An Analysis of Energy Production in St. Louis

I can hear the loud clunking and whirring from my bedroom. With a sigh, I hop out of bed and trek to my living room. Bending down, I examine the air conditioning vent on the wall. I can feel the cool air blowing across my face, but I already knew that the unit was on. How? Because I could hear the thing from all the way across my apartment through a closed door. Annoyed, I huffed and walked away.

My roommates and I aptly named the unit Airianna, not only because it’s an AC unit, but because it’s really quite loud. In the sweltering St. Louis summer heat, Airianna was doing a lot of work keeping our small apartment cool. As a result, she made a lot of noise. We took our AC unit for granted: She kept us cold, and we didn’t have to pay for our utilities because they were included in our rent. Essentially, for us, heating and cooling was free. However, for many St. Louis residents, heating and cooling is far from free.

According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), about 25% of households suffer from “high” energy burdens, and about 13% of households suffer from “severe” energy burdens. An energy burden occurs when a homeowner or renter spends a significant amount of their income on home energy costs, such as heating and cooling. More specifically, a “high” energy burden occurs when a household spends more than 6% of their income on home energy costs, and a “severe” energy burden occurs when the proportion of income spent is above 10%. These numbers alone are astounding – about 28% of households are spending a decent chunk of their income on a basic necessity: energy.

These numbers are even more shocking when you consider the following: Not all households are equally affected by energy burdens. According to ACEEE, “the median energy burden of Black households is 45% higher than that of non-Hispanic white households.” Moreover, low-income minority households are much more likely to be affected by energy burdens. Here are some quick facts that will astound you (but not surprise you):

The median household energy burden is 3.1%, meaning that out of all homeowners and renters, the average person or family spends 3.1% of their income on home energy costs.

For Native Americans, the average home energy burden is 4.2%.

For African Americans, the average home energy burden is 4.1%.

For Hispanics, the average home energy burden is 3.5%.

For Whites, the average home energy burden is less than the U.S. median, at about 2.8%.

36% of Black households suffer from high energy burdens.

36% of Native American households suffer from high energy burdens.

28% of Hispanic households suffer from high energy burdens.

25% of low-income households have energy burdens above 14.4%, which is extremely severe.

These numbers show that the St. Louis region is plagued by high energy burdens. Moreover, the reality of the situation is that those with the least resources are forced to pay the most for home energy costs.

All of these statistics demonstrate that energy burdens disproportionately affect low-income, minority households. In St. Louis, the statistics hold true: The median energy burden for the St. Louis region is about 4%, which is noticeably higher than the U.S. median energy burden of 3.1%. However, for Black households in the St. Louis area, the median energy burden is 7.4%. For renters in the St. Louis area, this number is nearly 6%. Finally, for low-income households, the median energy burden is 8.37%. These numbers show that the St. Louis region is plagued by high energy burdens. Those with the least resources are forced to pay the most for home energy costs.

There are several reasons for this. First, those who have higher energy burdens are more likely to live in energy inefficient homes. These are homes that do not have proper insulation or updated appliances that would reduce energy costs. It is expensive to replace outdated appliances and insulate a home, so landlords are not usually willing to renovate. Instead, they leave it to rot, and force occupants to suffer the consequences.

Additionally, income inequities heighten energy burden disparities. According to The Hill, “In part, this is just math: if a grocery store worker making $25,000 a year and an investment banker making $1 million a year pay the same price for a gallon of gasoline or a kilowatt-hour of electricity, the grocery worker is paying a much higher percentage of their income for this energy.”

Now that we have learned about energy burdens, the question becomes “how can we solve this crisis?” To answer this question, I reflected on conversations I have had with my boss, Justin Idleburg. Justin runs his own private consulting firm, Idleburg Consultants, where he works with community members and organizations to come up with solutions for home energy issues such as energy burdens. Justin and I have been working together for the entire school year. As his intern, I do research, answer emails, and have been putting together a toolkit on home energy burdens. During our weekly meetings, we often talk about solutions to energy burdens, mainly community solar.

Overall, community solar is a clean, energy efficient, cost-reducing way to produce electricity. Moreover, community solar makes solar energy accessible for all, especially those who cannot pay the up-front cost of solar panel installation.

Community solar is an innovative, clean, technologically sound solution to energy burdens. Itt has a multitude of benefits, including being a clean source of energy and creating new green jobs — something Justin always emphasizes during our meetings.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, community solar is defined as any “solar project or purchasing program, within a geographic area, in which the benefits of a solar project flow to multiple customers such as individuals, businesses, nonprofits, and other groups. In most cases, customers are benefitting from energy generated by solar panels at an off-site array.”

In order to make this idea a bit clearer, imagine a solar panel. This panel could be located anywhere; in an empty field, a vacant lot, on top of a building, etc. The key to community solar is that this panel is divided into sections, each belonging to a different individual, family, business, or organization. Even though this solar energy is produced off-site, customers receive “an electric bill credit for electricity generated by their share of the community solar system — similar to someone who has rooftop panels installed on their home.”

As customers receive these credits, their home energy bill decreases. On top of that, community solar makes solar energy accessible for all, especially those who cannot pay the up-front cost of solar panel installation. Additionally, crafting, installing, and maintaining these panels requires a workforce. In Justin’s words, community solar can create some “pretty good paying jobs — jobs that can help break generational cycles of unemployment and poverty.” Overall, community solar has 4 main benefits:

1) Increasing accessibility to solar energy

2) Increasing the production of clean energy and lessening our reliance on fossil fuels

3) Decreasing home energy bills through solar credits

4) Creating a green workforce revolving around solar panel production and maintenance.

This all begs the question: How can we implement community solar in St. Louis?”

Ameren, despite all of its issues, currently has a community solar program operating in Missouri. According to the Ameren website, “Our program allows eligible customers to subscribe to a shared solar system that Ameren Missouri builds, maintains, and operates.” However, the website does make it clear that this community solar program is not aimed to reduce energy burdens or increase access for low-income and/or minority communities. Rather, Ameren’s community solar program appears to be a “greenwashing” tactic — it allows the wealthy to access solar energy at a high cost. While the program does provide energy through solar, it fails to create an equitable, sustainable, cost-reducing way of utilizing solar.

In order for community solar to function, it must be equitable and accessible — two tenets that Ameren’s program fails to achieve. In addition, Ameren’s website does not mention how it contributes to a green workforce, nor does it mention how utilizing their solar program can lessen our dependence on fossil fuels.

In my opinion, community solar must stem from a grassroots movement. It must come from a coalition of community members committed to decreasing their home energy costs through renewable energy sources. It must be accessible to all who wish to participate, unlike Ameren’s program. Most importantly, it must be cost-effective in the long run. While community solar programs are generally more expensive up front (think about installation costs and maintenance), the use of renewables must offset the up-front cost. In sum, Ameren’s program is a start, but it is not the solution to high home energy costs in St. Louis.

Community solar is the future of energy burden reduction. It is sustainable, renewable, and community-oriented, when done correctly. St. Louis, as a city that suffers from disproportionately high energy burdens, needs solutions now. We cannot wait 10 or 20 years to make community solar a reality.

So the next time your cheap air conditioning unit annoys you, think critically about where your energy is coming from, because it’s probably coming from fossil fuels.

Kate Dickman ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at k.dickman@wustl. edu.