• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series Number 58 April 2020 Spearheading “Solar for All” in the Midwest: How Illinois passed legislation to incorporate solar energy in low-income and environmental justice communities Livvy Hintz, University of Michigan This paper is available online at http://closup.umich.edu Papers in the CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series are written by students at the University of Michigan. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy or any sponsoring agency Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy University of Michigan Livvy Hintz Environ 302 29 April 2020 Final Paper Spearheading “Solar for All” in the Midwest: How Illinois passed legislation to incorporate solar energy in low-income and environmental justice communities Abstract As policymakers progress further into finding sustainable, renewable energy solutions for the United States, local and state governments have been fixating on solar power. The price of solar energy has dropped dramatically in recent years — but not quite low enough for low-income communities to independently make an investment. In order to mitigate the environmental injustice and economic inequity of solar installation, policies can be proposed to allow low-income customers to benefit from solar energy. This paper uses a case study of Illinois’s passage of the Future Energy Jobs Act of 2016, a bill that dedicates millions of dollars to community solar projects, low-income solar job training programs, and solar incentives for low-income communities. It finds that although the bill had bipartisan sponsorship, the supporting and opposing sides in the Illinois House of Representatives still remained heavily partisan. Furthermore, the results find that the funding behind the nuclear power plant bailout caused numerous concerns for skeptical representatives on both sides of the aisle, including state fiscal impact and the unknown effect on ratepayers. The important role partisanship and financial 1 concerns played for FEJA suggests that a highly developed, cost neutral fiscal plan is crucial for gaining support for energy justice legislation in the Midwest. Introduction As we progress further into finding sustainable, renewable energy solutions for the United States, local and state governments have been fixating on solar, where radiant light and heat from the Sun is harnessed using various technologies, like solar panels, to convert into energy. Solar energy has several environmental, economic and policy advantages: reduced carbon dioxide emissions, more energy supply diversification and regional/national energy independence (Heng, 2020). In recent years, there has been a rapid decrease in solar installation cost and a rapid increase in solar technology and innovation advancements. Despite the widespread movement toward largely incorporating solar power into the future of energy, its capacity and relevance in policy still significantly differs across the U.S. states (Heng, 2020). As mentioned previously, the price of solar energy has dropped dramatically — but not quite enough for low to middle income families to independently make an investment. According to research by Solar Energy Industries Association, an average-sized residential system costs around $18,000 (SEIA, 2019), which is a hefty upfront cost for families living paycheck to paycheck — even though solar will financially benefit them in the long term. The inequity of solar installation is not only a case of economic and environmental injustice, but also an impediment to transition to complete solar energy, since low to middle income rooftops make up around 42% of total US residential solar potential (Sigrin, 2018). 2 As a result, a number of governments are taking steps to make solar energy accessible to low and middle income customers. In recent years, “solar for all” programs have gotten traction nationwide. However, while most of the earliest programs were implemented in states on either the East and West Coast (Heeter, 2018), there was one Midwestern outlier: Illinois. Through a case study analysis of the Future Energy Jobs Act of 2016 (FEJA), this paper will determine how ​ Illinois passed bipartisan legislation that called for the incorporation of solar energy and clean energy job training programs in low income and environmental justice communities. By analyzing the legislation throughout the course of its lifespan, this research will discover the role that politics and the bill’s potential fiscal impact played in the road to solar justice in Illinois. Literature Review In order to ensure an equitable procedure for solar energy implementation, it is vital to look at past environmental laws, regulations and policies that have failed in terms of environmental justice. First, this paper will look at research highlighting environmental injustice in water policy execution, and then specifically analyze relevant research in the energy space. I. Environmental Injustice in Water Policy Countless studies have concluded that disparate-impact discrimination exists, since low-income and minority communities are at disproportinate danger for environmental harm (Cory & Rahman, 2009). This specific form of inequity plays a role in almost every environmental policy arena, but one is notorious for enabling public health crises: water quality policy. Research by Cory and Rahman (2009) examined this issue in the context of enforcing the 3 safe drinking water act (SDWA), specifically the association between race, income and hazardous levels of arsenic concentration in drinking water in Arizona. The study analyzed community-level exposure to arsenic in companion to socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, and discovered, in parallel to similar studies, that without selective, supervised ​ implementation and enforcement of the SDWA in environmental justice communities, arsenic standard is likely to disproportionately disadvantage minority or low-income groups in Arizona. These results reveal a notable conclusion: under-resourced and historically disadvantaged communities require individual implementation and enforcement of general environmental legislation, since they are disproportionately at risk for environmental harm, such as arsenic poisoning. Most often, environmental justice communities are not given proper funding or legislative support to mitigate water quality complications before they arise. Consequently, these areas are zones with higher levels of pollution and health concerns. A study assessed two Maryland watershed restoration and mitigation programs to determine whether they were distributing resources equitably across all demographics — specifically with respect to race and socioeconomic class (Dernoga et al., 2015). The researchers matched the location and regulation of wetlands involved in Maryland’s wetland mitigation program to the distribution of grant funds designated by Section 319(h) of the Federal Clean Water Act, which are used to help eradicate water quality impairments caused by nonpoint sources of pollution (Dernoga et al., 2015). The results were able to explicitly connect watersheds in non-white communities to lower funding by the state and allocation of Section 319(h) dollars. Thus, similar to the findings in Arizona, it is crucial that environmental policies specifically address the need for stronger implementation, 4 enforcement and funding in historically disadvantaged communities. Otherwise, these areas will continue to combat disproportionate environmental harm and health concerns. II. Energy Equity After recognizing the impact race and socioeconomic status have on issues of water quality, it is critical to understand environmental injustice in terms of another everyday resource: energy. Before discussing the need for equitable implementation of renewable, specifically solar, energy, we must first examine current energy disparities in low-income households. In research utilizing data from two U.S. national surveys, Xu and Chen (2019) found that affordability and accessibility to advantageous energy programs and appliances remain critical problems for low-income households. For example, low-income households have lower participation rates in energy assistance programs and own fewer energy efficient appliances, including smart grid technologies (Xu & Chen, 2019). Additionally, low-income households seemed to be less educated on universal ways to be energy efficient — such as how to control a programmable thermostat. Thus, socioeconomic status directly correlates to a household’s accessibility to energy efficiency, which is a fundamental component for economic, health and environmental benefits. This research provides evidence to policymakers that low-income communities are already disadvantaged with the current U.S. energy landscape, and that solar energy programs and policies should not only address proper implementation, but also equitable implementation. ​ ​ Before rapidly transitioning from nonrenewable energy, such as coal, to solar energy in any community, public opinion on the policy transition has to be determined. In order to discover public perceptions of the two energy sources and for energy transition policies, Crowe and Li 5 (2020) sampled citizens in three areas with varying ties to coal and solar energy: Saline County, IL, Houston, TX, and Burlington, VT. The data suggests that location

Load more

  31

Copy Link