Commentary
The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.
Michael Young
Research
How the Federal Financing Bank Could Strengthen Clean Energy Supply Chains
The need to deploy public funds for clean energy is clear. But how could the government do it? The Federal Financing Bank could be the answer.
By Sarah Bloom Raskin
Published on Feb 26, 2025
Since my time at the Treasury Department, I have been intrigued by the possibility of repurposing and reimagining various financing mechanisms that currently live at the department in service to the need to finance clean energy supply chains.
I wouldn’t characterize these mechanisms as ready to be deployed by any stretch, but I think they are worth uncovering and then understanding.
One such mechanism is the Federal Financing Bank (FFB), which was created by Congress in 1973. This so-called bank sits inside the Treasury Department and is administered by Treasury career staff—there are maybe four full time people at most running this bank. They have a management structure like any bank, but with a governance structure that consists of the undersecretary for domestic affairs, the assistant secretary for financial markets, and the deputy assistant secretary for public finance. It’s not a bank as we think of banks, but rather a financing vehicle that facilitates borrowing by the various federal agencies so as to limit the stress that federal borrowings might otherwise press on private financial markets.
The Federal Financing Bank borrows from the Treasury and uses these funds to make loans to federal agencies that are tasked by Congress to executing program. Because the FFB can borrow cheaply, it can pass this low-cost funding onto federal agencies that are implementing particular programs. In other words, the federal programs that the FFB are funding are getting funds from the Treasury rather than from private markets; and because this funding is cheaper, there are savings to taxpayers.
The portfolio of the FFB for fiscal year 2024 is currently sized at approximately $185 billion. The breakdown of the loans spans entities like the Rural Utilities Service, HUD’s Risk Share Program, and the DOE Loan Programs Office. The details of these loan facilities need examination, but the point is that there is an entity already stood up by Congress inside the Treasury that can potentially serve as an adjunct credit facilitator to clean energy supply chain federal projects. The funding is internal, and so the FFB mechanism has the potential to bring down the cost of financing these projects.
More exploration has to be considered here—for example, what federal programs exist whose cost could be reduced by virtue of this mechanism? And what federal programs could be created that relate to clean supply chains that could use a financing facilitator? Is the mandate for the Federal Financial Bank broad enough to contemplate its use in other ways, while staying consistent with the Congressional intent that created it? What other financial plumbing mechanisms exist at the Treasury and even elsewhere—like the Department of Agriculture—that can be deployed to bring down the cost of creating clean supply channels? Does the Exchange Stabilization Fund have relevance to the financing of clean supply channels?
In working on this Carnegie taskforce, we’ve reminded each other of why the United States should strengthen clean energy supply chains, both at home and abroad, and explored the best measures for doing so. But we can’t forget the how: when the political will is there, policymakers will need to know how to best provide the finance to the clean energy projects that will secure U.S. prosperity and security in the future.
About the Author
Sarah Bloom Raskin
Sarah Bloom Raskin is the Colin W. Brown Distinguished Professor of the Practice of Law at Duke University and was previously the deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury from 2014 to 2017. Prior to her role at the Department of the Treasury, Raskin was a governor of the Federal Reserve Board and a member of the Federal Open Market Committee.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is Insane
- Palestine’s Climate Change Planning Faces Its LimitsArticle
Barriers ranging from weak legal frameworks to ongoing, occupation-related limitations are constraining Palestine from achieving its ambitious climate targets.
Joy Arkeh, Nabil Nasser
- In Russia, Private Companies Have Been Left to Pick Up the Tab for Ukrainian Drone AttacksCommentary
The cost of air defense has become an unregistered tax on revenue for businesses. While military rents are consolidated in the federal budget, the costs of defense are being spread across the balance sheets of companies and regional governments.
Alexandra Prokopenko
- California’s Global Trade Cities: Driving Local and National OutcomesPaper
Cities across the United States facilitate investment in American communities. Yet, because global attention remains focused on U.S. trade policy, their distinctive and bold local approaches to international trade and investment promotion are often underappreciated.
Wyatt Frank, Marissa Jordan
- The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor CooperationCommentary
The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.
Shruti Mittal
