Policy challenges in addressing environmental problems and solutions

¶ … Energy Efficiency and Environmental Justice…

Policy Energy Efficiency

Energy Efficiency and Environmental Justice: From Incentive only to Mandate with Incentive Policy Plans

Energy Efficiency and Environmental Justice: From Incentive only to Mandate with Incentive Policy Plans

Energy Efficiency and Environmental Justice Policy Barriers

Under the provision of 12 U.S.C. § 1701t: U.S. Code - Section 1701T, Congress has reaffirmed the right of all U.S. citizens and especially those who cannot provide housing accommodations for themselves have "decent homes and suitable living environments." The U.S. code responds to the fact that this goal has yet to be met on the federal or state level, yet does not address the full definition of what constitutes a "suitable living environment." Environmental justice is a foundational aspect of new laws regarding where we live and work and though some address has been accommodated in housing laws for the safety of low income households with regard to where such housing can be built, in mass, and how it must be maintained, it does not address the impact of such housing on the environment. Therefore issues like energy efficiency of suitable housing is not included in environmental justice legislation or in the various state and local mandates and standards that dictate the standards with which properties must be maintained. It is also safe to say that environmental justice is a relatively new concept with regard to civil rights and more specifically justice for the disadvantaged and disenfranchised. Yet the legislation that dictates environmental justice, with regard to housing on a federal and state level has existed since the late 1960s and is in clear need of reformation to more adequately define issues of environmental justice to include new incentives that respond to energy efficiency needs.

Likely the biggest challenges associated with this aspect of environmental justice are those which dominate the culture in general, with regard to energy efficiency. Energy efficiency has only recently come to the forefront of public concern, in a manner that is truly responsive to conservation. Conservation of energy on many levels is still considered a personal responsibility, in the U.S. And elsewhere and is dictated in many ways by the individuals desire to be more environmentally responsible and secondarily by his or her ability to pay for energy waste or conversely the individual upgrades and standards that need to be instituted to reduce energy waste (Gardner & Stern, 2008). Though the state and federal government can support issues of energy efficiency with legislation and/or benefits the influence such entities have is currently minimal, and associated with limited self-driven benefit systems that offer the individual home owner tax credits for improvements but are completely unresponsive to non-owner occupiers, which constitutes a large portion of the housed population in the U.S. The policy challenges will then surround fighting the historical standard of influencing voluntary behavior with incentives rather than mandates and in the case of low income housing fear of overly challenging low income housing suppliers with additional regulations and mandates, on an already long list in a system that inherently has higher risks to the property owner than private renting does.

The incentive over mandate system has yielded some results with regard to energy efficiency. The manufacturing and retail industries have responded to this benefit system by utilizing energy efficiency ratings to market products to those who seek to upgrade the systems in their home (Belli, 2011). They also often help the consumer by explaining both the tax benefit and describing how they might apply for them once they have purchased and installed various qualifying appliances and systems. Yet, these benefits are only available to those who have the resources to purchase new appliances, windows and systems as well as the resources to install them appropriately so they work as effectively as intended. Given that the culture in the U.S. is clearly one that has been demonstrative of excess usage and waste for decades and that the programs again can only benefit those willing and able to upgrade systems, at a significant cost the implementation of these voluntary benefits programs can only minimally impact the whole and will have little if any impact on those who cannot afford expensive upgrades (Gardner & Stern, 2008). Even some who can afford the output of systems upgrades for home and commercial properties may also still choose to pay for excess energy use; as such costs are spread out over time rather than output the large sum, payable up front, to upgrade systems (Levitan, 2011).

Though some would see this question as a moot point asking how the housing impacts the environment is secondary to the desire to meet growing housing needs for individuals who qualify yet there is an aspect of this issue that very much impacts families and this is the development of sustainable living, which impacts all renters unfairly but low income renters have a greater burden due to finances and the rising disproportionate percentage low-income households pay for housing (Segelken, 2006) (Makin, 2010). "Low-income renters saw their housing costs increase significantly. In 1987 a median of 29% of income was paid for housing costs by renters, while the corresponding figure for homeowners was 18%. More than three times as many low-income renters as low-income homeowners spent over half of their incomes on housing," (Makin, 2010, p. 23) The environmental sustainability of partly federally funded housing affects families in that many, in a rush to provide such housing are housed in units which are not energy efficient.

The Renter/Owner Gap Under Incentive Only Plans

Energy efficiency can be addressed minimally on an individual level with tools such as retrofit weatherproofing as well as items such as compact florescent light bulbs but both put the burden of cost on the individual receiving benefits and do not address the need to retrofit property or build new properties that have energy efficient systems, walls, appliances and windows (Gardner & Stern, 2008). ComEd the Chicago electrical utility company offers a website to the public that lists a host of energy efficiency tips for the renter. These tips include the standard list, turn off appliances when not in use, turn of lights, reduce heat in unoccupied spaces, change to compact florescent light bulbs (a significant cost alone) but when it comes down to it the real issue of energy efficiency is associated with housing systems, none of which the renter has any control over. The website then offers the renter a paltry list of things they should ask and consider when moving into a new home all of which imply influence over a homeowner that renters simply do not have;

-- A good time for a renter to pay attention to energy efficiency is before moving into an apartment.

-- Ask the landlord about the efficiency and maintenance of the furnace, air conditioner, water heater and appliances.

-- Before you move in, request caulking around the windows and outlet covers and installation of weather stripping around doors and windows.

-- Ask to see previous months' energy bills. Try to choose an apartment with low energy bills.

-- Be sure to point out to the landlord that improving energy efficiency can help increase the property's value. ("ComEd offers…" 2007, NP)

Having looked over this list the consideration is valid and future renters should hold the owner accountable for this information, as simply asking might encourage the owner to obtain more information and possibly even upgrade systems in the future, but that is also a significant leap of faith. Having established that real savings and energy efficiency are most impacted by systems upgrades, rather than usage patterns, appliances, windows and doors, insulation and weatherproofing are often substantial investments, though there are a few that are less costly than others, the renter is at a severe disadvantage as he or she is unlikely to desire to invest in a property they do not own.

The leap of faith arises when one looks at the relationship between owner and renter. In a high demand low availability area the renter may be in a position of finding adequate housing rapidly and often without much consideration for the future, he or she is simply seeking to convince the owner that he or she is a good bet economically and will not cause undue damage to the property. In this scenario the owner is at an advantage that allows him or her to be choosy and not offer a lot of extras, they do not have to sell the space as in high demand areas the space sells itself. Second, in low demand areas, where there are ample housing options and the consumer has a lot to choose from the owner is likely selling the space to some degree and attempting to attract renters rapidly so as not to incur the costs associated with vacancy and the loss of income. Though in the second scenario the owner who has or is willing to upgrade the energy efficiency of the property has a higher chance of attracting renters some less scrupulous owners may simply fabricate information and/or simply tell the renter what he or she wants to hear, with intention to upgrade or not. Individuals and program and policy developers must consider the nature of the consumer/supplier relationship that is inherent in the renter/owner transaction and develop policy accordingly. A last note on the issue of the consumer/supplier relationship between renter and owner; the renter who has limited resources is at a disadvantage in both high and low demand markets as he or she is driven by the immediate need to find housing he or she can afford and is not always likely to have serious concerns for the long-term issues of affordability or even comfort in some cases, the rent is often the only known factor in consideration.

Gardner & Stern as well as many others contend that the missing link between property owners and renters is significant in every sector with regard to upgrading homes for optimal energy efficiency (Gardner & Stern, 2008, p.13). The missing connection, between the property and the renter is substantial, and poorly researched but extremely logical. The property owner in most cases owns the property to produce an income from its rent. Though property owners, especially those who accept public housing monies also have altruistic reasons for owning the property and providing it to low-income households they are still fundamentally in a business to support their own families. They also are often either not aware or not concerned about the cost associated with heating especially, due to the fact that such utility bills are solely the responsibility of the renter. Owners likely only have limited knowledge regarding costs and by virtue energy efficiency with regard to the cost of keeping such utilities going when properties are in vacancy between families, and possibly being worked on or cleaned. These costs do not reflect the real cost of providing energy to the home or apartment. The owner is also burdened with a great many other issues of safety and integrity with regard to the home, especially when Section 8 (the public housing voucher system) is accepted. Short of seeking to further burden the property owner, at risk of potential loss of willingness to rent to section 8 qualifiers the current laws regarding environmental justice should be expanded, first in the low-income housing sector, as the federal and state government have some control and jurisdiction there and later in all properties to be let to a secondary family, i.e. not inhabited by the homeowner.

Transition from Incentive Only to Mandate With Incentive Plans

Federal laws and tax credits have been in place for several years that support this energy efficiency transition by offering owners tax credits to upgrade property or install efficient appliances in newly constructed homes but these programs do not go far enough as they do not answer the renter/owner conundrum. The owner of the property has a conflict of interest in that their desire is to have the home occupied, with the least possible out of pocket expense for the property. Therefore installing energy efficient appliances is not on the top of the list, as the cost of running appliances, heat and other energy using devices falls on the occupier (Gardner & Stern, 2008).

Environmental justice is an essential element of change for those disproportionately affected by polluting and other environmental impact activities. This connection to energy efficiency may seem secondary but the use of energy by households is significant in the U.S. And must be addressed as an aspect of environmental justice.

U.S. households account for about 38% of national carbon emissions through their direct actions, a level of emissions greater than that of any entire country except China and larger than the entire U.S. industrial sector. (2) By changing their selection and use of household and motor vehicle technologies, without waiting for new technologies to appear, making major economic sacrifices, or losing a sense of well-being, households can reduce energy consumption by almost 30% -- about 11% of total U.S. consumption (3), (Gardner & Stern, 2008, p.13).

The less energy we as consumers use and the more effective and efficient our utilization of energy production the lesser the burden to produce new, often polluting and harm producing systems to produce more energy. Existing laws and especially 12 U.S.C. § 1701t: U.S. Code - Section 1701T, and other laws pertaining to "decent homes and suitable living environments" can and should be amended to reflect the growing federal recognition of sustainable, holistic community environments. Low-Income households are disproportionately likely to be renters and are also likely be pressured to rent subpar housing. Section 8 and other programs attempt to mitigate these risks utilizing high standards of condition, yet they have yet to address the owner/renter disconnect regarding energy efficiency and environmentally sustainable housing. It must also be mentioned that these programs only respond to the needs of a very limited number of people in the very bottom income brackets and are only rent related subsidies. This connection in environmental justice needs to be made and laws that govern such issues need to be changed to address environmental justice. Low income housing benefit programs are a good place to start bridging this gap. The reason for this is because there is an established level of control, already in place in this area for both the state and federal governments. Congress should begin by adding language regarding energy efficiency to all legislation that pertains to low-income housing provision. Secondly, state charters for low income housing provision programs should be altered to expand the responsibility, over a succinct timeline and with supportive funding and broadened tax incentive for owners who supply low income housing under Section 8 to upgrade properties for energy efficiency. Broadening the focus of environmental justice to include energy efficiency, and changing policy and legislation governing low income housing provision may begin the process of bridging the gap among all owners and renters and is essential for a future with lower energy usage patterns. The changes should be made with the intention of altering energy efficiency legislation to a broader level and switching it from an incentive plan to a mandate with incentive plan for the general public in the future. Special attention should be paid to broadening such legislation to mandate with incentive programs for property owners in non-owner occupied buildings possibly as a first step toward altering the policies to demand rather than simply encourage energy efficient considerations and upgrades.