• Energy Research

Abstract Fuel poverty, the inability of households to afford adequate energy services, such as heating, is a major energy justice concern. Increasing residential energy efficiency is a strategic fuel poverty intervention. However, the absence of easily accessible household energy data impedes effective targeting of energy efficiency programs. This paper uses publicly available data, bottom-up modeling and small-area estimation techniques to predict the mean census block group residential heating energy use intensity (EUI), an energy efficiency proxy, in Kansas City, Missouri. Results mapped using geographic information systems (GIS) and statistical analysis, show disparities in the relationship between heating EUI and spatial, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic block group characteristics. Block groups with lower median incomes, a greater percentage of households below poverty, a greater percentage of racial/ethnic minority headed-households, and a larger percentage of adults with less than a high school education were, on average, less energy efficient (higher EUIs). Results also imply that racial segregation, which continues to influence urban housing choices, exposes Black and Hispanic households to increased fuel poverty vulnerability. Lastly, the spatial concentration and demographics of vulnerable block groups suggest proactive, area- and community-based targeting of energy efficiency assistance programs may be more effective than existing self-referral approaches.

This study examines changes from 2000 to 2010 in the adoption of sustainability plans and policies in a sample of U.S. cities. The study’s framework posits sustainability initiatives as communitarian outcomes intended to meet the needs of both current and future generations. We hypothesize, accordingly, that a community’s social capital level, in the form of the relative presence of social trust, is a primary facilitating condition for the adoption of sustainability initiatives. The analysis assesses whether trust-based social capital is similarly associated with the adoption of plans and policies at both time points (2000 and 2010), as well as whether social capital is associated with change in the adoption levels documented across the ten-year period. The paper concludes by suggesting that the effect of social capital is substantially reduced in 2010 as a consequence of institutional network dynamics featured in the theory of isomorphic change.

Over the last decade, the United States has experienced continued growth in residential rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) adoption. However, solar adoption disparities have been shown across household income, homeownership status, and more recently racial and ethnic demographics. A key component to ensuring a just clean energy transition is understanding the existing landscape to establish realistic goals. Motivated by studies on solar adoption disparities, this descriptive study aims to evaluate the distribution of estimated single-family rooftop potential across racial and ethnic majority census tracts to discern whether rooftop potential disparities may justify solar adoption disparities. Across all census tracts, the median rooftop potential was 80%. Three-fourths of all census tracts had a rooftop potential >72%, regardless of racial/ethnic majority. Compared to majority-white census tracts, majority-Black, majority-Hispanic, and majority-Asian census tracts had slightly lower rooftop potential, 6, 7, and 9%, respectively, while majority-American Indian census tracts had an 11% higher rooftop potential. The slightly lower rooftop potential in communities of color compared to majority-white and non-racial/ethnic majority census tracts, alone, was not of the magnitude to justify documented racial/ethnic disparities in solar adoption. This study concludes, that while a majority of homes in communities of color are solar suitable, an equitable clean energy transition is only possible with policies, programs, and incentives that center on racial equity while recognizing the interplay between race, income, and homeownership status.

Abstract The field of energy justice is at a critical juncture. As the social dimensions of energy systems are becoming more salient, it is time to reflect on what has been achieved, and look towards a future of greater impact and transdisciplinary methods in energy justice research and practice. In the past 10 years, the energy justice literature has grown exponentially demonstrating the appeal and the value of its tangible, applicable explanatory framework. Yet more pessimistically, this rapid growth could also represent a trend in uncritical commitment without appropriate reflectivity and without maximizing societal impact. Carefully considering these different interpretations, this perspective article reflects on four core challenges and opportunities for energy justice scholarship and practice in its next wave of development: (1) the alignment, connectivity and orientation of energy justice terminology, (2) leveraging impact and achieving outcomes in partnership between academic and non-academic communities and activists, (3) the need to acknowledge and define the audience for energy justice contributions and (4) the need for energy justice scholars and practitioners to “practice what we preach”. Given the timely salience of energy justice work, more intentional consideration of the possibilities for societal impact is increasingly valuable.

Abstract Residential energy conservation and efficiency programs are strategic interventions to reduce consumption and increase affordability. However, the inability to identify and distinguish between high energy consumers and highly energy inefficient households has led to ineffective program targeting. Additionally, little is known about the spatial, racial and socioeconomic patterns of urban residential energy consumption and efficiency. Publicly available data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Census Bureau are used with bottom-up modeling and small-area estimation techniques to predict mean annual heating consumption and energy use intensity (EUI), an energy efficiency proxy, at the census block group level in Detroit (Wayne County), Michigan. Using geographic information systems, results illustrate spatial disparities in energy consumption and EUI. Bivariate analysis show no statistical relationship between race/ethnicity and energy consumption; however, EUI is correlated with racial/ethnic makeup; percent White (−0.28), African American (0.24) and Hispanic (0.16). Income and housing tenure reveal inverse relationships with consumption and efficiency. Though areas with higher median incomes and homeownership exhibited higher consumption (0.28 and 0.56, respectively), they had lower EUIs (−0.48 and −0.38, respectively). This study provides evidence supporting approaches for conservation and energy efficiency program targeting that recognizes the significance of race, ethnicity, place and class.

Abstract As our energy systems are transitioning towards low-carbon energy sources and their environmental and economic sustainability are assessed, their potential social impacts must also be determined. These social impacts may be disproportionate to a population, leading to energy justice concerns. The social life cycle assessment framework can be used to comprehensively address energy justice concerns by different stakeholder groups and at all life cycle stages associated with a low-carbon energy system. Indicators for a social life cycle assessment framework that addresses energy justice are introduced and discussed. These indicators are organized by four categories of stakeholders for electrical energy systems: workers, electricity consumers, local communities, and society as a whole. The social life cycle assessment framework allows for variations in justice and equity to be determined not only at the generation stage, but through multiple points in the life cycle of the same energy system, from raw material extraction, through manufacturing, transportation, distribution, electricity generation, and waste management. This framework can address potential energy justice issues along the life cycle of new energy systems and assist in their design and planning for optimizing their social sustainability without overlooking vulnerable populations.

Abstract In the U.S. lighting represents about 9% of the average household's primary energy consumption and 20% of the average household's energy bill. Lighting in U.S. homes is in a state of transition with steady growth in the adoption of more energy-efficient lighting technology, such as, compact florescent lamps (CFL) and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). However, the adoption of energy-efficient lighting is not equitably distributed across socioeconomic groups, with poorer households less likely to adopt than higher-income households. This case study in Wayne County, Michigan explores the lack of parity in energy-efficient lighting adoption from an energy justice perspective by evaluating distributional disparities in light bulb availability and price in 130 stores across four poverty strata and five store types for a more holistic understanding of potential barriers for poorer households. We found that (1) energy-efficient bulbs were less available in high-poverty areas and smaller stores; (2) energy-efficient bulbs were more expensive in high-poverty areas and smaller stores; (3) upgrade costs from incandescent and halogen lamps (IHLs) to CFLs or LEDs were higher in high poverty areas; and (4) both poverty and store type were significant predictors of LED availability, while store type was the most significant predictor of LED price variability. We suggest several ways that the development and implementation of energy efficiency policies and programs may consider these disparities that affect access and affordability, in order to achieve a more just energy-efficient transition.

Abstract Since 1976, the U.S. Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) has provided state block grants for no-to low-cost energy efficiency retrofits for more than 7 million low-income households. Yet, more than 35 million households meet income-qualifications for the program. While numerous program evaluations demonstrate the energy- and non-energy-related benefits of WAP, some argue low uptake, and a low rate of return on retrofit costs to energy savings. To further our understanding of government-funded low-income energy efficiency program implementation, we examined local agency-level perceptions of challenges and opportunities. Findings from semi-structured interviews with program managers, representing one-third of Michigan's WAP funding and retrofit production, suggest three funding-related challenges: funding instability; funding allocation formula; and limited advertising and marketing funding, and two regulatory-related challenges: cumbersome paperwork and restrictive guidelines. Program managers also identified three workaround opportunities: collaboration with utilities and other organizations; intra-agency innovation and integration; and strategic productivity and per unit spending. Lastly, one recommendation for further exploration would be testing the efficacy of granting local agencies greater flexibility to work around funding and regulatory challenges to increase the number of households weatherized, reduce long waitlists and deferral rates, and use staff time more efficiently.