This Article provides a description and analysis of the types of legal tools that are available to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. The “80 by 50” target and similarly aggressive carbon abatement goals are often referred to as “deep decarbonization,” a term that signals the need for systemic changes to the energy economy. This Article builds on, but is different from, Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States (Michael B. Gerrard & John C. Dernbach eds. forthcoming 2019), which is a comprehensive description and explanation of more than 1,000 federal, state, local, and private law pathways that decision makers can employ. Using the compilation of instruments in Legal Pathways, this Article develops a list of twelve types of legal instruments that can be employed by federal, state, local, and private actors. It is the first typology of legal instruments for deep decarbonization, and the only one drawn from such a comprehensive compilation. Many of the categories of legal tools—additional regulation, tradable permits or allowances, market-leveraging instruments, property rights, and insurance—have been recognized in prior climate change and environmental law typologies. The Article also confirms a conclusion drawn by other authors—that private governance can play a significant role in reducing U.S. emissions. Many of the types of legal tools in this Article, however, have not previously been recognized, at least in this form. These are reduction or removal of regulatory barriers, removal of incentives for fossil fuel use, facilities and operations, infrastructure development, research and development, and social equity. This Article also provides numerous examples of deep decarbonization legal tools that can be employed for each of the twelve categories. The typology in this Article shows the many different kinds of instruments that are available for deep decarbonization, and thus provides a structure for thinking about what types of instrument choices may be most likely to succeed under different circumstances. This typology also provides a structure for lawyers to design and advocate additional types of legal tools.