šŸ”šŸ’š Tenants agenda for the IRA & building decarb

January 26th, 2024

In the past month, two new reports have been released by close allies and partners that highlight the risks and challenges at the core of where housing and climate collide: that investments in decarbonizing our homes will lead to displacement, rent hikes, and gentrification. Iā€™ve written previously about the need to protect tenants while decarbonizing homes, and the ā€˜split incentivesā€™ between tenants and landlords that make it hard for renters to access clean energy benefits, but these reports bring new perspectives and a deeper analysis to the problem.

In December, NRDC and the BEEP Coalition (including many GND member orgs!!) co-authored and released Healthy, Climate-Resilient Homes for All: Centering Housing Justice and Health Equity in Building Decarbonization. This is a very detailed report that I highly encourage reading in full, but here are some of my own takeaways:

(1) We donā€™t do enough to emphasize this as a health equity issue, something that this report does really well. Too often, climate-friendly home investments are framed exclusively around energy (ā€œelectrificationā€) and emission reductions ā€” this might be inherent in the jargon-y term ā€˜building decarbonizationā€™ too. With the leadership of member organizations, the GND Coalition has often used the framework of ā€˜healthy homesā€™ to try to make this connection explicit, but this generally requires its own explanation. Regardless of the terms, the potential health benefits need to be front and center. Home upgrades can lead to a wide range of health improvements by addressing biological hazards (e.g. pests, mold), chemical hazards (e.g. lead, asbestos), structural deficiencies, and housing conditions that can negatively impact mental health.

(2) But, those health benefits are only likely to be realized if these investments are designed to include holistic, whole-home upgrades. This means combining electrification and energy efficiency measures, but also means including home remediation measures. This has the multi-benefit outcomes of delivering material benefits to residents (which makes peoples daily lives better, causing increased uptake and public perception of these programs), improving climate resilience by ā€œhardeningā€ buildings to withstand more extreme climate impacts, and improving the health outcomes mentioned above in ways that have benefits to the individual and society at large.

(3) Equity must be at the center of our analysis. We often use terms like ā€œequitable building decarbonizationā€ ā€” but again we need to interrogate what that means. This report offers a really helpful primer on the history of systemic racist policies that led to the wide disparities in housing and health. This history has to be the starting point for policy decisions on how to make home investments, or otherwise threaten to perpetuating existing disparities and leaving communities further behind. On the other hand, equity-centered home investment programs can make funding go furthest by targeting homes most in need of upgrade, reducing emissions while also providing public health benefits. These kinds of investments can result in these communities ā€œfinally getting what they should have always been guaranteed: healthy and sustainable homes.ā€

Itā€™s great to know that the BEEP Coalition and NRDC are providing this expertise and leadership on many of the building decarb policies and programs currently being discussed in CA! šŸŽ‰

In addition, just days ago Climate + Community Project released Decarbonization without Displacement, which details how the federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) plays into this issue. As weā€™ve discussed previously, decarbonization policies are typically designed to benefit homeowners, and often leave renters behind. The IRA is no different ā€” at least, not unless state and local implementation can alter the way these funding programs are structured.

The report has a really in-depth analysis on the IRA funding that could be available to renters, including the home energy rebates programs, the Green and Resilient Retrofit Program (GRRP), and the federal Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. It also talks about what tenant protections are included (short answer: some, but they are very limited and lack clear enforcement mechanisms). It draws on the expertise of Californiaā€™s own Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE), and the great work theyā€™ve done on tenant protections in building decarbonization policies.

Rather than provide a full summary here, I really encourage you to instead just read the report (or if you prefer, the 2 page policy summary). But I will mention one really important contribution that I think this report makes to this issue: the need to mobilize around a broader tenants rights agenda. This is not just a policy design question, but ultimately a question about power. Rather than just revealing programs with shortcomings that we need to address, the IRA more deeply underscores the importance of supporting local organizing for tenant power and justice.  

The contradictions within the current policy framework for addressing residential building decarbonization could open up opportunities to consider alternatives. And (surprise, surprise) I couldnā€™t agree more with the conclusion in the report that we should use that opening to ā€œadvance new bold visions for tenants rights and environmental justice, such as universal rent stabilization and green social housing.ā€ šŸ”šŸ’š

Illustrated depiction of a tenants climate agenda. Source: Climate + Community Project

WHAT WEā€™RE READING

Iā€™ve sent this out to everyone on the current CA GND listserv. If you donā€™t want to get these weekly newsletters, feel free to unsubscribe below. If you know someone that would be interested, send me their email, or you can forward this along to them and they can use this link to subscribe.

Previous
Previous

šŸ”šŸ’š Weathering the storm

Next
Next

šŸ”šŸ’š As evictions rise, tenants strike back