The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed by President Trump earlier this month phases out most federal incentives for wind and solar energy. Passage slashed clean-energy support, expanded subsidies for fossil fuels, and will slow the diversification of the country’s energy mix.

Yet deep in the 870-page bill was a provision that climate advocates will celebrate: the key recommendation from a Salata Institute white paper published last August by Harvard University researchers Ana Martinez and Dustin Tingley, “Federal Land Leasing, Energy, and Local Public Finances.”

Under section 50303 (b), the OBBBA fundamentally shifts how communities, especially in the American West, benefit from clean energy projects.

Beginning on January 1, 50 percent of every rent, royalty, and capacity payment generated by wind and solar developments on public land will flow back to the states and counties that host them. That may sound like a bookkeeping tweak, but for America’s energy transition it is a strategic breakthrough.

In the paper, Martinez and Tingley documented a quiet inequity: Fossil fuels developed on federal land have long sent half their revenues from Washington back home, while renewables sent almost nothing back to the communities where the revenue came from. In a nationally representative survey, the authors found overwhelming bipartisan support – 91 percent of Democrats, 87 percent of Republicans – for giving localities the same fiscal stake in clean energy that they receive from oil and gas.

The OBBBA turns host communities into partners, said Tingley, the Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Public Policy and Deputy Vice Provost for Advances in Learning.

“Clean-energy policy often divides along party lines. Revenue sharing doesn’t. Because it polls well in red, blue, and purple districts alike, the policy is likely to survive future political swings – providing the long-term certainty developers need to invest,” said Tingley.  

Large-scale wind and solar projects require thousands of acres, transmission lines, and new roads. Without a local payout, neighbors see only dust, traffic, and altered views – fodder for NIMBY opposition. By guaranteeing counties a share of the proceeds, the new rule lets officials tell constituents, “This project funds your schools, fire trucks, and property-tax relief.”

As Tingley wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed accompanying the white paper, “This difference in the benefits communities see from local energy development is spoiling progress toward diversifying energy sources, energy independence, and decarbonizing the grid. This missed opportunity for local public finances undermines how clean energy sources are perceived and supported.”

Moreover, extending revenue sharing to renewables eliminates an implicit subsidy that favored carbon-intensive resources, making clean power more competitive without a dime of new federal spending.

From white paper to statute

Decarbonizing the power sector is as much a social and political challenge as a technological one. By aligning local economic incentives with climate goals, the new revenue-sharing law removes a source of friction and facilitates the build-out of clean power. That’s a victory for communities, for the atmosphere – and a testament to the impact rigorous research can have when it meets the moment.