Teresa Linares is a graduate student in the Energy Graduate Group at the University of California, Davis.
The most important step a person can take is always the next one. California took a big step toward building decarbonization in September with the passage of SB-1221.
The bill’s goal is to start 30 neighborhood-scale decarbonization projects across California, prioritizing disadvantaged communities. Broadly speaking, where neighborhoods need to replace the gas pipeline that’s serving them, this bill aims to offer an alternative. If two-thirds of the property owners agree, the utility can electrify all the buildings in the neighborhood and decommission the pipeline, as long as the electrification project is cheaper than the gas pipeline substitution or repair project.
This all sounds like a really good deal, and a big step toward building decarbonization, but is this step beneficial for everybody?
Majority rules?
If up to one-third of affected property owners don’t support such a large-scale project, that’s a lot of opposition, especially taking into account that they may be forced to electrify their properties against their will. At the same time, allowing just one unsupportive property owner to block the will of the majority doesn’t make much sense, either.
Decarbonization of existing buildings is a difficult but necessary task to achieve carbon neutrality. Buildings are responsible for about 25% of GHG emissions in the state. This requires some tough decisions, and not all affected residents will be happy with them. This being said, policies must ensure this transition is done in the most equitable way possible.
Renters could pay, utilities could profit
Only property owners have a say in approving neighborhood decarbonization pilot projects, but about 44% of California households are renters. For these people, their landlord is making the decision, but they may face the consequences. Those consequences could include bearing part of the cost of these projects via higher rent or higher electricity bills. Renters may have little to no control over the energy efficiency of their major appliances or homes.
The law sets a few protections for some tenants: It calls for decarbonization projects to “prioritize benefits to disadvantaged and low-income communities and include tenant protections,” and it requires that master-metered properties provide tenants with “adequate notification and engagement.”
In counting support for decarbonization, will the opinion of a company or person who owns hundreds of residences count the same as the opinion of a single homeowner? This makes no sense to me.
It’s likely these electrification projects will be profitable for investor-owned utilities, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the profits will come at the expense of their customers. Funds and incentives are available for IOUs to conduct these projects, electrify their networks and reduce their carbon footprint.
Low-income household impacts
Another key concern is whether electrification of low-income households could leave them with higher energy bills. Electrification should always be accompanied by energy efficiency improvements. But there is no guarantee that low-income households will be able to afford these improvements.
Some advocacy groups are working on developing bills and state funding for upstream incentives to encourage the development of lower-cost energy-efficient appliances. Strategies like these would help reduce the burden that low-income households could potentially face.
