32 minute read
Advancing Carbon Sequestration and Equity through Retrofitting, Rooftop Solar, and Transit Solutions
Project Summary
The Partnership for Southern Equity (PSE) used a racial equity lens to provide an analysis of three carbon mitigation strategies proposed in Drawdown Georgia’s phase 1 research outcomes. Understanding the equity implications of these carbon mitigation strategies more deeply will help reveal potential equitable pathways for state-wide implementation. Historically marginalized communities of color and low-wealth communities across Georgia are generally the most at-risk in the face of climate change impacts in the state. This report considers the potential gains and impacts of the three solutions with a primary focus on these communities. Over a three-month period, members of PSE’s Just Energy portfolio conducted research and interviewed climate change professionals and equity stakeholders from under-represented populations most likely to be impacted by a wide-scale implementation of the selected Drawdown Georgia carbon reduction solutions. Additional research was conducted in December 2021 and January 2022 following an initial review of the first draft.
Drawdown Georgia, inspired by Project Drawdown and funded by the Ray C. Anderson Foundation, is a research collaborative whose purpose is to identify the highest potential carbon mitigation strategies for the state of Georgia. The Phase 1 research effort included the Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, the University of Georgia, and Georgia State University along with other local partners noted below. As described in the introduction, the beyond carbon working group was developed to help identify the equity implications of the Drawdown Georgia solutions. Local partner organizations working with the Beyond Carbon Working Group included PSE, Greenlink Analytics, and Southface.
The Phase 1 research team systematically examined over 100 options (including those contained in Project Drawdown) for reducing state-wide carbon footprints and for developing a roadmap with 20 high-impact solutions for Georgia. This downselect process involved:
1. understanding Georgia’s baseline carbon footprint and trends.
2. identifying the universe of Georgia-specific carbonreduction solutions that could be impactful by 2030. 3. estimating the greenhouse gas reduction potential of these high-impact 2030 solutions for Georgia.
4. estimating associated costs and benefits while also considering how the solutions might impact societal priorities, such as economic development opportunities, public health, environmental benefits, and equity.
(Brown, Beasley, et al., 2021)
In this Phase 1 assessment, the research team focused special attention on identifying equity-related issues or concerns noting: “in states like Georgia with large historical and ongoing inequities across demographic groups, this [focus on equity] is particularly important. Ideally, implementation paths should not only mitigate existing environmental injustices and institutional barriers to access solution benefits but should also go beyond that to erase those inequities.” (Brown, Dwivedi, et al., 2021, p. 4)
Across the twenty solutions, a few key overarching equity concerns/opportunities emerged that intersect with historical inequities (see Introduction for further detail on this work):
• Barriers to, and opportunities for, greater solution access.
• Affordability, including the cost of solutions to individuals and communities.
• Lack of diversity among solution-related workforce and business owners at end.
• On the positive side, the public health benefits of solutions can reduce health inequities by offering improved air quality and public health benefits across communities including those that are under-resourced.
Where feasible, the Phase 1 research also identified promising approaches to expanding equity benefits and mitigating potential adverse impacts for individual solutions. The inputs for this work came from qualitative literature reviews, stakeholder input, and expert engagement. Some of the findings from Phase 1 on the three solutions that are the subject of this report include the following (Drawdown Georgia 2021a; 2021b):
• Positive air quality and public health benefits.
• Significant employment opportunities as these solutions scale.
• Lack of workforce diversity (for example, the Solar
Foundation (2019) found that only 26% of the solar workforce was made up of women, and in terms of race, 73.2% of the overall solar workforce is white with Georgia
ranking even lower in terms of diversity on these metrics – 18.9% women and 76.6% white) (The Solar Foundation, 2020).
• Racial differences in solar adoption (see Sunter et al, 2019).
• Cost barriers (as noted above) for all three solutions (discussed below).
The current project is an extension of the Phase 1 work and is focused on taking a deeper dive into specific solutions and related equity considerations. A working group was formed within the RCE Greater Atlanta to help determine which solutions to prioritize for this deeper look and to offer a summary rationale.
Current Project
The Partnership for Southern Equity’s Just Energy Portfolio conducted a field study to engage stakeholders across the state of Georgia. The study provided an equity analysis of three of the five strategies: rooftop solar, mass transit, and building retrofitting. To supplement solution implementation knowledge, PSE interviewed equity stakeholders and several industry professionals. The findings from this report and the significant historical inequities in Georgia that persist today present both challenges and opportunities for realizing the “achievable potential” of the various Drawdown Georgia solutions and serve to highlight equity-related risks for implementation. For example, the achievable potential estimated by solution authors during the Phase 1 research may indeed be achievable but there is a risk that this will be accomplished in a way that perpetuates equity-related wealth, racial, and other gaps in Georgia. The findings of this report highlight concerns and possible interventions that can inform solution implementation in ways that advance equity.
Solution Profiles
Buildings and Materials: Retrofitting
Buildings use electricity and natural gas for heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC); water heating; lighting; and to power appliances and electronic devices. Retrofitting existing buildings can reduce energy demand, lower the associated greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality. While there are many ways to retrofit a building, this solution considers a range of options including improving insulation, installing LED lighting, replacing conventional HVAC systems with highefficiency heat pumps, and switching conventional windows with high-efficiency windows (Brown, Beasley, et al., 2021).
Transportation: Mass Transit
Expanding mass transit in Georgia potentially reduces the state’s carbon emissions. Public mass transit includes modes such as buses, trains, and streetcars. This report also included infrastructure for bikes and smaller modes of transport in light of the interest noted from PSE’s field study and stakeholder interviews. When people rely on mass transit instead of cars, it reduces greenhouse gas emissions, improves air quality, and provides a low-cost means of transportation (Brown, Beasley, et al., 2021). PSE sought to understand the perceptions and preferences about transit and energy-efficient vehicles in Georgia’s regions.
Electricity Generation: Rooftop Solar
Community rooftop solar projects are growing in popularity globally. There is considerable evidence for rooftop solar’s success in Georgia given environmental factors present in the state. Rooftop solar systems are small-scale installations that can produce electricity primarily for onsite use. Combined with battery storage, rooftop solar has significant potential to provide clean energy for Georgia. Rooftop solar also improves air quality and public health benefits as well as offers potential job/ business opportunities (Brown, Beasley, et al., 2021).
State of Georgia Considerations
In Georgia, access to carbon reduction technology and solutions is often determined or limited by income level, geographical location, education, race, and other demographic attributes. Even with awareness and understanding of carbon reduction technology on a state level, many Georgia citizens do not have access to, or are unable to afford the solutions that are the focus of this report, thereby creating challenges for solution implementation and for an equitable transition to a low carbon economy. While the purpose of this report is not to review the full set of demographic considerations that may impact (equitable) solution adoption, a few indicators are offered below to provide context.
• Georgia has the 11th highest poverty rate by state at 13.98% with significant disparities by race (11.27% among the white population versus 21.5% of the Black population) (World
Population Review [WPR], n.d.-c).
• 7th highest state ranking in income inequality (WPR, n.d.-b).
• According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American
Community Survey for 2019, Georgia also has the 12th lowest homeownership rate among states at 64% (with Black homeowners at roughly 47% compared to white residents at 75%) (Suh, 2020). See Figure 2.1 for a comparison of home ownership rates with neighboring states (Georgia, n.d.). • 40% of Georgia Power customers are at or below $40K income (Understanding Energy Burden and its Potential
Solutions for Atlanta) and Georgia ranks among the top 5 states nationally in having the highest energy burden (US
Department of Energy, 2018).
FIGURE 2.1:
ANNUAL GEORGIA HOMEOWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE COMPARED TO REGIONAL STATES & THE NATIONAL AVERAGE
Note. From “Housing and living,” Georgia, n.d., Data USA (https://datausa.io/profile/geo/ georgia#housing). Copyright by Data USA.
This data on Georgia’s income, poverty, and home ownership levels (those owning homes generally have a significant advantage over renters when it comes to adoption of solar and retrofitting solutions) broadly and along racial lines offers just a sampling of some of the demographic and economic challenges associated with citizens’ ability to invest in and/or be able to afford the solutions that are the subject of this report. In addition, the disparities noted above across races demonstrate the cost-related challenges associated with different population segments.
Brief Review of Market / Policy Considerations for Proposed Carbon Reduction Technologies
Though each of the proposed carbon reduction solutions offers substantial co-benefits of improving local air quality and the climate change resiliency of Georgia communities, equityrelated challenges remain, particularly given the above (and other) data. A range of policy and market interventions may help expand uptake of these solutions and address equity-related barriers, many of which were identified during Phase 1 of the Drawdown Georgia research. These interventions are briefly summarized below and expanded on by stakeholder responses in this study.
Retrofitting
Figure 2.2 from the Phase 1 research illustrates many of the underlying challenges noted above and some possible market and policy interventions to both address barriers and increase solution uptake. For example, on-bill financing is a specific utility intervention discussed with stakeholders and highlighted later in this report. While much of the Phase 1 retrofitting solution is oriented towards commercial buildings, the high levels of residential energy burden in Georgia present a significant opportunity to implement significant carbon savings while reducing energy costs for many of Georgia’s residents. As noted above, wealth gaps and low levels of home ownership
FIGURE 2.2:
BARRIERS AND ACCELERANTS FOR RETROFITTING IN GEORGIA
Note. From “Retrofitting buildings & demand response | climate and energy policy laboratory,” n.d., Georgia Tech. Retrieved April 15, 2022, from https:// cepl.gatech.edu/node/202. Copyright 2022 by Georgia Institute of Technology.
FIGURE 2.3 BARRIERS AND ACCELERANTS FOR SOLAR PV IN GEORGIA
Note. From “Rooftop solar for all: Closing the gap between the technically possible and the achievable,” by M. A. Brown, J. Hubbs et al, Energy Research & Social Science, 80 (2021), 102203, (https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.erss.2021.102203). Copyright 2021 by Energy Research & Social Science.
(64% home ownership - leaving 36% not enjoying this advantage as it relates to retrofitting and rooftop solar implementation) may impact the achievability of solution implementation.
Rooftop Solar
In addition to general upfront cost challenges, Georgia Power’s current net metering cap at “0.2% of a utility’s peak electricity demand from the previous year” (EnergySage, 2022) remains a significant barrier to adoption for all income levels, but especially for lower-income residents/homeowners. In addition, and as noted previously, Sunter et al. (2019) find that rooftop solar adoption is much lower for minority populations even after controlling for income.
A recent working paper emerging from the Drawdown Georgia initial Phase 1 research offers a summary of equity/other related challenges and possible interventions, including net metering (see Figure 2.3). Additionally, it is worth noting that rooftop solar infrastructure only functions well if the buildings efficiently regulate their energy use, which means that investment in rooftop solar and building retrofitting goes hand in hand.
Mass Transit
Publicly accessible data on mass transit in Georgia is very limited. According to the 2019 U.S. Census results, the most common mode of transportation for daily commuting is by car, driving alone, and via rideshare. Many of Georgia’s densely populated areas are not designed well for other modes of transportation. Effective mass transit implementation in Georgia will require research on the demographics of transit users, the types of transit they use, why they use transit, and transit
FIGURE 2.4:
PREFERRED MODES OF TRANSPORTATION IN GEORGIA
Note. From “Housing and living,” Georgia, n.d., Data USA (https:// datausa.io/profile/geo/ georgia#housing). Copyright by Data USA.
availability. Examining best practices for mass transit in existing systems will help to implement modes of mass transit that can best serve climate change mitigation purposes. Mass transit, as a carbon solution, also offers the potential for significantly increasing mobility and cutting transportation costs for Georgia’s under-resourced residents. As Figure 2.4 below illustrates, significant behavior change will be required for larger-scale mass transit adoption.
Stakeholder Engagement and Data Collection Process
In the beginning of PSE’s research, outreach to community leaders and advocates was challenging due to COVID-related concerns and constraints. PSE met virtually with community member focus groups, leaders, climate change professionals, and advocates across Georgia to mitigate the spread of Covid-19 and ensure attendees would not be inconvenienced. PSE created interview questions that were contextualized in relation to three key factors: region, applicable solution, and key stakeholders. These questions were designed to gather community members’ recommendations and opinions for equitable implementation of the three carbon reduction strategies. Recommendations and opinions shared were influenced by each stakeholders’ experience with rooftop solar, mass transit, and retrofitting respectively.
Stakeholder Engagement
The PSE team engaged a combination of the stakeholders identified by the Drawdown Georgia RCE Team and community members contacted through PSE’s networks. Most of the data collected by PSE came from community leaders, climate change professionals, and community advocates. Input from community leaders and advocates from each of Georgia’s regions was important for further contextualizing of carbon reduction needs across Georgia. Some of the community members interviewed were either unaware of the carbon reduction technologies in their region, or unsure of how suggested carbon mitigation strategies could be successful in their regions. Others were quite knowledgeable, and the focus groups developed innovative ideas despite disparities in knowledge levels.
Focus Groups
The PSE team conducted a series of interviews with industry professionals who represented target stakeholder groups: metro Atlanta, rural and coastal Georgia. For rural and coastal Georgia two focus groups were conducted for each solution (see Table 2.1 for the list of professional and focus group stakeholders). Each stakeholder represents both a region and constituency base representative of historically marginalized communities of color and drawn from urban, rural, and coastal Georgia communities.
Challenges
The PSE team scheduled over six community engagement sessions to gather feedback on all three solutions. While online focus groups were the best route for engaging community members, our initial focus group had little turnout and so we introduced stipends and other incentives to attract community member participation. However, the biggest barrier to equitable carbon-mitigation may be a lack of climate change and environmental science literacy in Georgia’s communities as well
TABLE 2.1: PROFESSIONAL AND FOCUS GROUP STAKEHOLDERS
Name Affiliation Solution Focus Other Information
Focus Group 1 – October 2021 Rural and Coastal Georgia Stakeholders Building retrofitting, rooftop solar, and mass transit Adults varying from college age to senior citizens. Mixed knowledge level of proposed solutions.
Focus Group 2 Georgians from all regions Building retrofitting, – January 2022 rooftop solar, and mass transit
Adults varying from college age to senior citizens. Mixed knowledge level of proposed solutions. The majority of participants live in a single-family home. Dr. Jairo Garcia Climate Nexus, Atlanta Metro Rooftop solar Academic and expert community advocate. High level of knowledge.
Chandra Farley Energy Foundation, Rural Georgia, and Atlanta Metro Rooftop solar Community advocate. High level of knowledge.
J. Lawrence Miller Murphy’s Crossing, Adair Park President, Beltline Rail Now! Board member, Atlanta Metro Mass transit Community advocate and nonprofit professional. High level of knowledge.
Lizann Roberts Coastal Georgia Indicators Building retrofitting Nonprofit professional and community advocate. High level of knowledge. Pamela Fann SEEA, DEI, Atlanta Metro Building retrofitting Nonprofit professional. High level of knowledge.
as the highly politicized/polarizing nature of some of these issues within communities. Indeed, the emergent theme during our initial interviews revealed that community members are not familiar with carbon reduction strategies and/or felt that they were not relevant to their lives for various reasons, resulting in low engagement initially.
Results and Recommendations
This section combines data from professional stakeholder interviews and the two focus groups conducted during PSE’s study. The “summary of findings” paragraphs synthesize the major themes discussed and expressed by both professional and equity stakeholders. Some questions as they are written in the tables (see Appendix E) were slightly modified depending on the person(s) being asked the question. For each question that was posed, we note the corresponding respondents.
The following tables are amalgamations of PSE’s analysis of preliminary research conducted on each solution, data collected from stakeholder interviews, and the major themes that emerged over the course of our research. Each proposed solution has 1 to 3 recommendations listed with specific actions for implementation. The “key considerations” sections summarize action for the proposed solutions. For detailed responses to interview questions for all three solutions, see Appendix D.
Summary of Findings
Rooftop Solar
There were two primary challenges for implementing rooftop solar that emerged across all stakeholder interviews: 1) upfront costs of solar installation (with opportunity for offsetting these with significant incentives) and 2) lack of education about rooftop solar and its potential benefits. Achieving more equitable adoption of rooftop solar for Georgia depends on finding ways to mitigate the cost to install (and maintain) the systems. For example, many of those living in old housing stock would need to invest in retrofitting before rooftop solar can be a viable solution for them. Stakeholder interviewees specializing in rooftop solar also identified Georgia’s net metering cap of 0.2% and Georgia Power’s lack of net metering allowances as key deterrents in incentivizing homeowners who can convert to rooftop solar. These same stakeholders point to Georgia’s Electric Member Cooperatives (EMCs) as a major player in any rooftop solar program as they provide energy for 4.4 million residents across the state. Given this, plans for engaging with EMCs should be added to the implementation of any wide-scale rooftop solar projects. See Table 2.2 below for recommendations.
Concluding Key Considerations for Rooftop Solar
PSE recommends a multi-phased plan to begin with deepening public awareness that should be a first step in implementing wide-scale rooftop solar. Second, policy creating a demand for workers and entrepreneurs must first be in place before any green economy (entrepreneurship and workforce development) within the solar energy industry is viable. Additionally, the costprohibitive nature of rooftop solar for low-income communities and overall lack of incentives for transition present significant challenges. Solarize programs are one way to lower the upfront costs and reduce barriers, perhaps paired with community solar (Shaver and Shea, 2020). Currently, the state of Georgia has a net metering cap of 0.2% or 10KWH per household. EMCs are more agile and service more customers than Georgia Power across the state. These utility providers are strapped with debt and locked into vestigial bulk energy purchasing contracts which obligate them to purchase more energy than is often needed for their customers. As a result, EMC customers in Georgia pay a higher rate for their energy than Georgia Power customers and they serve all of Georgia’s highest persistent poverty counties which also have some of the highest energy burdens in the country. PSE recommends creating a campaign to start engaging EMC’s first, to build a foundation for statewide rooftop solar implementation.
Retrofitting
Stakeholders cited the state and local governments as key players for creating wide-scale retrofitting programs. In addition to funding, local assessments are needed to guide retrofitting programs, as conditions vary from community to community. Stakeholders interviewed pointed to seniors and historically marginalized communities with poor/old housing stock as the most vulnerable and with high energy burdens. As such, retrofitting offers an important benefit to them if it can be made more affordable and accessible. Similar to rooftop solar, professional stakeholders reported Georgians generally do not understand the potential benefits and concept of retrofitting. Public education campaigns in all areas of energy efficiency and
TABLE 2.2: ROOFTOP SOLAR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY MAKERS, NGOS/CBOS, AND LOCAL CHANGEMAKERS
Recommendations Strategy Components/Opportunities Target Audience & Key Collaborators
Create a state education and outreach program designed to help Georgians understand their current energy usage and the potential benefits of rooftop solar.
Education and outreach will: • Build a groundswell of statewide support for rooftop solar. • Depoliticize climate change and related fields to help alternate energy sources like rooftop solar gain traction in the state. • Increase Georgia’s climate literacy; and help Georgians understand how rooftop solar can be a significant part of a resilient infrastructure. Develop climate change action plans by engaging multisector cooperation along with local governments to: • Create a state-funded campaign based on the rationale that Georgia’s economic and energy future relies heavily on establishing 100% clean energy infrastructure. • Provide educational material and use focus groups to define the actions localities select to implement. • Create a multimedia campaign that invites Georgians to use online educational materials to understand climate change impacts specific to their state and bioregion. • Create online material designed for self-directed study. Include information on how Georgia communities can get involved with rooftop solar.
Target Audience
• Policy makers & legislators • Community & local elected leaders • NGOs/CBOs • Foundations focused on climate/solution literacy
Key Collaborators
• Faith-based organizations • Academic institutions • Community members
Develop a Policy Council/Working Group to reform Georgia’s Net Metering laws.
• Net metering will incentivize homeowners, business owners and other stakeholders to invest in rooftop solar. • Supportive funding avenues will incentivize property owners to invest in solar energy. • Georgians will engage in the transition to solar by working with local stakeholders to advocate for rooftop solar. • New policies can ensure numerous pathways for low-income communities to access and/or install rooftop solar.
Engage Rural Electric Membership Cooperatives (EMCs) and Municipal EMCs for rooftop solar action.
• Rural electric metering cooperatives serve more than 40% of Georgia residents and have greater agility to implement a residential rooftop solar program as they are not regulated by the Georgia Public Service
Commission. • Utility residential rooftop solar programs with power banking can circumvent netmetering limitations, facilitating implementation. • Public education programs can give
Georgians the capacity for making informed energy decisions within their communities. • Diversifying pathways for low-income communities to access and install rooftop solar can expand adoption. • Create a policy working group to pass the legislation necessary to implement a wide-scale rooftop solar program. Explore funding avenues to support the working group including grant opportunities, tax incentives, and private investment funds. • Increase net metering cap to accommodate a growing number of property owners and businesses interested in installing rooftop solar. NOTE: In 2019, the
Georgia Public Service Commission required the
Georgia Power Company to establish a monthly net metering program but capped the number of rooftop solar customers at 5,000. The cap was reached in July 2021. Scrap the Cap legislation was presented to the 2022 Georgia General Assembly. • Work with municipalities to create economic incentives and opportunities for businesses and property owners. This can reduce the financial burden of transitioning to rooftop solar.
Target Audience
• Lobbyists • State legislators • Local elected leaders • Other community leaders • Community members • NGOs/CBOs
Key Collaborators
• Faith-based organizations • Property owners and
PO organizations • Chambers of commerce and other business organizations
• Create an EMC coalition organized around implementation of residential rooftop solar programs. • Send a delegation to key states where rooftop solar programs are being deployed to glean best practices. • Conduct an analysis on what regulations at the
Federal level may be a barrier or bridge to EMC implementation of rooftop solar. • Create incentives for battery manufacturers to produce in Georgia and/or distribute battery technology to EMCs and other energy providers. This component is important as the use of rooftop solar by
EMCs can depend on the localities’ ability to store energy. • Create workforce development programs that increase Georgians’ energy literacy (where and how our energy is provided and used); and provide
Georgians with the necessary skillsets to install and maintain rooftop solar.
Target Audience
• EMC boards • Municipal leaders • Community members • Solar industry associations
Key Collaborators
• Battery manufacturers • NGOs/Consumer advocates • Training and vocational schools
building retrofitting will help develop fertile ground within communities for support of public carbon reduction/green energy programs. Providing public education through stakeholders like health insurance providers, healthcare providers, and housing authorities can help increase community awareness and knowledge levels, particularly given the impact of the built environment on air quality and public health. See complete details in Table 2.3 below.
Concluding Key Considerations for Retrofitting
The primary barrier to deploying a widescale retrofitting program is funding and existing inequities. Within low-income communities, there are currently not many retrofitting programs designed to support these communities. The existing programs are also not promoted properly for these communities to buy into them. Community outreach and education for Georgians to learn about retrofitting benefits will help people to understand how they can be resilient in the face of current and potential climate change impacts. Education and outreach are best conducted by trusted sources such as NGOs/CBOs in the community, health providers, and at local municipal offices. This assertion was further supported by PSE’s focus group where two stakeholders articulated the expectation that local municipal offices and private construction businesses are well suited to offer information on building retrofitting. Additionally, for a solution such as residential retrofitting to achieve scale, ancillary industries—such as health insurance providers—need to be engaged to educate around the health benefits of retrofitting old housing stock. PSE recommends broadening stakeholders within this solution area to develop more effective means of implementation.
As Georgia varies in environmental conditions across its regions, localized considerations for retrofitting will be of high importance in an implementation of a statewide program. These state programs can also include retrofitting workforce development plans and entrepreneurship training. Training and certification programs in support of mechanical and electrical positions, HVAC technicians, and several other important areas will provide the growing need for a workforce in retrofitting.
Mass Transit
As seen in Table 2.4, stakeholder feedback suggested a strong interest in idealized mass transit (excellent quality of service, punctuality, and cleanliness) but mistrust of existing mass transit providers. The focus groups described a general wariness of mass transit in Georgia as many stakeholders believe the systems do not serve them well. Stakeholders interviewed pointed to poor quality of service being a major deterrent for their use of mass transit. This situation creates a culture of using mass transit as a last resort and perceiving it in a limited scope. Those who can readily afford other means of transportation, generally opt out of using mass transit and associate it with those who are more or less “forced” to use mass transit because of their socioeconomic circumstances. Low-income Georgians depend on mass transit because they generally cannot afford other means of transportation. However, they are the most at risk when mass transit fails, as without mass transit they may not have other mobility options. Simply put, Georgia’s municipalities generally favor cars in their design and need city planning to create alternative pathways such as the Atlanta Beltline. Many young people originating from low-income communities desire cars as a means to develop autonomy and relinquish dependency on the poorly functioning mass transit systems. Regional considerations play a vital role in mass transit as a solution across Georgia due to the vast rural regions. Many of the stakeholders are interested in a statewide, high-speed rail system. While the interest in such a system is high, all stakeholders interviewed in focus group 2 agreed local municipalities need to create a comprehensive mass transit system informed by the desires and needs of locals before the entire state can be connected by a mass transit system. They want a system that is safe and secure to use rather than one that forces them to ride it because they have no other options. Possible references for successful implementation can be found in countries like Japan, and U.S. metropolitan areas like Salt Lake City, Utah and Seattle, Washington.
Concluding Key Considerations for Mass Transit
Mass transit expansion across Georgia is possible and desired among stakeholders. Current mass transit fails to meet the needs of many Georgians across the State and mass transit efficacy is highly affected by poor municipal infrastructure. Most of Georgia’s municipalities are designed for easy access of cars, and older areas generally have many streets that do not accommodate buses and light rail infrastructure. Stakeholders interviewed reported distrust in their local mass transit services, and some depended on the services for their commutes. All agreed that transit services can be better and pointed to other cities they lived in that had great transit systems. The consensus was that each area would need to assess the best transit options for their locality and change infrastructure based on the data gathered. Because this infrastructure change will require funding, a statewide initiative and coalition could help to not only institute better quality of service but also institute a comprehensive statewide mass transit system. While mass transit will still need to be operated and managed locally, a statewide network can open multiple avenues for funding and help to standardize mass transit in the state. Finally, stakeholders voiced a concern about the increasing amount of people that would use mass transit like buses and light rails. To circumvent potential negative impacts, stakeholders want to see investment in infrastructure that supports bike paths, scooter paths, and pathways for animals and water to travel across the landscape. This will require a comprehensive understanding of the
TABLE 2.3: BUILDING RETROFITTING NEXT STEPS FOR POLICY MAKERS, COMMUNITY LEADERS, AND LOCAL CHANGEMAKERS
Recommendations Strategy Components/Opportunities Target Audience & Key Collaborators
Create a statewide education campaign for communities that shows the benefits of retrofitting.
• Educate the public on energy efficiency, energy burden, and health risks. • Prepare Georgians for climate change resiliency. • Develop and implement local retrofitting solutions for municipalities. • Develop a messaging strategy for communities with the assistance of state and local governments and community organizations. • Engage organizations and local governments to: - Develop data on retrofitting needs in their localities. - Develop a plan for sharing this data with
Georgians. - Emphasize the benefits of successful retrofitting in the context of climate change. • Throughout the education process, engage community-based focus groups to develop funding and other plans. Ideally this will involve Georgians from all regions and begin to establish a network of retrofitting constituents.
Target Audience
• CBOs/NGO’s • Consumer advocacy groups and other community organizations • Local municipal leaders/ decision makers • City/County sustainability officers
Key Collaborators
• Healthcare providers and similar stakeholders • Utilities
Provide funding to support existing and emerging building retrofitting workforce development programs.
• Funding is the greatest barrier to wide-scale retrofitting programs as many Georgians are unable to afford it. There are a growing number of retrofitting programs, however the efficacy of these programs is low. • Establish a growing funding source for the advancement of Georgia’s infrastructure resiliency. • Ensure Georgia’s private and public economic sectors buy-in to the necessary updating of Georgia’s infrastructure. • Explore options for directing state funds towards workforce development programs. Retrofitting workers are already in demand across the state of
Georgia and appeal to the economic interests of
Georgia’s industries and community members. • Create public and private funding avenues for lowincome communities and vulnerable populations like senior citizens. • Increase the potential positive impact of current state, federal, and local programs. • Provide funding for assessment of retrofitting needs in Georgia’s areas. • Explore the essential question:“what climate change impacts will Georgia’s respective communities need to prepare for?”
Target Audience
• Built-Environment NGOs/
CBOs consumer advocates • Green trade associations • Municipal leaders • Georgia Department of
Community Affairs
Key Collaborators
• Technical colleges of Georgia • Construction trade associations • Municipal leaders • Resilience officers • Insurance companies • GA Power and other utility companies
Develop Model Legislation to generate state funding for community retrofitting programs at the state level for implementation at the local level. (Policy suggestions: SPLOST or Intrastate Trade Fees or legalization of recreational cannabis)
• Generate continual funding for a statewide retrofitting program. • Build necessary socioeconomic infrastructure for funding Georgia’s retrofitting needs. • Identify a prioritized list of retrofitting needs in Georgia and a plan of action for how they will be addressed in tandem. • Convene a policy council to design draft legislation. Incorporate representatives from all regions to ensure all of Georgia is served well. • Engage/retain state lobbyist. • Create a stakeholder engagement listening tour to build support and adjust planning. • Examine the model legislation of other states and adjust to accommodate Georgia’s unique circumstance. • Adjust policy makers’ focus on climate change action as a global human rights issue, rather than a political debate.
Target Audience
• State and local elected leaders • Emory University & Fort
Valley University (cannabis laws stakeholders) • Built-Environment NGOs/
CBOs consumer advocates
Key Collaborators
• Health insurance providers (i.e., Humana/Anthem) • Technical colleges of Georgia • Construction trade associations
TABLE 2.4: MASS TRANSIT NEXT STEPS FOR LOCAL POLICY MAKERS, GEORGIA TRANSIT WORKGROUPS, AND COMMUNITY MASS TRANSIT ADVOCATES
Recommendations Strategy Components/Opportunities Target Audience & Key Collaborators
Engage Mass transit policymakers, advocates, authorities, organizations, and state workgroups.
• Develop mass transit models that incorporate the environmental considerations of each Georgia region. Use precedent from other states to inform best practices. • Establish a network of community advocate organizations that represent the concerns and feedback from community members using mass transit. • Destigmatize mass transit in Georgia. Create a culture of safety and trust in Georgia mass transit services. • Create pathways for low-income communities to afford mass transit services. • Establish plans for retrofitting mass transit to be safe in the face of increasing disease/viral transmission. • Garner buy-in from transportation authorities on the expansion of mass transit as a carbon reduction solution for Georgia.
Expand mass transit options in all Georgia regions through state and private funding options.
• Create and actively promote clear pathways for community members to give their input on how to develop mass transit options in Georgia. • Study successful mass transit models in similar states. • Change infrastructure of municipalities to support alternative modes of transportation. Decrease emphasis on creating access for cars and (essentially) mandating car use in the state. • Expand the potential for car manufacturers operating in the state to provide alternative modes of transportation to Georgians. Mandate they also invest in climate change actions such as recycling used cars and building greenways throughout the state. • Work with private transit companies to develop innovative plans for mass transit funding sources subsidies, and infrastructure. • Identify key transit authorities across the
State of Georgia and incorporate them into a state “standard of mass transit services” reformation process. • Develop a statewide plan for mass transit resiliency in the context of climate change impacts facing Georgia. • Gather more data regarding ridership and infrastructure unique to each region. Make this data publicly accessible for localities to use in their local mass transit planning.
Target Audience
• MTA • MARTA • Chatham Area Transit (Savannah) • APT-- Athens and
Augusta • GDOT
Key Collaborators
• SMART Union • State legislators • City/County sustainability officers • Transformation Alliance and similar orgs
• Conduct a statewide field study to gather more data via listening sessions and larger charrettes (or plenaries). • Engage the Urban Land Institute to gather more data for equitable development planning within the Atlanta MSA. • Invite community groups such as the Beltline
Rail Now! into the Drawdown Georgia
Working Group and NPU/NA Leaders across all regions of Georgia (rural, middle, coastal) • Explore the mass transit options that stakeholders desire most. • Incorporate city planners and other municipal offices for planning the infrastructural changes necessary for accommodating alternative modes of transportation such as bikes and scooters. • Generate a comprehensive report and mapping system outlining the transportation routes currently available (and practical) for
Georgians. This component involves all regions and municipalities.
Target Audience
• NPU/NA leaders • Community members • Congress for New
Urbanism • Urban Land Institute • Grassroots Groups/
Beltline Rail Now!
Key Collaborators
• Grassroots Groups/
Beltline Rail Now! • Beltline board members • MARTA board members • Services like Google
Maps/Earth • Car manufacturers and car industry stakeholders
pathways already in use, where community members want to go, and practical routes for getting there. Additionally, it will require expanding a mass transit workgroup to include diverse stakeholders. (See Appendix E for summary stakeholder questions and answers)
PSE Workforce Development Focus Group 2 Poll
During focus group two, PSE conducted a survey to understand community awareness of the local workforce development programs (if any) present in their communities. Programs such as Solarize Georgia can be aligned with workforce development contracts that emphasize pathways for entrepreneurship and job security in these industries. The results of PSE’s workforce development program poll cross-referenced with homeownership among the surveyed group is described below. As seen in Figure 2.5 below, most of those aware of workforce development programs in their community are homeowners and/or living in single-family houses. In contrast, those renting or in another home type were generally unaware of workforce development programs in any of the solution categories. Currently, many Georgians are unaware of the potential benefits possible through these carbon reduction strategies. Successful public programs will need the support and buy-in of Georgia citizens with readily available information provided on how they can participate. Carbon reduction via rooftop solar, building retrofitting, and mass transit advancement will require investment in community outreach and education.
FIGURE 2.5: KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL CLEAN ENERGY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
