One-size-fits-all? Top-down U.S. approach to equitable decarbonization does not fully address state and community-scale perspectives

Q1 Social Sciences
{"title":"One-size-fits-all? Top-down U.S. approach to equitable decarbonization does not fully address state and community-scale perspectives","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.tej.2024.107415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The U.S. government has made addressing energy equity a key objective of its decarbonization efforts. While energy equity has been studied for decades, equity research in the U.S. has only very recently focused on impacts specific to decarbonization. To guide the implementation of new federal funding for clean energy investments in disadvantaged communities, federal agencies are relying on national-scale socioeconomic and demographic tools to define disadvantaged communities and energy equity metrics. Through an analysis of U.S.-oriented energy equity literature and recently developed tools and frameworks for decarbonization, this paper provides the first comparison of U.S. national versus subnational perspectives on defining disadvantaged communities, their energy equity concerns, and relevant metrics in the context of decarbonization. We show that the U.S. top-down approach to an energy equity framework for decarbonization, while necessary for large-scale policymaking, does not identify all disadvantaged communities nor the diversity and complexity of their concerns and is insufficient to ensure equitable decarbonization.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":35642,"journal":{"name":"Electricity Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619024000502/pdfft?md5=cd154bde5bea7a8823ec1131acd7eedd&pid=1-s2.0-S1040619024000502-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electricity Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619024000502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The U.S. government has made addressing energy equity a key objective of its decarbonization efforts. While energy equity has been studied for decades, equity research in the U.S. has only very recently focused on impacts specific to decarbonization. To guide the implementation of new federal funding for clean energy investments in disadvantaged communities, federal agencies are relying on national-scale socioeconomic and demographic tools to define disadvantaged communities and energy equity metrics. Through an analysis of U.S.-oriented energy equity literature and recently developed tools and frameworks for decarbonization, this paper provides the first comparison of U.S. national versus subnational perspectives on defining disadvantaged communities, their energy equity concerns, and relevant metrics in the context of decarbonization. We show that the U.S. top-down approach to an energy equity framework for decarbonization, while necessary for large-scale policymaking, does not identify all disadvantaged communities nor the diversity and complexity of their concerns and is insufficient to ensure equitable decarbonization.

一刀切?美国自上而下的公平去碳化方法没有充分考虑州和社区的观点
美国政府已将解决能源公平问题作为其去碳化工作的关键目标。虽然对能源公平的研究已有数十年历史,但美国的公平研究只是在最近才开始关注去碳化的具体影响。为了指导弱势社区清洁能源投资的新联邦资金的实施,联邦机构正在依靠全国范围的社会经济和人口工具来定义弱势社区和能源公平指标。通过分析以美国为导向的能源公平文献以及最近开发的去碳化工具和框架,本文首次比较了美国国家与次国家在界定弱势社区、其能源公平问题以及去碳化背景下的相关指标方面的观点。我们表明,美国自上而下的去碳化能源公平框架方法虽然是大规模决策所必需的,但并不能识别所有弱势社区,也不能识别其关注问题的多样性和复杂性,不足以确保公平的去碳化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Electricity Journal
Electricity Journal Business, Management and Accounting-Business and International Management
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
95
审稿时长
31 days
期刊介绍: The Electricity Journal is the leading journal in electric power policy. The journal deals primarily with fuel diversity and the energy mix needed for optimal energy market performance, and therefore covers the full spectrum of energy, from coal, nuclear, natural gas and oil, to renewable energy sources including hydro, solar, geothermal and wind power. Recently, the journal has been publishing in emerging areas including energy storage, microgrid strategies, dynamic pricing, cyber security, climate change, cap and trade, distributed generation, net metering, transmission and generation market dynamics. The Electricity Journal aims to bring together the most thoughtful and influential thinkers globally from across industry, practitioners, government, policymakers and academia. The Editorial Advisory Board is comprised of electric industry thought leaders who have served as regulators, consultants, litigators, and market advocates. Their collective experience helps ensure that the most relevant and thought-provoking issues are presented to our readers, and helps navigate the emerging shape and design of the electricity/energy industry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信