the solar industry has a chance to shape the larger narrative on energy justice, and advance social equity by ensuring energy security for all socioeconomic levels. industry leaders are currently building the market and have the ability to choose the norm of how and for whom it functions. in today’s market, non-profits, renters, and low-income households are being left out of the solar revolution due to financial barriers, misinformation, and lack of opportunity. the market only serves wealthier, more privileged populations, leaving the ones who need solar the most behind.

with less wealth generation, these ostracized groups are often forced to live in older buildings that operate on less efficient heating and cooling systems, resulting in extremely high energy bills. with no respective income to offset this, these struggling residents have to decide whether to put food on the table or pay the bills. further, the areas of town in which these groups live lack community infrastructure investment and proper resources, making it harder to complete everyday tasks such as commuting to work and getting fresh groceries. often positioned next to brownfields, these communities also face health and safety risks with restricted access to medical support, poorer air quality, and higher crime rates. community solar investment has the potential to create cost savings that reduce these financial stresses and channel wealth into the hands of residents, providing them with new jobs and self-sustaining economic revitalization. 

community solar provides the benefits of renewable energy without imposing the high upfront costs and infrastructure investment necessary for construction. these facilities are built on larger, shared spaces such as an apartment complex, church, community center, or vacant field, with open subscription for renters, non-profits, and low-income residents. through virtual net-metering, subscribers receive credits on their monthly electric bills based on their share of the overall electricity the solar system generates, allowing them to take advantage of cheaper electricity costs and cleaner energy.

at the forefront of this initiative to advance community solar is the dc sustainable energy utility (dcseu), working with local solar contractors to design and install solar photovoltaic systems at no cost to income-qualified district homeowners. ted trabue, managing director of the dc sustainable energy utility, says that the dcseu is “making sure that our low-income community is adequately served,” by providing access to solar technology, from which these communities were originally isolated. 

this incredible work is possible through the sustainable energy trust fund (setf), which is a surcharge on all electric and natural gas utility ratepayers in the district of columbia. this fund directly finances solar installations in dc by incentivizing solar contractors to participate in such programs through monetary compensation to assist with project costs, while also allowing them to keep all solar renewable energy credits (srecs). 

at the program’s inception, there were less than a dozen solar installations in wards 7 and ward 8, the city’s poorest neighborhoods, while the wealthier, western side of the city had over 1000 installations. that is why the dcseu is “installing these systems specifically on income-qualified residents, those who are earning 60% or less of area median income, absolutely free of charge to the resident,” says mr. trabue, to directly target this inequity. 

the district’s support of community solar has promoted energy efficiency, economic development, and local job creation. but most importantly, this program is helping low-income residents first. shelley cohen, the director of solar programs for the dcseu, comments that “some homeowners are making decisions between critical items such as food or prescriptions and keeping the lights on. i am so glad that we can provide some relief for some homeowners from the cost of their utility bills and put more money back in their pockets.”

access to community solar is still limited, as only a number of states have passed encouraging legislation to make this a reality for their residents. however, this is changing fast, and community solar can end energy insecurity for all. 

it may sound a little wild, but author and professor robert stayton lays out all the details in his new book, “solar dividends: how solar energy can generate a basic income for everyone on earth.”

stayton, who teaches courses at the university of california, santa cruz and cabrillo college ranging from physics to solar energy, has made solar his life’s work.

and it actually was work on stayton’s last book that inspired his newest release.

“while writing my previous book ‘power shift,’ which is about how we can transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, i was trying to figure out how much renewable energy we would need,” stayton said. “that is, if we managed to transition 100% to solar and wind, how much would we need to install to run a modern civilization? 

“i wanted to show that it was not such a ridiculous number that it would be impossible to accomplish,” he said.

finding a solution like the one stayton discusses in “solar dividends” takes a lot of hours calculating and planning, and stayton also shared just how long he spent with his calculations on coming up with a possible solution to clean energy.

“i had to take into account population growth, improvements in energy efficiency, delivering energy services to all people, and the intermittent nature of solar and wind,” he said. “i calculated that for the solar pv (photovoltaic) component of such a future energy system, we would need to install 100 terawatts of panels, that is, 100 trillion watts. such a huge number is hard to relate to, so i looked at how much that would be per person, to put it on a human scale.

“by 2070 our population is expected to be 10 billion, so dividing 100 trillion by 10 billion, i got 10,000 watts per person. so i concluded that if we installed 10 kilowatts of pv for each person on the planet, we would have enough energy to run a modern world economy, including all industry, commerce, and transportation.

“that’s when the lightbulb over my head lit up: why not just give everyone a 10 kilowatt pv system? ‘nah, that’s crazy,’ i thought,” stayton said. “but the idea stuck in my head, and i spent the next four years working out exactly how we could do that, connecting it to universal basic incomes, and the result is my new book ‘solar dividends,’” stayton added.

making a transition to a cleaner form of energy will take time no matter the type of energy that is being discussed. for example, even though every democratic presidential candidate thinks climate change is a real issue that has to be addressed they all have different ways to combat it with either what type of energy should be used or what legislation should be passed. 

“i’m the first to describe using the income from solar energy instead of taxes to pay for basic incomes,” stayton said.

however, “solar dividends” is not just about how solar will benefit people from a clean energy standpoint but an economic one as well. throughout the book, stayton describes how switching to solar energy will benefit everyone — no matter their social status — instead of a “few oil tycoons” as he describes in the book.

“unlike oil, no one owns the sun. many people have described solar as a common resource, but my book describes a specific program for how to give everyone a piece of an economy that is based on solar energy,” stayton said. 

“instead of a few oligarchs making lots of money on oil, everyone would be making a modest amount on solar,” he said. “by providing a base level of economic security for everyone and by eliminating the need for conflict over oil, we create a more peaceful and just society.”

over millions of years, wild plants and animals have figured out how to sustainably organize in the face of resource limitations, competing interests, and a changing environment. the bottom line in nature is that making excuses and passing the buck aren’t allowed—what doesn’t work in nature simply disappears, and what is less sustainable yields gradually to what is more sustainable. this has guided species, natural communities, and ecosystems to create what humans are now seeking to create—highly sustainable economies, communities, occupational groups, governmental systems, environmental relationships, cultures, and physiological patterns.

so, what can we really learn from nature? a lot.

when it comes to many contemporary issues, an understanding of sustainable natural patterns can anchor our debates, and give us focus. as an example, let’s take a look at income parity versus disparity. many people (like the so-called “99 percent”) complain about income disparity. is income disparity a sustainability problem in the usa? what does nature have to say about this topic?

in nature, within a given species, resource acquisition (essentially equivalent to human income) is not equal. for example, rabbits are not carefully doled out to coyotes at a rate of one per day. rather, some coyotes are more successful than others in hunting, maintaining territory, raising pups, surviving, etc. and this doesn’t just go for coyotes. the same holds true for most others, like deer, turtles, oak trees, and asters. thus, it appears that nature does not use absolute income parity to form its sustainable economic systems.

however, nature does seem to provide limits on how extreme income disparity can become. in nature, a majority of individuals within a species have “incomes” that are similar, i.e., within a ratio of about 2:1. individuals that are rather successful or rather unsuccessful may have incomes that are less equal, but their incomes are still within a ratio of about 5:1. at the extreme ends, the income disparity between a very small percentage of highly successful and highly unsuccessful individuals stills falls within a ratio of about 20:1.

now let’s compare that natural system income distribution to some contemporary human incomes. using u.s. census data from 2014, american wages can be averaged out by average household size, to produce a number that approximates income per person, including children and other non-working family members. when this is done, annual incomes range from almost $0, to many millions of dollars, with a median somewhere around $23,500. the distribution of this income variation looks something like the blue bars in the chart below, although this chart is truncated at $150,000, beyond which a very small percentage of people with even higher annual incomes are difficult to show graphically. then, superimposed upon the chart in green bars is an approximation of how nature would distribute the same amount of money.

by looking closely, you may notice that by distributing the same amount of money differently, the median income of the natural system is a bit higher (about $24,500). the natural system’s lower end incomes would also be higher—perhaps about one-third of the median, rather than almost $0. also, the natural system contains fewer individuals with incomes that are far higher (two, three, or four times higher) than the median.

in summary, judging u.s. income distributions from a sustainable natural system perspective, our lowest incomes are too low (and include too many people), and our very highest incomes include too many people.

but there’s more to the income distribution story. as already noted, the upper ratio limit of the extremely successful to the extremely unsuccessful in natural systems is roughly 20:1. americans are famous for rewarding certain celebrities and business leaders with huge incomes. and what the above chart can’t show is the tiny percentage of people at those extremely high incomes. for example, top executives of many large companies earn multiple millions of dollars, and when compared with the lowest paid individuals in those companies, those extreme high incomes greatly exceed a 20:1 ratio. the chart below, which was created with readily available public information, shows approximate ratios of highest paid to lowest paid individual incomes of selected corporations and institutions in blue bars, and again the adjacent green bars show the 20:1 ratio—the approximate upper edge of disparity in nature. while we americans are used to income disparities of 50-fold, 500-fold, or beyond, nature essentially suggests they are an unsustainable aspect of our economy. note that the intent here is to make a point, not to pick on certain companies and institutions, as many others are certainly engaging in the same type of practice.

so do the 99-percenters have a valid complaint? if you trust nature here, apparently they do—that incomes in the us have become too unequal. however, on the flip side nature certainly does not support the notion that every person should have the same income.

still, you might wonder if this income disparity is trivial relative to the wealth gap in the us, i.e. the “superrich versus the incredibly poor.” is that also a sustainability problem, as nature would see it? yes, it is, but not for the reasons you might think! this display of existing versus natural income ratios is just one example of how nature can teach us to see in different, and often very informative ways. in fact, nature can teach us a great deal not only about sustainable income and wealth, but about sustainable dynamics, interdependence, personal responsibility, waste, successional change, competition and system coordination, timeframes and time lags, group cohesion, group decision making and representation, expression, group formation and survival, government, resilience, diversity, innovation, and management. issues such as these are discussed at length in the book, the nature of sustainability.

—

steve a. thomas is the author of the nature of sustainability, which provides a comprehensive model of sustainability based upon physics and nature. you can learn more and contact him at natureofsustainability.com