Black families pay more to keep their houses warm than average American families
Rising energy costs are increasingly straining family budgets across the United States, and recent research highlights a stark disparity in how these costs impact African American households. This phenomenon, termed the “energy burden,” refers to the percentage of a household’s income spent on energy bills. According to findings from a recent study, families living in majority-Black census tracts allocate an average of 5.1% of their income to energy expenses, significantly higher than the 3.2% spent by the average American household. This discrepancy persists even when median incomes are comparable, suggesting that factors beyond income, such as housing conditions and rental dynamics, play a crucial role in exacerbating the energy burden for these families.
The study points to two primary reasons for the heightened energy burden in Black communities. First, homes in majority-Black census tracts tend to be older and less energy-efficient, often featuring inadequate insulation and outdated windows. This inefficiency requires residents to consume more energy for heating and cooling, leading to higher costs. Furthermore, many Black families live in rental properties where they lack the authority to make necessary energy-efficient upgrades. With landlords typically disincentivized from improving energy efficiency—since tenants bear the utility costs—these families face a unique set of challenges. The legacy of redlining, a practice that historically restricted access to homeownership for Black families, has also contributed to this situation, resulting in underinvestment in these communities and perpetuating cycles of disadvantage.
Addressing the energy burden among Black households requires a nuanced understanding of the unique challenges faced by different communities. Policymakers must recognize that energy efficiency programs cannot adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. Effective solutions will necessitate comprehensive community engagement to identify specific local needs, such as outdated housing stock or the prevalence of rental units. Moreover, the underfunding and accessibility issues surrounding energy support programs must also be addressed to ensure that assistance reaches those who need it most. By fostering a deeper understanding of these intersecting inequities, local officials can develop targeted initiatives that not only alleviate financial strain but also promote long-term sustainability and health for families disproportionately affected by rising energy costs.
It’s not always enough to put on another sweater.
Grace Cary/Moment via Getty Images
Rising energy costs
consume a bigger and bigger chunk of family budgets in the United States. Our research has found that for many African American families, those costs take an
extra big bite out of their incomes
. This bite, the percentage of a household’s income used to pay energy bills, is called a household’s “energy burden.”
Households with high energy burdens struggle to adapt to rising prices. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that more than 12 million households
keep their homes either colder or hotter
than is actually comfortable, specifically in an effort to keep control of energy costs. And 24 million households report having had to
forgo food or medicine
at least once in the past year to pay utility bills.
Also, studies indicate that people facing high energy burdens often
turn to unsafe heating sources
, such as space heaters, stoves or fireplaces, and are at
higher risk of
asthma, depression, premature mortality and poor self-reported health.
Our recent study
of 2019 data found that those burdens are not spread evenly across the country or across society.
Specifically, families living in majority-Black census tracts spent
5.1% of their income on energy
– significantly higher than the 3.2% share spent by average American households. Census tracts dominated by other racial groups in our study – whites, Latinos and Asian Americans – were much closer to the overall average.
Energy injustice
Often, disparities like this are attributed to income, which is indeed a factor given that Black households have a
median income of $53,444
, while the
overall median in the U.S. is $78,538
. However, our study found that even when a majority-white and a majority-Black census tract had the
same median household income
, the average share of household income spent on energy was higher in the majority-Black census tract.
We found two possible reasons for this difference, both rooted in race and housing situations.
First, our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data finds that African American-majority census tracts have older homes on average than other census tracts.
Older homes often have lower energy efficiency
due to less insulation, single-pane windows, and gaps and cracks in the building’s structure, especially around windows, doors and chimneys. So even if a Black family earns the same income as another family, the Black family might live in an older house, requiring them to use more energy to warm or cool their homes, cook food, heat water and so on.
Also, we found that Black families are more likely to live in rental properties, where they cannot easily make energy-efficiency upgrades – such as installing new windows, insulation or appliances. At the same time, most landlords
do not have an incentive
to spend money to improve building efficiency because tenants usually pay utility bills. In the United States,
9 in 10 rental households pay for all or some of their energy bills
and therefore face this split-incentive problem.
Cracks around windows can allow cold air inside.
Robbie Becklund/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Many of these challenges can be attributed to the structural racism inherent in
redlining
. This early 20th century practice made it harder for prospective homeowners to get mortgages to buy homes in neighborhoods with high concentrations of Black people, immigrants or other minorities. That left more of the homes in those communities
owned by landlords and occupied by tenants
.
Even though redlining was banned in 1968, it left a
legacy of underinvestment
in properties,
decreased property values
and
worse health outcomes
.
Intersecting inequities
Other factors also likely intersect to impose a higher energy burden on Black families. Many of these were beyond the scope of our study but are well documented. For example,
energy support programs are notoriously underfunded and often hard to access
, especially for families without the time or connections to know about them or understand application requirements.
These are just some possible factors that increase the energy burden for Black families. The main lesson for policymakers is that communities are complicated. Energy efficiency upgrade programs that also seek to alleviate high energy burdens cannot be one-size-fits-all. A program for middle-class families in one neighborhood may not work in another community with older housing stock or large numbers of rental units.
To be successful, local officials designing programs that are aimed at families’ energy burdens will have to learn about the different challenges facing each distinct community – whether it’s leaky older homes, outdated water heaters, low incomes or rental split incentives. Reducing energy burdens for Black families will take more than technical fixes; it will take policies based in community engagement to build a deeper understanding of place.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
