Terms Matter: Teasing Apart the Differences Between Energy Equality, Equity, and Justice

By Dr. Sarah Naiman

While there has been a longstanding awareness of individuals’ disparate access to energy goods, services, and decision-making processes, in recent years, we’ve seen federal and state regulators increasingly require utilities to demonstrate how they increase and promote energy equity throughout their service territories to address these disparities. More broadly, there continue to be discussions of how energy inequities are intrinsically connected to environmental justice concerns, especially in those resulting from the climate and air quality impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) and other generation, tailpipe, and indoor combustion emissions. It’s not surprising, then, to have observed a shift from energy professionals talking about equality to greater discussions around equity and environmental justice. When we, as an industry, engage in these conversations, it is essential that we begin with a shared understanding of the terms being used and the distinctions between them†.

Equality, equity, and justice efforts all fundamentally attempt to address the same underlying problem: not all individuals are able to fully access social goods (e.g., education, healthcare, energy access), and some are disproportionately impacted by social ills (e.g., environmental hazards, wage disparity). Each concept offers a distinctly different approach to addressing these issues of inequitable outcomes. Building on these shared definitions of equality, equity, and justice and how they differ from one another, we can identify examples of how each may be reflected in utility-led programming. Additionally, these definitions support a deeper understanding of where programs and their individual components fall on an equality-to-justice spectrum, described below, which program staff and evaluators can consider when modifying existing programs and designing new programs to accomplish federal, state, and organizational energy equity and environmental justice goals.

Equality

Equality and equality-focused programming have historically served as a starting point to address inequities by ensuring energy programs are free of overt discrimination. With equality, access to support and/or resources is available to all equally. Ensuring equal access to the same resources can improve outcomes for many but does not account for inherent needs. For example, with equality-focused design, a program may be available for everyone without addressing or mitigating barriers that individuals or communities face in applying for or participating in the program. As a result, solutions and processes that center on equality and do not account for these barriers can increase equality but still see inequitable outcomes and have the potential to perpetuate them.

Decarbonization and electrification efforts from utilities seek to reduce GHG emissions through several avenues. One common equality-based approach is to enable customers to select a rate based on the percentage of their electricity that will be generated by renewable resources. Seemingly through this program, anyone can help lower GHG emissions by increasing their individual reliance on renewables, but not all customers can afford the accompanied increase in their rate.

Another example is the development of solar panel reimbursement programs that incentivize customers to purchase and install solar panels by reimbursing customers for the solar-generated electricity they dispatch back to the grid during times of high demand. These programs are open to all customers equally, provided they meet program criteria, which may include owning their home, having or installing new solar panels, and signing up before the maximum number of enrolled customers is met.

Finally, we’ve seen increased incentives for end-use electrification in the home in which fossil fuel combustion products like gas stoves are replaced with electric products like induction cooktops that are powered by renewable energy. Not only does this appliance replacement reduce emissions, but also improves the indoor air quality for the customer. A limitation of this type of program, however, is that renters are less likely to take advantage of this funding since they often are not responsible for purchasing appliances in their residences.

These examples include programs designed with equality in mind. While no one is expressly prohibited from participating, certain groups of individuals are unable to utilize the same program resources to receive the benefits of new equipment. As a result, equality-based programs such as these risk perpetuating inequities. In the examples provided, homeowners can participate in decarbonization programs, while renters may be unable to participate due to increased costs or an inability to install the incentivized equipment. Importantly, who can currently afford and own a home is rooted in historic injustices around housing and homeownership in the US. We continue to see disparities in homeownership—with White individuals in the US reporting greater homeownership rates than Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations. As a result, these historically marginalized groups make up a larger proportion of renters who are also experiencing greater financial burden from the renting market, and are perhaps unintentionally unable to reap the benefits of equality-designed decarbonization programs. While equal access is the first step, equitable outcomes require more than access alone.

Equity

Rather than giving all individuals the same number of resources, efforts that are more equity-focused seek to set aside and distribute resources to individuals or groups that experience barriers to access. At their core, equitable actions involve (1) recognizing the differences in people’s ability to access to social goods and avoid social ills and (2) providing individuals with the necessary resources or support to ensure that all groups can reach the same outcome. Consequently, individuals receive varying levels of support based on their context.

Historically, a common equity-focused approach to program design has involved segmenting customers by financial disposition and providing additional resources for households with incomes below a qualifying threshold. Currently, decarbonization programs and utilities are moving beyond equality to center equity by segmenting customers according to indicators of inequity beyond household income alone (e.g., health indicators). Both quantitative and qualitative metrics can be used to evaluate how equity can be measured and integrated into the design and implementation of programs. ‡

Some examples of equity in decarbonization programs include focusing program implementation on customers who typically don’t have access to program benefits; for example, creating decarbonization programs targeting multifamily property owners to enable renters to reap potential bill savings as the result of on-property solar power generation. In other cases, it could be finding ways to couple programs to improve the overall energy services/savings for low-income residents. For example, weatherization paired with electrification of residential heating, cooling, and cooking end uses can help ensure that customers receiving electrification upgrades do not experience an increase in total energy operational costs. Beyond segmenting and targeting customers by known, often federally recognized, indicators of inequity, utilities, and program staff can develop or expand partnerships with community-based organizations that serve communities that have been historically excluded from decision-making processes (e.g., Black, Indigenous, and People of Color [BIPOC] individuals).

Justice

Justice and equity, though often used interchangeably, are, in fact, significantly different. Equity operates within historic and current structures that have led to differential outcomes among BIPOC and low-income communities. Justice, on the other hand, interrogates existing policies, procedures, and practices and seeks to remove and replace those that continue to leave certain individuals out of decision-making processes, programs, and access to energy goods. Justice aims to create new structures and processes that center community-level resilience, capacity-building, and the power to make decisions about the community’s energy future.

Due to the complexity of justice-based approaches they can be more difficult to implement than equality and equity because they seek to identify and remedy inequities within current energy structures, many of which are built on historic and existing physical and governance infrastructure that previously excluded groups of individuals from decision-making processes.

Programs and efforts that work towards environmental justice acknowledge the lived experiences and impacts of energy inequities. Instead of offering paths to equality or equity, engagements that prioritize justice begin by listening. Examples of just programs are nearly always collaborative and include community-centered programs and offerings, such as community-owned renewable energy projects and larger efforts to ensure that the transition to renewable energy creates jobs and opportunities for historically marginalized individuals.

The Equality-Justice Spectrum

Based on these definitions, we can think of equality, equity, and justice as a spectrum. Equality is the first step towards developing and implementing just energy programs (Figure 1), and ideal solutions are those that are just. As evaluators or program staff, it is important to identify where program components currently fall on the solution spectrum. As energy professionals, we can begin by asking some of the following questions:

Does this aim to minimize overt inequities (equality), provide additional resources and services to address inequities (equity), or does it aim to restructure energy decision-making to be in partnership with community members who are the most impacted by environmental and energy problems today (justice)?

Figure 1.

Once the starting point of a program is identified, evaluators can ascertain the extent to which the program fulfills applicable energy equity and environmental justice goals, and work with program staff to identify ways to move the program towards being more equitable and eventually more just. Regardless of where a program lands on this spectrum, its success or failure to achieve energy equity and/or environmental justice goals requires input from those the program seeks to serve. While many strides toward equality, equity, and justice can be quantified using meter data, justice requires that the voices of people, not just their meters, are heard. Qualitative evaluation, especially when conducted alongside program staff from the development and design stage, can provide early insight and recommendations on how to make program components more equitable and more just.

Moving from Equality to Equity

Programs currently implementing equality-based solutions may begin by increasing the resources devoted to serving historically marginalized individuals and communities. This may be in the form of providing additional financial support or incentives to communities of interest, incorporating non-energy benefits into cost-effectiveness and other screening criteria, or providing program materials and meetings in multiple languages. Taking this initial step is often measured quantitatively to evaluate the extent additional funds were provided to historically marginalized communities.

Moving Beyond Quantitative Measures of Equity

For programs that already have adjusted resource allocation to prioritize communities of the most need, they can become more equitable by reflecting on and addressing underlying program structures, policies, and practices that may perpetuate inequitable outcomes among employees, partners, and customers. Moving from resource allocation, program staff can work to identify barriers that inhibit customer participation in an energy program. Program staff may review many components, such as the accessibility of outreach not only in terms of language but also the use of technical terms or jargon. Additionally, program staff and evaluators may identify ways to support individuals with services like providing technical assistance and wrap-around services unrelated to the primary activity (e.g., providing childcare) to help first-time program participants with the program application or additional processes.

Moving from Equity to Justice

Finally, to move from equity to justice requires a willingness of program staff to partner, collaborate, and share decision-making power when (1) identifying problems, (2) discussing potential solutions, and (3) implementing the chosen solution. Just solutions aim to center community empowerment in local decision-making processes. As a process-based solution, justice requires qualitative data collection to understand individuals’ experiences participating in program processes and identify opportunities to improve community member participation in energy decision-making. Metaphorically speaking, rather than trying to retrofit an outdated building, justice seeks to demolish the old structure that created inequities and rebuild it with a stronger foundation rooted in reciprocal relationships with community members, enabling all to flourish and thrive.

End notes:

[†] This is not new to the energy space; defining and designated communities that equality, equity, and environmental justice efforts are intended to impact vary across state lines and jurisdictions. For example, environmental justice communities as defined in relation to federal programs, as with Justice 40, differ from environmental justice communities as defined by state legislation, such as Oregon House Bill 4077.

[‡] One example of a comprehensive effort to standardize equity metric frameworks: Energy Equity Project, 2022. “Energy Equity Framework: Combining data and qualitative approaches to ensure equity in the energy transition.” University of Michigan: School for Environment and Sustainability (SEAS).

About the author:

Dr. Sarah Naiman is a Managing Consultant at Opinion Dynamics where they utilize their social science training to evaluate equity practices in energy efficiency programs and energy efficiency workforce, education, and training across the country. Over the last seven years, Sarah has collaborated with researchers, students, practitioners, and community members to conduct interviews, surveys, and focus groups for various organizational and academic projects including (1) gaining a baseline understanding of how US Latines conceptualize environmental problems and their solutions, (2) identifying organizational Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion needs and priorities, and (3) evaluating the effectiveness of environmental education and outreach programs.

For more information regarding the article, Contact:

Dr. Sarah Naiman: snaiman@opiniondynamics.com