in its 423-county service area.

This report considers the background of the POWER Initiative and the broader effort of which it

was originally a part, the POWER Plus Plan. It broadly surveys the state of POWER elements in

the current administration, including elements of the initiative in the Economic Development

Administration (EDA), the ARC, and funded efforts for abandoned mine land reclamation. The

Appalachian Regional Commission’s POWER Initiative program is the largest of these, and the

only program to retain the POWER Initiative branding. This report considers its scope and

activities as well as its funding history.

The POWER Initiative is supported by Congress as reflected by consistent annual appropriations.

The POWER Initiative may also be of interest to Congress as an economic development program

that actively facilitates and eases the repercussions of energy transition in affected communities in

Appalachia. More broadly, in light of the projected continued decline of the coal industry, as well

as proposals to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from hydrocarbon combustion,

congressional interest in programs to address economic dislocations as a result of energy

transition is likely to accelerate.

Background

The POWER Initiative was launched in 2015 as a multi-agency federal effort to provide grant

funding and technical assistance to address economic and labor dislocations caused by the effects

of energy transition—principally in coal communities around the United States.3 The POWER

Initiative was a precursor to a broader effort known as the POWER Plus Plan (dubbed POWER+

1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2023: With Projections to 2050, November 2022,

Total Coal Production, reference case, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=1-AEO2023&cases=

ref2023&linechart=ref2023-d020623a.6-1-AEO2023&ctype=linechart&sourcekey=0 and https://www.eia.gov/

outlooks/aeo/narrative/index.php.

2 Eric Bowen et al., An Overview of the Coal Economy in Appalachia, Appalachian Regional Commission, January

2018, https://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/CIE1-OverviewofCoalEconomyinAppalachia.pdf.

3 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “FACT SHEET: The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce

and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative,” press release, March 27, 2015,

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforceand-economic-revitaliz.

Congressional Research Service

1

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

by the Obama Administration).4 This latter plan was launched using preexisting funds, and was

intended to develop an array of grant programs across multiple agencies to facilitate energy

transition and ameliorate the negative effects of that transition. Most legislative elements of the

POWER+ Plan were carried out under existing authorities rather than new legislation. Certain

features continue to be active—particularly elements of the POWER Initiative within the ARC

and the EDA.

The POWER+ Plan

The POWER+ Plan was organized to address three areas of concern:

1. economic diversification and adjustment for affected coal communities;

2. social welfare for coal mineworkers and their families, and the accelerated cleanup of hazardous coal abandoned mine lands; and

3. tax incentives to support the technological development and deployment of

carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration technologies.5

The POWER+ Plan was proposed in the FY2016 President’s Budget as a multi-agency approach

to energy transition.6 As proposed, the POWER+ Plan involved the participation of the

Department of Labor (DOL), the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), the Small Business

Administration (SBA), the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the Department of

Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the

Treasury, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Corporation for National and Community

Service, and the Department of the Interior (DOI). The FY2016 President’s Budget requested

approximately $56 million in POWER+ Plan grant funds as follows:

•

•

•

•

$20 million for the DOL;

$25 million for the ARC;

$6 million for the EDA; and

$5 million for the EPA.

In addition, a portion of USDA rural development funds—$12 million in grants and $85 million

in loans—were aligned to POWER+ Plan priorities. Also, the plan sought $1 billion for

4 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “FACT SHEET: Administration Announces New Workforce and

Economic Revitalization Resources for Communities through POWER Initiative,” press release, October 2015,

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheet-administration-announces-newworkforce-and-economic.

5 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Investing in Coal Communities, Workers, and Technology: The

POWER+ Plan, The President’s Budget: Fact Sheets on Key Issues Fiscal Year 2016, February 2, 2015,

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/fact_sheets/investing-in-coalcommunities-workers-and-technology-the-power-plan.pdf.

6

The POWER+ Plan involved a number of existing programs and initiatives administered by the participating

agencies, and did not have an appropriations line item unto itself. An OMB fact sheet describes the specific funding

measures proposed in the new budget among the participating agencies: OMB, Investing in Coal Communities,

Workers, and Technology: The POWER+ Plan, The President’s Budget: Fact Sheets on Key Issues, Fiscal Year 2016,

February 2, 2015, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/fact_sheets/

investing-in-coal-communities-workers-and-technology-the-power-plan.pdf.. These funding requests were reflected in

the FY2016 White House budget proposal: OMB, Fiscal Year 2016 Budget of the U.S. Government: Appendix,

February 2, 2015, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2016-APP/pdf/BUDGET-2016-APP.pdf. See also

The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “FACT SHEET: Administration Announces New Workforce and

Economic Revitalization Resources for Communities through POWER Initiative,” press release, October 2015,

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheet-administration-announces-newworkforce-and-economic.

Congressional Research Service

2

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

abandoned mine land reclamation and an additional $2 billion for carbon capture and

sequestration technology investments.7

The POWER Initiative

The Obama Administration described the POWER Initiative as a “down payment” on the

POWER+ Plan, and focused on the Plan’s economic development elements using existing

funding sources (Table 1).8 Those existing funding sources (or “Targeted Funds” in Table 1) refer

to funds that were set aside by the respective federal executive agency in support of the POWER+

Plan in FY2015. These funding amounts are only those funds made available initially, and do not

account for additional appropriations or set-asides made available as the program progressed. The

EDA was initially designated as the lead agency for the POWER Initiative, with significant

funding elements from the ARC, SBA, and DOL. While led by the EDA, POWER Initiative

grants were determined by the individual awarding agency. Grants were divided into two funding

streams: (1) planning grants; and (2) implementation grants.

The POWER Initiative was announced in March 2015, with the first tranche of grants awarded in

October 2016.9 With the exception of certain parts of the POWER Initiative and funding for

reclaiming abandoned mine land (AML), broad elements of the POWER+ Plan were not enacted

by Congress. Since the end of the Obama Administration, the ARC is the only federal agency

with a POWER Initiative-designated program.

Table 1. POWER+ Plan, FY2015 Roll Out

as announced in March 2015

Agency

Program / Activity

Targeted Funds

Department of Commerce,

Economic Development

Administration

Assistance to Coal Communities,

Economic Adjustment Assistance,

and Partnership Planning

$15 million

Department of Labor, Employment

and Training Administration

Dislocated Worker National

Emergency Grants

$10-20 million

Small Business Administration

Regional Innovation Clusters and

Growth Accelerators

$3 million

Appalachian Regional Commission

Technical Assistance and

Demonstration Projects

$0.5 million

Source: The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “FACT SHEET: The Partnerships for Opportunity and

Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative,” press release, March 27, 2015,

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-andworkforce-and-economic-revitaliz.

7 OMB, Investing in Coal Communities, Workers, and Technology: The POWER+ Plan, The President’s Budget: Fact

Sheets on Key Issues, Fiscal Year 2016, February 2, 2015, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/

omb/budget/fy2016/assets/fact_sheets/investing-in-coal-communities-workers-and-technology-the-power-plan.pdf.

8 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “FACT SHEET: The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce

and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative,” press release, March 27, 2015,

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforceand-economic-revitaliz.

9 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “FACT SHEET: Administration Announces New Workforce and

Economic Revitalization Resources for Communities through POWER Initiative,” press release, October 2015,

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheet-administration-announces-newworkforce-and-economic.

Congressional Research Service

3

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

Notes: The EPA, USDA, Department of the Treasury, Department of Energy, the Corporation for National and

Community Service, and the Department of Interior were also noted as participating agencies, but did not

initially contribute funding. Targeted funds refers to funds that were set aside by the respective federal agency in

support of the POWER+ Plan in FY2015. These funding amounts are only those funds made available initially, and

do not account for additional appropriations or set-asides made available as the program progressed.

POWER Elements in the Current Administration

As of FY2024, the POWER Initiative exists solely as a funded program of the ARC, and is no

longer a multi-agency initiative. However, certain other elements originally included in the

POWER+ Plan and the POWER Initiative continue to receive appropriations and continue to be

active, but they are not designated as such. These elements are discussed below.

The EDA Assistance to Coal Communities (ACC) Program10

The EDA continues to receive appropriations for its Assistance to Coal Communities (ACC)

program. The ACC program was a grant-making element launched as a part of the EDA’s role in

the POWER Initiative.

In FY2024, $75 million was designated for the ACC program as part of appropriations to the

EDA.11 The FY2024 appropriations represented the tenth consecutive fiscal year of funding for

the ACC program, and reflected 650% growth from approximately $10 million appropriated in

FY2015. (See CRS Report R46991, Economic Development Administration: An Overview of

Programs and Appropriations (FY2011-FY2024), by Julie M. Lawhorn).12

10 Following the initial implementation of the ACC program, EDA continued to allocate funding to coal-impacted

communities. In FY2021, EDA allocated 10% ($300 million) of the $3 billion appropriation from the American Rescue

Plan Act (ARPA, P.L. 117-2) to coal-impacted communities through the Coal Communities Commitment (CCC). The

set-asides were made to the Build Back Better Regional Challenge (BBBRC) and Economic Adjustment Assistance

Challenge (EAAC). The Initial Report to the President on Empowering Workers Through Revitalizing Energy

Communities (April 2021), developed by President Biden’s Interagency Working Group (IWG), also recommended

focused federal investments for coal-impacted communities. According to EDA, the CCC builds on this report. See

EDA, “Coal Communities Commitment,” https://eda.gov/arpa/coal-communities/. The IWG’s report is available

at https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/Initial%20Report%20on%20Energy%20Communities_Apr2021.pdf,

with a follow-up report issued by the IWG in April 2023 at https://energycommunities.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/

04/IWG-Two-Year-Report-to-the-President.pdf.

11 See the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, P.L. 118-42 and the accompanying explanatory statement, printed in

the March 5, 2024, Congressional Record, p. S1399, https://www.congress.gov/118/crec/2024/03/05/170/39/CREC2024-03-05.pdf.

12 The Trump Administration’s FY2017 Budget sought to eliminate the ACC program. See U.S. Department of

Commerce, Economic Development Administration: Fiscal Year 2017 Congressional Budget Request, February 9,

2016, pp. 36-38, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY17CBJ/

EDA%20FY%202017%20Congressional%20Submission%202-8-16%20OMB%20cleared%20508%20Compliant.pdf.

Subsequent Trump Administration Budget requests proposed eliminating the EDA entirely, including the ACC

program. For FY2018, the Trump Administration requested $30 million in funding for the EDA to enable the “orderly

closeout” of the agency: OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2018: Appendix, May 23, 2017, pp. 181183, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2018-APP/pdf/BUDGET-2018-APP.pdf. In FY2019, the EDA

was also proposed for termination, and approximately $15 million was requested to enable its closeout: OMB, Budget

of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2019: Appendix, February 12, 2018, pp. 182-183, https://www.govinfo.gov/

content/pkg/BUDGET-2019-APP/pdf/BUDGET-2019-APP.pdf. In the Trump Administration’s budget request for

FY2020, $30 million was requested for the EDA’s closeout: OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2020:

Appendix, March 18, 2019, pp. 178-180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2020-APP/pdf/BUDGET2020-APP.pdf. In the Trump Administration’s budget request for FY2021, $32 million was requested for the EDA’s

closeout; see OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2021: Appendix, February 10, 2020, pp. 191-192,

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

4

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

While the ACC program is an active outgrowth of the POWER Initiative and POWER+ Plan, it is

no longer associated with the POWER Initiative and instead is identified as a separate initiative

administered through the EDA’s Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) program.13 Because it

is administered as EAA funding, ACC investments may only be used for projects located in, or

substantially benefiting, a community or region that meets EDA distress criteria.

EDA economic distress is defined as

•

•

•

“An unemployment rate that is, for the most recent 24-month period for which

data are available, at least one percentage point greater than the national average

unemployment rate;

Per capita income that is, for the most recent period for which data are available,

80 percent or less of the national average per capita income; or

A Special Need, as determined by EDA.”14

Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization (AMLER)

Reclamation Program

One objective of the POWER+ Plan was to provide federal funding for the cleanup and

reclamation of abandoned coal mining sites to facilitate economic and community development.

While certain legislative proposals for these purposes were never enacted,15 Congress has

approved annual funding since FY2016 for economic development grants to states for Abandoned

Mine Land (AML) reclamation activities. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement (OSMRE) within the Department of the Interior is the federal office responsible for

administering Abandoned Mine Land reclamation activities in coordination with eligible states

and tribes.16 Initially, OSMRE referred to this program as the “AML Pilot Program.” Later, the

program was renamed as the Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization (AMLER) Program.

Congress has provided funding for the AMLER through annual appropriations from the General

Fund of the U.S. Treasury since FY2016. For additional information about funding for abandoned

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2021-APP/pdf/BUDGET-2021-APP.pdf. For a summary of EDA

appropriations, see CRS Report R46991, Economic Development Administration: An Overview of Programs and

Appropriations (FY2011-FY2024), by Julie M. Lawhorn.

13 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “FACT SHEET: The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce

and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative,” press release, March 27, 2015,

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforceand-economic-revitaliz.

14 13 C.F.R. §301.3. For additional information about area eligibility and measures of economic distress in EDA

programs, see CRS In Focus IF12074, Areas of Economic Distress for EDA Activities and Programs, by Julie M.

Lawhorn.

15 See, for example, The Miners Protection Act, first introduced in 2015 as S. 1714. Versions of this bill, with the same

scope and effect, have been reintroduced in the years since. For example, in the 116th Congress, the Revitalizing the

Economy of Coal Communities by Leveraging Local Activities and Investing More (RECLAIM) Act of 2016, H.R.

4456, was introduced but was not enacted.

16 Funding launched in FY2016 was notable for providing grants for economic development purposes. Previously,

grants had been made available to eligible states and tribes to address the hazards and environmental degradation posed

by abandoned mine sites under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977 (P.L. 95-87). For

more information on the AML economic development program, see Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement, Report on Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Economic Development Pilot Program (AML Pilot

Program) for FY 2016–FY2018, April 19, 2019, https://www.osmre.gov/programs/AML/

2016_2018_Annual_Report_AML_Economic_Development_Pilot_Program.pdf. See also Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Reclaiming Abandoned Mine Lands, https://www.osmre.gov/programs/aml.shtm.

Congressional Research Service

5

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

mine reclamation, see CRS In Focus IF11352, The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund: Issues

and Legislation in the 117th Congress, by Lance N. Larson.

The ARC’s POWER Initiative

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is the only federal agency that continues to

receive regular appropriated funding for energy transition activities under the POWER Initiative

designation.17 While the POWER Initiative was launched as a multi-agency effort, only the ARC

chose to designate its contributions as the POWER Initiative.

About the ARC

The ARC was established in 1965 to address economic distress in the Appalachian region (40

U.S.C. §14101-14704).18 The ARC’s jurisdiction spans 423 counties in Alabama, Georgia,

Kentucky, Ohio, New York, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission

Source: Compiled by CRS using data from and Esri Data and Maps and the Appalachian Regional Commission.

17 It should be noted that while the ARC is generally classified as an independent federal agency, the federal regional

commissions and authorities are unique in that although they are federally chartered organizations and draw on federal

appropriations for their operations and activities, they are generally understood to be partnerships between the

constituent states and the federal government. The vast majority of their staff and leadership are not federal employees.

For more information, see CRS Report R45997, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features

and Function, by Julie M. Lawhorn.

18 Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as amended, P.L. 89-4.

Congressional Research Service

6

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

The ARC is a federal-state partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal

government and member states, while economic development activities are federally funded

through appropriations. Thirteen state governors and a federal co-chair oversee the ARC. The

federal co-chair is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.19

Scope and Activities

The ARC’s POWER Initiative program prioritizes federal resources to projects and activities in

coal communities that exhibit elements that

•

•

•

produce multiple economic development outcomes (e.g., promoting regional

economic growth; job creation; and/or employment opportunities for displaced

workers);

are specifically identified under state, local, or regional economic development

plans; and

have been collaboratively designed by state, local, and regional stakeholders.20

In FY2024, as in prior years, the ARC funded two classes of grants as part of the POWER

Initiative: (1) implementation grants, with awards of up to $2 million (with the exception for

broadband deployment and broadband as a service (BaaS) projects, which can have awards of up

to $2.5 million),21 and (2) planning grants, with awards of up to $50,000. For FY2024, $65

million in grant funding was made available for the POWER Initiative (see Table 2), of which

one-third was reserved for broadband projects.22

POWER investments are subject to the ARC’s grant match requirements, which are linked to the

Commission’s economic distress hierarchy.23 Those economic distress designations are, in

descending order of distress

•

distressed (80% funding allowance, 20% grant match);24

19 For more information about the ARC and the other federal regional commissions and authorities, see CRS Report

R45997, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function, by Julie M. Lawhorn. See

also, in summarized form, CRS In Focus IF11140, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Overview of

Structure and Activities, by Julie M. Lawhorn. For more information about administrative expenses, see CRS In Focus

IF12165, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Administrative Expenses, by Julie M. Lawhorn.

20 Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic

Revitalization (POWER) Initiative: Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Notice of Solicitation of Applications, pp. 6-8,

https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/POWER-2024-NOSA.pdf.

21 According to the FY2024 POWER RFP, to qualify for the broadband deployment funding, at least 65% of the

broadband project’s budget “must be directed to the physical deployment of broadband infrastructure.” If more than

35% of proposed funds are directed to activities not directly associated with deployment of broadband infrastructure,

then applicants may apply for funding under the guidelines for implementation projects and will not qualify for

broadband deployment funding. See ARC, POWER, FY2024 NOSA, pp. 7-9, 29, https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/

uploads/2024/01/POWER-2024-NOSA.pdf.

22 ARC, POWER, FY2024 NOSA, pp. 7-9, https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/POWER-2024NOSA.pdf.

23 ARC, County Economic Status and Distressed Areas in Appalachia, https://www.arc.gov/classifying-economicdistress-in-appalachian-counties/.

24 The ARC uses an index-based classification system to compare each county within its jurisdiction with national

averages based on: (1) three-year average unemployment rates; (2) per capita market income; and (3) poverty rates.

These factors are calculated into a composite index value for each county, which are ranked and sorted into designated

distress levels. Each distress level corresponds to a given county’s ranking relative to that of the U.S. as a whole. These

designations are defined as, in descending order: distressed counties, or those with values in the “worst” 10% of U.S.

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

7

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

•

•

•

•

at-risk (70%);

transitional (50%);

competitive (30%); and

attainment (0% funding allowance).

Special allowances at the discretion of the commission may reduce or discharge matches, and

match requirements may be met with other federal funds when allowed.

POWER investments are also aligned to the ARC’s strategic plan. The current strategic plan,

adopted in October 2021, prioritizes five investment goals:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

entrepreneurial and business development;

workforce development;

infrastructure development;

natural and cultural assets; and

leadership and community capacity.25

Given its programmatic breadth, POWER investments may link to any one of these investment

goals. POWER investment determinations are made according to annual objectives outlined in

the request for proposals, as well as broader investment priorities, which are fostering

entrepreneurial activities; developing industry clusters in communities; building a competitive

workforce; and broadband.26

According to the ARC,27 over $484 million in investments have been made since 2015 through

564 projects in 365 counties across the ARC’s service area, leveraging an estimated $1.85 billion

of private investment. Figure 2 is a representation of the ARC’s POWER Initiative projects

tallied by state (for 2016-2024 (to date)).

counties; at-risk, which rank between worst 10% and 25%; transitional, which rank between worst 25% and best 25%;

competitive, which rank between “best” 25% and best 10%; and attainment, or those which rank in the best 10%. See

ARC, Distressed Designation and County Economic Status Classification System, https://www.arc.gov/distresseddesignation-and-county-economic-status-classification-system/.

25 ARC, Appalachia Envisioned: A New Era of Opportunity, ARC Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2022–2026,

https://www.arc.gov/strategicplan/.

26 ARC, POWER, FY2024 NOSA, pp. 6-8, https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/POWER-2024NOSA.pdf.

27 ARC, ARC’s Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative,

accessed October 24, 2024, https://arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities/power/.

Congressional Research Service

8

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

Figure 2. Distribution of ARC POWER Initiative Projects, 2016-2024 (to date)

by state (and one additional category)

Source: Data retrieved from ARC website (https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/POWER-AwardSummaries-by-State-as-of-October-2024.pdf) on October 24 2024 and tabulated by CRS.

Notes: Special Regional Projects are those projects that are undertaken to provide regional benefits, and may

include collaboration with organizations outside of the ARC’s service area. Data reflect the number of awards

announced by ARC as of October 2024. ARC reported 564 projects funded during the FY2016-FY2024 period.

Project totals in Figure 2 vary from ARC project totals because they do not include certain regional research,

evaluation, and technical assistance projects supported by POWER funding.

Funding History

While the POWER Initiative does not receive appropriations separate from that of the ARC as a

whole, congressional intent is signaled in House Appropriations Committee reports, which

specify amounts to be reserved for the POWER Initiative. In committee report language, it is

generally described as activities “in support of the POWER+ Plan” or “in support of the POWER

Initiative.”28

Table 2 shows appropriations set aside for the POWER Initiative from FY2016 to FY2024 and

the FY2025 requested amounts, as well as the amounts of annual and supplemental appropriations

for ARC as a whole.

28 See, for example: U.S. Congress, House Appropriations, Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, 2019, Report to

accompany H.R. 5895, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., 2019, H.Rept. 115-697 (Washington: GPO, 2019), p. 159; and the

explanatory statement accompanying the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and

Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-244), printed in the September 10, 2018, Congressional Record

(p. H8038), vol. 164, no. 150, https://www.congress.gov/115/crec/2018/09/10/CREC-2018-09-10-pt1-PgH7946-2.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

9

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

Table 2. ARC POWER Initiative Appropriations, FY2016-FY2024

and FY2025 Request

in millions ($)

Appropriations

reserved for POWER

Appropriations for

the ARC as a whole

FY2016

$50

$146

FY2017

$50

$152

FY2018

$50

$155

FY2019

$50

$165

FY2020

$50

$175

FY2021

$55

$180

FY2022

$65

$395

FY2023

$65

$400

FY2024

$65

$400

FY2025 Request

$65

$200

Source: Data compiled and tabulated by CRS from data provided by ARC and from committee reports

associated with the following annual appropriations bills: P.L. 114-113 (FY2016); P.L. 115-31 (FY2017); P.L. 115141 (FY2018); P.L. 115-244 (FY2019); P.L. 116-94 (FY2020); P.L. 116-260 (FY2021); P.L. 117-103 (FY2022); P.L.

117-328 (FY2023); and P.L. 118-42 (FY2024). The FY2022-FY2024 amounts include $200 million from Division J,

Title III of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58) which provided advance appropriations

for the ARC in each fiscal year from FY2022 through FY2026. The amount requested for FY2025 is from ARC

FY2025 Performance Budget Justification (see https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/FY-2025-ARCBudget-Congressional-Justification.pdf).

To date, the ARC received approximately $1.6 billion in requests for POWER Initiative grant

funding from FY2016 to FY2024 (Table 3). This suggests that there was unmet demand for the

POWER Initiative in the Appalachian region alone (the ARC’s service area, as depicted in

Figure 1).

Table 3. ARC POWER Initiative Grant Awards, FY2016-FY2024

#

Applications

Amount of Funding

Requested by Applicants

Awarded

Funds

FY2016-FY2017

216

$280 million

$91 million

FY2018

231

$329 million

$49 million

FY2019

140

$120 million

$47 million

FY2020

174

$164 million

$45 million

FY2021

188

$173 million

$57 million

FY2022a

167

$153 million

$77 million

FY2023

181

$170 million

$54 million

FY2024

170

$179 million

$68 million

Source: Data provided by the ARC and tabulated by CRS.

Notes: For FY2016 and FY2017, funding was combined into a single pot and awarded accordingly. In FY2021,

the Commission voted to recommend 26 projects totaling $28,440,625 from the FY2021cycle for funding in

FY2022.

Congressional Research Service

10

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

a.

The FY2022 “Awarded Funds” amount reflects the amount of funding announced as of August 18, 2022.

Policy Considerations

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that coal production overall will continue

to decline due to several factors such as environmental regulations, aging coal infrastructure, and

the growth of renewable energy sources.29 In particular, the EIA forecasts “U.S. coal-fired

generation capacity will decline sharply by 2030 to about 50% of current levels.”30 By 2050, coal

is projected to decline to 1-8% of U.S. electricity generation, nuclear is projected to account for

11-12%, renewables (i.e., wind, solar) 40-69%, and natural gas 11-31%, according to EIA

projections.31

Coal’s decline is a function of market forces, particularly its higher cost relative to natural gas and

renewable energy options.32 In the future, under current policies, coal’s cost disadvantage is

expected to continue, and could be accelerated if policies are adopted to reduce GHG emissions

that contribute to climate change.33 Even with federal incentives to invest in carbon capture,

utilization, and storage as a means to mitigate fossil fuel-related emissions, coal may still not be

competitive in many situations. As a result of falling demand, noncompetitive coal producers and

their communities are expected to face continued economic dislocation.

Should it wish to broaden or intensify federal efforts to address energy transition in local

communities, Congress may have several options. In the past, Congress has demonstrated

bipartisan interest in the federal government providing assistance to populations adversely

affected by the ongoing energy transitions. It has done so through its appropriations for the ARC’s

POWER Initiative, the EDA’s ACC program, and the AMLER investments.34 In combination with

evidence of unmet demand for federal assistance, as measured by unfunded requests to the ARC

(Table 3), Congress may consider reviewing the balance among needs, appropriations, and

effectiveness of past efforts. For additional information on recent federal programs for coal

communities, see CRS Report R47831, Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities, by

Julie M. Lawhorn et al.

Congress could conduct a review of the POWER Initiative and the efficacy of its performance

and resources. This potential review suggests some particular considerations:

29 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2023: With Projections to 2050, November 2022,

Total Coal Production, reference case, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=1-AEO2023&cases=

ref2023&linechart=ref2023-d020623a.6-1-AEO2023&ctype=linechart&sourcekey=0; U.S. Energy Information

Administration (EIA), “EIA Projects Coal Capacity Will Decrease in Our Annual Energy Outlook 2023,” May 11,

2023, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56460#; and EIA, “Nearly a Quarter of the Operating U.S.

Coal-Fired Fleet Scheduled to Retire by 2029,” November 7, 2022, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=

54559.

30 EIA, “EIA Projects Coal Capacity Will Decrease in Our Annual Energy Outlook 2023,” May 11, 2023,

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56460#.

31 The range of estimates in the generating capacity projections reflects different assumptions associated with a High

Zero-Carbon Technology Cost (High ZTC) case and a Low Zero-Carbon Technology Cost (Low ZTC) case. EIA, “EIA

Projects Coal Capacity Will Decrease in Our Annual Energy Outlook 2023,” May 11, 2023, https://www.eia.gov/

todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56460#.

32 Howard Gruenspecht, The U.S. Coal Sector: Recent and Continuing Challenges, Brookings Institution, January

2019, https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-u-s-coal-sector/.

33 See, for example, Ed Crooks, “U.S. Coal Output Forecasted to Fall Despite Trump Revival Efforts,” Financial

Times, January 26, 2019, https://www.ft.com/content/5c31c480-2036-11e9-b126-46fc3ad87c65.

34 See, for example: U.S. Congress, House Natural Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Climate Change:

Preparing for the Energy Transition, 116th Cong., 1st sess., February 12, 2019, House Event 108873.

Congressional Research Service

11

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

•

•

•

Geography: While the ACC is available for the nation as a whole, the ARC’s

POWER Initiative is restricted to the ARC’s service area in the Appalachian

region. Congress may consider expanding the POWER Initiative to be available

more broadly across the nation, or in a more targeted fashion as demonstrated by

the ARC’s program. Alternatively, funding could be made available nationwide to

any eligible coal community, such as through other federal regional commissions

and authorities and/or EDA regions.

Funding: Projections of U.S. coal production (cited earlier) suggest that the

ongoing transition in U.S. energy systems may lead to further localized economic

distress without the development of new regional opportunities. Congress may

consider the level of funding for POWER Initiative programs in the context of

those economic needs. Funding levels could be tied to the overall scale of the

challenge, allocated to areas with the greatest need, and made in consideration of

data-driven evaluations of the program effectiveness. In assessing scale,

Congress may consider macroeconomic factors as well as social and

environmental policy objectives.

Energy Type: Congress may also consider expanding the POWER Initiative

and/or related programs beyond the coal industry to other energy industries or

regions perceived to be in decline.35 For example, since FY2020, Congress has

directed the EDA to allocate economic adjustment assistance funding to support

transition efforts in nuclear closure communities. Congress may consider policies

to support economically distressed communities impacted by other changes in the

fossil fuel industry as well. Congress may also consider other public policy goals,

such as reducing GHGs, to assist in promoting renewable energy types and

carbon capture technologies.

Should Congress consider such efforts, the ARC’s POWER Initiative program could serve as a

potential model to be scaled or replicated as needed. In addition, other models have also been

proposed in bills introduced in the 116th -118th Congresses that would assist coal communities in

transition.36

Concluding Notes

Although the POWER+ Plan was not enacted in its entirety, some of its legacy programs continue

to receive annual appropriations and remain active. The persistence of such programs suggests

support among many policymakers for federal efforts to rectify, or at least attenuate, economic

distress as a consequence of energy transition. More broadly, these mechanisms could also be

purposed to facilitate federal resources for other related issues, such as related to

ecological/environmental resilience and adaptation. For instance, were Congress to pursue policy

35 See Martha T. Moore, Nuclear Plant Closures Bring Economic Pain to Cities and Towns, Pew Trusts, September 5,

2018, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/09/05/nuclear-plant-closures-bringeconomic-pain-to-cities-and-towns.

36 For example, in the 166th Congress, H.R. 315 included provisions “To amend the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 to authorize partnerships between States and nongovernmental entities for the purpose of

reclaiming and restoring land and water resources adversely affected by coal mining activities before August 3, 1977,

and for other purposes”; H.R. 4142, “To rebuild the Nation’s infrastructure, provide a consumer rebate to the American

people, assist coal country, reduce harmful pollution, and for other purposes.” In the 117th Congress, H.R. 5376

included provisions to provide assistance to assistance to energy and industrial transition communities, including coal,

oil and gas, and nuclear transition communities.

Congressional Research Service

12

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

efforts reflective of broadening concern for climate issues,37 a POWER Initiative-type program

could be developed to also facilitate energy transition from fossil fuel-based energy sources to a

mix of renewables and other alternatives.

The POWER Initiative, as originally conceived or in its current form as a program of the ARC,

has not been evaluated by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) or other research

organization for its effectiveness as either a mechanism for alleviating community economic

distress caused by the declining coal industry, or economic development more broadly. One

recent GAO report mentioned the Assistance to Coal Communities program, but did not seek to

analyze its activities or efficacy.38 Similarly, older GAO reports exist that feature the Abandoned

Mine Land Reclamation program (prior to its current configuration),39 and the Appalachian

Regional Commission,40 but may be of limited relevance when evaluating current programming,

including more recent activities such as the POWER Initiative. Meanwhile, a number of

anecdotal and media reports appear to tout the POWER Initiative’s success and viability.41 The

ARC, for its part, reports that the POWER Initiative has invested over $484 million in over 564

projects in 365 counties across Appalachia since 2015. According to the ARC, those investments

are “projected to create or retain more than 54,000 jobs, and leverage more than $1.85 billion in

additional private investment.”42

ARC completed four evaluations of the POWER Initiative. The FY2019 evaluation (Year 1)

focused on early impacts, challenges, opportunities, and technical assistance needs associated

with the implementation grants funded in or prior to FY2018.43 The FY2020 evaluation (Year 2)

covered additional topics such as projects designed to address the impacts of substance use

disorder (SUD); community capacity in counties in which multiple POWER projects have been

implemented; and multistate projects. The FY2020 evaluation also evaluated early results of

closed POWER projects.44 The FY2021 evaluation (Year 3) reported on indicators of change from

the individual, business, and community levels.45 The FY2022 evaluation (Year 4) reported

37 See H.Res. 112.

38 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Economic Adjustment Assistance: Federal Programs Intended to Help

Beneficiaries Adjust to Economic Disruption, GAO-19-85R, March 5, 2019, pp. 13-14, https://www.gao.gov/products/

GAO-19-85R.

39 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement: Abandoned Mine Land Program, GAO-09-208R, November 26, 2008, https://www.gao.gov/products/

GAO-09-208R.

40 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Economic Development: Limited Information Exists on the Impact of

Assistance Provided by Three Agencies, RCED-96-103, April 3, 1996, https://www.gao.gov/products/RCED-96-103.

41 See, for example: Brittany Patterson, Portal 31: How A Closed Mine Opened New Prospects For One Coal Town,

WFPL.org, November 11, 2019, https://wfpl.org/portal-31-how-a-closed-mine-opened-new-prospects-for-one-coaltown/; and “A $1.5M Shot in the Arm for Workforce Development,” Independent Herald, November 12, 2019,

https://www.ihoneida.com/2019/11/12/shot-arm-workforce-development/.

42 ARC, ARC’s POWER Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities/power/.

43 ARC, Chamberlin and Dunn, Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative: An

Implementation Evaluation, October 2019, https://www.arc.gov/report/success-factors-challenges-and-early-impactsof-the-power-initiative-an-implementation-evaluation/.

44 ARC, Chamberlin and Dunn, POWER Initiative Evaluation: Factors and Results of Project Implementation,

September 2020, https://www.arc.gov/report/power-initiative-evaluation-factors-and-results-of-project-implementation/

.

45 ARC, Chamberlin and Dunn, POWER Initiative Evaluation: The POWER of Change Stories of Results for

Individuals, Businesses, and Communities, September 2021, https://www.arc.gov/report/power-initiative-evaluationthe-power-of-change/.

Congressional Research Service

13

The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development

closed projects and analysis of the longer-term impacts of POWER grants.46 The evaluations

highlight the varying scales of implementation and the range of activities supported by POWER

Initiative awards (e.g., infrastructure, planning, broadband, workforce development, substance

use disorder, or a combination of activities). Additionally, the evaluations note that POWER

projects may have a range of timelines for implementation, which impacts the evaluators’ ability

to uniformly measure outcomes.

Author Information

Julie M. Lawhorn

Analyst in Economic Development Policy

Acknowledgments

This report was originally written by former CRS Analyst Michael Cecire. Congressional clients seeking

more information and analysis on the material covered in this report should contact the current author.

Lance N. Larson, Analyst in Environmental Policy, provided substantive edits and assistance in updating

the report.

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan

shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and

under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other

than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in

connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not

subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in

its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or

material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to

copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

46 ARC, Chamberlin and Dunn, POWER Initiative Evaluation: The POWER of Evaluation, September 2022,

https://www.arc.gov/report/power-initiative-evaluation-the-value-of-power/.

Congressional Research Service

R46015 · VERSION 11 · UPDATED

14