Equitable Development of Open Spaces

Open spaces are undeveloped pieces of land that are accessible to the public. They take the form of schoolyards, playgrounds, seating areas, plazas, empty lots, and green spaces like parks, community gardens, and cemeteries.

Open spaces are on the rise in urban areas across the United States due to the aesthetic, economic, environmental, and social benefits that they provide. Parks and green spaces improve mental health by reducing anxiety, depression, and stress, while also promoting economic activity. Particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, parks and green spaces have been a place of refuge for people to get outside, exercise, view nature, and socialize at a safe distance. In addition, green spaces in urban areas provide cleaner air, stormwater control, and cooler temperatures.

Unfortunately, despite all the good open spaces can provide, they can also drive-up property values by as much as 20 percent, pushing low-income families out of adjacent neighborhoods. In other words, “upgrading” a neighborhood by adding an open space can result in gentrification: displacement of the current residents and businesses. According to a study of five medium-sized U.S. cities, the odds of gentrification of a neighborhood increase by more than 200 percent when a new greenway park is placed within a half-mile.  

Gentrification tends to occur when the development of an open space lacks community involvement. Placemaking, the development of public spaces led by the community instead of a private entity, can help to prevent this unintended consequence by ensuring that the space connects to, and serves, the people that already reside there. Moreover, the type of open space matters. Linear greenways and parks that are located close to downtown areas are closely tied to gentrification. Avoiding these types of open spaces can reduce the risk of gentrification, but at the cost of green-space benefits.

Open spaces are integral parts of the well-being of a community, especially in urban areas. They provide places for socialization, community organizing, exercise, and other essential activities. Mindful development of these spaces, with community interests and needs at the forefront, can improve access to these spaces without changing the makeup of the neighborhood.  

Tanya Stasio Research Assistant

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Woke Washing in Energy Planning

You’ve heard of “green washing”: creating an environmentally sound image that is a false or a only surface deep in order to deceive consumers, voters, or policy-makers. Like solar panels powering the lights in a coal plant.

Woke washing? That’s the newly coined term for performative equity-promoting actions that get good press but fail to address systemic racism, gender disparities, and the ongoing marginalization of communities.

Woke washing is most commonly associated with the world of brand marketing: for example, when Nike announced that Colin Kaepernick would be the face of their new campaign in 2018 (after he was barred by the NFL for his peaceful protests against racial injustice), Nike was simultaneously facing allegations about its sweatshop conditions in developing countries as well as allegations that its corporate culture was misogynistic and toxic.

In the energy planning field, we see woke washing when well-intentioned energy policies that reduce greenhouse gases are assumed to enhance equity because poor communities will suffer the worst damages of future climate change and, therefore, any policy that addresses climate change must be good for equity.

We see woke washing when energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives are offered in the form of loans that poor households and households with bad credit can’t access, or in the form of rebates that require a substantial upfront capital investment that only richer households can afford.

We see woke washing when emission reduction programs focus on electric vehicles and homeowner benefits that lower costs for wealthier, whiter households while excluding lower-income households, bus-riders, and renters.

For example, in Massachusetts, the MOR-EV program (which pays rebates up to $2,500 for the purchase or lease of a new electric vehicle) has primarily benefited households living in the wealthiest areas of the Commonwealth. Almost 80 percent of MOR-EV rebates have gone to communities where the household income is higher than the state median; only 9 percent went to communities where the household income is lower than the state median. In addition, a full third of the program’s total expenditures supported the purchase of Tesla vehicles—a luxury car.

Achieving true climate equity means remedying the disproportionate effects of climate change and accounting for historical disparities that create vulnerability in the first place. The best way to develop a deep understanding of disparities, inequities, and burdens is to hear from those affected by them by giving them a meaningful role in decision-making. Achieving true climate equity also means being transparent about progress and/or backsliding as the case may be, and remaining accountable to equity goals and the public at large.

Dr. Liz Stanton Director and Senior Economist

Dr. Bryndis Woods Senior Researcher

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

The Progressive Potential of a Carbon Dividend

As climate change becomes an increasingly prominent part of politics, it is painfully clear that the United States lacks an effective carbon price. An emissions trading scheme operates in California with a floor of $17.71 per ton, but failed at the national level during President Obama’s first term. In 2019, members of Congress introduced a new approach to carbon pricing: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA). The bill establishes a tax on carbon dioxide of $10 per ton and would increase that price annually by $10 per ton. A 2019 analysis at Columbia University projected that the tax on its own could reduce emissions between 36-38 percent by 2030.

Carbon taxes have declined in political popularity in recent years—including on the left. The tax is seen as a deviation from the massive public investment and industrial policy needed to move the economy. As demonstrated by the fight over I-732 in Washington State, there are difficult political concerns over equitably disbursing revenue and offsetting cash flow impacts on low-income families. The gilet jaunes protests over French President Emmanuel Macron’s gas tax increases highlight the pitfalls of “sin” taxes, especially ones that expect voters to bear price hikes on common staples without compensation.

EICDA bypasses much of this debate by simply sending all collected revenue back to individuals. There is promise to this fee-and-dividend approach. Remitting the revenue would still allow the tax to raise the price of dirty energy and thereby offer a competitive advantage to energy efficient appliances, cleaner vehicles, and green electricity. In addition, remitting the revenue equally across taxpayers is progressive. In a piece for the People’s Policy Project, Anders Fremsted and Mark Paul note that carbon emissions increase substantially as people’s incomes increase. The richest earners emit over  15 tons of carbon dioxide per year more than the poorest earners. Those rich earners would pay more under a carbon tax. But the dividend ensures that low-income voters are compensated for the larger percentage hit to their monthly budgets.  

Those reimbursements could also allow a higher carbon tax rate. Initially, the size of the monthly dividend under the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act would be $16-$24 per month. This modest dividend would increase with the tax rate. But Fremsted and Paul propose a much higher starting price of $230 per ton, purposefully engineered to force a faster adjustment from fossil fuels. Under their scheme, the dividend would increase annual costs to the poorest 10 percent of earners by $866, while paying them $1,371. The richest individuals would pay $2,501 per year. Meanwhile, the bottom half of earners would see a boost in earnings. The same would be true under EICDA, in which dividends prove a net benefit to low and middle income households.  Evidence from Canada’s carbon tax and dividend supports this argument. Their federal $40 per ton price yielded average annual net benefits to households of $74 in Ontario and $346 in Alberta, the center of the Canadian oil industry. These net earnings might just be the key to making aggressive carbon taxation politically sustainable.  

Chirag Lala Research Assistant

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Renewable Energy Hits Record Growth in 2020 Despite COVID-19 Set-Back

2020 was a record year for renewable energy despite early setbacks relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that net installed renewable capacity grew by nearly 4 percent and accounted for almost 90 percent of the increase in total power capacity worldwide. This growth was driven in part by the United States, where large-scale capacity additions grew at a record pace, and local governments invested in more renewable energy than ever before. These trends will likely continue as state and local governments ramp up efforts to achieve 2030 and 2050 emission reduction targets.

The COVID-19 pandemic was expected to delay renewable projects that had planned operational dates in 2020. Many government-mandated quarantines included construction suspensions which slowed renewable infrastructure development for the first half of 2020. However, in late 2020 IEA had to revise their May 2020 forecast for renewable capacity additions for the year. Construction activity in the United States unexpectedly ramped up in the second half of 2020 as restrictions started to ease, pointing to a fast recovery from pandemic delays. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reported on a utility-scale construction boom in the United States which led to 17 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy added in 2020; an 85 percent increase in added capacity compared to 2019. Total solar capacity alone more than doubled to 11 GW.

As more renewable capacity is installed in 2021, local governments in the United States are procuring renewable energy at a record level. According to the American Cities Climate Challenge Transaction Tracker, local governments built 3.7 GW of new renewables in 2020, compared to 2.9 GW in 2019. That is a 23 percent increase from 2019, and 207 percent increase from 2017. Despite cities facing severe budget shortfalls due to the COVID-19 pandemic, local governments are continuing to procure renewable energy—a promising sign for emission reduction targets across the nation.

Renewable energy investments are forecasted to continue their growth through the next few years. The Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Short Term Energy Outlook forecasts the share of total electric power generated with solar and wind capacity to increase from 20 percent in 2020 to 21 percent in 2021 and 22 percent in 2022. At the same time, EIA expects the share of electric power generated with gas to fall from 36 percent in 2021 to 35 percent in 2022, driven primarily by rising gas prices and new additions of solar and wind generating capacity.

In 2020, renewable energy projects weathered unexpected stoppages and still emerged with record growth. This highlights the resiliency of renewable energy investments, and the significant progress being made towards emission targets in the United States.

Eliandro Tavares Assistant Researcher

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

The Untapped Potential of Offshore Wind

Renewable sources like solar and land-based wind are becoming larger parts of the U.S. energy supply. However, the potential of offshore wind to supply clean, renewable energy is still largely untapped. The costs of offshore wind have fallen over the past decade making it an affordable, low environmental-impact, alternative for the dirtier energy sources that are on their way out.  

Offshore wind development provides indirect environmental benefits by replacing polluting energy sources and direct economic benefits by providing jobs for wind farm operation and maintenance, and construction of related infrastructure. Beyond local jobs, offshore wind provides local power, reducing the need for imported power from neighboring states or countries.

Twenty-nine states have the potential to generate offshore wind energy. As states move towards their decarbonization goals, taking advantage of this potential is essential. A large part of decarbonization is relying less on fossil fuels like gas, oil, and coal to heat our buildings; meaning most (or all) of our energy system will need to transition to electric power. Electrification of the energy system will increase electricity demand, requiring even more renewable energy.

 Solar and wind sources, coupled with battery storage, are poised to play a major role in the nation’s future energy system. Support from the Biden Administration, decarbonization commitments by states, and lots of new investment are all fueling the offshore wind movement. States along the east coast have already committed to purchasing about 30 GW offshore wind by 2035.

The potential for offshore wind in the United States has been left unused, but not for long. With support from federal, state and local government, increasing affordability, and the push towards renewable energy sources, offshore wind is poised to play an important role in the future of the nation’s energy system.

Tanya Stasio Research Assistant

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Cleaning up with "Zero Waste"

Since April 22, 1970, Earth Day has been celebrated as a day of action to bring awareness and support to environmental issues. This year’s theme, “Restore Our Earth,” inspires participants to repair and rebuild the world’s ecosystems through environmental literacy, reforestation, sustainable food practices, citizen science, and a global waste cleanup.

The global waste problem presents a continuous threat to the wellbeing of communities and ecosystems. Although individual action through cleanups has been successful in removing litter and debris from roadways, shorelines, and public spaces, we also need upstream interventions by local governments and manufacturers that take a holistic approach to waste management.

“Zero Waste” is one such strategy that many communities across the United States and around the world have adopted to improve their waste management systems. The Zero Waste International Alliance defines “zero waste” as:

“The conservation of all resources by means of responsible production, consumption, reuse, and recovery of products, packaging, and materials without burning and with no discharges to land, water, or air that threaten the environment or human health.”

While this approach to waste management seeks to increase recycling and composting efforts, it also focuses on rethinking the production of materials. Under the zero-waste framework, the materials we use for packaging, electronics, and other goods are made to be more durable, repairable, reusable, and fully recyclable or compostable, which significantly reduces the amount of waste sent to landfills and incinerators.

Today, waste disposal not only generates substantial air and water pollution, but also releases greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Zero waste strategies offer an opportunity for cities and towns to clean up their waste management practices by changing the way we consume and dispose of materials while also achieving emission reductions and creating a healthier environment.

Joshua Castigliego Researcher

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

The Benefits of Targeting Co-Pollutants While Reducing Greenhouse Gases

A new report from the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI)—Green for All: Integrating Air Quality and Environmental Justice into the Clean Energy Transition—argues that policies focused solely on reductions in carbon dioxide may increase the harms from other pollutants on Black, Hispanic, and low-income populations. Fossil fuel sources release greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. No matter where it is released, more carbon dioxide contributes to the increase in global temperatures. However, burning fossil fuels also generate “co-pollutants” that have more local impacts. Ignoring those co-pollutants has costs to public health. Air pollution alone can decrease average life expectancy by 1.6 years. And these impacts tend to be concentrated low-income communities and communities of color due to the systematic siting of gas, oil and coal-fired power plants near their homes.

California—-which focused specifically on statewide greenhouse gases reductions throughout its cap-and-trade system—offers an example. With a modeled a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions, the PERI report found a doubling in health and welfare impacts from co-pollutant and a tripling for Black residents in particular. A separate study in the journal, PLoS medicine, noted that California reduced emissions by replacing out-of-state coal energy with domestically sourced natural gas generation, causing an increase in co-pollutants.  

The alternative to a sole focus on greenhouse gas reductions is a strategy that also requires reductions in co-pollutants, both nationally and in specific communities. The PERI report studied the results of adding these additional requirements to a 20% national reduction of CO2-equivalent emissions. The requirements are designed to emphasize the geographic distribution of air quality benefits and to reshape decisions on which gas plants are tapped for additional generation.

PERI found that mandating a 50 percent reduction in nationwide damages from co-pollutant generated $9.56 billion in benefits, while only costing an additional $4.81 billion. On top of this, emphasizing 50 percent damage reductions in black, brown, and low-income communities generated another $10.61 billion in benefits, while only costing $4.84 billion more. Without these additional requirements, these co-pollutant damages from natural gas increased by 30 percent - even if they fell overall across the country. They would disproportionately fall on Hispanic communities, who tend to live near gas-fired units. Not only do these communities benefit from an environmental-justice target, but they do so without a change in the overall gas-coal mix for the country.

These results have clear implications for decarbonization beyond the electricity sector. In a previous post, I noted the benefits of prioritizing Asian-American communities – who suffer disproportionately from vehicular air pollution – during the rollout of electric busses. Eliminating co-pollutant hotspots will also be crucial as the U.S. builds an electric charging infrastructure. Making the transition equitable will also make everyone healthier.

Chirag Lala Research Assistant

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Puerto Rico's Electric Infrastructure Today

In 2017, Hurricane Maria caused immense damage to Puerto Rico and the surrounding Caribbean Islands. A report submitted by the Puerto Rican government to congress in 2018 estimated that it would require almost $140 billion for the island to fully recover. Eighty percent of the island were without power several weeks after the storm. It took Puerto Rico almost a year to restore power completely, and even still, the island’s infrastructure remains vulnerable to the heightened climate events, like many other parts of the country.

Puerto Rico’s energy utility (PREPA) developed an integrated resource plan (IRP) in June 2019, which Clinic Director, Dr. Liz Stanton, recommended the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau reject. Elements of the IRP included a proposed modernization of the grid over twenty years, with the installation of 1.4 GW of solar and 0.9 GW of battery storage, but also the retrofitting of oil-fired plants to burn natural gas and diesel. The Puerto Rican government also passed the Public Energy Policy Law of Puerto Rico, which establishes a 100 percent renewable goal by 2050, with intermediary goals of 40 percent renewables by 2025 and making coal obsolete by 2028.

Following Hurricane Maria, Governor Rosselló (who resigned after accusations of corruption), launched the privatization of PREPA. This process has been ripe with corruption too—PREPA established a no-bid contract with Whitefish Energy Holdings, which was connected to then-U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, and Cobra Acquisitions, a large fracking company, earned $1.8 billion in federal contracts to repair the grid. Company officials were later charged with bribery and fraud.

Near the end of 2020, the Trump Administration announced the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) authorization of $9.6 billion to rebuild the island’s power infrastructure, a fraction of what is likely required to modernize the grid, ensure resiliency, and move towards renewables. New York State Governor Cuomo renewed an ongoing partnership with the New York Power Authority and PREPA to assist in developing a spending plan for FEMA’s funds, along with establishing other best practices. This year, PREPA issued a request for proposals to procure 1 GW of renewable energy resource capacity in February 2021. The future of Puerto Rico’s energy infrastructure, along with PREPA’s unstable process towards privatization, is plagued with uncertainty, even as ongoing partnerships and aid packages are assisting in slowly modernizing the grid.

Myisha Majumder Research Assistant

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Solar-Battery Storage Hybrids are All the Rage

The U.S. electric grid is decarbonizing and is likely to continue to do so given the increasing competitiveness of renewable resources over traditional resources. Most markedly, solar photovoltaic (PV) installations have skyrocketed in recent years due to plummeting technology costs. Solar PV provides low-cost, low-risk energy that coincides with hours of the highest level of demand, which for most utilities is during hot summer afternoons.

But a high enough concentration of solar PV shifts the need for power to the evening, after the sun has set. This necessitates resources that can quickly provide power to pick up the slack. Effectively, the default resource to serve this need was a natural gas combustion turbine (CT), which can rapidly generate power without the lead time required of a coal or nuclear plant. Many capacity markets in the United States are based on the premise that a CT is the “marginal” capacity resource filling this need for rapid response. But in recent years, battery storage has become a more attractive way to fulfil this need. Solar PV and battery resources can be sited together (a solar-battery “hybrid”) whereby the solar PV charges the battery during the day and the battery can discharge that power at night. Battery resources that are paired with solar PV can also get the same federal tax credits as the solar resource.

Utilities are increasingly adopting renewable and storage technologies for both policy and purely economic reasons. For instance, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) is replacing the retiring San Juan coal plant with solar and battery hybrids, and the company is asking for approval to do the same for its share of the Palo Verde nuclear plant. PNM illustrated the value and complementarity of solar and battery storage hybrids below:

Source: Copy of Figure NS-3 from Direct Testimony of Nicolai Schlag, Before the New Mexico Regulation Commission, Case No. 21-04-02-UT, p.11.

The boom in solar PV, storage, and hybrids is not a flash in the pan. Like solar PV, battery storage costs have fallen dramatically and are expected to continue to decrease markedly in the future. While both resources are attractive, when combined, they are mutually beneficial. Expect to see many more in the near future. 

Tyler Comings Senior Researcher

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Boston's Journey to Carbon Neutrality: Buildings Sector

In 2019, the Boston Green Ribbon Commission and Boston University’s Institute for Sustainable Energy released the Carbon Free Boston report showing a path forward for carbon neutrality for the city and recommending detailed solutions. Later in 2019, the City released its updated Climate Action Plan, with a refined goal of achieving carbon neutrality in 2050.

One critical sector for emissions in the City is buildings. The Climate Action plan includes eighteen strategies, with five focusing on buildings: a net-zero standard for municipal buildings (achieved), a net-zero standard for City-funded affordable housing (in progress), update zoning to a zero net carbon standard (in progress), energy efficiency in municipal buildings (in progress), and developing a building emissions performance standard (in progress). Carbon Free Boston explained that Boston has an older building stock with less insulation and older, inefficient equipment, like HVAC systems. These factors contribute to higher energy use, and thus, higher GHG emissions. Newer buildings are required to have better insulation and more efficient heating, cooling, and appliances.

One of the tools the Carbon Free Boston team emphasized was the Boston’s Building Energy Reporting and Disclosure Ordinance (BERDO). Established in 2013, BERDO requires reports on large buildings’ annual energy and water usage, as well as GHG emissions, which are then made publicly available. The Ordinance also requires large buildings to undergo energy assessments every five years.  

This year, Boston has made efforts to strengthen its BERDO rule, and has released a draft summary of improvements and changes for public comment. The two largest upgrades include the introduction of a building emissions performance standard within BERDO, and an acknowledgment and emphasis of environmental justice concerns. These improvements to BERDO will be crucial for Boston reducing their GHG emissions and reaching carbon neutrality in a way that also promotes equity.

A previous version of the blog stated Boston’s 2019 updated climate goals to be reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 25 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, which were the CAPs original 2011 goals.

Myisha Majumder Research Assistant

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Resilience in the Energy Sector: Lessons Learned from Extreme Climate Events

To build a reliable and resilient energy sector, communities must consider current and future hazards in assessing the vulnerability of their energy systems. The effects of climate events around the United States and the adaptations these communities made to be better prepared in the future provide a helpful window into the benefits of current investments in preventing future vulnerability.

Texas Medical Center Complex

In 2001, Tropical Storm Allison caused historic flooding in downtown Houston, Texas, causing extensive damage. The 700-acre Texas Medical Center complex, the largest aggregated medical campus in the United States, was shut down temporarily and suffered major losses. Water damage compromised emergency generators, switchgear, boiler, and chiller plant, leaving the Medical Center without electric power, heating and cooling, and other essential systems.

In the aftermath, the Center took steps to improve its infrastructure to withstand future floods. All critical infrastructure and program areas were relocated to higher ground and the organization developed a long-term hazard mitigation plan to reduce the impact of future extreme weather events.

The City of Greensburg, Kansas

In 2007, a 1.7-mile wide, EF-5 tornado struck the City of Greensburg, Kansas, causing severe damages; over 90 percent of buildings were affected. In the wake of the event, Greensburg, which relied heavily on fossil fuels for electrical generation, transitioned to 100 percent wind-derived electricity. In addition, all Greensburg buildings are now required to meet LEED platinum certification.

Greenwich Hospital

In a reverse example, the Greenwich Hospital, located in Greenwich, Connecticut, proactively improved its energy infrastructure so that the facility could withstand powerful storms. The Hospital installed an energy-efficient 1,250-kW combined heat and power (CHP) system and a 2,000-kW backup generator.

As a result of Greenwich Hospital’s proactive resiliency planning, when Hurricane Sandy hit a few years after the upgrades, the Hospital was able to rely on its backup power and continue running after grid power was lost. The backup generators powered the Hospital immediately after grid power was lost and after just a few minutes the facility was able to rely on its CHP system.  

The Take-Away

There are lessons to be learned in these few examples. In Texas and Kansas, communities made changes following devastation from extreme climate events while a proactive hospital in Connecticut was able to continue running while a hurricane left the area powerless. If communities take steps towards improving their infrastructure today, they can avoid devastating losses later.

Tanya Stasio Research Assistant

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Asian Americans are Disproportionately Impacted by Vehicle Air Pollution

In light of repeated incidents of anti-Asian hate in the United States, the Applied Economics Clinic reaffirms its statement on racial equity: AEC stands in solidarity with demands for racial justice, without which environmental and economic justice can never be achieved. In this regard, blog posts for this week will center the connection between environmental justice and Asian American communities.

In 2019, a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis showed that Asian American residents in Massachusetts “are exposed to PM2.5 concentrations from on-road transportation that are, on average 36 percent higher than the exposure of white residents.” Annually, 3 to 4 million deaths are attributed to air pollution from fine particulate matter; PM2.5 by itself is estimated to account for 95 percent of the global public health impact from air pollution. Exposure is associated with health conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, asthma, and slowed-lung function growth in children. In Massachusetts, worse air pollution is concentrated around downtown Boston, the I-93 and 95 corridors, and gateway cities such as Lowell. Boston’s Chinatown has the highest level of vehicle emissions of any neighborhood.

In light of the recent focus on the racism and violence faced by Asian Americans in particular, as well as the codification of environmental justice in Massachusetts’ new climate legislation, differences in air pollution by neighborhood is a timely issue. In 2017, researchers at the University of Texas, El Paso (UTEP) argued that the “model minority” label had resulted in too little focus on the environmental impacts faced by Asian Americans and that too few studies have disaggregated the damages of toxic exposure on Asian American subgroups. Studies that do are revealing. For instance, a 2010 study in Environmental Justice found that 40 percent of the Japanese population in the United States and 30 percent of the Filipino population in the United States live in counties that exceed PM2.5 air quality standards. The UTEP study also found that neighborhoods with higher proportions of Chinese, Korean, and South Asian residences have a higher risk of cancer “significantly greater cancer risk burdens relative to Whites” due to hazardous air pollutants compared to White residences.

When considering how to tackle this problem, there are two places Massachusetts could start. The Applied Economics Clinic (AEC) wrote a report recommending numerous metrics to evaluate various equity and justice impacts for the Massachusetts Climate Justice Working Group’s priorities. The recommendations included building air monitoring stations for environmental justice populations and other historically marginalized communities to ensure effective data collection. New monitoring stations should be paired with a hotspot declassification standard once pollution truly falls below “hotspot” levels. AEC’s recommendations also include proposals to effectively target investment in environmental justice populations.

The second way to tackle this disproportionate exposure to air pollution is the content of environmental investments. The UCS report specifically recommends electrifying bus fleets. If begun with school busses, the benefits on student health from reduced exposure to particulate matter would be notable. Communities will also need assistance in purchasing these busses. As shown by a Massachusetts pilot, they will need assistance managing the battery infrastructure necessary to ensure energy savings from electric school buses are not lost to uncontrolled charging or to so-called “vampire loads” to maintain battery temperature. Finally, technical assistance will be necessary to ensure these busses can match time spent on the road by their diesel counterparts. For Massachusetts itself and communities with large or rapidly growing Asian American populations, attention to this policy area is imperative. It is a clear and tangible area for advancement.

Chirag Lala Research Assistant

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Asian Americans and Environmental Justice: Case Study of Quincy, MA

In light of repeated incidents of anti-Asian hate in the United States, the Applied Economics Clinic reaffirms its statement on racial equity: AEC stands in solidarity with demands for racial justice, without which environmental and economic justice can never be achieved. In this regard, blog posts for this week will center the connection between environmental justice and Asian American communities.

The City of Quincy has the largest Asian American population in the Greater Boston area, second only to Boston itself. Asians make up nearly 30 percent of Quincy’s population. Quincy includes census tracts that meet Massachusetts’ environmental justice communities status for indicators of: Income (Households earn 65 percent or less of the statewide household median income) or Minority (25 percent or more of the residents are racial/ethnic minorities) or both. 

Environmental justice status is especially relevant not only as it relates to the rise of anti-Asian sentiment, but also when looking at systemic indicators of racism. Environmental justice, as discussed in a prior AEC blog, is a key issue in formulating measures to mitigate climate change. By viewing climate change through the lens of environmental justice and equity, disproportionate impacts of the climate crisis can be acknowledged and rectified. Quincy is directly impacted by the Weymouth Compressor, a project that would help move gas between two pipelines, delivering gas to New England and Canada. The Weymouth project posed a direct threat via air and noise pollution to Quincy Point and Germantown, two Quincy communities with predominant Asian ethnicities (29.6 and 39.3 percent, respectively). According to October 2020 reporting by a local news station, residents impacted by the project already had “statistically higher rates of cancer, pediatric asthma, and cardiovascular respiratory diseases”, and the compressor station would exacerbate these preexisting conditions.

AEC Senior Economist Liz Stanton provided testimony critiquing the project, however, it was never filed as the Town of Weymouth ultimately settled with the Enbridge, the compressor station’s developer. Nonetheless, the compressor continues to spark controversy. In March 2021, concerns regarding the need for a gas compressor station in Weymouth were elevated to the federal level, with FERC beginning a review process into the compressor. Notably, FERC Chairperson Glick publicly commented on the environmental justice concerns surrounding the compressor.

A rise in Anti-Asian racism at the societal level directly is closely related to these systemic issues, ranging from government exclusion acts to implementing harmful environmental practices to already vulnerable communities. The Weymouth Compressor project has the potential to further perpetuate inequities in environmental justice communities and, more specifically, promote a systematic undermining of underrepresented minorities, like the large Asian community in Quincy.

Myisha Majumder Research Assistant

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

What is missing from Biden's Climate Plan?

President Joe Biden’s $2 trillion plan to tackle climate change aims to achieve economy-wide net-zero emissions no later than 2050 and invest $400 billion into clean energy. Although the plan is ambitious, it is missing some important elements for successful climate change mitigation like addressing climate migration and infrastructure planning.

President Biden signed several executive orders re-establishing climate standards that were dismantled under the Trump administration. Biden’s goal is to make the United States carbon neutral by 2050, largely by replacing fossil fuel energy generation and transportation with renewables, which are becoming the cheapest energy sources in the United States. Today, the levelized cost of wind energy is $26 per megawatt-hour (MWh) down from $37 per MWh in 2014. In comparison, today’s gas-fired generation costs $28 per megawatt-hour.

While some climate scientists are satisfied with the plan, others believe there are areas that need more attention. Imperial College Director of Research Dr. Joeri Rogeli celebrates the plan’s balanced transition away from fossil fuels, but expresses concern about the lack of detail on how that transition will take place. Director of Boston University’s Institute for Sustainable Energy Peter Fox-Penner thinks additional work is needed in the area of infrastructure planning—specifically to deliver clean fuels to the entire energy network. And Syracuse Associate Geology Professor Dr Farhana Sultana calls for better engagement with climate migrants in the climate plan, as she believes the United State’s contributions to climate change have left the country with a responsibility to provide aid. 

All three of the climate experts lauded Biden’s climate plan, describing it as a bold approach to climate change mitigation that would only be made better with the inclusion of additional mitigation strategies. The President’s administration needs to move quickly to achieve their carbon reduction goals, and employing more strategies will help to diversify the path to carbon neutrality.

Eliandro Tavares Assistant Researcher

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Equity and Environmental Justice

Equity and environmental justice are having a moment.

It has long been acknowledged that climate change poses the gravest threats to those who did the least to cause it—people in poverty, socially and economically vulnerable populations, frontline communities. That said, “environmentalism” as such has remained a stubbornly white, wealthy endeavor. Equity and environmental justice call on environmentalists and environmentalism to go beyond matters of policy and reconceptualize what it means to “do” environmentalism or “be” an environmentalist. To acknowledge that the root causes of climate change are shared with those of other social ills like poverty, racism, and poor health outcomes. To build bigger, deeper coalitions and find allies that are representative of the communities worst affected. And to work for change. The “environment” is more than nature; it is where we work, play and live.

As Hurricane Katrina caused thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions in damages. As poor, minority neighborhoods are still decimated more than a decade later, even as wealthier, whiter neighborhoods have recovered.

As hundreds of unarmed Dakota Access pipeline protestors were injured after police used water cannons in below-freezing temperatures that caused bones to break and people to catch hypothermia.

As the Flint water crisis captured the nation’s attention by: demonstrating the extent to which the complaints of residents had been ignored, giving witness to thousands of children receive lead-contaminated water and people die of Legionnaire’s disease, and taking an astounding five years to resolve.

As the COVID-19 pandemic hit communities of color the hardest, due in large part to the disproportionate levels of harmful pollution in the air they breathe.

These issues (and many more) have compounded in our collective consciousness to forcefully, glaringly, and appallingly demonstrate how existing environmental policies fail to protect vulnerable and marginalized communities. As a result, equity and environmental justice are having a moment—and not a minute to soon, because equity and environmental justice are about basic human rights, fair treatment, meaningful involvement, and shared prosperity.

Dr. Bryndis Woods Senior Researcher

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Proximity to I-93 and Environmental Justice in Somerville, MA

Somerville, Massachusetts is a city just northwest of Boston, one of the most densely populated in the country, and is bisected by several major highways. A 2019 Community Assessment of Freeway Exposure and Health (CAFEH) report focusing on the health impacts of highway proximity finds that most Interstate 93 (I-93) adjacent areas in Somerville are considered Environmental Justice communities. In 1973, the construction of the  I-93 extension through Somerville demolished an existing neighborhood and greatly reduced nearby property values. Air pollution from on-road vehicles is a major contributor to smog and poor air quality, which have important negative impacts on human health and wellbeing.

More than 75,000 people are packed into Somerville’s 4.1 square miles, the most densely populated city in New England. Neighborhoods along the I-93 corridor are some of the most densely populated areas within Somerville, and are significantly more racially and ethnically diverse than Somerville as a whole: According to the CAFEH report, roughly half of the residents in neighborhoods next to I-93 are people of color, compared to the citywide average of 30 percent. Areas along I-93, particularly the south-facing side, are also less affluent and have a higher proportion of children compared to the rest of Somerville. For near-highway residents, the installation of noise barriers would reduce sound levels and exposure to traffic-related air pollution—ultimately improving life-long health outcomes through reduced risk of heart/respiratory disease, and improved mental health.

Despite substantial evidence of health benefits and equity implications of noise/pollution barriers, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) plans for noise barrier installations on state highways do not include I-93 in Somerville. MassDOT’s barriers are only considered for new highway construction where noise levels will exceed a threshold standard (Type I Projects) or areas that are on MassDOT’s Type II Priority List.

As a result of not being on MassDOT’s list of cities and towns most adversely affected by highway traffic noise, I-93 in Somerville does not meet the criteria for “Priority” sound barrier project. MassDOT only measures noise to determine if sound walls are needed—air pollution is not recognized as a valid basis for barrier installation. Currently, on the north-facing side of I-93 near the newly-developed Assembly Row, the Ten Hills neighborhood does have a sound barrier—while the south-facing side, comprised of portions of East Somerville, Winter Hill, and Somerville Housing Authority’s entire Mystic River Development, does not.

As Massachusetts continues to pursue their state climate and emissions goals while planning for equity and environmental justice, transportation reform must include changes that go beyond investments in electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. For true equity, the transition to a carbon-free state must address legacies of infrastructure inequality and consider improvements that benefit not only travelers, but the communities they speed through as well.

Sagal Alisalad Assistant Researcher

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

What are “Green Banks?” Different Models for the Energy Transition

Green banks are entities that provide financing and technical assistance to clean energy or energy efficiency projects to earn a profit themselves, or to finance additional rounds of funding. Many states and cities already have green banks. The Connecticut Green Bank, established in 2011, lent $36.8 million in 2020 and attracted $275.7 million in private investment. The goal of green banking is to use public funds to leverage private investment. Connecticut’s bank installed 81.6 MW of renewable electric capacity in 2020 through this effort.  The initial use of public money reduces risks for investors and demonstrates the viability of clean energy projects. A recent report by the National Academies of Science endorsed this approach and called for a green bank at the federal level.

There is debate among proponents, however, about the best path forward. Depending on the enabling legislation, a federal green bank might only be allowed to lend to state or city banks—like the one in Connecticut—rather than directly financing its own projects. Proposals also split on whether the federal bank should be a government agency or a nonprofit corporation, financially independent of the Treasury.

Finally, the mission of a federal green bank would be crucial. Some proponents want it to both generate public and leveraged private investment and to be a coordinating vehicle for the industrial policies to install charging stations, weatherize homes, and update the grid. These proponents draw on the National Investment Authority (NIA) proposed by Saule Omarova and Robert Hockett. The NIA would also be a public asset manager or equity firm which offers financial markets alternative instruments into which investors could shift their portfolio investments. Other green bank advocates stick to what they see as the core mission: institutionalizing a source of finance that is independent of Congress’ temperamental budget process. A group of senators--including Ed Markey (D-MA) and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-MI)—recently introduced the “Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator Act” that would fund a new nonprofit bank with $100 billion in public money and earmark 40 percent of the funds for communities “disproportionately affected by environmental pollution, climate change impacts, or economically reliant on a fossil fuel-based industry.”  As the Biden-Harris Administration considers how its infrastructure package could tackle climate change, a federal “green bank” might well be in the cards.

Chirag Lala Research Assistant

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

What is the Future of Gas?

A transition away from gas and towards low or zero-emission heating will require planning and coordination to achieve the most efficient and equitable outcomes. In Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, California, Nevada, and the District of Columbia, local agencies and utility commissions have opened investigations into the future of gas and are working with gas utilities to determine their role in a decarbonized economy. This includes assessing whether investing in building new and repairing existing gas infrastructure makes sense.

Currently, about half of U.S. households use piped utility gas to heat their homes. As states move towards achieving their climate targets, households heating with fossil fuels will need to transition to other energy sources with lower greenhouse gas emissions. Electrification—switching from burning fossil fuels to electricity—is an essential strategy to facilitate this transition. However, states must recognize that the timing and execution of this transition is key in achieving their climate goals in a cost-effective and equitable manner.

Despite climate goals and the push towards electrification, gas utilities across the country are still building more gas infrastructure and in some states, like Massachusetts, the gas distribution system is riddled with aging, leaky pipelines that need to be replaced. Leak-prone gas infrastructure (e.g., uncoated steel, cast iron, wrought iron, among other materials) results in an abundance of gas leaks that pose risks to public safety, service reliability, and environmental health.   

Despite the risks that leaky pipelines pose, does it make sense to continue investing in gas infrastructure as we transition away from fossil fuels? Gas system investments made today may be abandoned in the near future—so-called “stranded assets”—as the number of gas customers shrink dramatically over the next few decades for states to meet their long-term climate goals. However, some of today’s gas system investments in gas leak repairs and pipeline replacement may be needed to ensure that the risks posed by our gas infrastructure are minimized in the short term.

With climate targets quickly approaching, more and more local agencies and utility commissions are working closely with gas utilities and other stakeholders to determine what the future of gas utilities looks like in a decarbonized economy. As gas and other fossil fuels become less viable into future years, gas utilities’ business models must adapt to fit within a low-carbon economy by changing the type of energy they deliver or the services that they provide.

Joshua Castigliego Researcher

Tanya Stasio Research Assistant

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Carbon Emissions from Virtual Meetings: Should We Turn Off Our Cameras?

A recent study conducted by researchers from Purdue, Yale, and MIT links the pandemic-driven shift to remote work higher greenhouse gas emissions driven by computer videoconferencing. Despite this new demand on the electricity grid, some evidence suggests the environmental benefits of turning off those cameras may not outweigh the health costs, and the associated emissions from videoconferencing could be negligible.

The Purdue/Yale/MIT study found that one hour of videoconferencing emits 150-1,000 grams of carbon dioxide and turning off cameras could reduce emissions from web calls by 96 percent. For perspective, the average per-capita carbon emissions in the United States is 15 metric tons per year, or 42,471 grams per person per day.

Although the emissions from videoconferencing are not insubstantial, remote work has been shown to save energy and reduce emissions. A 2020 analysis from the International Energy Agency found that working from home is likely to reduce the carbon footprint of commuters who drive gasoline-powered cars more than 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) to work by nearly 40,000 grams CO2 per day—that’s a savings of 5,000 grams CO2 per hour in a typical work day. For those with shorter commutes, or commutes involving public transit, however, remote work may increase emissions due to extra residential energy consumption. Depending on the carbon intensity of the commute, emissions savings from remote work likely outweigh extra emissions from video calls.

Together, working remotely and eliminating videoconferencing could reduce emissions even further, but could result in unintended consequences. A letter published by Harvard Medical School argued that videoconferencing has a role in combatting the “life-threatening consequences” of loneliness and isolation. Although there is not enough evidence to prove that people will feel less lonely or isolated due to video calls, doctors at Harvard Medical School believe there is an emotional benefit to sharing meaningful conversations face-to-face, even if done virtually.

Eliandro Tavares Assistant Researcher

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Air Pollution and COVID-19

In our recent policy brief looking at COVID-19 and climate injustice, we found that there is overlap in communities disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and environmental justice concerns, like air pollution. Our research indicated that Black and Latinx populations have more exposure to air pollution, which puts them at greater risk for dying from COVID-19. By acknowledging these data-driven facts, policy makers can make more informed decisions for the future to appropriately remedy these injustices and protect vulnerable communities.

President Biden’s Environmental Justice Plan incorporates the science and data-inspired decision making we highlighted in our policy brief. Most notably, the Biden Administration advocates decision making driven by data and science, including reducing the burden of air pollution on marginalized communities. The Administration also aims to create an Office of Climate Change and Health Equity, suggesting a willingness to address the complex issues that look at the intersection of multiple issues. Biden issued an executive order on January 20, 2021, with a wide variety of actions protecting public health of Americans. The order includes the reduction of air pollutants and revisiting emissions standards. As explained in our brief, health inequity in the United States continues to be amplified by climate change. Policies, like these, may be beneficial towards making advances in both the climate and health crisis.  

These federal actions serve as the first step in addressing the close relationship between environmental justice communities, those vulnerable to climate change risks, and health disparities. At the same time, they send a signal to states to take this mandate one step further and implement localized policy.

Myisha Majumder Research Assistant

---

This is a part of the AEC Blog series