Two Approaches to Energy Access: United States Justice vs. European Union Rights
By Diamond McAllister
The United States (US) and the European Union (EU) take different approaches to energy policy.[1] The varying strategies reflect contrasting views of energy as a social right versus a matter of justice and equity. The EU favors a top-down strategy, relying on mandates, regulations, and penalties to achieve compliance.[2] Meanwhile the US leans on incentives, rewarding “good behavior” through subsidies and investments in sustainable energy initiatives.[3]
This brief comparison examines programs and policies from both sides of the Atlantic, highlighting approaches to clean energy and climate initiatives. The difference in strategies of implementing clean energy is reflected in the terminology and program design of the US and EU. The US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) invests in clean energy and lowers household energy costs to address climate change. The EU Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA), by contrast, expands net-zero technology manufacturing to meet climate goals and cut import reliance. Unlike the US framework, the EU framework holds those who fail to comply accountable.
I. Terminology Differences: Framing Justice vs. Rights
Policy terminology matters. It not only describes issues but shapes how they are understood and acted upon. The US IRA emphasizes concepts such as environmental justice, equity, communities of color, disadvantaged, and underserved groups.[4] The EU NZIA does not adopt this language. While the environmental justice movement has not yet gained significant traction in the EU, related concepts appear under different terms.[5] EU law often frames these issues in terms of energy poverty, just transition, and social cohesion.[6] The US and EU’s employment of distinct terminology in drafting their clean energy and climate initiatives points to differing policy objectives.
Why do these two jurisdictions use different terminology? The answer lies in their distinct policy objectives and historical contexts. The United States’ emphasis on equity and justice is informed by its history of slavery and systemic injustice, shaping a policymaking approach that seeks to address historical disparities.[7] The NZIA primarily targets industrial strategy and green technology deployment, embedding social standards only minimally.[8] This contrast highlights how terminology signals not just priorities but the broader societal values that underpin energy policy in each jurisdiction.
II. The US Approach: The IRA and Justice40
The IRA represents the most comprehensive federal climate policy in American history, integrating equity and justice as core components of its design.[9] The Justice40 initiative, supported by the IRA, directs 40% of federal climate and clean energy investment benefits to historically disadvantaged communities that have long faced environmental harms and systemic underinvestment.[10] These investments span a wide range of areas: climate action, clean energy development, energy efficiency improvements, clean transit infrastructure, affordable and sustainable housing, workforce development, pollution remediation, and clean water infrastructure.[11]
Building on this framework, Justice40 and other IRA provisions reflect a structural shift in federal policymaking, ensuring that historically marginalized communities are actively included in the benefits of the global clean energy transition rather than being “left behind.”[12] The IRA accomplishes these goals through a combination of tax credits, rebates, grants, and direct support for community solar projects, energy efficiency upgrades, electric vehicles, and other mechanisms designed to facilitate equitable access to clean energy technologies.[13] The IRA embeds social equity directly into funding allocations and program design.[14] This method demonstrates an approach to energy policy that leveraging incentives and targeted investments to advance both environmental and social objectives.[15]
III. The EU Approach: NZIA
The EU emphasizes energy as a social right and frames policy around collective obligations and social solidarity. The NZIA represents the EU’s industrial and technological strategy for achieving net-zero emissions.[16] Unlike broader EU social protections, the NZIA primarily focuses on accelerating green technology deployment and supporting industrial innovation, rather than direct social equity measures.[17]
The NZIA is part of a larger EU legal and regulatory framework that embeds energy protections in law.[18] Energy protections are illustrated by directives that ensure member states monitor energy access and support vulnerable populations, and its incentives are targeted toward technology adoption and market transformation.[19] Because the NZIA is grounded in EU law, its provisions are legally binding and enforceable, providing a framework to hold member states accountable for meeting energy standards.[20]
IV. Why the EU System Is Superior to the U.S. Approach in Enforcing Climate and Energy Commitments
U.S. equity initiatives like Justice40 lack justiciable rights, which renders them vulnerable to administrative reversal or inconsistent compliance. In the US, many programs are currently stalled or facing funding freezes due to recent federal policy changes.[21] Whereas, the EU is advancing its net-zero objectives rapidly, embedding social protections and industrial strategy into its policy framework.
The EU’s approach to enforcing climate and energy commitments is more robust than that of the US, primarily due to its structured accountability mechanisms. Under the EU’s European Climate Law, the European Commission can initiate infringement procedures against member states for non-compliance, which may lead to cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union.[22] Similarly, the Renewable Energy Directive (Directive 2018/2001) establishes binding targets for renewable energy adoption, and the Commission has actively pursued legal action against member states failing to meet these obligations.[23] These mechanisms create a level of enforceability and accountability that the U.S. system currently lacks.
In contrast, the U.S. system, exemplified by the IRA and Justice40 Initiative, lacks explicit statutory mechanisms to hold noncompliant parties accountable for failures in enforcement. Enforcement in the US often relies on administrative discretion and general legal principles, making it more challenging for communities to hold the government accountable for non-compliance. While there have been recent court rulings that have supported certain aspects of the IRA and Justice40, these decisions do not establish a clear, enforceable framework for communities to hold the government accountable for non-compliance.[24] The absence of an explicit right of action and the limited scope of judicial interventions underscore the challenges in ensuring consistent and equitable enforcement of these initiatives. Therefore, while the EU system offers stronger accountability mechanisms, the US approach remains less certain and more susceptible to political and administrative changes.
V. Conclusion
Together, these approaches illustrate fundamental differences in policy style and priority. Exemplified by the IRA and Justice40, the U.S. strategy relies on incentives to direct clean energy investments toward historically underserved communities, integrating social justice into environmental policy. The EU, while embedding social protections in its regulatory framework, prioritizes energy as a right and emphasizes mandates and structural supports, with the NZIA focusing on industrial and technological advancement. Understanding these differences provide insight not only into policy design but also into the underlying societal values shaping energy and climate strategies on both sides of the Atlantic. Given that energy access is essential to dignity, health, and participation in modern society, the U.S.’s lack of structured accountability mechanisms represents a critical gap in its climate and energy policy.
[1] Milan Elkerbout et al., Transatlantic Cues: How the United States and European Union Influence Each Other’s Climate Policies 1 (2024), https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/transatlantic-cues-how-the-united-states-and-european-union-influence-each-others-climate-policies/.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] The White House, Justice40 Initiative: A Whole-of-Government Initiative, The White House Archives, https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/environmentaljustice/justice40/ (last visited Oct. 10, 2025) [hereinafter Justice40 Initiative]; Elkerbout et al., supra note 1.
[5] Isabela Mihalache, Environmental Justice in National Strategic Frameworks 4 (2024), https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/report-ERGOEEB-V1.pdf.
[6] Directive 2019/790, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market and Amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, 2019 O.J. (L 130) 92; Eur. Comm’n, About the EU ETS, https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/carbon-markets/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets/about-eu-ets_en (last visited Oct. 10, 2025).
[7] Lukas Althoff, Stan. Inst. For Econ. Pol’y Rsch., Policy Approaches to Addressing a History of Racial Discrimination (May 2024), https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/policy-approaches-addressing-history-racial-discrimination.
[8] Eur. Comm’n, Net-Zero Industry Act: Making the EU the Home of Clean Technologies Manufacturing and Green Jobs (2023), https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/industry/sustainability/net-zero-industry-act_en.
[9] Elkerbout et al., supra note 1, at 1.
[10] Justice40 Initiative, supra note 4.
[11] The White House, Building A Clean Energy Economy: A Guidebook to the Inflation Reduction Act’s Investments in Clean Energy and Climate Actions 5 (Jan. 2023), https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/cleanenergy/inflation-reduction-act-guidebook/.
[12] Id. at 7; Justice40 Initiative, supra note 4.
[13] Justice40 Initiative, supra note 4.
[14] The White House, supra note 11.
[15] Id.
[16] Eur. Comm’n, supra note 8.
[17] Id.
[18] Tobias Buscher et al., Clean Energy for All Europeans – An Overview, Bird & Bird (Aug. 22, 2019), https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2019/global/clean-energy-for-all-europeans—an-overview.
[19] Alessandro Fiorini & Giuli Iorio, Main Energy Poverty Measures in Europe: Characterisation from the EPOV and the EED Perspectives, ODYSSEE-MURE (Aug. 2024), https://www.odyssee-mure.eu/publications/policy-brief/energy-poverty-measures-eu-epov-eed.html.
[20] Eur. Comm’n, supra note 8.
[21] See Unleashing American Energy, Exec. Order No. 14,975, 90 Fed. Reg. 1 (Jan. 20, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy/.
[22] Latham & Watkins LLP, EU Sustainability: State of Play – EU Climate Law and Energy Transition (Oct. 1, 2025), https://www.lw.com/en/insights/eu-sustainability-state-of-play-eu-climate-law-and-energy-transition.
[23] Eur. Comm’n, Commission Takes Action to Ensure Complete and Timely Transposition of EU Directives – Key Decisions on Energy (Jul. 24, 2025), https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-takes-action-ensure-complete-and-timely-transposition-eu-directives-key-decisions-energy-2025-07-24_en.
[24] Olivia Guarna, Court of Appeals Sets Aside Preliminary Injunction in GGRF Litigation, Climate Law Blog (Sept. 4, 2025), https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2025/09/04/court-of-appeals-sets-aside-preliminary-injunction-in-ggrf-litigation/; Eur. Comm’n, supra note 8.