The New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance has raised significant questions to the MACH2 engagement team both via email and at the April 10 MACH2 Listening Session. During the April 10 Listening Session, our team sent in questions via chat. Due to the number of participants, only one person from NJEJA was put onto the speaking list which was created and shared by OCED prior to the event.
We raise these questions out of deep concern and love for our community. The life cycle of hydrogen production is not only costly and economically inviable, but has not been proven safe for our communities. In fact, in many instances, demonstration tests for hydrogen projects have proved to be dangerous, unsustainable, and not effective projects. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not the hydrogen produced is “green” (I.e. hydrogen theoretically created from entirely renewable technology), it poses the same risks during transportation, storage, and end use as hydrogen created from fossil fuels.
In an effort to increase transparency and get these questions answered, please see the concerns that NJEJA has raised to the MACH2 team regarding the structure, function, intention, and infrastructural development of the MACH2 project.
EPA Rules Must Incorporate Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Discontinue Reliance on CCS
Washington D.C. – On April 25, the EPA announced a suite of four standards on toxic air pollution, water pollution, land contamination, and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions from fossil fuel burning power plants. Key among these is the final rule for existing coal-fired and new natural gas-fired power plants.
We recognize the important steps the EPA has taken in removing hydrogen co-firing from consideration as a BSER (Best System of Emissions Reduction) and understand the importance in a delayed ruling on reducing GHG emissions from existing natural gas plants in order to consider the best approach and to address environmental justice concerns.
In order to best address the risks of climate change and local air pollution as well as protect frontline Environmental Justice communities, the EPA should incorporate a cumulative impacts and MER (mandatory emissions reduction) approach.
We would also call upon the EPA to continue to strengthen its rules and ensure that future rules do not include hydrogen co-firing or CCS/CCUS as a BSER. We urge the EPA to discontinue its reliance on and promotion of CCS as a technological solution to climate change mitigation. CCS is an unproven and high-risk approach to reducing GHG emissions, and fails to address co-pollutant emissions from power plants in a meaningful and holistic way.
###
“The EPA Power Plant Rule update resulted from decades of organizing and advocacy and years of partnerships between the EPA and Environmental Justice communities. The EPA is modeling some of the best practices around the engagement of impacted communities, and these updated rules are a win for us all. At the same time, we acknowledge the parts of the rules flagged by communities as non-starters, namely the use of carbon capture, utilization and storage in EJ communities. The implicit inclusion of this dangerous technology was a loss for us all. However, we maintain hope that the next update will incorporate cumulative impacts and a mandatory emissions reduction approach to regulating existing power plants.”
Melissa Miles,
Executive Director, New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance
“I congratulate EPA on the decision to remove hydrogen co-firing from the power plant rule. However, cumulative impacts and mandatory emissions reductions policies should be incorporated into the rule to protect environmental justice communities in general, and especially as a safeguard for the potential harms of carbon capture technology, which unfortunately remains in the rule. These protective policies should also be incorporated into the existing gas plants portion of the rule.”
Dr. Nicky Sheats, Esq.,
Director, Center for the Urban Environment, John S. Watson Institute for Urban Policy and Research at Kean University
President of the Board and member of the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance
“We want to urge the USEPA to prioritize the health and well-being of environmental justice communities in the implementation of these rules. We look forward to seeing mandatory emissions reductions and approaches to reducing cumulative impacts embedded in the regulations now being developed for existing natural gas plants.”
Dr. Ana Isabel Baptista,
Co-Director Tishman Environment & Design Center
NJEJA Board Member
“EPA has to show progress on cumulative impacts and mandatory emissions reductions if we are to believe that this administration is not just all talk regarding the welfare of the most vulnerable communities. These concepts must be embedded into existing and future regulation to safeguard our communities from bad local actors.”
Maria Lopez-Nunez,
Deputy Director, Organizing and Advocacy Ironbound Community Corporation
For questions regarding this statement, please contact Brooke Helmick, NJEJA Director of Policy at brooke@njeja.org.
TheNew Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance is an alliance of New Jersey-based organizations and individuals working together to identify, prevent, and reduce and/or eliminate environmental injustices that exist in communities of color and low-income communities. NJEJA will support community efforts to remediate and rebuild impacted neighborhoods, using the community’s vision of improvement, through education, advocacy, the review and promulgation of public policies, training, and through organizing and technical assistance.
The Center for the Urban Environment (CUE) strives to protect communities Of Color and low-income communities from disproportionately high amounts of pollution by addressing environmental justice (EJ) issues on the local, state and national levels.
The Tishman Environment and Design Center at The New School is a collaborative community of practice that leverages research, policy, and design in accordance with the Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing. Our Center brings together research and action to tackle the root causes of climate and environmental injustice and commit to changing higher education practices within and beyond The New School.
The Ironbound Community Cooperation upholds and builds upon the principles of “Justice and Equality for All.” We strive to practice and build equity, work towards aJust Transition, and organize community on the basis of the Jemez Principles. We envision a safe, healthy, just, and nurturing Ironbound; a welcoming and fully inclusive community that supports equal and accessible opportunity and the quest for a better life. For us, revitalization means uplifting both people and place. Therefore, we aim to lead the transformation of Ironbound into a neighborhood where anyone might choose to live and current residents can remain in their homes and their community without fear of being displaced.
We are excited to invite you to a Community Listening Session on Waste Issues in Camden! The purpose of these sessions is to listen to what Environmental Justice community members have to say about waste-related injustices and issues they are experiencing in their communities.
Protect EJ Communities While Mitigating Climate Change
Trenton – On March 14, the Senate Energy and Environment Committee both strengthened and voted in favor (3-2) of a Clean Energy Standard (S237/A1480). The EJ community has been actively involved in calling for a nation-leading definition of clean energy and climate change mitigation policy that reduces locally harmful GHG co-pollutants in overburdened Environmental Justice communities, and does not allow for potential loopholes or false solutions.
We celebrate the passage of this strong definition, and the fact that this bill makes New Jersey a leader in ensuring states prioritize the procurement of clean energy. However, we also recognize that this bill has a long way to go before it can be enacted into law. This moment cannot be the end of the conversation, and we will continue to call for new language and provisions that actively protect EJ communities while creating new jobs and a cleaner environment.
We call upon legislators to continue fine-tuning this bill by ensuring that the legislation:
Reduces toxic air pollution in EJ communities by removing “net emissions” calculations;
Creates a strong standard for “de minimis” levels of pollution that are as close to zero as possible; and
Prevents polluting facilities such as incinerators from receiving ratepayer subsidies when they violate air permits.
“This moment represents a turning point for the state and the country. Including co-pollutants in the definition makes New Jersey a leader in protecting frontline communities. There is more work to be done to make sure that the bill is as protective of EJ communities as possible, but we take this moment to celebrate and honor the many advocates who have worked tirelessly to protect public health, call for climate change mitigation, and ensure that EJ communities are not left behind in the energy transition.”
Melissa Miles
Executive Director
New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance
“It’s so refreshing to see a holistic and necessary approach to defining clean energy. If we do not include co-pollutants, we stand to repeat the mistakes of the past where we sacrifice local communities for the so-called “greater good.” Today is an important step in leading the country towards a future that deals with both public health and climate change.”
Maria Lopez-Nuñez
Deputy Director, Organizing and Advocacy
Ironbound Community Corportation
“Incorporating GHG co-pollutant reductions into a clean energy standard is the type of action the environmental justice community has been strongly recommending for many years. It will help protect communities near energy infrastructure from locally harmful co-pollutant emissions while at the same time fighting climate change.”
Nicky Sheats, Ph.D., Esq.
Director, Center for the Urban Environment
John S. Watson Institute for Urban Policy and Research at Kean University
Member of the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance
###
The New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance is an alliance of New Jersey-based organizations and individuals working together to identify, prevent, and reduce and/or eliminate environmental injustices that exist in communities of color and low-income communities. NJEJA will support community efforts to remediate and rebuild impacted neighborhoods, using the community’s vision of improvement, through education, advocacy, the review and promulgation of public policies, training, and through organizing and technical assistance.
ICC upholds and builds upon the principles of “Justice and Equality for All.” We strive to practice and build equity, work towards a Just Transition, and organize community on the basis of the Jemez Principles. We envision a safe, healthy, just, and nurturing Ironbound; a welcoming and fully inclusive community that supports equal and accessible opportunity and the quest for a better life. For us, revitalization means uplifting both people and place. Therefore, we aim to lead the transformation of Ironbound into a neighborhood where anyone might choose to live and current residents can remain in their homes and their community without fear of being displaced.
Nicky Sheats, Ph.D., director of the Center for the Urban Environment at Kean (center) receives his award at a ceremony in Trenton from New Jersey DEP Commissioner Shawn M. LaTourette (left) and David Zimmer, executive director of the New Jersey Infrastructure Bank (right). Photo credit: NJDEP
The Director of the Center for the Urban Environment at Kean University’s John S. Watson Institute, Nicky Sheats, Ph.D., received a 2023 Governor’s Environmental Excellence Award, a premier honor recognizing outstanding environmental work in New Jersey.
Sheats, an attorney, scholar and leader in the environmental justice community, received the award in the category of environmental justice on December 18 in Trenton.
“It is an honor to receive the award, which I feel is really in recognition of what the New Jersey environmental justice community has accomplished together,” Sheats said. “This is important work.”
Sheats was one of 12 environmental leaders receiving awards.
“The achievements of this year’s award winners capture the essence of environmentalism in New Jersey and set a shining example for us all to follow,” said state Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Shawn LaTourette. “It’s an honor to celebrate their determined efforts to protect the state’s natural resources and help others connect to nature.”
Sheats was recognized for his instrumental role in the development and passage of New Jersey’s landmark environmental justice law, and his work establishing pollution reduction policies.
“His recent efforts seek to integrate environmental justice in climate mitigation policies called Mandatory Emissions Reductions (MER) that target reductions of associated co-pollutants, along with greenhouse gas emissions, and which impact overburdened communities,” DEP said in a statement.
Sheats convened the state’s first MER policy workgroup with the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, and was lead author of a recently published paper exploring the implementation of MER policies in New Jersey, Minnesota and Delaware.
At the Watson Institute for Urban Policy and Research, Sheats provides leadership on environmental justice, and scientific, legal, financial and other issues affecting communities throughout the state and nation.
Kean Senior Vice President for Transformational Learning and External Affairs Joseph Youngblood, Ph.D., said Sheats has been a “visionary” leader for 20 years as director of the Center for the Urban Environment.
“Dr. Sheats was a pioneering researcher and policy expert in the environmental justice movement in America,” Youngblood said. “His work at Kean’s Watson Institute has informed state and federal policies that mitigate the cumulative impacts of environmental hazards and eliminate the disproportionate impact of environmental racism on communities of color. His life’s work and influence will have a lasting impact on society.”
Sheats said key areas being addressed from an environmental justice standpoint are cumulative impact of pollutants on neighborhoods; climate change mitigation policy that ensures communities are benefitted, rather than harmed, as they fight climate change; chemical policy and waste policy.
Sheats said credit also goes to the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, the Tishman Environment and Design Center of the New School, the Ironbound Community Corporation, the South Ward Environmental Alliance and the Center for the Urban Environment.
Motiva, another plant involved with a carbon capture project, lays out new built pipes in Donaldsonville, Louisiana, on June 19, 2023. (Photo: Emily Kask for the Washington Post)
The transition away from fossil fuels is an urgent necessity, but we must ensure that renewable energy development doesn’t leave anyone behind. Environmental justice communities need real change – not a rebrand of the same discriminatory plans that slow the clock on fighting the climate crisis and reinforce the status quo.
There is a heightened focus on justice and equity in the Biden administration—but what does that look like for communities living with the realities of systemic and institutionalized discrimination?
For generations, environmental justice communities have borne the brunt of policies and practices that have relegated our homes, workplaces, recreational spaces, and places of worship to the shadows of fossil fuel and petrochemical infrastructure. As the administration and lawmakers advance opportunities to “decarbonize” the energy sector—the largest source of climate change-causing greenhouse gases in the U.S.—many communities are given little insight into the plans and technologies marketed as the solution. As a result, environmental justice communities—those predominantly composed of people of color and those with low income—have to navigate a maze of new federal investments in obscure policies and plans.
Specifically, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), utilization (CCUS), hydrogen hubs, and direct air capture projects are being rolled out without transparency and our communities are targeted as development zones. It’s time for real change—not a rebrand of the same discriminatory plans that slow the clock on fighting the climate crisis and reinforce the status quo.
While CCS is being pushed as a way to cut emissions, it’s actually enabling further fossil fuel reliance.
The emergence of carbon management initiatives, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) latest carbon rule proposal in tandem with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regional hydrogen hub plan, are a major part of the problem. These initiatives are based on the promise of siphoning off greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and industrial facilities, but they often rely more on greenwashing and wishful thinking than on real solutions. They divert focus from the critical need to break free from fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, that disproportionately burden environmental justice communities.
While CCS is being pushed as a way to cut emissions, it’s actually enabling further fossil fuel reliance. What’s even more infuriating is that these projects are poised to reap the benefits of federal tax credits bolstered by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. This is a con job on the American public that will funnel funds into risky projects ultimately helping fossil fuel companies and perpetuating the systems that caused the climate crisis.
Now, CCS, CCUS, and direct air capture, along with certain types of hydrogen hubs using CCS along with natural gas, are planned for locations already overburdened by heavy industry, imposing additional risks such as leaks, pipelines blowing up, and health-harming air pollution like nitrogen oxide emissions. Unfortunately, a staggering 90% of the proposed or existing CCS/CCUS plants are located in or dangerously close to EJ communities. This means that investments in these risky schemes will inflict more damage on those already most vulnerable to pollution and climate change for years to come. Louisiana alone faces over two dozen proposals for CCS, CCUS, and hydrogen projects.
If these energy plans move forward, EJ communities will again be collateral damage.
One of these is a colossal $4.5 billion hydrogen plant and carbon capture complex in Ascension Parish by Air Products. This project includes carbon pipelines, wells, and underground storage that pose a grave threat to Lake Maurepas and contribute to air pollution from the new CCS plant, along with the real possibility of explosions. To make matters worse, project applicants may only carry liability for 10 years instead of the usual 50, leaving one of the poorest states with potential liabilities indefinitely.
Federal agencies promise new “regulatory regimes,” to protect EJ communities, but all we see in response to our concerns is an offering of community benefit agreements and public engagement processes that lack substantial, enforceable protections or the right to say “no.” In the absence of concrete federal protections, speculative industry proposals will capitalize on generous federal incentives like the 45Q and 45V tax credits, which allow upfront benefits without a clear mechanism by which governments will oversee and ensure the permanent storage of CO2. Likewise, the Inflation Reduction Act lengthened application timelines and opened up the criteria for which CCS projects qualify. And when disasters hit, we’ll all pay the price through skyrocketing healthcare and housing costs, along with other rising costs linked to pollution and the climate crisis. This approach not only rewards the industries that drive climate change and pollution in EJ communities, but it also perpetuates the big scam of oil, gas, and petrochemical giants.
It’s time we put an end to this farce.
EJ communities were given promises for real investment and involvement in a just energy transition through the administration’s Justice40 Initiative that would not mirror prejudicial policies of the past. If these energy plans move forward, EJ communities will again be collateral damage. There are sustainable solutions that desperately need our support and funding, including transitioning to truly clean, renewable energy such as wind and solar with an equitable transmission build-out.
We have what we need to do right by EJ communities nationwide, and to stave off the worst of the climate crisis before it’s too late—it’s time to move in the right direction.
Experts say all Michigan residents could benefit from the transparency in the Garden State’s pollution rules for overburdened communities.
Homes near the Marathon Petroleum refinery in southwest Detroit. Alamy.
Theresa Landrum has been fighting for environmental justice in Detroit’s heavily polluted 48217 zip code for decades, where residents suffer from disproportionate rates of asthma, cancer, respiratory problems, heart disease, miscarriages, and birth defects, all of which are associated with air pollution.
Landrum said this year’s wildfire smoke worsened the bad air, turning the sky orange and leaving her coughing for days. Indeed, new research shows that although the nation’s air quality had improved following the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, in many states wildfire smoke has slowed or reversed much of this progress over the last two decades.
But, she said, the new smoke threat could bring more urgency to efforts to control air pollution from other sources. “We’re not looking at cumulative impacts from all these industries,” she said.
Activists like Landrum are focused on the collective impact of pollution from multiple sources, often concentrated in low-income areas and communities of color such as southwest Detroit. Facilities are regulated on a case-by-case basis, although a permit could be denied if it will increase the level of one of six pollutants covered by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the area is already out of compliance for that pollutant.
This approach can allow for a heavy overall pollution burden, even though individual businesses are operating within legal emissions limits.
The concept of regulating cumulative impacts is slowly gaining traction. In January, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released guidance outlining its authority to consider cumulative impacts in its decisions. And at least 12 state legislatures have considered or adopted legislation addressing cumulative risk or impacts, according to a University of Michigan analysis released last year.
Theresa Landrum. Photo by Joe Parnell.
To address this issue in Michigan, Landrum is working with a statewide coalition of environmental groups to push for cumulative impact legislation, influenced by New Jersey’s landmark 2020 environmental justice law that restricted the issuing of new permits or expansion of facilities in overburdened communities.
Michigan could learn from the approach organizers took in New Jersey, advocates say. There, activists worked for years on legislation that was finally passed when the Black Lives Matter movement and public health concerns related to COVID helped galvanize support.
Yet, advocates say passing a law in Michigan may require a slightly different approach, with a need to build support in both urban and rural areas to challenge a powerful industrial lobby in a state where Democrats hold a slim majority in the legislature.
“The health impacts, the air quality impacts, the water quality impacts are something that both rural people and urban folks that are on the fence line of big industry are dealing with,” said Christy McGillivray, legislative and political director for the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter.
She said a smart strategy in Michigan could look at the impacts of industrial agriculture and other industries in farm country as well as urban pollution to build a broad constituency for a cumulative impact bill.
New Jersey sets a precedent
Melissa Miles, executive director of the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, said New Jersey’s 2020 law came at the end of a years-long effort to bring more protections for overburdened communities in the state.
“EJ groups never dropped that banner of cumulative impacts, even when it was unpopular, even when there wasn’t political will,” Miles said.
She said the key to getting the New Jersey law over the finish line were the specific circumstances of 2020 that brought justice concerns to the fore.
“This moment happened nationally that was heard around the world, which was the Black Lives Matter movement,” Miles said. “When Black people say, ‘we can’t breathe,’ it could be the result of the quick, violent deaths at the hands of law enforcement, or it could be the slow, silent death due to air pollution.”
Miles said New Jersey environmental justice advocates were ready to help inform policy-making when these tragic circumstances created an appetite for reform.
The result was legislation with key cumulative impact provisions. The law gave the state’s Department of Environmental Protection a mandate to deny permits for certain types of facilities like incinerators and sewage treatment plants seeking to locate in areas already burdened by pollution. It also required businesses to perform a cumulative impact analysis for new projects or expansions and gave the public more opportunities to influence permit applications.
Jonathon J. Smith, an attorney with the nonprofit Earthjustice, said demographic information, including race, income, and limited English proficiency, was used to help define an “overburdened” community.
This last piece gets at a common practice in Michigan. For example, Stellantis used jobs to make the case for expanding its polluting facilities on Detroit’s east side. This project received$400 million in tax incentives and at least 12 odor violations since it opened in June 2021.
After New Jersey’s law was passed, Miles said her group worked to prevent industry from undermining the legislation and ensuring residents were available to influence the new rules when regulators put them together. However, New Jersey only began enforcing the law in April 2023 and Smith said the state will have to wait and see how much regulators are “taking it to heart”.
How Michigan could get it done
Trent Wolf, who recently served as the senior advisor to Michigan House Majority Floor Leader Abraham Aiyash (D-Hamtramck), told Planet Detroit that Aiyash and State Sen. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit) are crafting cumulative impact legislation that can stand up to litigation or constitutional challenges.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to end race-based affirmative action in college admissions, environmental justice laws that use race as a criterion for defining an overburdened community could be open to legal challenges.
This ruling may have prompted the Environmental Protection Agency to drop a civil rights complaint into Louisiana’s permitting of industries in a heavily polluted area known as “cancer alley”.
Nick Schroeck, an environmental law expert at Detroit Mercy School of Law, said state programs that incorporate race as a factor in decision-making are less vulnerable to challenges than federal ones, although the language still needs to be drafted carefully.
Wolf said the White House’s Justice40 program, which seeks to direct 40 percent of federal climate-related funding to disadvantaged communities, could also provide a template for crafting a bill. This program excluded race when defining target areas, using other criteria as a proxy for disadvantaged communities of color. However, the screening tool used by the programs has had only mixed success in identifying these areas so far.
Previously, Michigan advocates have said the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) already has the power under Rule 901 and Rule 228 to consider cumulative impacts, at least from air pollution, and deny permits.
EGLE spokesperson Hugh McDiarmid said the powers provided by these rules were limited and that the agency’s air quality division “does not have the ability to do cumulative impact analysis incorporating all ways a person may be exposed to pollutants [but that] the program is designed to minimize potential health impacts of the air emissions from facilities on nearby residents.”
In Michigan, the first step toward creating a law that explicitly requires the agency to consider cumulative impacts may be engaging with impacted communities to raise awareness and get input on proposed legislation.
“For this legislation to move, it’s going to take a lot of work at the grassroots level of getting people engaged and understanding that legislation like this can have a deep impact in their community,” Wolf said. “This is a relatively new concept.”
Wolf also believes there’s the potential for urban advocates to build a coalition with rural people dealing with factory farms and facilities like chemical recycling centers and battery plants.
Pam Taylor, a farm owner in rural Lenawee County who leads the water testing program for the nonprofit Environmentally Concerned Citizens of Southeast Michigan, has been working for decades to address water quality problems created by the manure-laden discharge from industrial livestock farms. This pollution has contributed to potentially life-threatening toxic algal blooms downstream, like the 2014 Lake Erie bloom that shut down Toledo’s drinking water supply for several days.
In the past, Taylor has helped lead tours with the Sierra Club to highlight toxic industries in Detroit and Lenawee County, showing the public and mental health problems that occur when industry concentrates in certain areas.
Taylor said her sparsely populated community roughly 60 miles southwest of Detroit resembles other areas where scarce jobs and poverty drive people to work in industries that may compromise their health.
“There aren’t that many jobs, so people end up working for these big factory farms even though they hate it,” she said. “It’s basically a captured community, just like a mining community would be Appalachia.”
Taylor said a cumulative impact bill would reduce the impact of these farms on local waterways and protect groundwater. She said that as waterways have become more polluted, communities have turned to groundwater for drinking water, a resource threatened by water-hungry industrial farms.
“A cumulative impact bill would be wonderful,” Taylor said. “It would reduce the chance of so many of these farms being crammed together in one area.”
Pushback from industry
Michigan’s powerful industrial lobby, including automakers, utilities, and chemical companies, will likely fight against a cumulative impact bill that could add new business costs.
Mike Alaimo, director of environmental and energy affairs at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, said cumulative impact laws would add new requirements for businesses that could hurt job creation and get in the way of rebuilding the state’s aging infrastructure.
“Cumulative impacts is kind of this whole new bureaucratic layer that would function on top of an already challenging and burdensome system,” he said. “Adding more burden, just adding more regulatory costs, will simply drive businesses away.”
He said these costs could undermine technology like carbon capture, which could be used to reduce emissions from fossil fuel power plants. That technology has been challenged by environmental advocates for its potential to increase non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions like nitrogen oxides and particulate matter as well as creating possible safety issues.
And if investment is pushed away from areas of concentrated industry, Alaimo said it could lead to developing greenfield areas instead of cleaning up contamination and redeveloping brownfield sites.
Schroeck said Michiganders have good reasons to support a cumulative impact law, even if they feel relatively protected from pollution. He said the transparency and cumulative impact assessments offered by a law like New Jersey’s could shed light on pollution issues residents may not be aware of, helping influence statewide permitting and protecting public health.
“I don’t think any of us are really safe,” Schroeck said. “To the extent that we can provide more data and more transparency, I think that will help the public at large to understand the benefits and also the costs of the way that we have been doing business.”
He adds that a healthier population is better for everyone, lowering healthcare costs and insurance rates. But Schroeck said that legislation could be stymied by a lack of knowledge among lawmakers and residents about the health impacts from pollution and the culture war framing of environmental justice that he said paints the issue as “a liberal pet project.”
Lawmakers also have a poor record of being proactive with environmental legislation, Schroeck said.
“We’re much better at, like looking backwards, coming up with cleanup standards and things, than we are at actually preventing harm in the first place,” he said.
He agrees with Landrum in southwest Detroit that more summers with wildfire smoke could create renewed urgency to manage air pollution as much as possible, changing the political calculus around cumulative impacts.
For now, Landrum says environmental advocates need to keep raising the issue until an opportune moment arrives to pass a bill like what happened in New Jersey.
“The intention is to keep putting it out there,” she said.
Across the United States, fossil fuel infrastructure emits toxic air pollution and planet-warming greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Environmental justice (EJ) communities bear the brunt of both, living on the front lines of impacts from climate change while also suffering the localized environmental health harms caused by fossil fuel facilities in their vicinity. Despite these disproportionate impacts, climate mitigation policies remain focused on reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions without attention to the health-harming co-pollutants from the power sector. A just and equitable climate mitigation policy, however, makes the elimination of the sector’s outsize and inequitable impact on low-income communities and communities of color an explicit goal. From an environmental justice perspective, climate change mitigation measures, whether they use a technology-based standard, a greenhouse gas (GHG) target, or a market-based or other mechanism, should explicitly incorporate mandatory emissions reductions (MER) of health-harming co-pollutants in EJ communities.
This report lays out the justification and framework for an MER policy in the U.S. power sector. The essential steps of our framework are to identify power plants located in EJ communities, decide on the specific type of MER policy to apply, and finally, examine additional factors—such as measures of cumulative burden or vulnerability—that can inform which power plants should be prioritized for MER soonest or to the greatest extent. We offer several variants of an MER policy, with the ideal option being the closure of fossil fuel–fired power plants in EJ communities and a concomitant transition to renewable energy to maintain safe and reliable electricity generation.
To understand how the selection and prioritization of plants for MER might work in practice, we applied our framework to three states, New Jersey, Delaware, and Minnesota. We adopted a definition of “environmental justice community” based on quantitative thresholds for People of Color, those with limited English proficiency, and low-income populations, in line with recommendations of EJ advocates and the classification used in New Jersey’s 2020 landmark environmental justice law (A2212/S232). Once plants in EJ communities were identified, additional factors that reflect environmental burden, such as cancer risk and respiratory hazard related to toxic air pollution, as well as the emissions profiles of the plants, were incorporated as an illustrative, second layer of analysis for prioritizing plants and the most impacted EJ areas.
Throughout the development and application of our framework, the research team relied on the input and collaboration of key stakeholders representing EJ communities in the three case study states. These EJ partners played a crucial role in ground-truthing the set of plants that were identified and prioritized for an MER policy, which was important given the occasional gaps in data and the inherent limitations of relying on strict quantitative thresholds for definitional purposes.
Overall, the New Jersey, Delaware, and Minnesota case studies underscore the disproportionate siting of power plants in environmental justice communities. In all three states, there is an inequitable overrepresentation of People of Color in the fence-line populations residing near power plants, emphasizing the importance of considering race when developing strategies for the sector. As more attention, policy, and investment are directed toward a just energy transition, this work aims to highlight the need for, and to advance a path forward for, mandatory emissions reductions in power sector climate mitigation efforts.
To read the full report, download “Mandatory Emissions Reductions for Climate Mitigation in the Power Sector” below.
