Energy Efficiency, Environmental Justice, and Housing Policy

Policy Barriers to Energy Efficiency and Environmental Justice

Under the provision of 12 U.S.C. § 1701t, Congress has reaffirmed the right of all U.S. citizens — and especially those who cannot provide housing accommodations for themselves — to have "decent homes and suitable living environments." The U.S. code acknowledges that this goal has yet to be met on the federal or state level, yet it 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. Though some accommodation has been made in housing laws for the safety of low-income households with regard to where such housing can be built, in what density, and how it must be maintained, these laws do not address the impact of such housing on the environment. Issues like the energy efficiency of suitable housing are therefore not included in environmental justice legislation, nor in the various state and local mandates and standards that govern property maintenance.

It is also fair to say that environmental justice is a relatively new concept within civil rights discourse and, more specifically, within the pursuit of justice for the disadvantaged and disenfranchised. Yet the legislation that governs environmental justice with regard to housing on a federal and state level has existed since the late 1960s and is in clear need of reform — reform that more adequately defines environmental justice to include new incentives responsive to energy efficiency needs.

The biggest challenges associated with this aspect of environmental justice mirror those that dominate the culture generally 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 is still widely considered a personal responsibility in the United States and elsewhere, driven largely by an individual's desire to be environmentally responsible and, secondarily, by his or her ability to pay for energy waste — or, conversely, to finance the individual upgrades needed to reduce it (Gardner & Stern, 2008). Though state and federal governments can support energy efficiency through legislation and benefits, their influence is currently minimal. Existing mechanisms are limited to self-driven benefit systems that offer individual homeowners tax credits for improvements but are completely unresponsive to non-owner occupants, who constitute a large portion of the housed population in the United States.

The policy challenges therefore revolve around overcoming the historical standard of influencing voluntary behavior through incentives rather than mandates, and around the fear of overburdening low-income housing suppliers with additional regulations — suppliers who already operate within a system that carries inherently higher risks to property owners 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 using energy efficiency ratings to market products to consumers seeking to upgrade their home systems (Belli, 2011). They often assist consumers by explaining both the available tax benefits and how to apply for them after purchasing and installing qualifying appliances and systems. Yet these benefits are available only to those who have the resources to purchase new appliances, windows, and systems, as well as the means to install them correctly. Given that U.S. culture has been demonstrably characterized by excess consumption and waste for decades, and that these programs benefit only those willing and able to upgrade systems at significant cost, voluntary benefits programs can have only a minimal overall impact and will have little or no effect on those who cannot afford expensive upgrades (Gardner & Stern, 2008). Even some who could afford the upfront cost of systems upgrades may still choose to pay for ongoing excess energy use, since such costs are spread out over time rather than requiring a large lump-sum payment (Levitan, 2011).

The Renter/Owner Gap Under Incentive-Only Plans

Though some might regard the question of how housing affects the environment as secondary to meeting growing housing needs, there is an aspect of this issue that directly affects families: the development of sustainable living. This affects all renters unfairly, but low-income renters carry a greater burden due to their finances and the disproportionately high percentage of income that low-income households spend on housing (Segelken, 2006; Makin, 2010). As one source notes, "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 unsustainability of partly federally funded housing affects families directly: in the rush to provide such housing, many families are placed in units that are not energy efficient.

Energy efficiency can be addressed minimally at the individual level through tools such as retrofit weatherproofing and compact fluorescent light bulbs, but both place the burden of cost on the individual receiving the benefit and do not address the need to retrofit properties or construct new ones with energy-efficient systems, walls, appliances, and windows (Gardner & Stern, 2008). ComEd, the Chicago electrical utility company, offers a publicly accessible website listing a range of energy efficiency tips for renters. These tips include the standard recommendations: turn off appliances when not in use, turn off lights, reduce heat in unoccupied spaces, and switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs (a significant expense in itself). Yet when it comes down to it, the real determinants of energy efficiency are housing systems — none of which the renter controls. The website then offers renters a limited list of things they should ask and consider before moving into a new home, all of which imply a degree of influence over a landlord that renters simply do not possess:

"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)

This advice has merit, and prospective renters should seek to hold owners accountable for this information, since asking questions might at least prompt an owner to learn more and possibly upgrade systems in the future. That said, this is also a significant leap of faith. Since real energy savings and efficiency are most influenced by systems upgrades rather than usage behavior alone, and since appliances, windows, doors, insulation, and weatherproofing typically represent substantial investments, renters are at a severe disadvantage — they are unlikely to want to invest in a property they do not own.

The market dynamics that underlie this leap of faith become apparent when one examines the owner/renter relationship more closely. In a high-demand, low-availability housing market, a renter may need to secure adequate housing rapidly and with little deliberation; he or she is simply trying to convince the owner of their reliability as a tenant and their ability to avoid causing damage to the property. In this scenario, the owner holds the advantage and has little pressure to offer extras — in a high-demand market, the space sells itself. In a low-demand market, by contrast, owners must compete for renters to avoid vacancy costs and lost income. In that scenario, an owner who has upgraded — or is willing to upgrade — energy efficiency may have a greater chance of attracting tenants. However, less scrupulous owners may simply fabricate information or tell renters what they want to hear, with no genuine intention to upgrade.

Policy developers must account for the inherent dynamics of the consumer/supplier relationship in the renter/owner transaction and develop policy accordingly. A final note on this relationship: renters with limited resources are at a disadvantage in both high- and low-demand markets. Driven by the immediate need to find affordable housing, they are not always positioned to prioritize long-term affordability or comfort. In many cases, the rent figure itself is the only factor they are able to weigh at the time of decision.

Conclusion

Environmental justice is an essential element of change for those disproportionately affected by pollution and other environmentally harmful activities. The connection to energy efficiency may seem indirect, but household energy use in the United States is substantial and must be addressed as an aspect of environmental justice. As Gardner and Stern observe:

"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. 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" (Gardner & Stern, 2008, p. 13).

The less energy consumers use, and the more effectively and efficiently energy is produced and utilized, the lower the burden to construct new — often polluting — infrastructure to meet demand. Existing laws, and especially 12 U.S.C. § 1701t and other statutes 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 to face pressure to accept subpar housing. Section 8 and other programs attempt to mitigate these risks by imposing high standards of physical condition, yet they have not addressed the owner/renter disconnect with regard to energy efficiency and environmentally sustainable housing. It must also be noted that these programs serve only a very limited number of people at the very bottom of the income scale and provide only rent-related subsidies. The connection between housing and environmental justice must be made explicit, and the laws governing these issues must be updated accordingly.

Low-income housing benefit programs are a logical starting point for bridging this gap, because an established framework of government control already exists in this area. Congress should begin by adding energy efficiency language to all legislation pertaining to low-income housing provision. State charters for low-income housing programs should then be revised to expand owner responsibilities over a defined timeline, supported by dedicated funding and broadened tax incentives for Section 8 landlords who upgrade properties for energy efficiency. Broadening the focus of environmental justice to include energy efficiency — and revising policy and legislation governing low-income housing — may begin to bridge the gap across all owner/renter relationships. The changes should be designed with the longer-term intention of transitioning energy efficiency legislation from an incentive-only model to a mandate-with-incentive model for the general public. Special attention should be paid to extending such legislation to mandate-with-incentive programs for owners of non-owner-occupied buildings, possibly as a first step toward requiring rather than merely encouraging energy-efficient upgrades.

Clearly, incentive programs have served as a useful starting point and are fundamentally consistent with the traditional federal and state preference for limiting mandates and preserving individual choice. Yet they are reaching the limits of their effectiveness, particularly with regard to the renter/owner gap. The proposal to invest in policy change within an area of established governmental control — namely, Section 8 regulations and enforcement — should serve as a manageable starting point. This could initially be focused on publicly owned Section 8 properties, with privately owned Section 8 offerings incorporated at a later stage. The subsequent expansion to a mandate-with-incentive program should then proceed to the general population: first for owner-occupied homes, where an existing incentive plan already provides a foundation, and then for non-owner-occupied properties.

These efficiency standards and policy changes, if implemented appropriately and grounded in evidentiary standards, will produce substantial long-term savings for the nation and proportional savings for individuals. According to one source: "The United States has the potential to save more than $1.2 trillion in energy costs and cut consumption by 23% by 2020, according to a study by McKinsey & Co., co-sponsored by Sempra Energy and 11 other organizations" ("New Study Finds…," 2009, p. 4). Notably, these projections include only changes driven by incentive-based legislation, energy provision upgrades, and manufacturing and technology standards improvements. Were mandate-with-incentive plans for both the public and businesses also included, the potential savings figure would likely increase exponentially.

Disenfranchised individuals — as a result of low socioeconomic status — are far more likely to be renters than others, and this disparity is clearly a matter of environmental justice. Such individuals should not be compelled to shoulder the burden of energy inefficiency or to live with the consequences of others' failure to act responsibly. There are potential drawbacks to switching from incentive-only to mandate-with-incentive plans, particularly regarding cost and the perception that such a shift is fundamentally at odds with U.S. legislative tradition in this area. Nevertheless, the imperatives of energy efficiency, energy security, and environmental justice provide compelling reasons to expand and transition these programs from incentive-only to mandate-with-incentive frameworks.

12 U.S.C. § 1701t: U.S. Code — Section 1701T: Congressional affirmation of national goal of decent homes and suitable living environment for American families. FindLaw Database. Web. 9 Dec. 2011.

Belli, B. (2011, July–August). Washer in red. E, 22(4), 38.

ComEd offers energy saving information for renters and customers with electric space heat during frigid winter season. (2007, February 19). PR Newswire.

Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2008). The short list: The most effective actions U.S. households can take to curb climate change. Environment, 50(5), 12–16.

Levitan, D. (2011, January–February). Paying the utility bill. Technology Review [Cambridge, Mass.], 114(1), 67–69.

Mackin, J. (1996). Housing costs burdensome for some groups. Human Ecology Forum, 24(1), 23.

New study finds potential savings of $1.2 trillion in energy efficiency. (2009, September). Pipeline & Gas Journal, 236(9), 4.

Segelken, R. (2006). Toward healthy, energy-efficient homes. Human Ecology, 34(2), 12–15.