Energy Access

World Bank data assure us that 100% of people in the United States have access to electricity.[1] Yet, as the Center for Biological Diversity reports, families in this country have had their electricity turned off more than 3.6 million times since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.[2] And that figure only includes those served by public utilities in the 33 states and Washington, D.C., for which data are available. In the state of Washington, a moratorium on utility disconnections prevented public utilities from leaving customers in the dark. Still, those customers remained on edge each time the moratorium expiration date approached. Would they continue to have lighting and heating, or power for the internet service that had become vital for schooling and working during the pandemic? The governor had to act to extend the moratorium.

In 2022, the Washington Building Code Council adopted a new code that requires builders to install energy efficient electric heat pumps and hot water heaters in new commercial and large multifamily buildings; gas hookups will not be allowed (https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2022/02/22-02-076.htm). Governor Inslee has also signed legislation targeting 2030 as the year when all vehicles sold, purchased or registered in Washington state will have to be electric vehicles (Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5974, Chapter 182, Laws of 2022, 67^th Legislature, 2022 Regular Session). While these measures will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, they will also add to the electricity burden for customers already struggling to pay their bills and at risk of disconnection. What can we do to ensure all residents of Washington have access to electricity today and in the future?

Who is most at risk of losing electricity access?

First, we need to understand which Washington residents are most at risk of losing access to electricity. In spring 2021, the Washington Utility and Transportation Commission (UTC) began to require investor-owned utilities to file quarterly reports detailing the number of customers with past-due accounts and the dollar amount of those arrearages.[3] Matching those data with the U.S. Census American Community Survey Data gives us a peek into some of the characteristics of those unable to pay their electric bills. The analysis described here focuses on 25 zip codes with the highest total dollar amount of residential arrearages in 2021 and 2022 for the largest public electric utility serving Washington: Puget Sound Energy (PSE). PSE, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Puget Holdings LLC, serves approximately 1.2 million electric customers in the Puget Sound region of the state. Those 25 zip codes accounted for 38% of the dollar arrearages reported by PSE in March 2022.

Among the variables reported by PSE: The number of customers “who absent the disconnection moratorium would have been disconnected.” Forty-four percent of the residential customers who would have been disconnected had a moratorium not been in place resided in the top 25 of the 142 zip codes PSE serves. That suggests that residential disconnections tend to concentrate in a few places and are not evenly distributed throughout the service territory. What else can we glean about households in those zip codes?

First, when compared to Washington State in general, members of households whose electricity would have been disconnected are more likely to identify as people of color:

**Figure 1: Demographics of Washington State vs. PSE Customers at Risk of Disconnection**

Next, for a subsample of 13 zip codes for which detailed census data are available, the median income ranges from just over $57,000 per year to $104,000 annually, as shown in Figure 2 below. Although many of the households do not fall below the federal poverty line ($27,750 for a family of four), most do fall well below the median household income level for the Seattle, WA, area. Quite a few of those zip codes have median household incomes above the median value for Tacoma, Washington. Looking solely at household income does not tell the entire story.

**Figure 2: Median Income of PSE Customers at Risk of Disconnection vs. Seattle and Tacoma, WA Median Incomes**

Census data reveal that some families have indeed fallen into poverty (Figure 3). The most striking information revealed in Figure 3 is the high poverty rate for households with a female head and no spouse present. Twenty to 45% of single female-headed households, and especially those with children under the age of 18, in these zip codes had fallen into poverty. Their electricity would have been turned off had there been no moratorium. The children would not have had access to online classrooms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

**Figure 3: Poverty Rate for Households for Which Poverty Rate Has Been Determined for 13 Zip Codes in PSE Service Territory**

These data align with reports in the press about the financial straits of single parents. Some caregivers skip meals to be able to feed their growing children, switch to vegetarian diets as the cost of meat rises, take on extra jobs to make ends meet, and forego trips to the doctor or dentist.[4] As budgets continue to get strained, will they be able to pay their electric bills?

Those most likely to fall behind in paying electric bills

What do these data tell us? While the sample size is admittedly small, the data come from only one part of Washington, and much more research needs to be conducted, this analysis reveals that people of color and families headed by single females tend to fall behind in paying their electric bills and thus may have their electricity disconnected. These groups are at risk now and could be at greater risk as the push away from fossil fuels and toward a society powered by green electricity continues.

Recommendations:

First, as Stephen Tully (2006) argued, under international human rights law, access to electricity is a basic human right.[5] As such, no household should have its electricity disconnected because of an inability to pay. We need to reexamine the business model that provides investor-owned utilities with a guaranteed rate of return. PSE has filed paperwork with the UTC requesting an overall rate of return of 7.39% in 2023, 7.44% in 2024, and 7.49% in 2025.[6] The company has continued to pay dividends to shareholders and provide merit increases to executives at a time when thousands and thousands of customers may not be able to keep their lights on.

Enrollment barriers to electric bill assistance

In the meantime, we need to ensure that electric utilities increase their outreach to customers at risk of disconnection, helping them enroll in bill assistance programs. In March 2022, over 6,500 PSE residential customers had begun receiving bill assistance. However, that same month, more than 11,500 residential customers would have had their service disconnected had a moratorium not been in place.

One of the hurdles to receiving electric bill assistance is figuring out how to apply. Almost all programs require internet access, and most internet sites are in English—a problem for those whose first language is not English. Over 15% of households at risk of disconnection in the PSE service territory self-identified as Asian, and another 15% as Hispanic/Latino. PSE needs to do more outreach in Spanish and various Asian languages.

In addition, under the current regulations, customers wanting to prevent disconnections must:

notify the utility of the inability to pay the bill, including a security deposit;
provide self-certification of household income for the prior 12 months to a grantee of the Department of Commerce, who must then determine that the customer’s household income does not exceed the maximum allowed…;
apply for home heating assistance from applicable government and private sector organizations and certify that any assistance received will be applied to the current bill and future utility bills;
apply for low-income weatherization assistance…if such assistance is available for the dwelling;
agree to enroll in and maintain a payment plan; and
agree to pay the money owed even if they move.

The second bullet point underscores the focus on household income. However, as seen in Figure 2 above, household income level may not be a good indicator of an inability to pay bills. We need to take a more holistic approach to understand the situation of electric customers. What prevents them from paying their electric bills? A human rights perspective reminds us that “…consumers should not be deprived of the minimum essential level [of electricity] necessary to lead a life in human dignity…” (Tully, 2006, p. 33). Thus, how can we, as a society, ensure that all consumers maintain access to the electricity they need to survive and thrive in the modern world?

Breaking the cycle of poverty in vulnerable households

The data from this analysis highlight the vulnerability of households headed by females, especially those with children. We must establish programs to locate, establish trust with, and help those struggling families. If children under 18 lose access to the electricity needed for schooling and job searches, they will continue to lose ground scholastically and economically.[7] To break the cycle of poverty, they need electricity. To participate in an electrified future, they need electricity.

Outreach is one step. Codifying restrictions on disconnections is another. For the past several sessions, energy justice advocates in Washington state have supported legislation that would, among other things, establish a year-round energy service shutoff moratorium for low-income households or households with people with disabilities. Unfortunately, even with that narrow target population, the bill languished in committee. Utility representatives expressed concern about the impact on their revenues. One hundred percent access to electricity in the United States? Not yet, but that remains the goal we continue to pursue.

[1] The World Bank. (2022). “Access to electricity (%) – United States.” Retrieved 6 May 2022 from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?locations=US

[2] Jean Su and Christopher Kuveke. (2022). “Powerless in the Pandemic 2.0: Electric Utilities Are Still Choosing Profits Over People.” Center for Biological Diversity, BailoutWatch, and Tiger Moth LLC.

[3] Arrearages are the amounts of past due bills

[4] Alicia Wallace. (10 May 2022). “Skipping meals. Racking up debt. How inflation is squeezing single parents.” CNN Business. Retrieved 10 May 2022 from https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/10/economy/single-parent-inflation-economy/index.html

[5] Stephen Tully. (April 2006) “The Human Right to Access Electricity.” The Electricity Journal Vol. 19, Issue 3, pp. 30 – 39.

[6] Puget Energy, Inc. (31 December 2021). Form 10-K Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Retrieved 26 May 2022 from https://www.pugetenergy.com/pages/filings.html

[7] Rachel Hirsch and Jake Varn. (7 April 2021) “Broadband Access For Success In Postsecondary Education.” National Governors Association. Retrieved 26 May 2022 from https://www.nga.org/news/commentary/broadband-access-for-success-in-postsecondary-education/

By Benjamin M. Attia
Access to electricity is a key catalyst correlated with economic development.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently estimated that over 1.5 billion people do not have access to affordable electricity, representing one quarter of the world’s population [1]. In the absence of aggressive new policies and significant financing, it is estimated that that number will drop to only 1.3 billion by 2030 [1]. The United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) initiative, which is working toward a goal of global universal energy access by 2030, estimates that approximately 600 million of these unelectrified people live in Sub-Saharan Africa [2]. This number is expected to rise to approximately 645 million by 2030 under a business-as-usual scenario due to expected explosive population growth [2, 3]. This widening gap of energy access is a complex and multidimensional problem and represents an important hindrance to economic development and social change in the developing world.

Historically, the access gap since the initial commercialization of electricity has “consistently been between 1 and 2 billion people… as grid expansion has roughly paced global population” growth [4]. This suggests that the access gap is a reflection of a persistent lack of equity in distribution. In fact, in 1983, Krugmann and Goldemberg famously estimated that at 1983 global consumption levels, the “energy cost of satisfying the basic human needs” of every person on the planet was well within the available supply of energy resources [5, p. 60].

Today, the consumption and distribution inequalities are even more pronounced. In 2011, the average American consumed 13,240 kilowatt hours (kWh) per person per year, while the average Ethiopian consumed only 56 kWh [6]. Further, across all of Sub-Saharan Africa, annual per capita kWh use is one-sixth the load requirements of a relatively efficient American refrigerator [7]. Globally, the poorest three-quarters of the world’s population comprise less than ten percent of total energy consumption [8, p. 5].

The inequities that underline energy poverty and energy access are also fundamentally connected to climate change. Looking ahead, the world’s demand for electricity is estimated to increase by more than 70% by 2040, and the World Bank and IEA estimate that a doubling in installed energy capacity will be necessary to meet the anticipated growing demands of emerging markets [9], [10]. Despite the accelerating paradigm shift to low-carbon and renewable energy generation technologies, there is a paradoxical irony to the link between development and climate change which has left the poorest countries with the lowest contributions to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as the most vulnerable and most susceptible to the effects of climate change [11, p. 591, 12]. As markets evolve to value avoided GHG emissions [13, p. 215], reconciling the joint–and possibly conflicting– goals of development through universal energy access and combating climate change will accelerate, but at present, the inequity in energy access is only further exacerbated by the parallel inequities with respect to climate change adaptation measures.

Many scholars agree that access to electricity in itself is not fully sufficient to bring about the required economic and social development to break the cycle of poverty [14, p. 1058, 15, p. 2194]. It has also been widely settled that access to electricity is a key catalyst correlated with economic development and that a lack of electricity access is a key bottleneck to growth [16], see [17] for comprehensive rebuttal]. However, approaches for tackling the problems associated with energy poverty are often difficult to scale up because of the difficulties associated with navigating this uneven technical, sociocultural, agricultural, and institutional landscape, and, as will be demonstrated below, the multidimensionality of energy access inhibits scalability of any one catch-all solution.

The IEA estimates that 30% of those without access to electricity would best be served by grid extension, 52.5% would be best served by micro-grids, and 17.5% would best be served by stand-alone energy systems [3, p. 14]. There is a clear need for investment in rural electrification initiatives at all three levels and a clear gap in understanding routes and sinks for effective impact investing [3, p. 14]. National grid extension programs and firms selling small energy systems are generally much better funded than the community-scale solution of micro-grids, despite their significant potential market share and niche ability to provide scale benefits, rapid deployment, flexibility of business models, and energy storage, security, and reliability [3, p. 15]. The micro-grid space is rife with opportunity to build markets, innovate new business models, develop new financing mechanisms, and provide the sustainable development benefits of renewable electrification and increased economic potential.

As one development professional put it, “If rural [people] have power in their lives, they will have more power over their lives” [16]. Access to electricity is not the answer to the greater global problems of poverty and inequity, but can be a good place to start.

References
[1] “World Energy Outlook 2014,” Paris, France, 2014.
[2] SE4ALL, “Energy for all: Financing Access for the poor,” in Energy for All Conference, 2011.
[3] M. Franz, N. Peterschmidt, M. Rohrer, and B. Kondev, “Mini-grid Policy Toolkit: Policy and Business Frameworks for Successful Mini-grid Roll-outs,” EUEI Partnership Dialogue Facility, Escheborn, 2014.
[4] P. Alstone, D. Gershenson, and D. M. Kammen, “Decentralized energy systems for clean electricity access,” Nat. Clim. Chang., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 305–314, 2015.
[5] H. Krugmann and J. Goldemberg, “The energy cost of satisfying basic human needs,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 45–60, 1983.
[6] C. Kenny, “If Everyone Gets Electricity, Can the Planet Survive?,” The Atlantic, 2015.
[7] “Power Africa Annual Report,” 2014.
[8] J. Tomei and D. Gent, “Equity and the energy trilemma Delivering sustainable energy access in low-income communities,” International Institute for Environment & Development, London, United Kingdom, 2015.
[9] “World Energy Outlook 2015 Factsheet,” Paris, France, 2015.
[10] R. K. Akikur, R. Saidur, H. W. Ping, and K. R. Ullah, “Comparative study of stand-alone and hybrid solar energy systems suitable for off-grid rural electrification: A review,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 27, pp. 738–752, 2013.
[11] A. Yadoo and H. Cruickshank, “The role for low carbon electrification technologies in poverty reduction and climate change strategies: A focus on renewable energy mini-grids with case studies in Nepal, Peru and Kenya,” Energy Policy, vol. 42, pp. 591–602, 2012.
[12] J. Byrne, Y.-D. Wang, H. Lee, and J. Kim, “An equity and sustainability-based policy response to global climate change,” Energy Policy, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 335–343, 1998.
[13] U. Deichmann, C. Meisner, S. Murray, and D. Wheeler, “The economics of renewable energy expansion in rural Sub-Saharan Africa,” Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 215–227, 2011.
[14 A. Bhide and C. R. Monroy, “Energy poverty: A special focus on energy poverty in India and renewable energy technologies,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1057–1066, 2011.
[15] B. Mainali and S. Silveira, “Financing off-grid rural electrification: Country case Nepal,” Energy, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 2194–2201, 2011.
[16] D. Mans, “Back to the Future: Africa’s Mobile Revolution Should Inspire Rural Energy Solutions,” Huffington Post, 20-May-2014.
[17] L. A. Odarno, “Negotiating the Labrynth of Modernity’s Promise: A Paradigm Analysis of Energy Poverty in Peri-Urban Kumasi, Ghana,” University of Delaware, 2014.

Electricity Disconnections: Pursuing the Goal of 100% access to electricity in the United States

The Scale of the Energy Access Gap

Connect

Search FREE

Connect

Social

Search FREE