Vulnerable Communities May Benefit More from a Carbon Price than from Targeted Environmental Justice Policies
💡 What’s the story?
People of color and low-income communities have historically faced the brunt of health damages and premature death from fine airborne particulate matter pollution (PM2.5). As federal and state governments continue the search for ways to reduce that unfair burden, pathbreaking modeling research from Resources for the Future (RFF) delves into the comparative advantages of some policy options for the US power sector.
The authors find that the policies designed to lower power-sector pollution particularly in environmentally overburdened, disadvantaged communities (EO DACs) largely are less effective at meeting that goal than a power-sector carbon price. The modeling finds that, per billion dollars of cost, a $15 per ton price on carbon dioxide emissions saves three times as many lives in EO DACs as any of the other analyzed policies. The other policies also increase pollution in some EO DACs (causing “hotspots”), while the carbon price does not.
The analysis might also be a useful reference for advocates and policymakers looking to protect disadvantaged communities from pollution produced by other sectors of the economy, until researchers can complete similar studies that model those other sectors.
🔎 What policy options did the team analyze?
The authors analyzed five national policy options inspired by laws in New York and New Jersey that are intended to reduce PM2.5 pollution in EO DACs.
- No New: Prohibits new power plants in EO DACs but places no restrictions on existing facilities
- Reduction: Prohibits new power plants in EO DACs and reduces emissions from existing facilities in EO DACs
- Shutdown: Prohibits new power plants in EO DACs and shuts down existing facilities in EO DACs
- Upwind Limits: Prohibits new power plants that produce PM2.5 pollution that harm EO DACs, even if the plant would not be built in an EO DAC
- CO2 Pricing: Applies a carbon price of $15/ton of CO2 to all power plants.
The authors analyzed national implementation of each policy, using a model of the US power sector paired with a model of PM2.5 formation and dispersion. They then compared these results to a business-as-usual scenario to assess how each policy affects EO DACs and society at large.
Below is a table showing how the four most effective policies compare to each other in 2030. Dark green is the “best” analyzed policy for a given metric. Orange is the costliest or least beneficial of the four. For a version of this chart with numerical comparisons, see Table 4 in the paper.
Author Perspective
“It may feel counterintuitive that policies designed to help disadvantaged communities specifically are not necessarily the sure-fire answer to addressing environmental inequity. However, disadvantaged communities receive much of their power plant pollution from numerous distant power plants, and a uniform price on emissions has a big cost advantage over most other policies. Our modeling indicates that the hide tide of carbon pricing lifts all boats—and, most of all, the boats that started out lowest.”
—RFF Fellow Daniel Shawhan
📊 What are some other key findings?
None of the analyzed policies totally erased the difference in the premature death rate between EO DACs and non-EO DACs due to PM2.5 pollution from power plants. However, the Shutdown, Upwind Limits, and CO2 Pricing policies did reduce that difference significantly, showing that both targeted policies and a carbon price did create notable benefits for these communities. Black Americans, who make up 13 percent of the US population, account for 38–40 percent of lives saved by the Shutdown, Upwind Limits, and CO2 Pricing policies.
All policies except for the No New policy had positive net benefits, which mostly took the form of health and climate benefits. The No New policy increased emissions and resulted in more premature deaths in EO DACs than a business-as-usual scenario. This is because this policy restricts newer power plants from replacing older, higher-emitting ones.
📖 Where can I learn more?
For more, read the working paper, “Policies for Reducing the Impacts of Power Sector Air Pollution on Disadvantaged Americans,” by RFF Fellow Daniel Shawhan, Research Analyst Sally Robson, former Senior Research Analyst Ethan Russell, and London School of Economics Assistant Professor Ana Varela Varela.
Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC. Its mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement. RFF is committed to being the most widely trusted source of research insights and policy solutions leading to a healthy environment and a thriving economy.
Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may differ from those of other RFF experts, its officers, or its directors. RFF does not take positions on specific legislative proposals.
For more information, please see our media resources page or contact Media Relations and Communications Specialist Annie McDarris.
