DSM faces declining air quality while most U.S. cities improve
Des Moines' air quality is deteriorating, with fine particle pollution rising more than 7% over the last decade, according to year-over-year EPA data.
Why it matters: A growing body of research shows that polluted air is connected to poor reproductive outcomes, increased dementia risk, and more asthma attacks and other respiratory health effects.
Zoom in: Most of Iowa's metro areas showed improvements ranging from 2.3% to 5.1% in reduced fine particles, including Cedar Rapids, Clinton, Davenport, Muscatine and Waterloo.
Sioux City saw the largest increase, almost 15%.
Iowa City's increased 1.2%
The big picture: Nationally, 62% of metro areas improved their air quality, particularly those in central California and east of the Mississippi.
Increases were predominantly in the Upper Midwest and northern California.
Context: Extreme heat, wildfires and drought are degrading air quality nationwide and have left nearly half of Americans exposed to potentially dangerous levels of air pollution, according to a report released last month by the American Lung Association (ALA).
The 2023 wildfire season, including those in Canada, led to residents of DSM being exposed to significantly higher levels of fine particle pollution.
Between the lines: Fine particulate matter is a strong indicator of pollution, but it doesn't capture everything. Conditions can be worse than what your weather app shows.
If you smell smoke, even when the Air Quality Index is green, experts recommend limiting your time outdoors.
What we're watching: There is concern that recent layoffs at the EPA will limit air pollution monitoring, Kristina Hamilton, Iowa Advocacy Director for the ALA, told WOI-TV last month.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A new COVID subvariant spreads rapidly as Trump pivots away from vaccines
A new, highly transmissible COVID subvariant has been detected in California — heightening the risk of a potential summer wave as recent moves by the Trump administration threaten to make vaccines harder to get, and more expensive, for many Americans, some health experts warn. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced this week that he was rescinding the federal government's recommendation that pregnant women and healthy children get immunized against COVID, effective immediately. Dr. Marty Makary, commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, also said the agency will no longer routinely approve annually formulated COVID-19 vaccinations for healthy people under age 65. "We simply don't know whether a healthy 52-year-old woman with a normal BMI who has had COVID-19 three times and has received six previous doses of a COVID-19 vaccine will benefit from the seventh dose," Makary, along with another FDA official, Dr. Vinay Prasad, wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine this month. "This policy will compel much-needed evidence generation." Read more: Kennedy says COVID vaccines no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women However, some experts say mandating more extensive testing could delay vaccine access for many, as those efforts may not even be complete until after the end of the upcoming winter flu-and-COVID season. "Pregnant women, infants and young children are at higher risk of hospitalization from COVID, and the safety of the COVID vaccine has been widely demonstrated," Dr. Sean O'Leary, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a statement. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that, in general, getting an updated vaccine provides children and adults additional protection from COVID-related emergency room and urgent care visits. The recent federal changes, according to some experts, could also prompt private insurance companies and government insurers to stop paying for COVID shots for wide segments of the population, including babies and children. Absent a recommendation by federal officials, Americans could end up paying the entire cost of a vaccine, experts say. The out-of-pocket cost for a COVID vaccine at CVS, for instance, is $198.99. Read more: Trump administration cancels $766-million Moderna contract to fight pandemic flu Although the emergency phase of the pandemic has long since passed, authorities note COVID remains a public health concern. A relatively new subvariant has been spreading in Europe and Asia, "particularly Hong Kong, Taiwan, other countries, Japan, etc.," said Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a UC San Francisco infectious diseases expert. That subvariant, NB.1.8.1, was first documented in January and has since been detected in California, including in Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay Area. The World Health Organization designated it a "Variant Under Monitoring" last week. NB.1.8.1 has grown exponentially worldwide in recent weeks. The Omicron subvariant represented 10.7% of genetically analyzed viral samples worldwide for the week ending April 27, WHO data show. That was up sharply from the week ending April 6, when the subvariant accounted for 2.5% of samples worldwide. "While still low numbers, this is a significant rise," the WHO said, adding that there was a "concurrent increase in cases and hospitalizations in some countries where NB.1.8.1 is widespread." Read more: Trump officials set new requirements for COVID vaccines in healthy adults and children NB.1.8.1 isn't yet prevalent enough in the United States to be publicly tracked by the CDC. Another strain, LP.8.1, accounted for an estimated 73% of coronavirus specimens nationally for the two-week period ending Saturday. Data suggest NB.1.8.1 does not cause more severe illness, "but it is more transmissible, at least from what we're seeing around the world and also from lab experiments," said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, an infectious-disease expert at Stanford University. In Taiwan, a top health official told reporters that an NB.1.8.1-fueled outbreak was "continuing to rise rapidly, with a sustained increase in severe and fatal cases," the Central News Agency reported, prompting a shortage of COVID testing kits. Health officials said a factor in Taiwan's surge was the lack of a major COVID wave over the winter, and forecast that the island's current spike may not peak for another four to six weeks. NB.1.8.1 has seen increased prevalence in each of the three WHO regions that still consistently share genetic analysis of COVID samples — the Western Pacific (which includes East Asia, parts of Southeast Asia, and Australia); Europe; and the Americas. The rate at which COVID tests are coming back positive in Los Angeles County has slightly increased over the past few weeks, although the overall positive rate remains low, at 3.5%, according to the county Department of Public Health. Coronavirus levels detected in the county's wastewater have increased by 6% in the last three weeks, but also remain relatively low and are about one-eighth of the peak in the summer of last year. Read more: Ex-official says he was forced out of FDA after trying to protect vaccine safety data from RFK Jr. Although California experienced a mild winter season — a first of the COVID era — that followed a powerful summer spike that was the strongest in years. Many experts and officials have touted available COVID vaccines as effective both in warding off infection and in lessening the severity of symptoms. However, the need for otherwise healthy individuals to roll up their sleeves has been a matter of debate. In a video message Tuesday on X, Kennedy — a noted vaccine skeptic — said that he "couldn't be more pleased to announce that, as of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule." Experts said they could not recall a time when a political appointee circumvented a well-established process of making vaccine recommendations, which typically involves panels of scientists advising the FDA and CDC. "It's kind of chilling," Chin-Hong said. "It's out of step with the system we've learned to trust and follow." Read more: WHO adopts a 'pandemic agreement' after the chaos of COVID In a statement to The Times, the L.A. County Department of Public Health urged Kennedy to listen to experts in the field — including from the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is scheduled to meet next month — "before decreasing access to any vaccine." As of Thursday, the CDC still had the long-standing vaccine recommendations on its website: Everyone ages 6 months and older should get the most recent COVID-19 vaccine, officially known as the 2024-25 version, which was introduced in September. The CDC also recommends seniors ages 65 and up get a second vaccine dose six months after their first. In a statement, the California Department of Public Health said that it supports the current expansive recommendation for COVID vaccines, and that it "will continue to follow the federal conversation through this dynamic situation." "Staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccination can reduce the risk of disease, especially more severe cases that result in hospitalization or death," the department added. The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the CDC did not know of Kennedy's directive until he posted it, and officials have been "scrambling to find out what it meant." Experts who spoke with The Times warned the practical effect of the edict — if it becomes official — could be far more costly vaccines for affected groups. "If vaccines are not recommended by the CDC, insurance companies would NOT be required to cover the cost," the L.A. County Department of Public Health said in a statement. Read more: A pediatrician's dilemma: Should a practice kick out unvaccinated kids? As a result, the vaccines may be less accessible to healthier people who still want them — perhaps because they live or work with elderly or other higher-risk people, they've had severe COVID illness before, or they want to protect themselves against the latest subvariant, the agency said. If the FDA withholds a license for an updated COVID vaccination for younger, healthier adults, this group "would not be able to receive it unless their provider chooses to give it 'off label,'" the county said. When asked whether healthy pregnant women and healthy children can still get vaccinated at its pharmacies, Walgreens said its teams operate "in full compliance with applicable laws." CVS said its locations "follow federal guidance regarding vaccine administration and are monitoring any changes that the government may make regarding vaccine eligibility." Kaiser Permanente Southern California said it was aware of potential changes, but noted no new formal guidance has yet been issued. As a result, Kaiser is continuing to follow existing guidance, which recommends the shots for everyone. The L.A. County Department of Public Health said that as of Wednesday, "pregnant women and healthy children can get vaccinated for COVID-19," according to existing recommendations from an advisory panel and the CDC. Read more: RFK Jr. kept asking to see the science that vaccines were safe. After he saw it, he dismissed it Chin-Hong noted there were 150 pediatric deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 in a recent one-year period. That's in the same ballpark as the 231 pediatric flu deaths recorded this season, and federal health officials recommend everyone ages 6 months and older get an annual flu shot. "Most people would agree that kids should be targeted for flu vaccines. It seems kind of weird to have COVID as an outlier in that respect," Chin-Hong said. In the video published this week, Makary said that "most countries in the world have stopped recommending the vaccine for children." Maldonado, however, said the U.S. doesn't use other nations' standards to dictate vaccine recommendations. The U.S., for instance, recommends other types of vaccines that have a lower prevalence than COVID that people want to get, Maldonado said, such as the meningococcal vaccine for children to guard against a serious bacterial disease that can infect the brain and spinal cord and cause death within hours. The effect of a recommendation also varies by country. Canada, for instance, recommends updated COVID vaccines for seniors and other people who meet certain criteria, such as if they're pregnant or are a healthcare worker. But the country's universal healthcare system still allows everyone ages 6 months and older to get an updated COVID vaccine. Although it's true that children overall are at lower risk of developing severe COVID illness, those under 6 months of age "have the same risk of complications as the 65-year-old-plus population in this country," said Stanford's Maldonado, who also serves on the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Read more: Trump's first term brought world-changing vaccine. His second could bring retreat Among children eligible for vaccination, COVID-associated hospitalization rates are highest for those ages 6 months to 4 years, according to the CDC. "So are children going to be the highest risk group? No, they're not. But would you want to protect your child from a disease that could potentially put them in the hospital and get them on a ventilator? Yes, I would say that I would want to make that choice for myself. And why not allow the parent to make that choice?" Maldonado said. The CDC says COVID vaccination during pregnancy builds antibodies that can help protect the baby; studies have also shown that vaccinated moms who breastfeed have protective antibodies in their milk, which could help protect their babies. There have been an estimated 260,000 to 430,000 hospitalizations attributed to COVID since October, causing "an enormous burden on the healthcare system," Dr. Fiona Havers, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC, said at a recent public meeting. There have also been an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 COVID-19 deaths over the same time period. "It is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly in older adults, but it does affect other people, particularly those with underlying conditions, in younger age groups." COVID is also a major cause of pediatric hospitalizations, even among otherwise healthy children, she said. "If there's a summer wave this year, we'll be seeing it in children being hospitalized with COVID as well," she said. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's budget bill is on the verge of transforming how America eats
Early this month, after some equivocation, President Donald Trump briefly endorsed the idea to hike taxes on the wealthiest Americans in his budget proposal to Congress. Economists were quick to point out the meager impact a new millionaire tax bracket would have on the ultra-rich, particularly in the context of other proposed tax cuts that would offset any pain points for them. Still, the backlash from Republican members of Congress was swift. They spurned the proposal and instead advanced breaks for wealthier Americans. Last week, that version of Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives and headed to the Senate. Tax policy isn't the only way that this bill proposes to further widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor. Though the more than 1,000-page megabill will look somewhat different once it advances through the Senate, analysts say that there are three food and agricultural provisions expected to remain intact: an unprecedented cut to the nation's nutrition programs; an increase of billions in subsidies aimed at industrial farms; and a rescission of some Inflation Reduction Act funding intended to help farmers deal with the impacts of climate change. If they do, the changes will make it harder for Americans to afford food and endure the financial toll of climate-related disasters. They will also make it more difficult for farmers to adapt to climate change — from an ecological standpoint and an economic one. Overall, the policy shifts would continue Trump's effort to transform the nation's food and agricultural policy landscape — from one that keeps at least some emphasis on the country's neediest residents to one that offers government help to those who need it least. Ever since the inception of the federal food stamps program in 1939, when it was created during the Great Depression to provide food to the hungry while simultaneously stimulating the American economy by encouraging the purchase of surplus commodities, what's now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, has been falsely portrayed as a contributor to unemployment rates and politicized as an abuse of taxpayer dollars. A vast body of research has found the opposite: roughly 42 percent of SNAP recipients are children, more than half of adult recipients who can work are either employed or actively seeking employment; the program's improper payments are most often merely mistakes made by eligible workers or households, not cases of outright fraud; and the benefits keep millions of Americans out of poverty. Right now, more than 40 million Americans are enrolled in SNAP, an anti-hunger program written into the farm bill and administered through the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service. The federal government has always fully paid for benefits issued by the program. States operate the program on a local level, determining eligibility and issuing those benefits, and pay part of the program's administrative costs. How much money a household gets from the government each month for groceries is based on income, family size, and a tally of certain expenses. An individual's eligibility is also constrained by 'work requirements,' which limit the amount of time adults can receive benefits without employment or participation in a work-training program. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cuts to SNAP now being proposed could amount to nearly $300 billion through 2034. An Urban Institute analysis of the bill found that the cuts would be achieved by broadening work requirements to apply to households with children and adults up to the age of 64; limiting states' ability to request work-requirement waivers for people in high unemployment areas; and reducing the opportunities for discretionary exemptions. But most unprecedented is how the bill shifts the financial onus of SNAP's costs onto states — increasing the administrative costs states have to cover to up to 75 percent, as well as mandating that states pay for a portion of the benefits themselves. If the Senate approves the proposed approach to require states to cover some SNAP costs, the Budget Office report projects that, over the next decade, about 1.3 million people could see their benefits reduced or eliminated in an average month. The burden of these changes to federal policy would only cascade down, leading to a variety of likely outcomes. Some states might be able to cover the slack. But others won't, even if they wanted to: Budget-strapped states would then have to choose between reducing benefits or sharing the costs with cities and counties. Ultimately, anti-hunger advocates warn, gutting SNAP will undoubtedly increase food insecurity across the nation — at a time when persistently high food costs are among most Americans' biggest economic concerns. As communities in all corners of the country endure stronger and more frequent climate-related disasters, the slashing of nutrition programs would also likely decrease the amount of emergency food aid that would be available after a heatwave, hurricane, or flood — funding that has already been reduced by federal disinvestment. Sweeping cuts to SNAP would also constrain how much income small farmers nationwide would be able to earn. That's because SNAP dollars are used at thousands of farmers markets, farm stands, and pick-your-own operations throughout the country. Groups like the environmental nonprofit GrowNYC helped launch the use of SNAP dollars at farmers markets in New York almost two decades ago, and have since built matching dollar incentives into their business model to encourage shoppers at the organization's greenmarket and farmstand locations to spend their monthly food aid allotments on fresh, locally grown produce. The program 'puts money in the farmers pockets,' said Marcel Van Ooyen, CEO of GrowNYC, and 'helps low-income individuals access healthy, fresh, local food. It's a double-win.' He expects to see the bill's SNAP cuts result in a 'devastating' trend of shuttering local farmers' markets across the nation, which, he said, 'is going to have a real effect both on food access and support of the farming communities.' While the ethos of this bill can be gleaned by counting up the proposed cuts to social safety nets like SNAP, looking at the legislation from another perspective — where Trump wants the government to spend more — helps to make it clearer. These dramatic changes to nutrition programs would be accompanied by a massive increase in commodity farm subsidies. The budget bill increases subsidies to commodity farms — ones that grow crops like corn, cotton, and soybeans — by about $50 billion. Commodity farmers 'typically have larger farms,' according to Erin Foster West, a policy campaigns director specializing in land, water, and climate at National Young Farmers Coalition. A trend of consolidation toward fewer but more industrial farm operations was already underway. Less than 6 percent of U.S. farms with annual sales of at least $1 million sold more than three-fourths of all agricultural products between 2017 and 2022. The Trump plan might just help that trend along. Earlier this year, the USDA issued about a third of the $30 billion authorized by Congress in December through the American Relief Act to commodity producers who were affected by low crop prices in 2024. Because the program significantly limited who could access the funding, it funneled financial help away from smaller farmers and into the pockets of industrial-scale operations. An April report by the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute concluded the $10 billion bailout for commodity farmers 'was probably not justified.' Later in their report, the American Enterprise Institute authors note that lobbyists representing commodity farms have already begun pushing for more subsidies because of the fallout of the Trump administration's tariffs. Then they pose a question: 'Does the Trump administration need to give farmers further substantial handouts, especially when it is doing nothing for other sectors and households significantly affected by its policy follies?' The budget bill, with its $50 billion windfall for commodity farms, may be its own answer. This September will mark the deadline for the second consecutive year-long extension that Congress passed for the farm bill, the legislation that governs many aspects of America's food and agricultural systems and is typically reauthorized every five years without much contention. Of late, legislators have been unable to get past the deeply politicized struggle to agree on the omnibus bill's nutrition and conservation facets. The latest farm bill was the 2018 package. The farm bill covers everything from nutrition assistance programs to crop subsidies and conservation measures. A number of provisions, like crop insurance, are permanently funded, meaning the reauthorization timeline does not impact them. But others, such as beginning farmer and rancher development grants and local food promotion programs, are entirely dependent upon the appropriations within each new law. Trump's tax plan contains a slick budgeting maneuver that takes unobligated climate-targeted funds from the agricultural conservation programs in President Joe Biden's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, and re-invests that money into the same farm bill programs. The funding boost provided by the IRA was designed to reign in the immense emissions footprint of the agricultural industry, while also helping farmers deal with the impacts of climate change by providing funding for them to protect plants from severe weather, extend their growing seasons, or adopt cost-cutting irrigation methods that boost water conservation. On its surface, the inclusion of unspent IRA conservation money in the tax package may seem promising, if notably at odds with the Trump administration's public campaign to all but vanquish the Biden-era climate policy. Erin Foster West, at the National Young Farmers Coalition, calls it 'a mixed bag.' By proposing that the IRA funding be absorbed into the farm bill, Foster West says, Trump creates an opportunity to build more and longer-term funding for 'hugely impactful and very effective' conservation work. On the other hand, she notes, the Trump megabill removes the requirements that the unspent pot of money must fund climate-specific projects. Foster West is wary that the removal of the climate guardrails could lead to more conservation money funneling into industrial farms and planet-polluting animal feeding operations. The House budget package also omits many of the food and agricultural programs affected by the federal funding freeze that would typically have been included in a farm bill. Those include programs offering support to beginning farmers and ranchers, farmer-led sustainable research, rural development and farm loans, local and regional food supply chains, and those that help farmers access new markets. None of these were incorporated into the Republican megabill. 'It's just a disinvestment in the programs that smaller-scale, and beginning farmers, younger farmers, tend to use. So we're just seeing, like, resources being pulled away,' said Foster West. Moreover, up until now, several agricultural leaders in Congress have expressed confidence about passing a new 'skinny' farm bill, to address all programs left out by reconciliation, before September. Provisions in the Trump budget bill may erode that confidence. By gutting funding for SNAP and increasing funding for commodity support, two leading Republican farm bill priorities, the need for GOP legislators to negotiate for a bipartisan bill diminishes. Inherent to the farm bill are provisions set to incentivize Congress to break through its own gridlock. If neither a new farm bill nor an extension is passed ahead of its deadline, some commodity programs revert to a 1930s and 1940s law, which helps trigger what is colloquially known as the 'dairy cliff' — after which the government must buy staggering volumes of milk products at a parity price set in 1949 and risk spiking milk prices at the supermarket. Trump's tax package would suspend this trigger until 2031. Under Trump's vision, encoded in the tax bill, U.S. food and agriculture policy would 'cannibalize' itself, according to Mike Lavender, policy director at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. The policies meant to make better food more available to more people, and support the producers that grow it, in other words, could make way for a world in which fewer people will be able to farm — and to eat. 'It's an irresponsible approach to federal food and farm policy,' Lavender said. 'One that does not support all farmers, does not support the entire food and farm system.' This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump's budget bill is on the verge of transforming how America eats on May 30, 2025.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Electrifying this affordable housing complex made financial sense
Canary Media's 'Electrified Life' column shares real-world tales, tips, and insights to demystify what individuals and building owners can do to shift to clean electric power. An affordable housing complex for older adults in Sacramento, California, boasts some enticing features. Residents of the earth-toned, low-rise structures can cultivate gardens, swim laps in the pool, and toss bocce balls. They can stroll to visit neighbors. And now, after an electric transformation of the buildings, Foothill Farms residents can also enjoy the cleaner air that comes with ditching gas appliances. The project not only slashes the complex's health-harming and planet-warming pollution — it also made financial sense for both the owner BRIDGE Housing and its tenants. Two years ago, the 138-unit property's original gas-fired equipment was nearing the end of its life. Coupled with available financial support, the timing gave executives of BRIDGE, a nonprofit affordable housing developer and manager, a chance to pivot away from fossil fuels. The 'smart, opportunistic' project at Foothill Farms illustrates how properties can electrify while keeping costs low for residents, according to a case study written earlier this year by staff at the Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future, a collaborative of 13 nonprofits, including BRIDGE. The retrofit is also a trailblazer for the decarbonization journey millions more units of government-supported affordable housing will eventually need to take. Although single-family housing is by far the most prevalent in the U.S., and the biggest source of carbon pollution from homes, cutting fossil fuels from multifamily affordable housing is a particularly tricky task. Some of the most vulnerable Americans live in subsidized apartments, including low-income households with older adults, disabled individuals, young families, and veterans — and they usually rent these units. Residents typically lack the power or cash to electrify properties, which presents a hurdle to eradicating emissions from buildings and denies inhabitants the upsides of these retrofits: greater comfort, safer air, and potential bill savings. 'There's an opportunity for delivering outsized benefits to [these] residents and communities,' said Lucas Toffoli, principal of the carbon-free buildings division at clean-energy think tank RMI. In 2023, BRIDGE Housing decided Foothill Farms would be a good candidate for energy-efficiency upgrades after Bright Power, an energy services provider, and Carbon Zero Buildings, a company specializing in decarbonization retrofits, analyzed BRIDGE's entire portfolio of properties. Carbon Zero carried out the electrifying changes: The turnkey contractor swapped out polluting gas-fueled water heaters for Rheem heat-pump water heaters and replaced ACs with Samsung heat pumps capable of both warming and cooling spaces. The firm also installed LED lighting everywhere, which consumes a tenth of the energy of incandescent light bulbs. Carbon Zero's team first piloted the complete retrofit in one unit to work out the kinks. With feedback from staff and residents, the crew honed its approach so that it could complete a unit's upgrades in a single day during business hours. 'I love that,' said Toffoli, who wasn't involved in the project. 'Displacing folks is not only expensive and burdensome ... it's a real disruption to people who may be juggling a lot of things, like work and family, or who have limited mobility or health problems.' In the common areas, Carbon Zero installed a new heat-pump pool heater and heat-pump spa heater, 30 EV charging stations, and 240-volt power outlets in the laundry rooms. Foothill Farms still has gas-powered clothes dryers, but BRIDGE plans to replace them with electric dryers when they conk out. Comparing 2023 average monthly energy usage data to 10 months of data after the in-unit retrofits were completed last spring, natural-gas use has decreased by 98% while electricity use has risen 24% across the whole property, thanks in large part to the almost-magical efficiency of heat pumps. Virtually all of the project's $2.6 million cost was covered by state and utility grants: California's Low-Income Weatherization Program, TECH Clean California, and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Other projects, though, are by no means guaranteed to see so much aid, with funding limited and awards variable, said Sebastian Cohn, senior project manager at the nonprofit Association for Energy Affordability and BRIDGE's primary contact for the weatherization program incentive. 'It is typically in a property's best interest to enroll [in these incentive programs] sooner than later,' Cohn told Canary Media. 'The same project reserved today would receive less than half the [Sacramento Municipal Utility District] incentives Foothill Farms did due to updated incentive levels and per-project limits.' Unlike many landlords who don't pay tenants' utility bills, and thus don't benefit from energy-efficiency upgrades, BRIDGE actually had a financial incentive to make this switch to electric appliances: The organization pays for residents' gas usage but not their electricity bills. How then did the project prevent residents' costs from going up? Elementary, my dear reader. Federal rules for most subsidized affordable housing protect residents from high rent and utility costs — and make sure these expenses don't exceed 30% of their income — by requiring owners to provide what are called utility allowances, i.e., rent reductions to tenants paying their own utilities. The exact amounts are set by housing authorities and depend on locale, home size, and types of appliances. Based on the utility allowances for Sacramento when Carbon Zero pitched the project, the contractor estimated that residents would come out ahead, with each unit on average saving over $200 annually. The estimated savings for BRIDGE itself were $25,000 per year. The real-world results match the initial project modeling very well, Cohn said, though BRIDGE declined to share specific dollar savings. BRIDGE isn't planning to stop with this project; a spokesperson said it's already working with Carbon Zero and Bright Power on similar retrofits at a few other California properties.
