实现公平能源过渡的政策选择.docx

《实现公平能源过渡的政策选择.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《实现公平能源过渡的政策选择.docx（57页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、Contributing Authors Aurora Barone, Environmental Defense FundSanya Carley, Indiana University, Paul H. ONeil School of Public and Environmental Affairs David Foster, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Roosevelt ProjectEmily Grubert, Geor

2、gia Institute of Technology, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Julia Haggerty, Montana State University, Department of Earth Sciences Jake Higdon, Environmental Defense FundMichael Kearney, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, R

3、oosevelt Project David Konisky, Indiana University, Paul H. ONeil School of Public and Environmental Affairs Jennifer Michael, Resources for the FutureGilbert Michaud, Ohio University, Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs Sade Nabahe, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center f

4、or Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Roosevelt ProjectNina Peluso, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Roosevelt Project Daniel Raimi, Resources for the Future Molly Robertson, Resources for the Future Tony Reames, University of Mi

5、chigan, School for Environment and SustainabilityAbout the ProjectThis report presents proposals to support an equitable energy transition with a focus on energy-producing communities, along with communities that have experienced a history of environmental and energy injustice. It is not intended to

6、 be comprehensive, but instead refines existing policy proposals and offers new ideas, drawing from the best available evidence on benefits, costs, and employment.The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their respective institutions or affiliatio

7、ns. The authors of each proposal are responsible for the analysis contained therein.2. Energy Infrastructure and ResilienceSanya Carley and David Konisky, Paul H. ONeil School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana UniversityThe US energy transition will require massive deployment of energy ef

8、ficiency and renewable energy technologies to homes, businesses, and communities; a nationwide modernization and expansion of the electricity grid; and the broadening of accessibility and affordability of clean energy technologies. Hastening the shift to cleaner, lower- carbon sources of energy requ

9、ires changes in every sector of the economy and every corner of the country. This immense task will necessitate significant and sustained investment of financial resources, as well as human capital and ingenuity to ensure effective implementation.To accomplish all that in an equitable and just way r

10、equires directing energy infrastructure and resilience investments to individuals and communities that are on the front lines of the energy transition. The adverse environmental and health effects of the United States5 historical reliance on fossil fuels has been disproportionately borne by people o

11、f color, low-income people, and other vulnerable groups, and the transition to cleaner sources of energy may also create hardships for many of these same people. To avoid further burdening these individuals and communities, and to create opportunities for everyone to experience the benefits of the e

12、nergy transition, it is imperative that policies and programs be designed and implemented in an inclusive and equitable way.This section contains a portfolio of policy options that can help achieve important energy infrastructure and resilience goals. Some proposals involve creating new programs; ot

13、hers would expand existing programs. Each proposal is designed to meet the goals of addressing the climate crisis and other environmental problems while simultaneously investing in the well-being of individuals and the resilience of communities. Most of the proposed policies specifically target comm

14、unities of color, low-income communities, and those on the front lines of the energy transition.2.1. Residential Energy Affordability and SecuritySanya Carley and David Konisky, Paul H, ONeil School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana UniversityTony Reames, University of Michigan School for

15、 Environment and SustainabilityEnsuring a just transition and enhancing energy system resilience include accounting for those who may struggle to pay higher energy bills. Energy insecuritythe inability to pay for energy bills or avoid utility disconnectionis already a widespread problem in the Unite

16、d States.3 In 2015,17 million households were unable to pay their energy bills and 2 million were disconnected from the electric grid,4 an issue exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic5 Two existing programs can help energy-insecure families: the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), which helps hou

17、seholds insulateenergy-inefficient homes; and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which provides energy bill and weatherization assistance. Both programs are significantly underfunded relative to the need. In 2019, for example, LIHEAP served only 17 percent of eligible households

18、.6211 Weatherization Assistance ProgramIn 2019, there were 39.5 million WAP-eligible households and the program weatherized 85,422 homes: 31,174 units using $262,500,000 in DOE funds, 26,794 units using LIHEAP, and 27,276 units using other funds.7 That means only 0.2 percent of eligible homes were w

19、eatherized in 2019.8 Since 1976, WAP has weatherized more than 8 million homes. If Congress were to increase spending to cover the 39.5 million WAP- eligible homes through 2035, aligning with the goal of achieving a net-zero-emissions power sector by that year, we estimate the following:CostsApproxi

20、mately $17.1 billion annually over 15 years. This would involve considerable scale-up of administrative capacity in the WAP program.BenefitsEnergy justice. Household energy bills for 2.6 million additional homes would be reduced each year for 15 years, assuming an average $6,500 per unit cost. Emiss

21、ions reductions. By reducing aggregate demand for energy, weatherization helps lower greenhouse gas emissions, reduce local air pollution, and increase energy system resilience. Jobs. 78,660 direct jobs annually, based on 4.6 direct job-years per$1 million in spending.9Geographicscope Nationwide. St

22、ates with the largest potential savings for low-income households are concentrated in the SoutheastFlorida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginiaplus Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee.10Existing authority. 42 USC 6861 et seq.Agency. DOE.Relevant legisla

23、tion. HR 7516 (116th, Rep. DeGette, D-CO), increases funding to $1 billion per year by 2025; HR 4447 (116th, Rep. OHalleran, D-AZ) increases funding to $450 million by 2025.2.12. Low Income Home Energy Assistance ProgramIn 2019, the LIHEAP program was funded at $3.7 billion and served 5.8 million ho

24、mes.6 If Congress were to increase LIHEAP funding to cover the approximately 17 million households in need, based on historical LIHEAP data, we project that it would cost approximately $11 billion in the first year (2020 LIHEAP funding was $4.6 billion;1 and the American Rescue Plan ( 3302) authoriz

25、ed an additional $4,5 billion in 2021). Over time, as 2.6 million homes are weatherized under the WAP program (Section 2.1.1) each year, this cost should come down, since weatherization will help households reduce their energy bills. Thus, spending would presumably fall by $1.7 billion annually unti

26、l the program returns to its 2019 funding rate of $3.7 billion in the sixth year after the program begins.Costs$38 billion over 5 years ($19,5 billion above the 2019 baseline of $3.7 billion per year).BenefitsEnergy justice. The program would help 17 million households and prevent 4.7 million from b

27、eing disconnected from service. Jobs. 32,700 direct jobs annually, based on 4.3 direct job-years per$1 million in spending.9Geographicscope Nationwide. The states with the highest proportions of energy burden are mostly in the Southeast, led by Mississippi, Missouri, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina

28、, and West Virginia.10Existing authority. 42 USC 8621 et seq.Agency. HHS.Relevant legislation. HR 1319 (117th, Rep. Yarmuth, D-KY) authorizes additional funds in 2021; S 3276 (116th, Sen. Coons, D-DE) eliminates asset limits; HR 7516 (116th, Rep. DeGette, D-CO) extends the program through 2030.22 In

29、vestment in Rural Electric UtilitiesEmily Grubert, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of TechnologyJake Higdon, Environmental Defense FundMany rural areas are challenged by lack of capital investment, inefficient utility systems, and in some cases, particularly on triba

30、l lands, lack of access to electricity. Investing in new energy infrastructure in rural America can create long-term access to clean and reliable energy while creating jobs in regions that might have limited alternative opportunities. We propose doubling loan authority and funding levels for USDA Ru

31、ral Utilities Service (RUS) electrification programs over FY2021 levels12 and maintaining them for five years, as well as funding the rural and remote communities electrification grant program at $50 million per year for five years for communities with 20,000 or fewer inhabitants.Costs$31.25 billion

32、 over 5 years. This amount would enable RUS to issue an additional $5,5 billion in direct loans and $750 million in loan guarantees for electrification per year, or $31 billion over 5 years above the 2021 loan authority level, as well as an additional $250 million in grants over 5 years.BenefitsEner

33、gy access. Improved electricity facilities would benefit an estimated 1 million rural residents per $1 billion of investment,13 such that the new level of loan authority would serve roughly the full rural population of 55 million people over 5 years. Jobs. Roughly 20,000 direct job-years annually ov

34、er 5 years, assuming 3.2 jobyears per $1 million in electricity system investment.9Geographicscope Nationwide. RUS programs target the most underserved rural regions.Existing authority. The Rural Utilities Service can carry out authorized functions under 7 USC 6942, including grants and loans in rur

35、al communities with high energy costs (7 USC 918a) or for electrification in rural and remote communities, with preference for renewable energy (7 USC 918c), Authority exists under 7 USC 8107 for loan financing and grant funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy for agricultural producers a

36、nd rural small businesses.Agencies. USDA Rural Utilities Service, lead, with DOI Bureau of Indian Affairs. Relevant legislation. HR 4447, 12617 (116th, Rep, O5Halleran, D-AZ); S 486 (117th, Sen. Gillibrand, D-NY).23. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (Smart Meters)Emily Grubert, School of Civil and E

37、nvironmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of TechnologyAdvanced metering infrastructure (AMI, sometimes called smart meters) enables two- way communication between electric utilities and customers. When implemented well, AMI can facilitate time-of-use pricing, demand response, and communication ab

38、out grid needs (e.g., a need to conserve to prevent power outages) in near real time. These attributes are expected to gain relevance as the share of variable renewable electricity generation increases because power grids are easier to manage when both supply and demand are at least somewhat respons

39、ive. Nationwide, AMI penetration is about 60 percent for residential and commercial meters, but it is markedly lower in some states.14 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included $4.5 billion for similar investments, resulting in $8 billion in total leveraged investment.15 We propose

40、 funding to achieve full residential AMI penetration, replacing 54 million residential meters.CostsRoughly $16 billion over 5 years (shared with utilities), based on Smart Grid Investment Grant program estimates associated with deployment of about 16 million smart meters and all-in costs of $300 per

41、 meted6BenefitsGrid management and emissions reductions. AMI would enable time-of-use pricing and demand response across the country, facilitating grid management as decarbonization proceeds (thereby reducing the need for backup fossil generation and investments in electricity storage). Jobs. Roughl

42、y 56,000 direct job-years over the life of the program, assuming 3.5 direct job-years per$1 million in investment.9Geographicscope Nationwide, with particular benefits for the following regions having low residential AMI penetration: Appalachia (West Virginia, 2 percent; Virginia, 33; Ohio, 38; Kent

43、ucky, 43). South (Louisiana, 35 percent; Missouri, 41; Arkansas, 45; South Carolina, 48; Mississippi, 50). Intermountain West (Utah, 11 percent; New Mexico, 12; Montana, 25; North Dakota, 26; Colorado, 29; Wyoming, 33; South Dakota, 51). Northeast (Rhode Island, 0 percent; New Jersey, 3; Massachuset

44、ts, 5; New York, 8; Connecticut, 18; New Hampshire, 22).14Existing authority. Authority exists to provide federal matching grants up to 50 percent for smart grid investments (42 USC 17386).Agencies. DOE, lead, with HUD.Relevant legislation. ARRA 1302; HR 5428 (116th, Rep. Lamb, D-PA); S 2333 (116th,

45、 Sen. Cantwell, D-WA).24. Grid Modernization for At-Risk CommunitiesDave Foster, Michael Kearney, Sade Nabahe, and Nina Peluso, Roosevelt Project, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy and Environmental Policy ResearchGrid modernization programs often fare poorly in public utility

46、commission cost-benefit analyses. Allocation of funds as cost-share for utility grid modernization efforts will enable these projects to overcome traditional cost-benefit gaps, accelerate the number and pace of project deployments, and reinforce electricity system reliability. Eligibility requiremen

47、ts could consider utilities in regions that are at risk of adverse climate events, traditionally underserved, experiencing high levels of unemployment, or able to document significant need for reliability improvement. Some of this effort could be covered by smart meter investments (Section 2.4).Cost

48、s $20 billion over 10 years.BenefitsReliability and energy justice. Expected benefits include enhanced electricity reliability and a more equitable distribution of grid infrastructure. Jobs. Roughly 6,400 per year, based on 3.2 direct job-years per$1 million in investment.9Geographicscope Regions ex

49、posed to climate events, underserved communities, and areas with high unemployment.Existing authority. Authority exists to provide federal matching grants up to 50 percent for smart grid investments (42 USC 17386).Agency. DOE.Relevant legislation. Energy Independence and Security Act (2007); S1742 (116th, Sen. Wyden, D-OR); HR 7516 129 (116th, Rep. DeGette, D-CO).25. Hydropower ReinvestmentEmily Grubert, Sc