weatherization:

Many of the homes in Boone are old, occupied by renters, and/or occupied by low-income families. Because of these factors, many homes lack proper insulation, energy efficient appliances, and other infrastructure that causes the home to be efficient economically and in terms of energy efficiency. 

 

In 2001, the average southeastern household spent just over $1,500 on energy. By 2009, this increased 33% to over $2000. This rise in the cost of living occurs as poverty has been steadily increasing in the region. More than half of all households in Boone are faced with unaffordable energy costs (defined as energy costs exceeding 6% of household income). The result is homeowners, renters, and families that are unable to improve their homes and reduce this waste of energy and money. While some federal programs have supported weatherization, key programs have suffered from budget cuts, signaling a need for a more stable source of support that invests in energy efficiency (McIlmoil 2014).

 

NRLP provides no real energy efficiency programs, initiatives that have the potential to not only reduce emissions and fossil fuel consumption, but to also save money and increase the health and wellbeing for the Boone community. These energy efficiency programs are also fairly standard; “Data recently compiled by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (2006) show total estimated energy efficiency spending by electric utilities exceeding $2.3 billion in 2006, on par with peak energy efficiency spending in the mid-1990s” (National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency 2007). NRLP does offer a “pre-pay” program, which allows customers who cannot pay the entire monthly bill to instead pay the bill in pieces, but experts note that pre-pay programs are not true energy efficiency programs (Sussman 2019).

 

One effective and common way that utilities support weatherization in communities is through On-Bill Financing (OBF). “With OBF, a utility finances the full cost of home energy efficiency improvements, and the customer repays the utility through an extra charge on their monthly bill using all or a portion of the savings that are achieved as a result of the efficiency upgrades.” The savings from these improvements exceed the loan payments, leading to an overall reduction in their electricity costs (McIlmoil 2014).

 

Programs such as these have the potential to save significant amounts of money for energy users, reduce overall energy use, alleviate issues for utilities, improve community health and produce jobs in the region (McIlmoil 2014).

 

net metering:

Net metering is a utility rate structure in which homes with solar panels sell any energy they do not use back to the energy utility at the full retail rate of electricity. Because solar panel systems produce the most electricity during the middle of the day, and homes use the least amount of energy at this time, this allows solar users to receive full value for their solar system. This process also eliminates the need for expensive battery storage, overall making solar panels much more accessible and cheap for electricity users (LaPlaca 2020).

 

Fair net metering policies are key to the adoption of local solar energy and local solar jobs. Yet, NRLP’s net metering rules are designed in a way that disincentivizes solar installation. Currently, NRLP customers pay about 8.6 cents per kWh (in addition to 0.3 cents per kWh for Coal Ash clean up) (ASU NRLP n.d.). Yet, according to current net metering policy, any excess solar energy that you sell back to NRLP is only bought from you at 3-5 cents/kWh (LaPlaca 2020). Essentially, NRLP is buying the energy that you produce, then selling it back to you or your neighbors at double the price. This is not only unfair, but this policy also makes it less cost-effective for NRLP customers to switch to more renewable energy systems (ibid.).

 

To increase solar infrastructure, reduce the cost of clean energy for customers, boost the local economy, and reduce GHG emissions, NRLP must change their rate structure to reflect fair net metering rules. The Surry-Yadkin Cooperative and Duke Energy provide examples of improved policies. NRLP should reimburse solar customer-generators at retail rates, or the same rate they purchase their electricity for. Even with a small monthly fee, such as $5 dollars, this program could be sustained and bring an influx of distributed solar energy to the region (ibid.)

 

cooperatively managed

community solar:

NRLP also has the capacity to invest in and develop solar micro-grids as a way to boost the local economy, reduce energy costs, reduce vulnerability of our energy system and increase local control of the resources we all need. Under our new contract, NRLP has the ability to produce up to 50 Megawatts (MW) of electricity with solar (App Voices, source pending). While this is minimal, (for context, ASU used 53,648 MW from 2017-2018)(AASHE 2019), we must take advantage of everything we can.

 

The volatility of fossil fuels, steadily decreasing prices for solar technology, and the potential for job and wealth creation makes local solar energy production a sensible initiative and investment. Community solar allows residents, small businesses, organizations, municipalities and others to receive credit on their electricity bills for the power produced from their portion of a solar array, offsetting their electricity costs (Gahl 2020). Essentially, through the utility, customers purchase a portion of the electricity generated from these small grids.

 

These small scale solar arrays can be installed locally by partnering with local landowners such as farmers, giving them a more stable income, benefiting the local economy and preserving cultural landscapes. These arrays could also be installed in pollinator friendly ways, improving local biodiversity, increasing crop yield, improving soil and water quality, and improving financial feasibility (Siegner et.al 2019) (Gahl 2020).

 

In an effort to introduce greater levels of community input, control, and benefit, this microgrid could be cooperatively managed. Participating landowners, NRLP consumers, and NRLP staff could all have decision making power over the management of these energy systems and any profits could be reallocated to consumers through energy cost reductions.

 

This could also be done by financing the development of micro-grids actually owned by local residents, rather than the utility itself. With low-interest loans on these projects, which could be an OBF option, residents could own solar panels even if they do not have an appropriate roof or if they do not own their home. This option opens up solar development to low-income residents and renters. This would also ensure community control and financial benefit. Ultimately, these projects would only be viable in conjunction with fair net-metering policies, highlighting the broad potential for solar development when supported by considerate utility policies (Farrell 2010).

​

​

climact's recommendations:

 

We recommend that NRLP introduce fair net-metering policies, in which fees are minimal and consumer-produced energy is purchased at retail value. We also recommend that NRLP introduce impactful weatherization initiatives, with a focus on low-income households. NRLP should also conduct energy audits in the town of Boone to determine which houses are most in need of weatherization. On-Bill Financing, with low- or zero- interest financing, is one such program. Lastly, we recommend that NRLP provide On-Bill Financing for community solar projects and develop 50MW of their own pollinator friendly solar grids in partnerships with local farmers. Ethical Purchasing guidelines should be followed to ensure that materials, suppliers, and businesses that benefit from these initiatives are patronized and procured equitably and sustainably. 

Carbon Sequestration And Avoidance Potential

If NRLP sensibly follows the advice of scientists, energy experts, and this document, then NRLP will already be operating and distributing 100% renewable energy. Therefore, adoption of more solar would rather be contributing to the global adoption of renewable energy, as more is produced. 

 

In 2015, distributed solar alone, or the panels on households and businesses, averted about 8 million MT CO2e2 in the US. Yet, that same year, the US electric power sector emitted nearly 2 billion metric tons of GHG emissions. It is crucial that everybody who is able make an effort to transition the US electric grids to more sustainable sources of power.

 

Additionally, by reducing the amount of electricity that needs to be transported over long distances, local solar generation reduces costs and wasted energy. Globally, approximately 949 million MT CO2e2 are emitted each year due to transmission and distribution of electricity (Jordaan & Surana 2019).

 

When it comes to weatherization, 31% of all electricity used by North Carolina residents could be  saved through cost-effective home improvements (McIlmoil 2019). Cost-effective weatherization, just within North Carolina, has the potential to save 14.4 billion kWh per year in electricity (McIlmoil 2019). Savings of this magnitude would result in 10,181,376 MT CO2e2 avoided (EPA n.d.).

 

While I am unable to give an accurate assessment of GHG emissions offset by these initiatives, it is clear that they will be significant. A comprehensive energy audit of homes in Boone and data on NRLP transmission and distribution would be required to give a full assessment of these impacts.

 

financial feasibility

Studies show that solar energy is cost effective. A report on solar generation in North Carolina shows that large additions of solar generation would save utility rate payers about $26 million annually. Solar projects could lower transmission and distribution costs, avoid emissions, and lower losses of electricity in transmission. These benefits would outweigh costs by 30-40% and some of these benefits could be absorbed by the utility itself (Downey 2013).

 

Additionally, local solar would avoid the need for greater investments in power generation and reduce energy issues experienced during hours when energy consumption peaks. Solar would help ratepayers and utilities to avoid the cost of investing in new power plants, transmission lines, distribution capacity, and other forms of electricity infrastructure (Weissman 2016). Increasing solar energy capacity also helps utilities avoid the costs and fees associated with the clean up and regulation of fossil fuels that utilities experience(Ibid.). In all likelihood (and optimism), environmental regulations and fees will continue to grow.

 

Local solar production could also supplement electricity available to utilities, especially in the summer when solar energy is abundant and high levels of air conditioning leads to higher wholesale prices of electricity. Energy lost through transmission is also highest during this period (up to 30% during demand peaks!), making solar energy even more cost effective during these periods.

 

The price of fossil fuels is also volatile, subject to geopolitics, national infrastructure vulnerabilities and more. Local production of energy and reliance on local, stable sources of energy would reduce vulnerabilities to price spikes (ibid.).

 

feasibility of implementation

These programs have been demonstrated in the region and are within reach for NRLP. Two successful models of weatherization in the southeast are the Help My House program developed by electric cooperatives in South Carolina and The Central Electric Power cooperative. Kentucky’s Mountain Association for Community Economic Development also worked with local rural electric utilities to create the How$mart program. For participating customers, these programs achieved an average savings of 36% and 21% respectively, resulting in approximately $1,150 and $600.

 

The Institute of Self Reliance details nine examples of successful community solar initiatives implemented by municipal utilities, rural cooperatives, and individual investors. In Colorado, the Clean Energy Collective, cooperatively owned by 18-20 customers of a local energy utility Holy Cross Cooperative, developed a 77.7kW system. Owners of the panels paid $725 per panel ($3.15 per Watt), with some customers purchasing 1 panel, and some purchasing 80. Through a contract with Holy Cross, CEC was able to sell the energy they produced at a price slightly higher than net metering values. The contract negotiated was created to last 50 years. In North Carolina, the Appalachian Institute for Renewable Energy (AIRE), created a similar project right in Boone. However this project is not grid connected, rather energy was sold directly to a private building owner (Farrell 2010).

 

Through the federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program (EECLP) provides loans to finance energy efficiency and conservation projects for commercial, industrial, and residential consumers. This loan program would allow eligible utilities to borrow money at lower interest rates and re-lend the money to develop new and diverse energy service products within their service areas. This program could greatly benefit the community and make OBF even more viable for NRLP.

 

It is likely that there are also many more grants, federal programs, and non-profit services that would aid NRLP in enacting these policies and initiatives. Additionally, to work towards development and implementation of these projects, NRLP could utilize student research and enthusiasm expressed through the university funded REI student club. Appalachian Voices, a regional advocate for a Just Transition, could also be an invaluable resource and ally in achieving these goals.

​

potential justice impacts on

community members

Justice impacts of local solar development and low-income housing weatherization programs are plentiful, reducing costs of living for residents, increasing comfortability, and drastically boosting the economy and adding jobs.

 

Net metering would increase usage of solar, attracting or allowing for the development of solar businesses. Development of solar arrays in the region would also allow for large investments in our counties economy. Rural counties in NC are experiencing huge economic development from clean energy (of which, 88% is solar), with the highest investment at $690 million in Robeson county (Jones 2019), and annual property taxes paid on real parcels with solar projects at $650,000 per year (Sylvia 2019), based on the value of the solar equipment. In contrast, Watauga County has received no investments for Solar Energy (LaPlaca 2020).

 

In the US, solar PV installer is expected to be the fastest growing occupation through 2026, employing blue-collar workers at an average of just under $40,000 a year (Climate Reality Project, 2019). In 2015, the solar industry added jobs at a rate 12 times that of the overall economy (Weissman 2014)

 

Additionally,  local solar generation has the potential to save money for energy consumers by reducing overall costs through avoidance of transmission and distribution waste, which caused US ratepayers about $21 billion in 2014 (Weissman 2014).

 

In the face of economic recession brought on by COVID-19, weatherization benefits could be especially impactful. Because energy efficiency programs tend to be labor intensive, local employment is very likely to increase. Additionally,  weatherization programs would reduce household and business energy bills. Lastly, spending money on weatherization programs and local solar development would keep money in the local economy, rather than purchasing energy energy products extracted from around the nation (Kushler 2020). A study in 2017 showed that compared to White households, Black households spend 43% more of their income on energy costs, Hispanic households spend 20% more, and Native American households spend 45% more. (Somberg 2020). Two out of five low-income households spend more than 10% of their income on energy costs in the US. It is estimated that home weatherization can reduce energy costs for low-income households by 25% (ibid.). 

 

Weatherization can also improve health and comfort for households, especially as so many of us work from home (Drehobl 2020). Some studies show that weatherization of elderly households can help to improve resident health and free up money to cover healthcare costs (Nadel 2020). Reduction in fossil fuel use also reduces emissions of dangerous air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, mercury, and other particulate matter that harms public health (Weissman 2014).

 

An analysis conducted by Coastal Carolina University estimates that a scaled up version of the Help My House weatherization program in South Carolina would produce 1,500 jobs in one year and more than 7,000 jobs over 20 years (McIlmoil 2014). This would also save a project $166 million per year for residents (ibid.).

 

​

potential resilience impact

 

Weatherization and local energy generation can help communities become more resilient, by helping them weather economic stress and shifts, strengthening the local economy, keeping critical facilities, such as hospitals, running in case of emergency events. As solar energy prices tends to be stable over time, it allows residents to maintain crucial services even if fossil fuels prices become too expensive to allow for use (Weissman 2016). Additionally, the centralized nature of conventional energy production, generation, and distribution leaves our grid vulnerable to severe weather, terrorism, or failure of systems otherwise. In contrast, a more distributed array of energy production would be more resilient and able to withstand or avoid these issues (Weissman 2016). In 2003, four downed power lines in Ohio left more than 50 million people in eight states without power and cost $6 billion in economic damage (Weissman 2016). Greater levels of jobs and overall economic vitality would also increase regional resilience and allow the community to overcome difficulties of any kind. If partnerships were made with local farmers for solar distribution, local people would also see a more stable and guaranteed income even in the face of changing weather patterns and agricultural issues (Gahl 2020)