Health Benefits of Clean Power Plan Hinge on Key Policy Decisions.
US states could gain significant health benefits from power plant carbon standards, but they depend largely on the Environmental Protection Agency’s choices in the upcoming Clean Power Plan, according to a report co-authored by a School of Public Health researcher.
The findings, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, indicate that the stakes are high in the current debate over power plant carbon standards. An estimated 3,500 premature deaths and more than 1,000 heart attacks and hospitalizations could be prevented each year by strong standards, the authors said. Weaker options provide fewer health benefits and may even have detrimental effects, according to the study.
The report comes at a pivotal time for climate policy, as the EPA prepares to release a final Clean Power Plan this summer. The plan is the nation’s first attempt to establish standards for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. It is also viewed as an important sign of US leadership on climate change in the run-up to international treaty negotiation in Paris in December.
“The results from three different scenarios show that the policy choices within the Clean Power Plan matter, and we can’t take the public health benefits for granted,” said Jonathan Levy, professor of environmental health at SPH and co-author of the study. “Whether communities experience health gains from cleaner air will depend on the details of the final power plant standard.”
The researchers—from Syracuse University, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Resources for the Future, and Sonoma Technology—mapped the air quality and related health benefits for the entire continental US under three different options for the Clean Power Plan. They found that all states and all types of communities would see improved air quality under the top option. Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas would post the greatest health gains, with 230 to 330 estimated premature deaths prevented each year.
The research team said that if the EPA sets a strong carbon standard, they expect significant public health benefits almost immediately after the standards are implemented.
“An important implication of this study is that the largest health benefits from the transition to cleaner energy are expected in states that currently have the greatest dependence on coal-fired electricity,” said Dallas Burtraw of Resources for the Future, a co-author of the paper.
Power plants are the nation’s largest source of carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change. They also release other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter — precursors to smog and soot that harm human health. The study looked at the added benefits of climate change policy from reductions in these other air pollutants.
The authors said that some results from the three policy options are surprising. The option that only has power plant upgrades results in slightly lower air quality and adverse health effects. The option with the deepest cuts in carbon emissions does not produce the largest health benefits because it lacks new end-user energy efficiency.
“We found that the greatest clean air and health benefits occur when stringent targets for carbon dioxide emissions are combined with compliance measures that promote demand-side energy efficiency and cleaner energy sources across the power sector,” said lead author Charles Driscoll, University Professor of Environmental Systems Engineering at Syracuse University.
A follow-up study analyzing the added benefits of power plant carbon standards for water, crops, and trees is expected out this summer.
Submitted by: Lisa Chedekel