Federal Policy

Department of Energy Should Support Community Development Corporations in Local Climate Justice Advocacy

The 5,000-strong national network of community development organizations is a hidden superpower that awaits activation.

By Bomee Jung and Wesley Holmes

To ensure meaningful community participation in the coming regulatory decisions that are sure to change the energy infrastructure across the country, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) should move beyond its “nukes and tech” thinking and empower communities by putting its expertise at the disposal of community-based organizations (CBOs) and community development corporations (CDCs) as Climate Justice advocates in state and local energy policy.

Technology in the clean-energy sector is fast-moving, and utilities and public service commissions have several important decisions to make on renewables, efficiency, and electric transportation over the next four years, such as how clean energy will get paid for and who will benefit first. While the decisions made in utility proceedings affect everyone, the options are discussed in a language that is often unrecognizable to consumers, consider goals unknown outside the industry, and are substantiated by inaccessible datasets and projections. Consequently, the self-interested claims of utilities and dubious positions of regulators are seemingly incontrovertible to all but the most well-heeled and well-represented advocates. Local organizations representing regular consumers are often sidelined, steamrolled, or procedurally waited out when they attempt to engage. It’s little wonder this has bred a culture of distrust and skepticism, even in the face of potentially positive change.

CBOs and CDCs offer a promising bridge between utility customers, especially in underserved and marginalized communities, and the highly-insular energy policy field. First, CBOs and CDCs (e.g. Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corp., Asian Americans for Equality, Mt. Pleasant NOW CDC, and Southeast CDC) were born from within the communities they serve and have spent decades earning community trust by navigating the systemic barriers faced by their neighbors. Second, they have already proven that they can successfully navigate governmental systems — such as healthcare and real estate — that are as highly technical and complex as energy. Importantly, CBOs and CDCs themselves are utility customers as owners and operators of affordable housing.

Without dedicated support and resources, however, CBOs and CDCs will face an uphill battle navigating the time-consuming, arcane, and exclusionary processes that typify state and local energy policy-making. CBOs and CDCs grew beyond their grassroots origins to become highly-capable community developers because of sustained governmental and philanthropic investment. To enable these organizations to be equally capable in energy policy will take a similar investment.

Federal agencies have long provided capacity-building assistance to local groups. Among federal agencies, support for CBOs and CDCs has most often been the domain of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), primarily through its Community Development grant programs. But DOE has also supported local organizations. Under President Obama, DOE developed a community trust-based approach to locating nuclear waste storage facilities and recognized the role of community engagement in its programs to mitigate the lasting effects of energy and industrial waste. While these DOE efforts have focused on toxic waste rather than future beneficial development, they provide a valuable precedent for engagement.

Here are three ways that DOE, through leadership from the Secretary’s Office, priority-setting in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the nationwide presence and deep technical expertise of the National Laboratories, could ensure that the voices that speak for underserved communities are taken seriously:

1. Fund and Support Community-generated Clean Energy Plans: DOE should regularly offer funding opportunities and technical assistance for the development of community climate plans, so that participating organizations can be compensated for their time. It should also use the national laboratory system’s resources and technical capability to support the development of these clean energy plans.
2. Enable Transparency and Equitable Participation in Energy Policymaking: The labs can provide research and analysis to support CBOs and CDCs in developing equitable alternatives to utility industry proposals. DOE can also use its bully pulpit to pressure regulators and industry alike to speak plain English in all matters related to energy planning and regulation.
3. Provide Clean Energy-focused Capacity-Building Funds for Community-based Organizations: Just as the federal government invested in building the technical capacity for community development through years of capacity-building support, it should provide the resources for CDCs to hire and retain expert staff to advance DOE’s clean energy goals at the local level.

Meaningful community engagement means sharing decision-making while getting to scale quickly to address the climate emergency. CDCs and CBOs have demonstrated that they have a model of meaningful engagement that works, and DOE resources can activate them in this new context. CDCs and DOE may not yet know each other well, but it’s high time they got acquainted.

University Neighborhood Housing Program (UNHP), a CBO in the Bronx NY, celebrates a new mural with artist Royal KingBee in 2019. Used with permission.

Edited by Tom Sahagian and Rory Christian, and reviewed by Michelle Wyman and Jim Buckley.