If you are a journalist and want to interview someone at Carbon Switch about this report, please email michael@carbonswitch.co.

Highlights from this report

We analyzed data from a number of sources — including IRS tax returns, ProPublica’s non-profit API, and foundation grant data — in order to understand what types of organizations donors funded in 2020. Here’s what we discovered: 

• Environmental nonprofits receive less than 2% of charitable dollars — Of the $471 billion that donors gave to nonprofits in 2020, only $8 billion went to environmental nonprofits. 
• Most environmental funding supports conservation, wildlife protection, and land trusts — These organizations received the majority of environmental donations in 2020.
• Climate mitigation nonprofits receive only 0.4% of charitable dollars — In 2020 nonprofits focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions received only $2 billion. 
• The regions and sectors that emit the most greenhouse gases receive very little philanthropic support — For example organizations working to reduce emissions in Asia received $160 million in 2020, which represents 12% of philanthropic funding, despite the fact that the region is responsible for 53% of global emissions.
• Environmental justice organizations receive about 0.5% of all environmental donations — In 2020 these nonprofits received between $25-50 million, which is about how much The Nature Conservancy raises every week. 

Why we produced this report

Carbon Switch produces research and guides that help people and communities live more sustainably. We’ve written guides on everything from mini-splits, to the most energy efficient water heater, to induction stoves.

But we believe that only policy and systemic change will solve our current environmental crisis. Without good policies, climate solutions like heat pumps will remain too expensive and out of reach for most Americans.

That’s why we produce rigorously researched reports like this one that encourage people to look beyond their individual carbon footprint.

Introduction

In recent years more people in the United States have become aware of the problem of climate change. For voters it is an increasingly important issue. One reason for this may be that Americans are already seeing the cost of climate change. In 2020 there were a record 22 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters that cost the country $95 billion, according to NOAA. There’s also a growing consensus that climate change will negatively impact everything from human health to poverty and exacerbate existing inequalities and injustices. 

Yet despite these facts, climate mitigation remains one of the least funded causes in philanthropy and charity. After analyzing data from a number of sources — including IRS tax returns, ProPublica’s non-profit API, and foundation grant data — we discovered that only $8 billion (less than 2% of all charitable giving and philanthropy) went to environmental organizations in 2020.

2020 Share of Contributions by Type of Organization

Climate mitigation nonprofits receive only 0.4% of charitable dollars

Previous analyses of charitable giving have primarily used the IRS’ major NTEE groups to understand where charitable dollars go each year. But there are a few problems with using this taxonomy system. First, the NTEE major group that includes environmental organizations also includes organizations focused on animals (e.g. animal shelters). Second, the “Environment” subcategory doesn’t describe what type of environmental work an organization does. In fact, some of the largest nonprofits in this category are botanical gardens in major US cities and land trusts. This makes it difficult to estimate how much money goes to organizations working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Using ProPublica’s nonprofit API, we analyzed tax returns from 65,181 environmental nonprofits to understand what types of organizations donors funded in 2020. 

We discovered that the vast majority of organizations in the IRS’ Environment subcategory were land trusts and conservation nonprofits. Many of these organizations do essential work. Conservation can not only preserve biodiversity, but it can also protect forests and wetlands that sequester carbon. However, as ProPublica reported in 2017, land trusts often act as tax shelters. According to the Brookings Institute this results in more than $1 billion per year in tax deductions. 

In order to isolate the organizations that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we searched IRS tax records for nonprofits in relevant subcategories like “C35 – Energy Resources Conservation & Development” and “C20 – Pollution Abatement & Control.” 

From this analysis we discovered that these organizations received about $2 billion in 2020 (0.4% of all giving).

The largest emitting regions and sectors get a small fraction of philanthropic support

In addition to analyzing IRS tax records, we analyzed foundation grant data in order to understand where some of the largest donors direct their money. We discovered that the regions and sectors that emit the most greenhouse gases receive very little philanthropic support. 

For example organizations working to reduce emissions in Asia received $160 million in 2020, which represented 12% of philanthropic funding, despite the fact that the region is responsible for 53% of global emissions. 

India, the third largest emitting country, is responsible for roughly 7% of global emissions. Yet only $33 million (2.5%) went to organizations working to decarbonize the country in 2020.

Turning our attention to the sectors responsible for the most emissions, we find a similar pattern. For example, nonprofit projects focused on decarbonizing the industrial sector received about 2% of philanthropic funding in 2020 despite the fact that this sector is responsible for 30% of all greenhouse gas emissions (and 40% of energy-related emissions).

As another example, nonprofit projects focused on decarbonizing the transportation sector received 4% of philanthropic funding in 2020 despite the fact that this sector is responsible for about 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions (and 24% of all energy-related emissions).

Sources: Climateworks Foundation Funding Trends 2021, Our World in Data

*Given that buildings and industry both use electricity, there’s some overlap between this sector and others.

**  According to the IPCC we will need to remove ~2 billion tons of carbon by mid-century. Today global emissions are about ~50 billion per year. This figure takes 2 divided by 50 to be able to compare negative emissions to current emissions.

Environmental justice continues to receive little support

There’s no doubt that climate change disproportionately affects the most marginalized communities. Yet, according to our analysis, organizations focused on environmental justice received the smallest amount of climate philanthropy and charitable giving in 2020. 

We estimate that environmental justice organizations received between $25 and $50 million in 2020 (0.3-0.6% of all environmental giving). In fact, not a single environmental justice nonprofit made it in the list of the top 100 most funded organizations. Only 3 organizations — Environmental Integrity Project, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and The Deep South Center for Environmental Justice — made it in the top 200. 

By contrast the 5 biggest organizations — all of which have a bad track record on environmental justice — received about $2 billion in 2020. In fact, The Nature Conservancy alone receives more money each week than environmental justice organizations receive in a single year.

Recommendations

Given the fact that climate change significantly impacts human health, poverty, and so many other social problems that charity and philanthropy aim to mitigate, we encourage donors, big and small, to increase their giving to environmental nonprofits. 

We encourage donors to support climate mitigation nonprofits, especially those focused on decarbonizing sectors and regions responsible for the largest share of emissions. In many cases this requires looking beyond our backyards or even our country. It means funding work that is, frankly, boring and tedious — organizations that aim to decarbonize concrete or steel production, or get more electric vehicles on the road, for example. 

We also recommend that donors increase funding to organizations focused on environmental justice. In many cases this will require donors to break out of their networks and forge new relationships. It will require reaching out to organizations as opposed to waiting for them to solicit donations. (Hive Fund’s list of grantees is a great place to start). 

Lastly, here are a few organizations that we encourage people to donate to: 

• WE ACT for Environmental Justice — A national leader in environmental justice with over three decades of experience. You can view their 2022 policy agenda here and donate here.
• Rewiring America — Focused on two underfunded sectors: building and transportation electrification. In their first year, with about $2 million in funding, the organization got the nation’s first electrification bill introduced into Congress. You can make a donation here.
• Evergreen Action — One of the most influential organizations in shaping Build Back Better’s climate provisions, which could be the most influential climate legislation in American history. You can make a donation here.
• CLASP — One of the few organizations working to decarbonize countries like India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and other Asian countries. The organization doesn’t accept small donations, so it is best for foundations and large donors.

Data sources and methodology

2020 Total Contribution Data

According to Giving USA’s 2021 Annual Report, there were $471 billion of charitable contributions in 2020. According to the report $16.14 billion went to “Environment and Animals.”

2020 Environmental Giving Data

For the bulk of this analysis, we used ProPublica’s Nonprofit API, which enables searching by NTEE Major Groups. Their database includes the 65,181 environmental nonprofits that submit 990 forms to the IRS each year (those with $250,000 in revenue or more). We wrote a NodeJS script to go through all of those nonprofits and look up the NTEE subcategory (e.g. C36 – Forest Conservation) and the revenue figure in their most recent filing. 

There’s some overlap between subcategories which makes it hard to determine what type of work an organization does simply looking at tax codes. In addition to that, some organizations like NRDC do a lot of different types of work (e.g. some conservation and some clean energy advocacy). But 75% of revenue goes to the top 200 organizations. So we went through those organizations’ audited financials, which are released each year, and looked at where their budgets went (e.g. 63% of NRDC’s budget goes to their clean energy and sustainability programs).

The IRS tax return data in ProPublica’s dataset are from 2019. So for those top 200 organizations we looked up the 2020 revenue data manually and then for the ~65k nonprofits we assumed a decrease in funding of 7% based on a recent Blackbaud Institute macro analysis.

All of that enabled an accurate (though certainly not perfect) estimate of how much money went to various organizations in 2020.

Foundation Giving Data

Estimates of how much money foundations gave to various sectors and regions comes from Climateworks Foundation Funding Trends 2021.

The post Environmental nonprofits receive less than 2% of charitable donations appeared first on Carbon Switch.

If you are a journalist and want to interview someone at Carbon Switch about this report, please email michael@carbonswitch.co.

Introduction

House and Senate Democrats are currently working to pass two bills that represent one of the biggest climate policy opportunities in more than a decade. Amidst the debate over what should and shouldn’t make it into these bills, there’s been much discussion about solar, wind and electric vehicles. And for good reason: to prevent catastrophic climate change, we need to deploy these technologies at unprecedented speed. But very little attention has been paid to another essential climate solution that can deliver similar emissions reductions: heat pumps.

Using data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) our team looked at what would happen if every home in America replaced their heating and cooling systems with heat pumps.

Highlights from this report

• Single-family home emissions would be reduced by 142 million metric tons per year. Given that homes currently emit about one billion metric tons per year and total energy related emissions in the United States is about 5 billion metric tons, this would lead to a 14% reduction in the sector and ~3% reduction in the country’s total emissions.
• The average homeowner would save $557 per year on their utility bill. In Senator Joe Manchin’s state of West Virginia, the average homeowner would save $887 per year.
• 6.6 million jobs would be created in counties all over the country. Once again if we turn our attention to West Virginia we see that 52,000 jobs would be created across the state (compared to the 33,000 jobs currently supported by the coal mining industry).
• Cold climates aren’t preventing heat pump adoption; the biggest barrier is cheap natural gas. In Maine, one of the coldest states, the average homeowner can save $718 per year. Yet in relatively moderate Colorado the average homeowner would only save $182. This data underscores the importance of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and properly pricing carbon in order to drive heat pump adoption.

Single-family home emissions would be reduced by 142 million metric tons per year. 

According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), home energy is responsible for just under 1 billion metric tons of carbon pollution every year (20% of our country’s total energy-related emissions). 

In single-family homes 54% of total energy goes towards heating and cooling (43% goes towards heating and 8% goes towards cooling). That’s why improving the way we heat and cool our homes represents such a large opportunity for carbon reductions. 

Broadly speaking, the way to decarbonize the housing sector is to:

1. Electrify all equipment and appliances…
2. …with the most efficient technology available 
3. And transition to a 100% renewable grid

Today 65 million single-family homes (88%) use either fossil-fuel powered equipment or inefficient electric heating and cooling technology. Only 8.9 (12%) million use heat pumps. As we’ll cover below, one of the main reasons for this relatively small market share is that heat pumps cost more than inefficient systems.

Because heat pumps also act as air conditioners, it’s important to look at how Americans currently cool their homes. The table below shows the percentage of homes currently cooled with heat pumps (which includes mini-splits). 

54.9 million (74%) homes use inefficient air conditioning systems, whereas 14.8 million (20%) homes use either a ducted heat pump or ductless mini-split. 

Heating fuel market share

Heating equipment market share

Air conditioning equipment market share

Replacing all of those inefficient, fossil-fuel systems with heat pumps would result in a reduction of 141 million metric tons of emissions per year. To put that in context, that represents a 14% reduction in the housing sector and ~3% reduction in the country’s total emissions. 

The two tables below break down that opportunity based on heating fuel and equipment type. (Note: All emissions figures represent metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year).

Carbon reduction potential

By heating fuel

By heating equipment type

The average homeowner would save $557 per year on their utility bill

Heat pumps are the rare climate solution that doesn’t require personal sacrifice on behalf of consumers. Tens of millions of homeowners have the opportunity to save money and make their home more comfortable. In fact, the average homeowner in America can save $557 on their utility bill every year by switching to a heat pump. 

But there is a large variance in savings depending on a home’s heating fuel, equipment, and location as the tables below demonstrate.

Two things are clear in looking at this data: 

1. Homeowners that use electricity, propane, and fuel oil can generally save about $1,000 per year. And with payback periods under 15 years it’s possible for many of these homeowners to install heat pumps with no money upfront and a low-interest loan. This represents one of the best opportunities for decarbonization in the housing sector.
2. Homeowners that use natural gas to heat their homes on the other hand would only save $117 per year based on today’s natural gas prices. Therefore it will be very difficult to replace without substantial changes to the price of the fuel (i.e. a price on carbon) or large heat pump installation incentives. 

Average savings, upfront cost, and payback period

By heating fuel

By equipment type

By state

6.6 million jobs would be created in counties all over the country

Replacing America’s inefficient heating and cooling equipment with heat pumps would also create enormous economic opportunities and jobs. And, importantly, those benefits could be reaped in every city, county, and state across the country. 

In total, there’s an opportunity to create 6.6 million jobs. That includes direct (e.g. electricians), indirect (e.g. manufacturers) and induced jobs (e.g. local businesses that benefit from increased economic activity). 

Below is a table that shows how many jobs can be created in each state. But we’d like to call attention to one state in particular: West Virginia, where Senator Joe Manchin will play a key role in shaping any bill passed this year. 

In that state, 52,000 jobs would be created (compared to the 33,000 jobs currently supported by the coal mining industry). 

Job creation potential

Replacing inefficient, fossil-fuel-powered HVAC equipment with heat pumps will be essential if America is to hit its climate goals. Yet compared to other climate solutions like solar, wind, and electric vehicles, heat pumps don’t enjoy mainstream popularity. That’s unfortunate given the important role they can play in decarbonizing the housing sector, which is responsible for nearly a billion metric tons of annual emissions (20% of our country’s total).

Conclusion

Compared to HVAC systems that run on natural gas, fuel oil, and propane, heat pumps enable zero-emissions heating and cooling (assuming we also decarbonize the power grid). Today, there are 65 million fossil-fuel heating systems in use in America. If those systems aren’t replaced with heat pumps, it will be impossible to decarbonize the housing sector.

Replacing the 8.9 million inefficient electric heating systems and 54.9 million inefficient air conditioning systems with heat pumps would also dramatically reduce the amount of renewable energy and transmission infrastructure our country would need to build. That’s because heat pumps use so much less energy per year than any other heating and cooling system. 

As we’ve shown in this report, heat pumps are a rare climate solution: not only can they cut 142 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions and create 6.6 million jobs, but they can also save American homeowners an average of $557 on their utility bill. 

Given all these benefits, we encourage policymakers to consider heat pumps as part of their larger decarbonization strategy. 

Methodology

Most of our research work involves helping consumers understand how to dramatically reduce their personal carbon footprint. But as individuals our actions can only make so much impact. In order to prevent catastrophic climate change, we need policy change. That’s why we produce reports like this one and encourage our readers to get involved in political organizing and policy advocacy. 

The initial idea for this analysis came whilst producing our series of guides on heat pumps (here, here and here). In doing our research we were frustrated by the lack of contextual data on carbon reduction and utility bill savings potential. We discovered that there was no comprehensive publicly available dataset that showed how much a homeowner could save based on where they lived and their current heating and cooling system. 

We did, however, find a group of researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) studying energy efficiency in single-family homes. We emailed those researchers and received access to a treasure trove of the country’s most comprehensive energy efficiency data. 

That NREL data came from a project called ResStock, a first-of-its-kind simulation engine that produced “unprecedented granularity and most importantly—accuracy—in modeling the diversity of the single-family housing stock.” Using that data we were able to accurately estimate carbon reductions, utility bill savings, upfront costs and payback periods based on heating fuel, equipment and location.

Without the ResStock model and the researchers’ generosity in sharing some of the data used to produce it, this analysis wouldn’t have been possible. 

(Disclaimer: NREL wasn’t involved in our analysis in any way and the report doesn’t represent any of their views or recommendations as a government agency). 

In order to estimate how many jobs could be created we used a model developed by Marilyn A. Brown, Anmol Soni, and Yufei Li at the Georgia Institute of Technology for their paper titled Estimating Employment From Energy-Efficiency Investments. In that paper they found that for every $1 million of spending on residential energy efficiency, 12.55 jobs were created. Our model combined the total cost data from NREL and the jobs per million metric presented in that paper. 

The post Are Heat Pumps the Most Overlooked Climate Solution? appeared first on Carbon Switch.

In August we took a break from writing about climate and energy efficiency solutions like heat pumps, home insulation, hybrid hot water heaters, and LED lighting and published a report that showed that millions of American households would soon lose utility shutoff protections, including millions of recently unemployed people and households under the poverty line.

Journalists at The Wall Street Journal, Time, CNBC, NPR, Politico, Quartz and many other media companies used the data from our report and wrote heartbreaking stories about the people that have already been affected by utility shutoffs. 

In that first report we focused primarily on expiring utility shutoff moratoriums and how many households could  lose electricity, gas, or water. We published very little data on how many households were  disconnected because very little data existed.

But over the last month we’ve collected data from dozens of state utility commissions, public hearings, and utilities in order to fill some of those gaps. Over the coming weeks and months we plan to gather more data and continue to release it.

Here are the highlights from this report:

Key highlights

• 16 million households lost shutoff protections in September as moratoriums expired in 4 states. 2.3 million households in those states were below the poverty line before the pandemic began this year. Another 2 million people in those states are currently unemployed.
• In October another 11.5 million households will lose shutoff protections as moratoriums in 7 states expire. About 3 million households in those states were below the poverty line before the pandemic began this year. Another 3 million people in those states are currently unemployed.
• By the end of October 82 million households (68%) won’t have shutoff protections. 11 million of those households were below the poverty line before the pandemic began this year. About 10 million unemployed people live in those states.
• Early shutoff data suggests that millions of Americans could lose power this fall. In Georgia — one of the first states that shared their shutoff data with us — 22,210 customers were disconnected in August. That represents about 1% of their customers.
• Arrearages data suggests that tens of millions of American households are behind on their bills. In Wisconsin 31.3% of customer accounts were in arrears as of August compared to 12.2% same time last year. In Michigan the two biggest utilities have reported that between 38-47% of customers are behind on their bills.

Why we wrote this report

Carbon Switch produces research and guides that help people and communities live more sustainably. Our guides help people reduce their energy use with home improvement projects like installing a heat pump or improving their insulation. The guides also help people make decisions like whether to buy a tankless water heater, electric water heater, or a heat pump water heater, decisions that can lead to large amounts of emissions over time.

Through our research we saw the unjust utility shutoffs and energy injustice of the last few months and decided to write a series of reports uncovering data that was largely going unnoticed. Since its first publication the reports has been covered by outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Time, CNBC, and dozens more.

How many households have been disconnected?

In September we were able to obtain shutoff data for two states: Georgia and Illinois. We also found a presentation created by Wisconsin’s utility commission that showed how many customers the utilities in that state planned to disconnect beginning in October if the state hadn’t extended their moratorium.

In Georgia the PUC only collects data on Georgia Power, a utility owned by Southern Power that serves about two-thirds of the state’s households. According to a spreadsheet the PUC sent us, Georgia Power disconnected 22,210 residential customers in August. The same spreadsheet listed 2,282,827 customers which means that they disconnected about 1% of their customers in August.

In Illinois the PUC is currently tracking arrearages and shutoffs at the biggest investor-owned utilities (IOUs). According to a recent filing, Ameren Missouri (the state’s biggest utility), disconnected 4,950 customers in August (0.4%). The Illinois PUC required all IOUs to estimate how many customers they planned to disconnect between September 2020 and February 2021. Ameren estimated they will disconnect 42,190 customers.

In September Wisconsin’s PUC voted to extend their moratorium through the spring of next year. But prior to that decision they gathered data from utilities on arrears and planned disconnects. According to a presentation summarizing the findings, 31.3% of customer accounts were in arrears as of August compared to 12.2% same time last year. Utilities planned to disconnect 54,051 in October when the moratorium was set to expire. We Energies — the largest utility in the state — planned to disconnect 27,461 customers (1.2%).

Over the next month we expect to get disconnect data from the following states:

• Indiana
• Colorado
• Michigan
• Missouri
• Tennessee
• Florida

How many customers are behind on their bills?

One of the biggest challenges in reporting on arrearages and disconnects is the lack of data available. Prior to the pandemic most states weren’t tracking how many customers were behind on their bills or how often utilities were disconnecting them. Those that were publishing the data — states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts — were doing so using difficult to navigate databases called “dockets.”

So instead of being able to compare utilities and states using the same data, we’re stuck with a broken system of dockets, PDFs, and poorly organized spreadsheets.

As mentioned above, we’ve spent the last month collecting this data from utilities and state regulators. Below is a table documenting the percentage of customers in arrears at the utilities we were able to obtain data for.

While comparing utilities and states can yield interesting insights, it should be done with caution and skepticism since the reporting period is different in some cases and the data is collected by regulators in different states with different procedures and standards.

State moratorium and demographic data

Prior to September there were 27 states without moratoriums in place. In the month of September moratoriums expired in these 4 states: 

• North Carolina – September 1st
• Tennessee – September 28th 
• Rhode Island – September 30th
• Texas – September 30th.

In October moratoriums are set to expire in these 7 states: 

• New Hampshire – October 1st
• Virginia – October 5th
• Minnesota – October 12th
• New Jersey – October 15th
• Washington – October 15th
• Vermont – October 15th
• Connecticut – October 31st

Below is a table with the moratorium status of every state, how many households were in poverty in those states prior to the pandemic, and unemployment data from each state:

Sources and notes

Status of state moratoriums

In our first report we used the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Map of Disconnection Moratoria but for this report we checked each moratorium status by going to the PUC or state’s website.

Household data by state

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Unemployment data

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Utility shutoff data

• Georgia’s PUC sent us a spreadsheet with Georgia Power’s disconnect data
• Ameren Illinois’s data came from this public filing
• We found the Wisconsin data in this presentation we obtained from the PUC docket. 

Arrearage data

We found arrearage data for utilities in a number of different places including PUC dockets, public filings, industry presentations, and emailing PUC commissions with data requests. If you need access to any of this data email michael (at) carbonswitch.co

Press inquiries

If you are a journalist and want access to any of the data used for this analysis or want to interview the author, please email michael (at) carbonswitch.co

About Carbon Switch

Carbon Switch is an energy efficiency startup that helps homeowners understand the carbon footprint of their home and identify ways to cut their energy use by as much as 50%. 

We produce guides on the appliances that consume the most energy in a home like hot water heaters and recommend more energy efficient alternatives like a heat pump water heater, which can cut energy use by 80% and save homeowners about $5,000 over 10 years. 

Later this year we’ll be launching an app that will help homeowners identify the energy efficiency upgrades that make the most sense based on their home and local climate. The app will also help homeowners find rebates and low-interest financing, something we hope will make these upgrades accessible to every homeowner no matter their income. 

About the author

Michael Thomas is the Founder and Head of Research at Carbon Switch. 

Prior to starting Carbon Switch, he contributed stories to magazines like The Atlantic, FastCompany, and Quartz. He’s also started a couple companies, one of which gives 50% of its profits to charity. The company expects to give away $200,000 next year. 

He also has one of the most common names on planet Earth, which is why you will probably find more results for famous football players than the author of this paper on Google. This link to his LinkedIn will probably make things easier if you want to learn more about his background.

Read our guides and reviews

• LED lighting buyer’s guide
• Everything you need to know before buying a heat pump
• How to save energy with a heat pump water heater
• Electric water heater reviews
• Tankless water heater reviews

The post By the end of October, 82 million households will be without utility shutoff protections appeared first on Carbon Switch.

For many Americans it’s easy to take electricity for granted. But as anyone who has experience a long power outage knows, electricity is what makes our modern world go round. This modern miracle is also threatening to change our climate in irreversible ways, which is why as a company we’ve spent so much time producing research on clean electrification solutions like heat pumps, home insulation, LED lighting, smart thermostats and hybrid water heaters. Without these climate solutions our future looks bleak. Yet, for the poorest Americans the present is bleak.

For most people in America, rolling blackouts like the ones Californians experienced in 2020 are an anomaly, something that happens once a year and only affects them for a couple hours. But for the most marginalized Americans blackouts are a constant threat. That’s because when they can’t afford to pay their bills, the utility shuts off their power.

In this report we’ll explore how COVID-19 exasperated the energy insecurity crisis in America.

—

In the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of Americans lost their jobs as the economy ground to a near halt. Unemployment rose to levels not seen since the Great Depression.

Shortly afterwards states around the country passed emergency laws to protect the most vulnerable people. In 32 states, governors and public utility commissions (PUCs) passed utility shut-off moratoriums to ensure that no households lost their electricity because they couldn’t pay their bill.

Six months later many of those moratoriums have expired or are set to expire in the next month. Between May and mid-August, 10 states allowed their moratoriums to expire. In the next month another 14 state moratoriums will expire. That means by October 1st a total of 36 states won’t have moratoriums in place.

In order to understand the impact of these policy changes, Carbon Switch analyzed data provided by public utility commissions in these states, unemployment data, and energy spending data. Our goal was to understand how many people could be at risk of losing their electricity this year.

Key highlights

• In the next month 34.5 million households will lose their utility shutoff protections as moratoriums in 14 states expire. About 4 million of those households are currently below the federal poverty line. 4 million people in those states are unemployed.
• 76 million American households won’t have utility shutoff moratoriums after October 1st. By that point moratoriums will be voluntary in 36 states. About 10 million of the households in those states are currently below the federal poverty line. Another 9.5 million people in those states are unemployed.
• In some states 33% of utility customers are behind on bills. In North Carolina 1,369,786 households are behind on payments. When the statewide moratorium expires on September 1st they will all be at risk of losing their power.
• 8 of the country’s 10 biggest utilities will shut off customers’ power by Sept 15. These utilities serve 53 million Americans. The only two utilities that won’t resume shut offs by September 15th are PG&E and SCE, California-based utilities that legally can’t resume shutoffs until at least next year due to the state’s moratorium.
• Black families are twice as likely to have their power shut off as white families. According to the 2009 United States Energy Information Administration’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey African American households at or below 150% of the federal poverty level were shut off twice as frequently as white households (11.3% compared to 5.5%).
• Utility shutoffs cost lives, people’s health, and their dignity. Every year brings stories of people killed after their power is shut off (often due to fires and heat stroke). A recent study showed that people often forgo essentials like food in order to save up enough money to get the power back on.

Why we wrote this report

Carbon Switch produces research and guides that help people and communities live more sustainably. Our guides help people make decisions like whether to buy a tankless water heater, electric water heater, or a heat pump water heater. They also help people find less common ways to cut their carbon footprint like installing a heat pump or improving their home’s insulation.

These decisions can, in turn, have a big impact on someone’s energy use and carbon footprint. Through our research we saw the unjust utility shutoffs and energy injustice of the last few months and decided to write a report uncovering data that was largely going unnoticed. Since its first publication the report has been covered by outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Time, CNBC, and dozens more.

Millions will be at risk of losing power

In the next month utility shutoff moratoriums will expire in 14 states. As you can see in the second column of the table below there are ~34.5 million households in those states. About 4 million of those households are below the federal poverty line according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. And another 4 million people in those states are unemployed according to data released last week by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.

By October 1st moratoriums will be voluntary in 36 states meaning that investor-owned utilities can shut off the power on some of the most vulnerable people in America. As you can see in the third column in the table below, there are 76 million American households in those states. About 10 million of them are below the federal poverty line. And 9.5 million people in those states are unemployed.

Where will people be at risk? 

The map below shows the number of unemployed people in states with utility shutoff moratoriums that won’t be active after October 1st. 

Click a state to learn more about how many people will be at risk in any given place. Note: Grey states have moratoriums that last beyond October 1st.

In some states 33% of utility customers are behind on payments

In a July 15 report, the Governor’s office reported that 1.3 million customers had been spared from disconnects due to his emergency order that banned utility shutoffs. As they wrote: “Between April 1 and June 30, 1,369,786 residential customer accounts have become eligible for disconnection but have not been disconnected.”

For context, there are 3,815,392 households in North Carolina meaning that more than a third of households are behind on payments.

Unfortunately little has changed in North Carolina since that July 15 report and the moratorium is set to expire on September 1st. According to the most recent BLS data, there are 419,812 unemployed people in the state (compared to 199,494 a year ago).

Wisconsin is another state that released data on how many customers are behind on their utility bills. According to a recent government report about 33% of utility customers were behind on payments as of July (compared to 12% a year ago).

When surveyed for that report, 36 of the 41 utilities that responded said they planned to resume shutoffs. We Energies, a utility that serves 1,183,000 customers in Wisconsin said 32,000 customers met disconnect criteria (27% of their total).

But with millions of shutoffs looming the Public Service Commission in Wisconsin voted to extend the moratorium until October 1st.

In Florida “accounts in arrears” (the industry term for customers that are behind on payments), are up 60% compared to the year before according to presentations by executives at the biggest utilities obtained by Carbon Switch.

Florida Power and Light, one of the country’s biggest utilities, had 250,000 accounts in arrears as of the end of June. The company began shutting off the power on customers in mid-July.

Shutoff policies at the 10 biggest utilities

In March utilities across the country announced that they would temporarily suspend shutoffs. Few of them specified when they would resume shutoffs. Many of them have quietly resumed shutting off the power on their customers in the months since. While others plan to resume shutoffs in mid-September. One of the country’s biggest utilities, Southern Company — a Georgia-based utility with 9 million customers — never had an internal shutoff moratorium in the first place.

Carbon Switch gathered data on the number of customers at the 10 largest utilities and their shut off policies. We found that the top 10 utilities control 62% of the investor-owned utility market and serve 63 million customers. (It’s important to note that a customer is a household, not an individual. Considering the average household in America has 2.5 people, their policies likely affect about 157.5 million Americans).

Here’s a summary of these utilities shutoff policies during the pandemic:

• 1 utility (Southern Company) never stopped shutting off their customers’ power.
• 3 utilities (Exelon, Xcel, and Florida Power and Light) quietly resumed shutoffs in May and July.
• 4 utilities (Duke Energy, Dominion Energy, First Energy, and AEP) plan to resume shut offs in September.
• 2 utilities (PG&E and SCE) are barred by California’s moratorium from shutting off their customers’ power until at least next year.

It’s worth emphasizing that the only utilities that have extended their moratoriums past September 15th are the two utilities based in California, a state with the nation’s longest spanning moratorium. The others plan to resume shut offs despite recent reports that as many as a third of customers are behind on payments in some states.

Shutoffs and injustice

In 2018 a 72-year-old woman living in Sun City West, Arizona died during a heat wave in which temperatures reached 100 degrees. Shortly after her death investigators learned that she died because Arizona Public Service Co., her local utility had shut off her power (she died of a heat-related illness).

According to a report by The Phoenix New Times, she had been paying $125 per week — all she could afford on a fixed income — but it wasn’t enough. The utility shut her power off because her balance was $176.84 in the negative.

Every year there are similar heartbreaking stories. There are stories of people who die of carbon monoxide poisoning, people who freeze to death, and people who die from fires started by candles — all because their utilities were shut off.

And as the NAACP report pointed out in Lights Out in the Cold, utility shutoffs disproportionately affect black people in America. According to the 2009 United States Energy Information Administration’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey African American households at or below 150% of the federal poverty level were shut off twice as frequently as white households (11.3% compared to 5.5%).

Recent data from academics at Indiana University shows that in the time of COVID-19 this racial injustice hasn’t changed. In a poll the percentage of black respondents who struggled to pay an energy bill in April or May of this year was twice as high as their white counterparts.

The threat of utility shutoffs also affect people’s health. According to that same Indiana University study, “Approximately 22% of respondents reported that in the previous month they had reduced or put off expenses for basic needs like medicine or food in order to pay their energy bills.”

Conclusion

As a social enterprise we are obligated to do social good, not maximize profits. That’s why we felt compelled to produce this report, despite the fact that it may frustrate utility companies that we will likely work with in the future.

The millions of Americans that lost their jobs in the wake of COVID-19 shouldn’t be subjected to more pain. They shouldn’t lose more of their dignity. They shouldn’t have to forgo more meals just to keep the lights on so their children can attend remote classes.

In nearly all of the stories and press releases we reviewed for this report, we saw the same claim by utilities: “We encourage our customers to seek bill assistance to avoid shutoffs.” But according to the National Consumer Law Center, these programs and communications only reach 1% of eligible households. By contrast, 100% of shutoffs reach those same people.

Whether to shutoff a customers’ power shouldn’t be left up to investor-owned utilities. That’s why we are joining the 830+ organizations, and 113 members of Congress in calling for a national moratorium on utility shutoffs to save millions of people from losing their power during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Sources and notes

Status of state moratoriums
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Map of Disconnection Moratoria

Household data by state
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Energy burden and spending data
Department of Energy’s LEAD tool

Unemployment data
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Utility shutoff policies

• Southern Company
• Exelon
• Xcel
• Florida Power and Light
• Duke Energy
• Dominion Energy
• First Energy
• AEP

Press inquiries

If you are a journalist and want access to any of the data used for this analysis or want to interview the author, please email michael (at) carbonswitch.co

About Carbon Switch

Carbon Switch is an energy efficiency startup that helps homeowners understand the carbon footprint of their home and identify ways to cut their energy use by as much as 50%. 

We produce guides on the appliances that consume the most energy in a home like hot water heaters and recommend more energy efficient alternatives like a heat pump water heater, which can cut energy use by 80% and save homeowners about $5,000 over 10 years. We also help raise awareness for less popular climate solutions that can save people money like heat pumps, home insulation, and LED lighting.

Later this year we’ll be launching an app that will help homeowners identify the energy efficiency upgrades that make the most sense based on their home and local climate. The app will also help homeowners find rebates and low-interest financing, something we hope will make these upgrades accessible to every homeowner no matter their income. 

About the author

Michael Thomas is the Founder and Head of Research at Carbon Switch. 

Prior to starting Carbon Switch, he contributed stories to magazines like The Atlantic, FastCompany, and Quartz. He’s also started a couple companies, one of which gives 50% of its profits to charity. The company expects to give away $200,000 next year. 

He also has one of the most common names on planet Earth, which is why you will probably find more results for famous football players than the author of this paper on Google. This link to his LinkedIn will probably make things easier if you want to learn more about his background.

Read our guides and reviews

• LED lighting buyer’s guide
• Everything you need to know before buying a heat pump
• How to save energy with a heat pump water heater
• Electric water heater reviews
• Tankless water heater reviews

The post Millions of Americans could lose their electricity as COVID-19 shutoff moratoriums expire appeared first on Carbon Switch.

For the last four years the Trump administration has rolled back environmental regulations and blocked policies that would create jobs, save Americans money, and reduce carbon pollution. Joe Biden and his campaign have promised to do the opposite and put America on a path to net-zero emissions by 2050.

Given that buildings contribute roughly a quarter of emissions in the United States, getting Americans to upgrade their home insulation and switch to heat pumps, LED lighting, hybrid water heaters (or tankless water heaters where hybrids aren’t possible), will be essential.

But how much could a Biden administration achieve given Republican opposition to environmental policy in Congress and a likely 6-3 conservative Supreme Court? And how would their plan to address the climate crisis differ from the plans laid out in the Green New Deal? In this report we sought to answer those two questions, with a focus on building sector emissions (35% of total US emissions).

The short answer to the first question is that Biden could achieve a lot. As a Democrat known for his ability to work with Republicans, many of the policies would likely win bipartisan support and votes from moderate Republicans like Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski. For example, if Biden were to ratify the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol—something that Republican Senators recently expressed support for—he could cut emissions by 9.5 billion metric tons by 2050.

Biden could also cut emissions without passing a single bill through Congress. For example, updating appliance efficiency standards would cut emissions by 5.2 billion metric tons. However, going around Congress would come with a tradeoff. Something like appliance efficiency standards would face intense legal opposition by manufacturers and trade groups that would likely reach the Supreme Court. With Trump’s nomination of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Republican Senators eager to confirm her before the election, it’s very likely that appliance efficiency standards cases would be heard by a 6-3 conservative court.

As for the second question—how different is Biden’s plan than the Green New Deal—the short answer is, once again, a lot. Biden’s campaign has promised they would upgrade 6 million buildings in America over 4 years. The Green New Deal suggests upgrading 50 million buildings over the same period.

Using the ResStock model and data from previous energy efficiency research, we also looked at the environmental and economic impact of Biden’s plan to upgrade America’s home energy efficiency (referred to as “weatherization”). We then compared it to the plans suggested by the Green New Deal.

Biden plans to “weatherize 2 million homes over 4 years”—an average of 500,000 homes per year. A Green New Deal would upgrade 8 million homes per year to “maximum energy efficiency.”

According to our analysis Biden’s weatherization plan would create 109,860 jobs, generate $14 billion in economic activity, and reduce annual emissions by 6.6 million metric tons by 2025. The Green New Deal, on the other hand, would create 10 million jobs, generate $1.2 trillion in economic activity, and reduce annual emissions by 263 million metric tons. In other words, when Biden said, “The Green New Deal is not my plan,” he wasn’t lying.

Why we wrote this report

Carbon Switch produces research and guides that help people and communities live more sustainably. Our guides help people make decisions like whether to buy a tankless water heater, electric water heater, or a heat pump water heater, decisions that have big emissions impacts that last decades. Our hope is that these guides can lead to a change in consumer behavior. But we believe that only policy and systemic change will solve our current environmental crisis. Without good policies, climate solutions like heat pumps, home insulation, and LED lighting will remain too expensive and out of reach for most Americans.

That’s why we produce rigorously researched reports like this one based on important climate policies. These reports have been covered by outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Time, CNBC, and dozens more.

Highlights from this report

• Biden’s plan could cut building emissions by 16 billion tons between now and 2050, a sharp contrast to the Trump administration’s regulatory rollbacks over the last four years.
• Some of the most impactful actions wouldn’t require Congressional support. For example, appliance efficiency standards would cut emissions by 5.2 billion MTCO2 eq.
• But many of those policies would be at-risk if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice since they are likely to face intense legal opposition from trade associations and manufacturers.
• Most of his proposals have bipartisan support. For example, if Biden ratified the Kigali Agreement, emissions from HFCs would be cut by 9.5 billion MTCO2 eq.
• Biden says his administration will “set a target of reducing the carbon footprint of the U.S. building stock 50% by 2035.” But the commitments listed in his plan would only reduce emissions by a few percent.
• Biden’s weatherization plan would generate $14 billion in economic activity, create 106,000 jobs, and save 2 million Americans $606 per year on their utility bill. However, it wouldn’t achieve the carbon reductions necessary to meet the Paris targets.
• Biden’s plan to curb building emissions looks very different from the Green New Deal. The Biden plan sets a target of upgrading 1.5 million buildings a year compared to the Green New Deal’s 8 million per year target.

To hit the Paris targets every building needs to be 50% more efficient

In 2019 buildings were responsible for 35% of energy-related emissions in the United States — emitting a total of 1.8 billion metric tons of CO2. To put that number in perspective, if America’s buildings were a country, they would rank 4th in total emissions, just behind India and ahead of Russia.

In order to meet the goals set in the Paris Agreement, the United States will need to need to eliminate nearly all of these emissions by 2050. At a high level, the way to achieve this is by:

• Retrofitting every existing building to be 50% more efficient.
• Electrifying all appliances and equipment (i.e. replacing natural gas with electricity)
• Building only net-zero buildings going forward.
• Dramatically increasing renewable energy production (both on the grid and on-site)

And time is of the essence when it comes to making these changes since many appliances last 15-30 years. That means when a homeowner chooses to put a conventional electric water heater in their home instead of a heat pump water heater they lock in decades of inefficient energy use. Or when someone installs a gas furnace and air conditioner instead of a heat pump they lock in decades of unnecessary fossil fuel consumption.

Why improving energy efficiency in existing buildings is so important

• 80% of the buildings that will be standing in 2050 have already been built.
• Replacing the existing building stock would require carbon intensive construction and manufacturing.
• 50% more efficient buildings means 50% less renewable energy capacity that needs to be built (i.e. it makes the clean energy transition easier).

Achieving zero emissions in the building sector will be incredibly difficult. While we need to reduce energy use in every building by 50%, the best retrofit programs today only cut energy by 10-20%. That’s because they focus on important, but ultimately too small changes like switching to LED lighting, improving home insulation, and installing hybrid hot water heaters and heat pumps. “Deep retrofits” — upgrades that reduce energy use by more than 50% — cost on average $40,000 per home.

Today the most successful whole-house retrofit programs reach 1% of homeowners. In order to turn over the entire building stock by 2050 we need 3.3% of homeowners in every county in America to retrofit their home.

What’s Biden’s plan to cut building emissions?

Earlier this year, Joe Biden’s campaign released their plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. We analyzed the plan and identified all the targets, commitments, and policy proposals that address building emissions.

Targets

• “Building on his efforts in the Recovery Act, Biden will set a target of reducing the carbon footprint of the U.S. building stock 50% by 2035, creating incentives for deep retrofits that combine appliance electrification, efficiency, and on-site clean power generation.”
• “Biden will [create] 1 million jobs upgrading 4 million buildings and weatherizing 2 million homes over 4 years.
• “Disadvantaged communities receive 40% of overall benefits of spending in the areas of clean energy and energy efficiency deployment.”

Commitments and policy proposals

• “He will embrace the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, adding momentum to curbing hydrofluorocarbons, an especially potent greenhouse gas, which could deliver a 0.5 degree Celsius reduction in global warming by mid-century.”
• “He will direct the U.S. Department of Energy to redouble efforts to accelerate new efficiency standards for household appliances and equipment.”
• “He will repair and accelerate the building code process and create a new funding mechanism for states and cities to adopt strict building codes and train builders and inspectors.”

(This is particularly important because even climate solutions like heat pumps still use HFCs, which release potent greenhouse gases at the end of their life).

How is Biden’s plan different from the Green New Deal?

In recent weeks Trump and Pence have tried to draw parallels between the Biden plan and the Green New Deal. During the first debate between the two candidates, Trump accused Biden of supporting “the radical Green New Deal.” Biden responded: “The Green New Deal is not my plan.” So how similar is Biden’s plan to curb building emissions to the suggestions made in the Green New Deal?

While the Green New Deal isn’t a bill or policy proposal, it makes clear suggestions on how to curb building emissions. Like Biden’s plan the Green New Deal calls for, “Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030” and “net-zero global emissions by 2050.” But this is where the similarities end.

The Green New Deal suggests that those goals should “be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization that will require… upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”

To compare the two it’s easier to look at how many buildings each plan suggests upgrading each year. With a target of “upgrading 4 million buildings and weatherizing 2 million homes over 4 years” the Biden campaign plans to upgrade 6 million buildings over 4 years, or 1.5 million buildings per year. The Green New Deal sets a target of upgrading every building in America (there are about 125 million) in 10 years, or 12.5 million per year.

In other words there’s about a 10x difference between Biden’s plan and the Green New Deal when it comes to retrofits.

Or to compare the plans as if they were energy efficient houses, you can think of Biden’s plan as a house with some nice LED lights, adequate insulation, and a heat pump water heater. Definitely not bad, but not enough to get us to 1.5 degrees and a zero-emissions economy. The Green New Deal on the other hand would be a home with the LEDs, hybrid water heater and a heat pump, the highest R-value insulation, rooftop solar, energy efficient windows, top-tier air sealing, and a half dozen other energy efficiency improvements.

Biden’s weatherization plan compared to the Green New Deal

The two plans also differ significantly in respect to how they approach residential retrofits. Once again to compare the two plans, it’s helpful to look at how many homes each plan recommends upgrading each year.

Biden’s campaign frequently mentions the work that he did as Vice President in the Obama administration. The plan says, “Building on his efforts in the Recovery Act, Biden will set a target of reducing the carbon footprint of the U.S. building stock 50% by 2035.” And then later: “Obama-Biden Administration Record: Implemented energy efficiency standards for buildings, homes and appliances, with a particular focus on saving consumers money on heating and cooling bills.” So what is the Biden campaign referring to?

As a part of the Recovery Act, the Obama administration launched the Better Buildings Neighborhood Program (BBNP). According to a final report on the program released in 2015, “BBNP distributed a total of $508 million to support efforts in hundreds of communities served by 41 grantees.” They upgraded 99,071 buildings; 74,184 of those were residential homes. The average residential retrofit cost $7,214 and cut home energy use by 15%.

BBNP helped these homeowners make important, but relatively small improvements like switching to LEDs, improving insulation, and installing more energy efficient water heaters. In some cases they helped people doing upgrades like improve their heating and cooling system. Considering heat pumps cost a lot of money, this created a lot of energy savings that wouldn’t have otherwise happened.

It’s likely that the Biden administration would include a similar program in any stimulus bill they propose due to the fact that retrofit programs create jobs in every county and provide a fast-way to deploy stimulus money. It’s also likely that they would only pursue cost-effective retrofits (or in technical speak, upgrades with a net-present value of more than 0).

According to an analysis we did using the ResStock building model, today the average weatherization upgrade would cost $7,007 and cut energy use by 20% (resulting in average utility bill savings of $606 per year). When the Biden campaign refers to “weatherizing 2 million homes over 4 years” (500,000 per year on average), these are likely the type of upgrades they mean. So how does Biden’s weatherization plan compare to the Green New Deal?

The Green New Deal calls for upgrading every home in America within 10 years “to achieve maximum energy efficiency.” According to the American Housing Survey there are about 79 million single-family homes in America, which means upgrading about 8 million homes per year. Today, “maximum energy efficiency” would be a deep-retrofit that—as mentioned above—costs on average $40,000 per home and reduces energy use by more than 50%. (It’s worth pointing out that deep retrofits pay for themselves over 30 years since they save homeowners $1,300 per year on average).

When Biden said in the debate, “The Green New Deal is not my plan,” he was telling the truth. A Biden plan aims to upgrade 500,000 homes per year; A Green New Deal would upgrade 8 million per year (16x more). A Biden plan would likely target cost-effective weatherizations with an average cost of $7,000 per home; A Green New Deal would target “maximum energy efficiency” with an average cost of $40,000 per home.

In addition to looking at the number of homes upgraded we created a model based on previous academic research, Department of Energy studies, data from the ResStock model, and the results of the Obama’s BBNP program to understand the impact of each plan on the economy and the environment. Below is a summary of our findings:

How many emissions would a Biden plan cut?

In addition to analyzing the weatherization program we reviewed previous studies and research to understand how many building sector emissions could be cut based on the other proposals in Biden’s climate plan.

Of course, if Biden wins the election in November, it will be difficult to pass any meaningful climate bills—even with a Democrat-controlled Senate and House. Anything that resembles a Green New Deal is likely to get filibustered by the Senate and face opposition from more moderate Democrats. However, in the building sector there are many opportunities to cut emissions that wouldn’t require a Congressional bill.

Using data from existing studies and the ResStock residential building simulation, we looked at how many building sector emissions could be cut based on the plans laid out by the Biden campaign. We’ve grouped them into the following categories: policies that would and wouldn’t require Congressional support.

Policies that would require Congressional support

There are three proposals in Biden’s plan to curb building emissions that would require a Congressional bill. And there’s evidence that all three have bipartisan support.

• Ratifying the Kigali Amendment — In 2020 emissions from hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in the United States reached 250 million metric tons (in CO2 equivalents). There is currently bipartisan support for ratifying the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which would cut emissions by a cumulative 9.5 billion metric tons by 2050. If Biden were elected, it’s likely that he would be able to ratify the Kigali Amendment.
• Repairing and accelerating the building code process — In 2019 a group of Republican and Democrat Senators introduced the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, a bill that aims to address current problems with the building code process. If the Senate were to pass this bill and Biden were to sign it in 2021 it would cut emissions by a cumulative 1.3 billion metric tons.
• Weatherizing 2 million homes over 4 years — As we wrote above, Biden committed to weatherizing 2 million homes over 4 years. Based on our analysis using the ResStock model, that would cut building emissions by a cumulative 166 million metric tons by 2050.

Policies that wouldn’t require Congressional support

Biden would also be able to cut building emissions through executive action and Department of Energy efficiency standards. However those policies would face intense legal opposition from manufacturers and trade groups. And if Justice Amy Coney Barrett is elected to the Supreme Court, those cases would be heard by a 6-3 conservative court.

• Appliance efficiency standards — Between 2008 and 2016, the Obama administration updated more than 40 appliance efficiency standards. Since then the Trump administration has fought to roll back many of them, and unsurprisingly have not passed any new regulations aimed at improving appliance efficiency standards. If a Biden administration were to update standards as the Obama administration did, they could cut emissions by 3.5 billion metric tons between now and 2050.
• Lighting efficiency standards — In 2016, the Obama administration announced plans to update lighting efficiency standards. In 2017 the Trump administration rolled back those regulations. A study by ACEEE found that if those standards were put back in place they could cut emissions by 1.7 billion metric tons by 2050.

Conclusion

There’s no doubt that the difference between a Biden administration and Trump administration would be stark. Whereas the Trump administration has fought for the last four years to roll back efficiency standards that save Americans money and reduce emissions, the Biden campaign writes in their Climate Plan that, “[Biden] will direct the U.S. Department of Energy to redouble efforts to accelerate new efficiency standards for household appliances and equipment.”

A Biden administration would also likely ratify the Kigali agreement, try to “repair and accelerate the building code process,” and include funding for building efficiency upgrades in a stimulus bill.

In total these emissions reductions could add up to 16 billion metric tons between now and 2050. Those emissions reductions—and jobs and utility bill savings—won’t materialize under a Trump administration.

But as our analysis of Biden’s plan shows, these reductions would fall far short of those needed to meet the Paris Agreement. His campaign writes that “Biden will set a target of reducing the carbon footprint of the U.S. building stock 50% by 2035.” Meeting that target would require upgrading 5 million residential buildings every year. The Biden team plans to upgrade a tenth that number—500,000 per year. And while it’s tempting to think that powering all those inefficient homes with renewables is a silver bullet, this ignores the fact that building emissions are a zero-sum game and the burden would simply shift to the already massive undertaking of creating a 100% clean grid.

In the final weeks of the campaign, Trump will likely continue to frame Biden’s climate plan as “radical.” But there’s no doubt: Biden’s Climate Plan is no Green New Deal.

Methodology

How we calculated emissions reductions

Using NREL’s ResStock model we analyzed how many emissions could be reduced by weatherizing 2 million homes. We specifically looked at weatherizations where the net-present value was greater than 0 (i.e. cost-effective upgrades). According to the ResStock model, the average weatherization project can cut 3.3 metric tons per home per year. Therefore if 2 million weatherizations leads to a reduction of 6,641,530 metric tons annually. 

The NREL model assumes no change in the grid’s carbon intensity. Of course, the grid is likely to continue to become less carbon intense as utilities retire coal plants and build renewable capacity. But any emissions reductions from a cleaner grid wouldn’t be attributed to weatherizations. 

Of course, it’s theoretically possible to cut building sector emissions by 50% without any improvements in energy efficiency. But this would make an already massive task of transitioning America’s grid to 100% renewables even harder. Most experts agree that the path to zero emissions will require cleaning up the grid and  improving building efficiency. 

How we calculated economic activity and jobs created

In order to calculate economic activity, we multiplied the average cost per retrofit by the total number of retrofits. This gives us the total amount of money that would be spent on things like attic insulation, new windows, labor, parts, etc.

To calculate jobs created we used an assumption of 7.84 jobs created per $1m in economic activity based on the results of the Obama adminstration’s BBNP program and data from a recent paper in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy.

Press inquiries

If you are a journalist and want access to any of the data used for this analysis or want to interview the author, please email michael (at) carbonswitch.co

About Carbon Switch

Carbon Switch is an energy efficiency startup that helps homeowners understand the carbon footprint of their home and identify ways to cut their energy use by as much as 50%. 

We produce guides on the appliances that consume the most energy in a home like hot water heaters and recommend more energy efficient alternatives like a heat pump water heater, which can cut energy use by 80% and save homeowners about $5,000 over 10 years. 

Later this year we’ll be launching an app that will help homeowners identify the energy efficiency upgrades that make the most sense based on their home and local climate. The app will also help homeowners find rebates and low-interest financing, something we hope will make these upgrades accessible to every homeowner no matter their income. 

About the author

Michael Thomas is the Founder and Head of Research at Carbon Switch. 

Prior to starting Carbon Switch, he contributed stories to magazines like The Atlantic, FastCompany, and Quartz. He’s also started a couple companies, one of which gives 50% of its profits to charity. The company expects to give away $200,000 next year. 

He also has one of the most common names on planet Earth, which is why you will probably find more results for famous football players than the author of this paper on Google. This link to his LinkedIn will probably make things easier if you want to learn more about his background.

Read our guides and reviews

• LED lighting buyer’s guide
• Everything you need to know before buying a heat pump
• How to save energy with a heat pump water heater
• Electric water heater reviews
• Tankless water heater reviews

The post An Analysis of Joe Biden’s Plan to Cut Building Emissions appeared first on Carbon Switch.