This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

Heat or Eat? New York Tackles Energy Costs and Climate Change

4851668304_0f88477c0b_b

Heat or eat: that’s the stark choice faced by many low-income families during cold New York winters, according to Scott Oliver of PathStone, a non-profit group in upstate New York. But that could change. In January, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo launched a new $5 billion Clean Energy Fund that will sharply reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions while also lowering energy costs for low-income families.

Energy costs are a heavy burden for many: poor households spend more than three times as much of their income on energy as their wealthier neighbors, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. A home’s energy efficiency—particularly in climates with extremes of very cold winters or very hot summers—is a key factor in energy costs.

Those costs weigh heavily on every aspect of life. Paying more for heat or cooling means less ability to buy healthy foods, pay for doctor visits, or cover other life necessities. Under-heated homes in winter can increase circulatory and respiratory problems, and produce anxiety and depression. Hot weather is no better, leaving people who can’t afford air conditioning—particularly the elderly—vulnerable during increasingly frequent heat waves.

In New York State, a number of programs are now in place to reduce energy burdens for low-income renters and homeowners. There are programs that provide payment assistance with high energy bills, for example, and home weatherization programs. But currently, need far outstrips the supply. PathStone, for example, knits together grants and subsidies to renovate homes for low income homeowners, often enabling people to stay in homes that might otherwise be condemned or uninsurable. But Oliver says, “The need is so huge. [We’re] doing 10 houses a year here, 10 houses a year there. There are 90,000 houses in the city of Rochester. Even if we only had to work on a quarter of them that’s over 20,000 houses.”

To address these problems, the Clean Energy Fund seeks to unleash a wave of innovation and cross-sector collaboration. A design competition will mobilize ingenuity in the manufacturing and construction sectors to bring down the cost of “deep energy retrofits” (energy use reduction of roughly 70%) for multi-family affordable housing. With 1.7 million units of such housing across the state, the size of the market should create a business opportunity for manufacturers and contractors.

Financial incentives are important. That’s why the Fund is developing new mechanisms for property owners to receive a return on their investment in energy retrofits, while low income residents benefit from lowered electric bills. Also in the works: financial and insurance instruments to help low- and middle-income homeowners pay for energy retrofits and renewable energy projects, and mechanisms that give utilities a stake in promoting energy efficiency.

New York is exploring how the health sector can get involved, given the health benefits of improved housing and reduced energy burdens. Collaboration among affordable housing providers, community developers, utilities and low income service providers will also be key.

The Fund’s energy efficiency measures will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by lowering demand for energy in New York State. And the Fund targets the energy supply as well, with financing and incentives that seek to shift half of the state’s production to renewable energy sources—including solar and wind– by 2030.

New York’s Clean Energy Fund was inspired by the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), which requires states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector to mitigate climate change. While the federal law is tied up in litigation and some states have put implementation on hold, New York is among a handful of states that are moving decisively ahead to reduce carbon emissions.

New York is showing that cutting carbon emissions doesn’t have to hurt. In fact, by improving energy efficiency and lightening the energy burden for low-income families, these measures can substantially improve the lives of the most vulnerable people. “Heat or eat” is a choice no one should ever have to make.

Post by Jeni Miller, a senior public health researcher based in the San Francisco Bay Area. Follow her @JeniMiller.

This post was produced as part of the Island Press Urban Resilience Project, with support from The Kresge Foundation and The JPB Foundation.

Photo Credit: Aurelien Guichard via Flickr

Kyler Geoffroy's picture

Thank Kyler for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on Jun 22, 2016 10:22 pm GMT

Achieving 70% energy reduction is fine, but if you need 95% decarbonization it still falls 6x short of the goal.

Consolidated Edison also sells steam in Manhattan, for heat.  It operates 6 steam plants, which burn a combination of natural gas and fuel oil.  Peak demand is 9,620 thousand pounds per hour; at 1200 BTU/lb, that is a tad under 3.4 GW(thermal).

Supplying this heat by burning natural gas at 90% efficiency (LHV) takes 270 TONS of NG per hour and emits 744 tons of CO2 per hour.

The thermal output of an S-PRISM core is about 1 GW(thermal).  4 S-PRISM units could supply the entire steam demand for the ConEd service area in Manhattan.  This would be achieved with no air emissions of any kind.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Jun 23, 2016 2:49 am GMT

I expect the new pebble bed high temp reactor (the first pair of 105 We demo units of which are under construction now in China, see HTR), to be much more appealing to residents and governments of densely populated cities. There have been several prototype reactors built with this technology already, and a lot of fuel testing which proves it’s robustness and resistance to release of radioactivity in severe accidents; so the safety case is unusually strong, even without resorting to fancy probabilistic analysis.

This type of reactors will also be a good fit for places with water shortages (due to its higher efficiency), and places with a lot of solar PV (compatible temperature range for thermal storage).

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on Jun 23, 2016 5:13 am GMT

The USA hasn’t had anything which used TRISO fuel since Ft. St. Vrain.

If we’re looking for a near-term solution for heat for Manhattan, the NuScale will be the soonest out of the pipeline.  It is also walk-away safe, self-cooling by air circulation by the time the wet well boils dry.  The problem is that at 160 MW(th), it would take upwards of 20 of them to serve Manhattan and the cogeneration possibilities are rather limited.  S-PRISM is walk-away safe by air-cooling and has vastly superior cogeneration numbers.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »