• Home
  • About
    • Our People
    • Mission and Funding
    • 990 Filings
    • Governance and Disclosure Statements
  • Our Work
    • Publications
    • Newsletters
    • Equity Resources
  • Blog
  • Jobs
    • Internships
    • AEC Fellowship
    • Careers
  • Pro Bono Fund
    • Pro Bono Fund
    • Donate
    • MassCEC Empower Grant
Applied Economics Clinic
  • Home
  • About
    • Our People
    • Mission and Funding
    • 990 Filings
    • Governance and Disclosure Statements
  • Our Work
    • Publications
    • Newsletters
    • Equity Resources
  • Blog
  • Jobs
    • Internships
    • AEC Fellowship
    • Careers
  • Pro Bono Fund
    • Pro Bono Fund
    • Donate
    • MassCEC Empower Grant

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.

tags: Sumera Patel
Thursday 01.02.25
Posted by Liz Stanton
 

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.

tags: Sumera Patel
Wednesday 09.11.24
Posted by Liz Stanton
 

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

tags: Sumera Patel
Monday 04.08.24
Posted by Liz Stanton
 

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

tags: Sumera Patel
Thursday 11.16.23
Posted by Liz Stanton
 

Energy Transition: Numbers are Not the Only Thing that Matter When It Comes to Jobs

Major environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club have recently popularized the concept of a “just energy transition” – a framework for focusing on equity and accountability in the shift away from fossil fuels toward a clean energy economy. One of the major challenges facing a just energy transition is providing pathways for former fossil fuel workers to shift into well-paying, permanent jobs.  A popular proposal among policy experts for tackling this complex problem is to encourage former fossil fuel workers to transition into clean energy jobs. Research from academic and advocacy organizations alike predicts that the upsurge in clean energy/renewables sector jobs will more than compensate for the number of lost fossil fuel jobs. However, this research sometimes overlooks the quality of new jobs in terms of pay and job security—an important consideration that is not guaranteed under a status quo shift toward renewables.

A 2020 report from Indiana University’s Public Policy Institute examines the impacts of the ongoing energy transition in Indiana and includes a breakdown of coal and clean energy jobs in the United States by employment type or sector in 2018. Most coal jobs fall under mining, utilities, and wholesale sectors and can be qualified as permanent, blue-collar work. In contrast, most employment opportunities available in the renewables industry are temporary construction jobs. This discrepancy—in terms of wages, benefits, and job security—between the quality of jobs lost versus jobs gained during the transition presents a major policy challenge for stakeholders to navigate.

Coal mining jobs are generally well-paying, union jobs that have played central roles in their respective communities for a long time. For workers in these jobs, switching to a job in the renewables sector often means taking pay cuts for temporary, non-union construction jobs requiring extensive travel outside their communities—sometimes even across state lines. Simply focusing on the number of jobs gained and ignoring the decline in quality of life associated with such job transitions undermines the principles of equity and accountability that underlie the vision of a just transition. Policies and programs directing the decarbonization of the energy sector must better serve impacted communities and their local economies. For instance, policies/programs could focus more on sustained investment in impacted communities that leads to resilient, diversified local economies upon which communities can fully depend. Achieving a just transition by addressing both climate change and socioeconomic inequalities requires more thoughtful policymaking. 

Sumera Patel

Assistant Researcher


This is a part of the AEC Blog series

tags: Sumera Patel
Thursday 06.29.23
Posted by Liz Stanton