Life in the Concrete Jungle: The Importance of Urban Biodiversity

Urban biodiversity refers to the variety of life forms—plants, animals, fungi, and microorganisms—that exist within urban areas like cities and towns. These organisms coexist in both natural and built environments and adapt to human-dominated landscapes, encompassing everything from the wildlife living in parks and green spaces to species inhabiting more developed environments, such as streets, rooftops, and even buildings. Biodiversity and ecosystems outside the city have a profound impact on the quality of life in urban areas with crucial connections to air and water quality, climate regulation, mental and physical health, and biodiversity spillover.

Source: Fisher, P. August 29, 2019. “Extinction debt: Urban biodiversity may be the answer.” Independent Australia. Available at: https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/extinction-debt-urban-biodiversity-may-be-the-answer,13054

Biodiversity supports human wellbeing in urban areas. At the same time, urbanization profoundly affects biodiversity. As cities expand, natural habitats are destroyed or fragmented, making it harder for species to find suitable places to live and reproduce. Fragmentation reduces genetic diversity and limits access to resources like food and water. Further, urban areas produce various forms of pollution, including air, water, and noise pollution, which can harm species, especially those sensitive to changes in their environment. Cities also contribute to climate change by increasing greenhouse gas emissions and associated climate change, which disrupts ecosystems and alters habitats. The movement of people and goods can introduce non-native species to urban environments, sometimes outcompeting local species and disrupting ecosystems. Despite these challenges, cities can also host surprising levels of biodiversity if the urban landscape is managed thoughtfully, with green spaces like parks, community gardens, and green roofs supporting both native and non-native species.

To prioritize sustainability, biodiversity, and ecological health, ecological planning can be used as a framework for designing cities and landscapes. Ecological planning involves understanding and integrating natural systems and processes into the development of urban areas and ensuring that ecological values are maintained or enhanced even as cities grow. This kind of ecosystem-centered planning process can be an essential tool for creating equitable access to green spaces by identifying and protecting natural areas, particularly in underserved communities, and making sure that green spaces are distributed fairly across the city. Ecological planning can also be used to develop multi-functional spaces, involving the local communities in the design and management of green spaces. Plans can incorporate green infrastructure, such as green walls, urban forests, and permeable pavements, which can enhance biodiversity within urban areas while providing essential services like stormwater management, air purification, and heat mitigation. These types of green interventions can be strategically placed in historically marginalized neighborhoods to improve the quality of life for all residents. By supporting urban biodiversity, interventions can both enrich the ecosystems within cities and strengthen the vital connection between urban areas and the broader natural environment.

Alicia Zhang

Research Fellow

This is a part of the AEC Blog series.

Achieving the Massachusetts’ Electric Greenhouse Gas Limits

In 2022, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs set sector-specific greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2025 and 2030. For the electric power sector, a 53% reduction by 2025 and a 70% reduction by 2030 (from a 1990 baseline) are required. The Commonwealth’s most recent greenhouse gas inventory for 2021 found that the electric power sector had already surpassed its 2025 target and was on track to meet its 2030 target. Today greenhouse gas emissions generated during peak demand represent only a small portion of total electric sector emissions. However, as emissions from fossil-fuel power plants in the Commonwealth decline over time due to emissions limits on in-state electric generators and the increased contribution of renewable resources attributed to the Renewable Portfolio and Clean Energy Standards, peak generation will contribute an increasingly large share of remaining emissions.

Data source: Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA). 2022. Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2050. Available at: https://www.mass.gov/doc/2050-clean-energy-and-climate-plan/download

Multiple avenues exist for reducing emissions produced during peak demand, such as the Commonwealth’s Clean Peak Standard (CPS), which provides incentives for technologies that reduce peak load or provide zero-emission energy at times of peak demand. Generator owners may also replace existing fossil fuel-fired generation used to meet peak demand (known as “peaker” plants) with clean energy. The conversion of peaker plants to clean energy sources aids in reducing peak emissions and offers an opportunity to repurpose existing infrastructure. Replacing fossil-fuel power plants with clean energy resources, like battery storage and clean energy hubs, has already begun at sites such as the West Springfield Generation Station, Mount Tom Power Plant, and Salem Harbor Station, highlighting the viability of this option. As fossil-fuel generators reduce emissions and renewable sales increase, replacements of this type, alongside Massachusetts initiatives like the CPS, will be needed to ensure the Commonwealth meets its 2030 electric sector emissions limit.

Jordan Burt

Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series.

Engineering Challenges of Integrating Renewables to the Power Grid

Simply put, the electric power grid delivers or transmits electricity from a generation station, such as a wind turbine or solar photovoltaic (PV) panel, to customers, undergoing stages that include regional transmission, voltage increases and reductions, and local distribution. After leaving the generating station, electricity enters a sub-station where a step-up transformer raises the voltage to extremely high levels to allow for long-distance transmission. High-voltage electricity is then transferred to local substations, where a step-down transformer reduces voltage to levels suitable for customer use. Distribution lines carry this lower-voltage electricity from local substations to customer homes and businesses. Energy electric generation and battery storage that are located at the site of a home or business are called “distributed” or “behind-the-meter” systems. Rooftop solar and other behind-the-meter resources can help reduce reliance on grid-based power plants and on the transmission infrastructure needed to distribute electricity across long distances.

*Source: Stanford University. N.d. The Grid: Electricity Transmission, Industry, and Markets. Available at:* *https://understand-energy.stanford.edu/energy-currencies/electricity-grid*

As renewable energy gets integrated into this grid system, several engineering benefits and challenges can arise. Wind turbines, which generated 10.25 percent of the total U.S. power supply in 2022, convert wind energy into electricity by rotating blades to spin a generator. One of the benefits of turbines is that, after being disconnected from the energy source, they keep spinning with inertia for some time. This lag provides operators with time to address system failures before total loss of power.

One of wind energy’s biggest engineering challenges, however, is designing turbine blades to efficiently extract energy from air. Predicting the flow of air around an object is challenging, and the blades must withstand the stress they are subject to while rotating. In addition, the strength of the wind cannot be controlled to increase or decrease power generation as needed. Wind energy is typically transported from sparsely populated open areas where the wind blows more easily, to dense urban areas with high demand for power. The longer the distance from electric customers, the more electricity is lost from the lines.

Solar PV panels absorb sunlight through conductive metal contact lines on the solar panels. The energy then flows through the panels as an electrical current, delivering power to the home, businesses, or electric grid. Solar panels can be deployed at a small scale close to areas of customer electric demand, such as on the rooftops of residential homes.

Solar cells are not, however, very efficient, converting just 20 percent of the sunlight they absorb into electric power. Furthermore, solar cells produce direct current (DC) electricity, which means that the electrical current flows in only one direction within the circuit. Most home and commercial electric use—such as lights and appliances—requires alternating current (AC) electricity. Solar energy must be converted from DC to AC using an inverter before it can be integrated into the electrical grid or used in homes and businesses.

On very windy or very sunny days, renewables can overproduce electricity resulting in spikes in electric production that can cause issues controlling frequency and voltage on the grid. Both are important characteristics for a functioning electric system. Aging transmission lines and substations might not be able to handle the energy spikes, increasing risks of outages, or may require disconnecting energy generators to avoid system-wide problems. Surplus electricity can be stored in batteries and later released, reducing the risk of system outages during periods of low production. “Smart grid” technologies, such as advanced metering and automated control systems, can help monitor grid stability in real-time, optimize power flow, and predict outages. Relocating transmission wires underground or upgrading poles and wires to sturdier materials can make the electric grid more resistant to damage from severe weather or other threats. These strategies—storage, smart grids, and infrastructure upgrades—enhance grid resilience, reliability, and stability for a clean energy future.

Alicia Zhang

Research Fellow

This is a part of the AEC Blog series.

Tackling EV Fires: Misconceptions and Truths

As more EVs get on the roads, the potential vulnerability of battery engines to catch fire has been the subject of some media reports. For instance, the Boston Globe reports that it regularly receives emails from concerned individuals who view EV batteries as dangerous. Growing concerns regarding EV fire frequency, however, are not backed by data. The National Transportation Safety Board reports EVs were involved in 25 fires for every 100,000 units sold. In comparison, 1,530 gasoline and diesel-fired cars (called internal combustion or ICE) and 3,475 gas-electric hybrid cars were involved in fires for every 100,000 sold.

While EVs tend to catch fire less often than ICEs, EV fires are far more destructive and difficult to put out due to the composition of lithium-ion batteries. A short circuit or malfunction in a lithium-ion battery can cause a chain reaction known as “thermal runaway,” causing the battery temperature to spike drastically and catch on fire. EV fires tend to burn at higher temperatures than ICE fires (5,000°Fvs. 1,500°F) and require 10 times more water to put out. They also emit strong fumes from the toxic chemicals found in the batteries.

Firefighters are often ill-equipped to confront the dangers of EV fires in terms of both training and resources. Last year, the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services developed a tracker to identify and gather information on EV fires and to determine important patterns and trends that can improve their understanding and approach to extinguishing them. In March of this year, Rhode Island House Democrats introduced a bill to allocate $60,000 from the State budget to train firefighters to quell lithium-ion battery fires. However, this bill has been shelved citing a need for further investigation.

In addition to new opportunities, EVs present new complications. As with other nascent technologies, developing the knowledge and resources to prevent and effectively extinguish EV fires will take time and effort.

Sumera Patel

Assistant Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series.

Where Are Massachusetts’ Residential SMART Storage Projects Located?

Since the 2016 launch of the Affordable Access to Clean and Efficient Energy Initiative, Massachusetts energy policy and programs have included commitments to an equitable clean energy transition. AEC’s September 2024 report prepared on behalf of Clean Energy Group assessed equity provisions in three Massachusetts energy storage-incentivizing programs, including the Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target (SMART) program. AEC found that the three energy programs assessed lack equity-related mandates, targets and reporting requirements to support the Commonwealth’s commitment. This AEC blog takes a closer look at where Massachusetts SMART solar plus storage units are most prominent in relation to Massachusetts’ environmental justice (EJ) communities (Massachusetts defines EJ neighborhoods as those with higher shares of lower income, Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC), or limited English-speaking households living within them).

Data sources: (1) Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. November 7, 2024. “Smart Solar Tariff Generating Units” [Workbook]. Available at: https://www.mass.gov/doc/smart-solar-tariff-generation-units; (2) U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Detailed Tables [Table ID: S2504]. Available at: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2022.S2504

As shown in the map, the Massachusetts municipalities with the highest share of households with SMART solar plus storage units are clustered in Western Massachusetts, Boston suburbs, and the Cape and the Islands. The towns labeled on the map are those where 0.5 percent to 2.2 percent of residents have a SMART solar plus storage unit; of these 54 municipalities, 31 have zero EJ communities. In comparison, there are the five Massachusetts municipalities that house 100 percent EJ communities; these EJ towns have fewer than 0.2 percent of households with SMART solar plus storage units (Lawrence (22 projects), Randolph (21 projects), Everett (3 projects), Chelsea (0 projects), and Plainfield (0 projects).

The SMART program provides financial incentives for projects benefitting lower income households but leaves out other vulnerable groups. AEC’s September 2024 report recommends that the Commonwealth add financial incentives for other vulnerable households, like EJ communities. Equitable adoption of storage resources goes beyond targeting low-income participation—other kinds of vulnerable and disadvantaged communities would benefit immensely from increased battery storage adoption.

Tanya Stasio, PhD

Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series.

What Is Climate Financing and Why Do We Need More of It?

Image Source: Browne, K. 2021. *Advancing Equity in International Climate Finance: New Approaches to Informal Institutions and Power.* Available at: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/169654/kebr_1.pdf

Climate finance refers to the flow of funds from public, private, or alternative sources of funding for local, national, or transnational activities or programs that are intended to help address climate change. Significant financial resources are necessary to design and implement large-scale climate mitigation and adaptation investments.

To this end, the Biden Administration has established the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which provides nearly $400 billion in loans and grants to fund projects to lower the nation’s carbon emissions. These projects include—among many other categories—funding states’ energy efficiency programs, restoring ecosystems on public lands, and incentivizing funding for low carbon materials used in transportation. IRA funding supports the nation’s goal of halving U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030, and achieving a net-zero emissions economy by 2050.

There are many avenues from which climate funding flows. Financing can flow from one country or institution to another (“bilateral”) or from many countries/institutions to another (“multilateral”). The funding source also varies. For example, governments can issue sovereign green bonds, which are loans from a pool of investors in exchange for regular interest payments over a set number of years, or from carbon trading and/or carbon taxes. On the international level, countries or financial institutions like the World Bank, Green Climate Fund, or USAID provide grants and loans.

Along with the IRA, the United States has made it a goal through its Justice40 Initiative that 40 percent of federal climate investments flow to disadvantaged communities that have historically been underinvested and overburdened by pollution. Although the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) enshrines equity as a core principle in climate action, equity has failed to be upheld in the international climate finance realm. To uphold equity would require that countries with more historic responsibility for climate impacts primarily due to heavily polluting industrialization and who also have a greater financial capacity, to act as “Donor Countries” and provide those with lower levels of responsibility and capacity with climate financing. While it has made great strides with the IRA on the domestic level, the United States is one such country, along with E.U. nations, Japan, and Australia, whose climate financing responsibilities extend beyond national borders.

The amount of finance needed to meet climate goals ranges from $600 billion per year up until 2030 to $1 trillion per year by 2025, and $2.4 trillion per year from 2030. International political negotiations have determined a $100 billion a year goal for 2020, but this goal was not met and extended to 2025.

Developing countries are not getting the funding that they were promised by developed countries. In fact, in 2021, developing nations received 15 percent less money for climate adaptation that the year prior. In total, developed countries received only $21.3 billion in public funding in 2021. Private financing can perhaps fill this gap – however, the lack of effective carbon pricing reduces the incentive and ability of investors to fund climate projects, as does incomplete climate data and disclosure standards. Private climate financing amounted to $14.4 billion in 2021, but this level of funding has been stagnant since 2017.

To meet climate goals, developed nations, including the United States, must scale up their efforts to both provide financing and to mobilize private financing. Nations can focus on developing policies that redirect investment flows from high-carbon projects to climate friendly opportunities, strengthen the climate information architecture, and support innovative financial structures that support the creation of new markets for climate finance.

Alicia Zhang

Research Fellow

This is a part of the AEC Blog series.

Sustainability at the 2024 Paris Olympics

The fanfare and attention to the Olympic Games, while exciting, can often overshadow the negative environmental impacts of the tournament. The Olympics are one of the most highly anticipated sporting events in the world. In the two weeks of competition during the 2024 Summer Paris Games, there were an average of 30.6 million viewers across 7,000 total hours of coverage—an 82 percent increase from the Tokyo Summer Olympics in 2021. The organizers of the 2024 Paris Olympics set out to create a more environmentally sustainable Olympics without compromising the nature of the competition.

According to a 2021 analysis from the University of Lausanne, New York University, and the University of Bern, while organizers have claimed that the Games have become more sustainable, the actual environmental impacts have become more harmful. The Tokyo Olympics emitted an estimated total of 2.73 million tons of CO₂, and these Games were held without fans due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In comparison, the 2016 Rio Olympics emitted a total of 4.5 million tons of CO₂, with about 55 percent of emissions coming from spectators.

The organizers of the 2024 Paris Olympics strove to break this pattern of emissions. The Paris 2024 Board of Directors set a goal in the beginning of their planning process to emit no more than one-half of the planet-warming emissions of the London 2012 and Rio 2016 Olympics. This would place their maximum emissions at 1.58 million metric tons of CO₂e. At the time of writing no reports on emissions resulting from the 2024 Paris Olympics has been released.

Emissions were organized into three primary categories: construction, transportation, and operations. To address emissions from construction, recycled venues were used to host different events and, in cases where something new needed to be built, renewable or low-carbon materials were used. Transportation was more difficult to manage as the Olympic Committee had no control over how people moved around the city. Therefore, the main strategy employed was encouraging people, athletes included, to use public transportation. Olympic teams from the Netherlands, Britain, Belgium, and Switzerland all used public transportation to arrive in Paris. Finally, to lessen the environmental impacts of the operations of the Games, the Board of Directors planned to get energy not only from the French power grid, which is powered primarily by nuclear energy, but also from solar panels floating along the Seine and on Olympic buildings. Additional energy-saving measures were taken including placing trees and cooling misters around the city, improving building insulation, building light-colored surfaces, and installing geo-thermal water-cooling systems.

Despite these efforts, a lack of transparency over sustainable strategies such as procuring 100 percent renewable energy has increased skepticism. Jules Boykoff, a professor at Pacific University, publicly questioned how sustainable the Games truly were. As of writing, no official reports have been published that evaluate the sustainability of the Paris Olympics. The IOC has created a standard of reporting on environmental impacts after an Olympic Games has concluded, but this is rarely done. While the evaluation of the 2024 Paris Olympics has yet to be released, the planning for the 2026 Winter Olympics has already begun. Organizers have issued statements that they are hoping to adopt a “realistic, concrete, and progressive approach” to sustainability, but no detailed plans have been provided.

Lila McNamee

Research Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series.

There’s a Transition Happening, but is it “Just”?

On July 30 of this year, AES Corporation—a U.S.-based electric power utility and generation company with over ten thousand employees worldwide—announced a paradigm shift in the world of renewable energy installations: Robots.

According to the company, the newly introduced “Maximo” robot, which has been deployed to install nearly 10 megawatts of photovoltaic modules so far, was its response to a shortage of solar panel installation workers. To keep up with the demands of a clean energy transition, as reported by the New York Times, solar installation companies are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence (AI) as a substitute for human labor for two reasons: There simply aren’t enough workers to meet demand for solar installations, and robots are more exploitable than human workers.

It is well-known that the renewables workforce is too small to meet the needs of a swift and complete transition away from fossil fuels. Less commonly discussed is the reality of working conditions in renewable energy industries—particularly in comparison to working conditions for fossil fuel jobs. Renewable installation jobs are notorious for inadequate pay, poor working conditions, insufficient benefits, low unionization rates, and geographic instability. According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, as of 2023, a living wage in the United States was $25.02 per hour. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in 2023 that the median wage of solar panel installers was less than $23.50 per hour. That means that more than half of all U.S. solar panel installers do not make a living wage.

In stark contrast, fossil fuel workers earned substantially more than the living wage: The average pay for a boilermaker in 2023 was $34.20 per hour, and the average pay for a petroleum engineer was over $65 per hour. Moreover, while fossil fuel jobs offer stable employment and benefits, usually enforced by collective bargaining agreements, recent reporting reveals that renewable energy installers—a largely nonunionized workforce—must travel across state lines in search of temporary work opportunities with minimal labor protections.

The labor market itself and its existing incentive structure pushes workers toward the fossil fuel industry and away from renewables. Yet, renewable energy companies are responding to the lack of available workers not by raising wages to attract more workers, but by eliminating these positions and replacing them with robots that work for free and never sign on to collective bargaining agreements.

Facing an increasingly urgent need for a rapid and sustained shift away from fossil fuels, the present energy sector labor market conditions threaten to undermine policy goals and forestall the possibility of a just transition. By encouraging workers to remain in fossil fuel jobs, and consequently hindering them from joining the renewables labor force, disparities within the labor market will prolong the inequitable environmental harms of the fossil fuel industry while limiting the growth potential of renewable energy industries. Moreover, the replacement of renewable energy jobs with AI will leave displaced fossil fuel workers without options for jobs in the renewable sector when their fossil fuel jobs are eventually phased out.

Workers need not lose their jobs and economic security in the energy transition. Nor need they choose between a livable climate and a livable wage. A just transition is possible, but only by prioritizing the needs of workers—not profits—in the transition to a clean energy economy.

Sachin Peddada

Assistant Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series.

Energy History: The Steam Engine, the Industrial Revolution, and Imperialism

Significant inventions in energy history cannot be viewed in isolation from the socioeconomic and cultural shifts that precede and accompany them. This blog series will explore technologies and innovations in the energy field that have prompted life-altering societal shifts and massive policy changes.

Modern technologies can spark massive economic growth, but they also carry significant human costs that ripple throughout society. This narrative dives into how the steam engine played a key role in Britain’s colonization of South Asia.

One of the earliest versions of the steam engine was developed by Thomas Newcomen in 1712. It took advantage of steam power to create continuous motion by drawing steam into a cylinder, or piston, and quickly cooling that steam with cold water to create a vacuum that pushes the piston that pulls a weight. Originally designed to pump water from underground mines, Newcomen’s invention accelerated coal production in England by allowing deeper access to mines previously blocked by water.

Image source: Lira, C. *Michigan State University*. “Newcomen Atmospheric Engine Description”. 2006. Available at: https://www.egr.msu.edu/~lira/supp/steam/newcomen.htm

This innovative equipment allowed for a major expansion in England’s energy industry by improving its ability to meet growing coal demand; nevertheless, the Newcomen steam engine was extremely large, expensive to operate (with a thermal efficiency of roughly 0.5 percent), and not particularly useful in a non-coal mining context. Newcomen’s steam engine predated railroads, so each unit had to be constructed locally with materials and fuels transported in by the island’s canal network and horse-drawn wagons. The Industrial Revolution prompted improvements in the Newcomen engine—most notably by James Watt, who developed a separate cooling chamber that increased the steam engine’s efficiency by roughly 2 to 5 percent. By 1782, Watt’s improved steam engine was not limited to mining. The result was increased production of goods in locations where water power was not available. Once adapted for rail and ships in the 1800s, the coal-fired steam engine expedited and expanded overseas trade of raw materials, finished goods, and people.

Source: Royal Museums Greenwich. N.d. “Ships and steam power”. Available at: https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/steam-power

New technology amplifies the effect of conventional work. Just as the creation of the internet led to the growth of online shopping, ultimately shifting patterns of individual consumption, the spread of the steam engine created “industrial unrest” that affected labor structures at a local and global scale. For instance, the steam engine resulted in a boom in English textiles, which was aided by a series of British economic policy choices, particularly the ban of Indian textiles in the late 1700s. While growth in England’s textile industry drove rising demand for raw cotton from India, by the first half of the 19th century, Indian cotton revenue declined by a third. This trade imbalance, combined with taxes and undervaluing traditional textile practices, prompted an uprising against the British East India Company in 1857. This unrest was a catalyst for the beginning of the formal British direct rule in India, or the start of the British Raj under Queen Victoria.

When viewed in isolation, the steam engine is an invention that improved productive efficiency and allowed for more work to happen with less human power. But when considered holistically, steam engines were the catalyst for a vast shift in energy use, labor forces, political and economic spheres, and cultural and linguistic patterns. A close analogy for the digital age might be data. Applied to essentially all aspects of life, our reliance on modern communications technologies not only affects the global economy but has profound social impacts. In the last three to four decades alone, data has fundamentally transformed the way communities and individuals interact with one other.

Sagal Alisalad

Research Fellow

This is a part of the AEC Blog series.

Data Centers and their Insatiable Energy Demand in the Age of AI

Data centers' energy footprint has been growing aggressively over the last decade, first with the advent of cloud computing and now with the artificial intelligence (AI) boom. The estimated global data center consumption (excluding cryptocurrency mining) in 2022 was 240-340 terawatt hours (TWh) up from 200 TWh in 2015. Energy consumption is expected to surge in the coming years. McKinsey & Company predicts that U.S. data center demand will increase by 10 percent annually through 2030.

The largest data center market in the United States is Northern Virginia where efforts are underway to address overwhelming growth in energy demand. This year, Virginia legislators proposed HB 116 introducing energy efficiency and renewable requirements that data centers must meet to qualify for a sales and use tax exemption. Although energy efficiency and renewables are promoted as effective tools for curbing emissions, certain limitations hinder their adoption. For AI data centers, demand response programs that reduce energy use during peak periods may not be a suitable option since offsetting services for another time can be more costly than keeping the power on. While data center demand has led to increased renewables development as data companies seek clean energy to fuel their activities, the ever-increasing backlog of projects in the interconnection queue, waiting to be connected to the power grid, poses a significant challenge. New renewables projects may not be ready in time to meet the needs of these data centers.

Utilities servicing large data center markets are entering into ambitious supply deals, fueling new energy infrastructure investment. Growth in data center energy demand is driving a boom in planned gas-fired power plant projects in addition to preventing fossil fuel power plant retirements. PJM, the regional grid operator that services Virginia, is constructing new power lines connecting to coal plants in West Virginia to meet data center demand. Once renewable energy projects come online to keep up with demand, PJM believes that these new power lines and coal capacity will not be needed.

AI and its uncharted capabilities often arouse anxiety and fear, some exaggerated and some real. Concerns surrounding the excessive energy demand data centers require to maintain AI services are very real. Energy efficiency gains and renewables growth are struggling to keep pace with the demands of AI computing, and utilities are looking towards dirty, more expensive alternatives such as natural gas and coal. The power sector now requires swift solutions to balance data center demand and climate policy.

Sumera Patel

Assistant Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series.

How IRA Tax Credits are Fueling the Clean Energy Sector

Federal tax credits play a critical role in lowering the cost of investing in renewables and encouraging the growth of the clean energy workforce. In 2022, the federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was signed into law, introducing and expanding numerous tax incentives for investment in the clean energy sector. Of these tax incentives, the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and the Production Tax Credit (PTC) provide enhanced financing opportunities for clean energy developers, particularly if projects are eligible to receive additional incentives through bonus credits, such as the Domestic Content Bonus and the Energy Community Bonus. Eligibility to receive the highest base tax credit also requires meeting labor standards aimed at ensuring livable wages and a certain percentage of construction work performed by apprentices, thereby strengthening and investing in the clean energy workforce.

In Lazard’s 2024 Levelized Cost of Energy report, combined operating and capital cost ranges are compared for various standalone and hybrid renewable energy systems given the utilization of either the ITC or PTC. In every scenario presented by Lazard, taking advantage of these tax credits reduces the operating and capital cost range, for some resources more than others. The two tax credits can be combined for co-located systems, shown in Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy graph for onshore wind and storage, further reducing the costs of and encouraging clean energy development. Ultimately, strategic use of these federal tax credits can accelerate the transition to a cleaner and more equitable energy future.

Elisabeth Seliga

Assistant Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Examining Military Exceptionalism and its Overarching Impact

When it comes to the climate crisis, national militaries continue to receive exceptional/special treatment. Unlike other institutions, they remain protected from any consequential political scrutiny and accountability regarding their contribution to the climate crisis. At the behest of the United States, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol set a precedent by providing an exception to militaries for reporting greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris Climate Agreement later reaffirmed the Kyoto Protocol’s position on military activity was reaffirmed in 2015. The reason given for this continued exceptional treatment is to not undermine national security.

Due to this exemption, there are no official emissions data available for militaries. The best estimate on global military greenhouse gas emissions comes from the Conflict and Environment Observatory and Scientists for Global Responsibility, the former is a nonprofit research organization focused on raising awareness of the environmental costs of military activity and conflicts, while the latter is a UK-based professional research and advocacy network promoting ethical science. In 2022, the organizations estimated that 5.5 percent of global emissions can be traced back to state militaries. To put this in perspective, if all national militaries were a single country, they would be the fourth highest global emitter ahead of Russia. The U.S. military holds the special designation of being the world’s largest institutional consumer of petroleum and, therefore, the highest institutional producer of greenhouse gas emissions.

The preservation of security — national, regional, and/or global — is a profitable narrative in the context of fossil fuel investments. In the United States, the need to preserve national security is used to maintain and perpetuate direct military fossil fuel investments, but it is also used to rationalize fossil fuel investments in other sectors. For instance, Amy Westervelt, a climate journalist, argues that the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War and the resulting energy crisis in Europe have allowed the gas industry and supportive lawmakers in the United States to push forward investments in liquified natural gas exports (LNG). In 2022, the first year of the Russia-Ukraine war, U.S. natural gas exports reached a record high of 6.9 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). This record is projected to have been topped again in 2023 with the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimating that 7.5 Tcf of LNG was exported during the year. While the Biden Administration recently announced a temporary pause on the approval of new LNG export projects, climate journalists like Emily Atkins find it difficult to view it as a major blow to the gas industry since the freeze does not extend to current operating export facilities. LNG gas exports and (as a result) emissions are expected to grow in the coming years. Vulnerable communities facing environmental damage caused by the export boom will continue to do so going forward.

The overarching climate and environmental impact of the special treatment the military receives is substantial. Doug Weir, the director of the Conflict and Environment Observatory, believes that increased public awareness of this through media coverage, social media, on the war in Ukraine and Israeli military operations in the Occupied Gaza Strip may continue to increase calls for greater accountability and an end to military exceptionalism such as during the recent COP28.

Sumera Patel

Assistant Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Artificial Intelligence in the Energy Sector: Uses and Challenges

Source: Data Dynamics. 2021. “AI in Energy: Discover How Your Data Can Be the Ultimate Game Changer! Explore 7 Reasons Why It Matters”. Available at: https://www.datadynamicsinc.com/blog-ai-in-energy-your-data-is-the-game-changer-7-reasons-why/

With rising concerns regarding climate change and the increased demand for electricity on power grids around the United States, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the energy sector has emerged to enhance energy efficiency, foster sustainability, and optimize operations. AI is the development of machine learning and intelligent machines that perform tasks previously designated for humans. AI technologies enable energy stakeholders to identify alternative solutions for grid efficiency by compiling and reporting historical energy usage data, projecting future trends in energy consumption, and respond to changing infrastructure conditions and advances. AI promotes sustainable energy practices related to energy production and distribution, smart grids, predictive maintenance, optimized energy consumption, energy demand forecasting, and efficiency of renewable energy systems, creating a more resilient energy ecosystem for customers.

Some AI technologies are equipped with creating advanced algorithms that empower energy stakeholders to analyze data from a variety of sources such as user consumption habits, infrastructure performance and energy patterns, optimizing daily operations, detecting anomalies, and making data driven decisions to drive efficiency and sustainability in the industry.

Data Dynamics, a data management and software company specializing in data analytics, has stated the importance of investments into AI technologies in the energy market for strategies around efficiency of renewable assets, smart monitoring, and decentralized energy markets. They project the change in the energy market is expected to grow steeply from 2020 to 2030, seen in the visual below. At the same time, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to fall by 0.1-0.3 percentage points year-over year as a result of increasing efficiencies from AI.

As with all new technologies, problems can arise from the use of AI. Integration of AI technologies into existing energy infrastructures, given the aging technology or operating systems, could lead to large investments to upgrade the infrastructure hardware and software necessary to minimize disruptions of integrating AI. Security and privacy of the sensitive data collected could be at greater risk of cyber threats and security breaches if measures to safeguard industry data are not thought through. Due to software coding in AI, it can raise ethical implications in terms of biases and fairness to customers for advanced systems, because biases are unknown until AI has been deployed for industry use. While there are still many challenges to be thought through for emerging AI in energy, this new technology presents an opportunity to address energy challenges and reduce environmental impacts.

Deja Garraway

Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

The Impact of the Clean Heat Standard on Heating Energy

Source: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. December 7, 2023. Massachusetts Clean Heat Standard Technical Session: Draft framework Review [PowerPoint Slide]. Available at: https://www.mass.gov/doc/presentation-framework-technical-session-slides/download

In 2022, Massachusetts adopted the Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2025 and 2030 in which the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was tasked with the development of a program that would reduce heating emissions in all sector. In 2023, DEP proposed a potential framework for a state-wide Clean Heat Standard (CHS), which would place the existing annual compliance obligations on energy suppliers. The obligations in the framework correspond to emissions reductions for both fuel and electric suppliers, with obligations first falling to fuel suppliers, and then adding requirements for electric suppliers as electrification progresses.

With the vast majority of Massachusetts residents relying on fossil fuel for their heating, the CHS provides a way to reduce emissions as it promotes movement away from fossil fuels and towards electrification. Opponents of the CHS argue that residents will be forced to convert to electric systems and left facing higher heating bills. While the CHS does not require homeowners and businesses to make clean heat choices, consumers will incur the incremental costs of transitioning to clean energy as fuel and electric providers begin to increase the percentage of clean heat they provide. However, the electrification goals of Massachusetts’ Climate Plan will reduce the number of customer relying on fossil fuels for heating, which will increase the costs to remaining consumers regardless of the CHS. Currently, fossil fuel heating results in higher energy bills than electric heating according to the Department of Energy Resources. Long-term health and financial savings of the CHS may outweigh the short-term costs to consumers as the clean energy transition begins.

Jordan Burt

Research Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Justice40 and the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool

World Resources Institute. 2022. Cumulative Burden of Disadvantaged Communities. Available at: https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/6-takeaways-ceq-climate-and-economic-justice-screening-tool

In January of 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14008 establishing the Justice40 Initiative. The goal of this program is to allocate 40 percent of benefits from certain federal investments to disadvantaged, marginalized communities that have been overburdened by the climate crisis. One example of this investment can be seen in the $2 billion earmarked from Inflation Reduction Act funds to support new community-driven projects.

To determine which communities will receive funding, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) developed the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, which produces community-scale metrics related to climate change, energy, health, legacy pollution, and workforce development.

A critical data point missing from the CEJST is race and ethnicity. Black and Latino communities have been disproportionately impacted by climate change for years. According to one study, Black and Latino communities respectively face 56 percent and 63 percent more pollution than is released due to their consumption. This compares to white communities, which experience 17 percent less pollution than they cause through consumption.

This decision has been questioned because race is often considered a key determining factor of who lives with the consequences of environmental harm. Emory University School of Law Professor Dorothy A. Brown has voiced a dissenting view of the CEJST, saying, “In 2022, if you want to help Black people, you’re going to get sued. So either you’re with the effort to help Black people or you’re not. But you can’t be timid about it.”

The data on race and ethnicity were deliberately kept out of CEJST due to legal concerns stemming from the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Affirmative Action. This omission will make it more difficult to ensure areas most affected by climate change are protected. However, multiple solutions have been proposed. In 2022, the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council provided a list of suggested improvements including adding indicators of structural racism (i.e. redlining, and segregation, etc.) to the CEJST and consulting with Native American and tribal groups to determine how Justice40 can best serve their people.. Further, one study by professors from multiple universities including the University of Washington, and UC Berkeley, suggests that using location-based approaches can reduce racial/ethnic exposure gaps.

Because the Justice40 Initiative was implemented so recently, there are few studies evaluating its efficacy. However, the Biden-Harris Administration has created an Environmental Justice Scorecard to evaluate the federal government’s progress on tackling environmental inequities. To date, all federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defense among others, have only been scored on the Phase One scorecard, which assesses the advancement of Justice40, implementation and enforcement of environmental and civil rights laws, and solidification of the goal of environmental justice throughout the federal government. In the coming years it will be crucial that the Justice40 initiative proves that can enact real change and adjust, if needed, to address the roots of environmental justice.

Lila McNamee

Research Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

The Inflation Reduction Act is Investing in Nuclear. Should It?

Source: Jacoby, M. March 30, 2020. “As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions.” Chemical & Engineering News. Available at: https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 is a $780 billion federal effort to stimulate the economy and advance U.S. infrastructure through tax breaks and other incentives. With almost half of the IRA funding dedicated to climate actions, a key goal of the IRA is to address the climate crisis by generously funding clean energy, climate mitigation, agriculture, and conservation-related programs. The IRA exclusively set aside $700 million for nuclear research, and nuclear infrastructure projects are eligible for $250 billions worth of loans, amongst several tax credits.

Nuclear has long been an important energy source. Electric generation from nuclear facilities results in no direct carbon emissions and is the most efficient and reliable energy source, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. It is currently the largest source of clean power in the U.S., producing more than half of U.S. carbon-free electricity. The nuclear industry also supports half a million jobs and contributes $60 billion to the nation’s gross domestic product each year.

The IRA supports nuclear energy by both providing a tax break and funds to support nuclear facilities and research. The IRA provides financing for some nuclear energy facilities and has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to support research on fuel (high-assay low-enriched uranium), particularly for commercial use. While there is no direct allocation of funds towards existing nuclear plants, the IRA has also appropriated $150 million to the Office of Nuclear Energy (ONE) to assist with advanced reactor projects and oversight of the existing nuclear fleet and infrastructure. The IRA also provides a tax break, in the form of a Production Tax Credit (PTC) for qualifying nuclear facilities, including those that already exist. In an effort to prevent existing facilities from closing, these facilities can receive credit for each kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity produced. The ONE claims that the IRA-funded PTC is a “game changer for nuclear energy” as it helps “preserve the existing fleet of nuclear plants.”

IRA funding for nuclear supports the mining of uranium, as well as the eventual disposal of its radioactive waste. Radioactive nuclear waste is unstable and poses health risks for thousands of years. High doses of radiation lead to health risks, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, or even radiation sickness and death at very high doses. Radioactive waste also affects the local ecosystem through thermal pollutions during the cooling process, the release of toxins and degradation of habits from surface mining, and DNA damage to marine species due to radioactive leakages from waste disposal.

The United States has accumulated over 85,000 metric tons of waste from spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants that have no clear designation for permanent disposal. This waste has been temporarily disposed, mostly in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina (Figure 1). The amount of nuclear waste grows by about 2,000 metric tons a year, and it is anticipated that the federal government will pay tens of billions of dollars in the coming decades in damages to utilities for failing to dispose of this waste, on top of the billions of dollars already paid. Without a permanent, regulated, and maintained disposal site, the safety of continued and potentially expanded nuclear energy production is questionable.

Disproportionate dispersion of the burdens of hosting uranium mines and nuclear waste storage facilities can lead to environmental injustices. Low-income and minority communities are disproportionately targeted with nuclear facilities and waste disposal sites. Radioactive waste from spent uranium fuel particularly harm frontline communities - which are often Indigenous, of color, poor, and rural - due to both proximity, lack of resources, and racial and class discrimination.

With nuclear qualifying for PTC, amongst other funding opportunities, the IRA recognizes the potential for nuclear power plants to provide a low-carbon source of electricity by increasing incentives to produce nuclear-generated electricity. As such, the IRA acknowledges that nuclear plants have played and continue to play a significant role in the nation’s clean energy transition, despite the controversy surrounding them. Nuclear certainly has the potential to provide a substantial amount of clean energy to the nation, but the questions arise: “at what cost” and “to whom”? Plans to continue and potentially expand the U.S. nuclear fleet must carefully consider how uranium is extracted and where the waste will end up, to ensure that the clean energy transition is also just.

Alicia Zhang

Research Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Mis/Disinformation: A Climate of Deceit

Source: McNutt, M. 2022. Misinformation: addressing the challenge. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, 88, 8150821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43538-022-00122-0

Since the late 1980s, fossil fuel corporations have engaged in mis- and disinformation by adamantly denying that human activity has caused climate change. In 1989, ExxonMobil publicly stated that “enhanced greenhouse is still deeply imbedded in scientific uncertainty,” and even established the Global Climate Coalition to question the scientific basis for climate change.

Misinformation and disinformation are closely related, but separate concepts. Misinformation is the sharing of information that is false or incorrect. Disinformation is the deliberate spread of misinformation with the intent to mislead. False information can generally be categorized by three broad buckets: (1) outright denial that climate change is occurring, (2) cherry-picking, in which certain data are selected to give a false image, and (3) providing false solutions. Illustrations of misinformation includes “climate change is not real and/or is not related to human activities” or “renewables and electric vehicles are useless or dangerous.”

In an urgent time to transition to clean energy, misinformation is hindering renewable energy projects across the United States. Some communities have become suspicious about clean energy projects, challenging local engagement. Recently, in October 2023, climate scientists and fossil fuel industry supporters have clashed in Texas over whether the association between climate change and human activities should be included in middle school textbooks.

Climate action is one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations. To combat mis/disinformation, climate change information, together with its sources, should always be carefully assessed for accuracy and trustworthiness, especially if the information targets scientists personally and generally denies climate science. Any person who is referenced in the report should be an expert on the subject, and the information provided should not selectively exclude any details.

Alicia Zhang

Research Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Emissions Reductions Through Renewable Generation

Source: (1) U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2023. “Energy-Related CO2 Emissions.” Available at: https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/; (2) U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates [Table S0101]. Available at:https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S0101?q=population&g=010XX00US$0400000&moe=false

Within the United States, the energy sector produces the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, with fossil fuel combustion for energy accounting for 73 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2021. Energy-related emissions vary by state, but on a per capita basis, all but seven states produce less than ten metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT of CO2e) per capita. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions (which are produced by fossil fuel-fired power plants and other sources) can undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere creating pollutants such as PM2.5, which can then travel across state lines. This means residents in states that have lower levels of emissions may still face adverse environmental and health impacts from other states’ pollution. North Dakota, Wyoming, and West Virginia have the highest energy-related emissions, with each state producing more than 33 MT of CO2e per capita, which can potentially effect neighboring states.

One way to reduce emissions and improve health outcomes is to develop a greener grid nationwide with renewable generation. In 2022, the United States had over 11,400 operable solar, wind, and hydro units totaling 317 GW of electric capacity. As of August 2023, there were an additional 1,106 proposed solar, wind, and hydro projects planned for operation in the next ten years. The addition of these projects to the grid will help reduce the amount of electricity demand met with fossil fuel generation thereby reducing energy-related emissions. While renewable generation is crucial to reducing energy-related emissions, only 24 new projects are proposed in the states that have over 20 MT of CO2e per capita. With a goal of net zero emissions by 2050, the United States will need to reduce energy-related emissions in every state, with increased renewable energy deployment playing a critical role. High initial capital costs are one of largest barriers to the development of renewable energy. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides a way to reduce this barrier with new incentives for renewable generation. While the IRA helps to make renewable projects economically feasible, if developers in high emissions states do not take advantage of these offers, the deployment of renewable energy facilities may be insufficient to achieve targeted emissions reductions.

Jordan Burt

Assistant Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Massachusetts’s New ‘Community Climate Bank’ Tackles Green Affordable Housing

Massachusetts is taking a step forward in its fight against climate change. This past summer, Massachusetts Governor Healey announced the creation of the Commonwealth’s Community Climate Bank. Unlike other state climate banks, Massachusetts is limited to fueling investment in affordable housing and energy efficiency. The bank will utilize public and private investments to set up a revolving loan fund that provides low-interest, low-risk loans for green building and renovation projects. Potential projects include anything from community solar projects and EV charging stations to deep energy retrofits (e.g., heat pumps, insulation measures, high-efficiency appliances).

Climate/green banks operate with both public and private funding, which allows them to overcome budgetary limitations characteristic of conventional state agency programs. Public funding is funneled into the venture first to set up the operation and attract private capital, which sustains the banks in the long run. The Massachusetts Community Climate Bank will commence operations with $50 million in seed funding from the Department of Environmental Protection. It is also set up to take advantage of unprecedented federal funding available through Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) grants and tax credits. The IRA is expected to allocate $20 billion to establish a national green bank and another $7 billion to state banks.

In addition to public funds, the Massachusetts Community Climate Bank stands to attract and take advantage of private funding. Traditionally, private capital has been hesitant to invest in renewable energy and environmental infrastructure due to high risks compared to other industries. Green banks attract private investors by decreasing perceived risks using financial tools such as aggregation and securitization of assets, as well as credit enhancement schemes. These strategies enable banks to attract large investors that have low-risk tolerance and require a large minimum investment.

Green banks provide governments with a valuable opportunity to accelerate investment in climate and energy infrastructure and programs and meet their emissions reduction targets. In the past decade, operational green banks have demonstrated success in mobilizing significant funding.

While Massachusetts’s decision to prioritize affordable housing decarbonization is unprecedented and interesting, is not surprising. Within the state, the residential sector (excluding electric use) accounts for 19 percent of the Commonwealth’s greenhouse gas emissions, and this figure is much higher (70 percent) for environmental justice communities. As a result, Massachusetts has been working on steadily decarbonizing the sector by focusing on energy efficiency measures and electrification of home heating. Over the last decade, it has cemented itself as a leader in energy efficiency through its Mass Save program. The Community Climate Bank will facilitate this work with an increased focus on creating affordable, energy-efficient housing to lessen the inequitable energy burden faced by low-income households.

Low-income households spend more on housing in proportion to their income than higher-income households. This also applies to energy costs—low-income households spend more on household energy costs. In Massachusetts, the average energy burden for a low-income household is about 10 percent; this figure can be as high as 31 percent in certain neighborhoods. In contrast, the average household energy burden for all income groups within the Commonwealth is 3 percent. Studies have shown that as the effects of climate change intensify, such as hotter summers, so will the need for increased energy demand to keep places livable. The energy burden for low-income households is expected to rise.

Developing energy-efficient affordable housing and providing retrofits to make already existing homes more energy-efficient are effective ways to address the energy burden in low-income households. For instance, using more energy-efficient air conditioning systems can reduce cooling consumption by up to 70 percent in low-income households thereby decreasing their overall energy burden. The Massachusetts Community Climate Banks’s affordable housing decarbonization focus positions the state to not only drastically reduce its carbon emissions but also tackle social inequity.

One potential development to remain cautious of is the possibility of green gentrification. The bank’s investments in housing decarbonization might inadvertently lead to increased property values and rent, causing the displacement of already vulnerable communities. Robust policies are essential to prevent green gentrification by ensuring housing security and channeling benefits to those who need them most.

Massachusetts’ Community Climate Bank offers the Commonwealth a valuable opportunity to accelerate its work in energy efficiency while meeting the housing needs of vulnerable communities. The success of this initiative will depend on effective management, community involvement, and an unwavering commitment to equity.

Sumera Patel

Assistant Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

The Costs and Benefits of Domestic Production of Electric Vehicles

Image source: Inside Climate News. “The EV Battery Boom Is Here, With Manufacturers Investing Billions in Midwest Factories” Available at: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27102022/the-ev-battery-boom-is-here-with-manufacturers-investing-billions-in-midwest-factories/

Electric vehicle (EV) adoption has accelerated in recent years with EV sales increasing from just 0.2 percent of total car sales in 2011 to 4.6 percent of sales in 2021. It is estimated that EVs could reach 40 to 50 percent of total vehicle sales in the United States by 2030. The federal government has incentivized EV sales by providing an income tax credit for new EV purchases. The first EV tax credit was introduced in 2008 with a cap of $3,400 and was available to the first 60,000 cars per manufacturer. The cap was raised to $7,500 for the first 200,000 cars per manufacturer under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) changed sourcing standards for this tax credit so that only vehicles with a certain percentage of battery minerals and components coming from North America or United States’ trade partners are eligible. This sourcing requirement incentivizes domestic production of EV batteries.

BloombergNEF analysts found that lithium-ion cell capacity is expected to increase seven-fold in North America between 2022 and 2030. This increase in domestic battery manufacturing may have some benefits for the global environment depending on the restructuring of the supply chains over time. For example, producing batteries and their components closer to where there is demand for EVs will reduce emissions. In addition, the United States uses more nickel from secondary sources, which can further reduce the carbon footprint of EVs. However, this may cause concern in communities that have been harmed by the automotive industry.

While EVs produce fewer emissions over their lifecycle compared to gas vehicles, the manufacturing of EVs produces as much as 80 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than internal combustion engine vehicle manufacturing. A 2023 study found that returning EV battery production to the manufacturer’s country of origin can reduce carbon emissions in the manufacturing process, but it depends on advances in technology and changes in the supply chain.

The surge in North American battery production is being driven by the downstream portion of the EV supply chain in which plants assemble battery packs rather than extracting and processing raw materials. Additional environmental issues will arise if domestic mineral extraction increases. The extraction process for lithium requires an immense amount of scarce fresh water and negatively impacts local ecosystems through water pollution and soil erosion.

Moving forward, environmental justice will be a key issue in EV production. Although new and updated plants and mining operations generate jobs and can benefit local economies, they also produce pollution. Both battery manufacturing and mining location decisions should consider groups that have historically been harmed by automotive manufacturing, including low-income individuals and people of color. A 2021 Empowering a Green Environment and Economy report notes that one way to make the transition to EV production more equitable is to involve community leaders representing these groups in the policy- and decision-making processes. Developing and implementing greener technology should also be a top priority.

Alannah Shute

Research Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series