Achieving Emissions Reductions for Environmental Justice Communities Through Climate Change Mitigation Policy

Nicky Sheats

INTRODUCTION

The Clean Power Plan rule is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) regulatory method of reducing the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions and, by doing so, of fighting climate change.1 There was very little in the original Clean Power Plan proposal that addressed environmental justice (“EJ”)2 using section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act3 as authorization; it instead featured averaging carbon dioxide emissions rates4 and facilitated emissions trading.5 The EJ advocacy community responded to the Clean Power Plan’s failure to address equity by propos- ing a number of ways that EJ could be incorporated into the proposed rule.6 The three primary recommendations were: 1) mandated emissions reductions for EJ communities, i.e., communities of color and low-income communities; 2) prioritized use of energy efficiency and renewable energy in EJ communities; and 3) mandatory EJ analyses included in state plans developed pursuant to the Clean Power Plan that demonstrated the implementation of the first two recommendations and determined the distributive impacts of a state plan on EJ communities within the state.7 There were other important EJ recommendations such as the recommendation that states should not be able to use carbon trading to fulfill their obligations under the Clean Power Plan.8 However, the above three suggestions were also usually core recommendations.

The final version of the rule does provide what might best be characterized as an EJ “foothold” by requiring that states interact with EJ communities during development of their state plans9 and the inclu- sion of an optional incentive program for the use of energy efficiency in low-income neighborhoods.10 However, the Clean Power Plan still pro- vides no mandatory substantive protections for EJ communities and does not attempt to incentivize emissions reductions for any particular communities, including EJ neighborhoods…

NJEJA Statewide Cumulative Impacts Policy

Cumulative Impacts and the Permitting Process

Introduction
This memorandum presents ideas regarding cumulative impacts and the permitting process that have been debated and discussed for several years by members of the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, Environmental Justice Advisory Council to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Ironbound Community Corporation, Environmental Research Foundation, New Jersey Environmental Federation and Center for the Urban Environment. Although these ideas represent a considerable amount of thought they are not intended to be a final solution but a contribution to a discussion that will involve many participants. 

The concept of cumulative impacts (CI) should be incorporated into the permitting process in such a way that at least two goals are achieved: 1) Applications for new pollution permits can be denied in environmental justice (EJ) communities, and communities already overburdened with pollution, if granting the permit would increase the amount of pollution in the community; 2) The amount of pollution in a community
would be decreased by a facility’s operations or actions when the facility applied for a permit renewal. To achieve these goals NJDEP will have to identify EJ and overburdened communities and then apply the concept of CI in several specific ways…

EJ Bill

Chapter 92

AN ACT concerning the disproportionate environmental and public health impacts of pollution on overburdened communities, and supplementing Title 13 of the Revised Statutes.

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

C.13:1D-157 Findings, declarations relative to impact of pollution on overburdened communities.

1. The Legislature finds and declares that all New Jersey residents, regardless of income, race, ethnicity, color, or national origin, have a right to live, work, and recreate in a clean and healthy environment; that, historically, New Jersey’s low-income communities and communities of color have been subject to a disproportionately high number of environmental and public health stressors, including pollution from numerous industrial, commercial, and governmental facilities located in those communities; that, as a result, residents in the State’s overburdened communities have suffered from increased adverse health effects including, but not limited to, asthma, cancer, elevated blood lead levels, cardiovascular disease, and developmental disorders; that children are especially vulnerable to the adverse health effects caused by exposure to pollution, and that such health effects may severely limit a child’s potential for future success; that the adverse effects caused by pollution impede the growth, stability, and long-term well-being of individuals and families living in overburdened communities; that the legacy of siting sources of pollution in overburdened communities continues to pose a threat to the health, well-being, and economic success of the State’s most vulnerable residents; and that it is past time for the State to correct this historical injustice…