4.8 Article

A measurement strategy to address disparities across household energy burdens

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-27673-y

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Disparities in the energy burdens of United States households are revealed by net energy metrics. Factors such as race, education, and housing tenure contribute to significant differences in energy burden. To address energy inequity, eligibility requirements for support and access to distributed renewables should be expanded.
Net energy metrics reveal disparities in United States household energy burdens. Here the authors find that at least five million households are excluded from current accounting methods, with race, education, and housing tenure accounting for large differences in energy burden. Energy inequity is an issue of increasing urgency. Few policy-relevant datasets evaluate the energy burden of typical American households. Here, we develop a framework using Net Energy Analysis and household socioeconomic data to measure systematic energy inequity among critical groups that need policy attention. We find substantial instances of energy poverty in the United States - 16% of households experience energy poverty as presently defined as spending more than 6% of household income on energy expenditures. More than 5.2 million households above the Federal Poverty Line face energy poverty, disproportionately burdening Black, Hispanic, and Native American communities. For solar, wind, and energy efficiency to address socioeconomic mobility, programs must reduce energy expenditures by expanding eligibility requirements for support and access to improved conservation measures, efficiency upgrades, and distributed renewables. We recommend the United States develop a more inclusive federal energy poverty categorization that increases assistance for household energy costs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available