Air Quality-Related Health Benefits of Energy Efficiency in the United States

Abstract

While it is known that energy efficiency (EE) lowers power sector demand and emissions, study of the air quality and public health impacts of EE has been limited. Here, we quantify the air quality and mortality impacts of a 12% summertime (June, July, and August) reduction in baseload electricity demand. We use the AVoided Emissions and geneRation Tool (AVERT) to simulate plant-level generation and emissions, the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model to simulate air quality, and the Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) to quantify mortality impacts. We find EE reduces emissions of NO x by 13.2%, SO2 by 12.6%, and CO2 by 11.6%. On a nationwide, summer average basis, ambient PM2.5 is reduced 0.55% and O3 is reduced 0.45%. Reduced exposure to PM2.5 avoids 300 premature deaths annually (95% CI: 60 to 580) valued at $2.8 billion ($0.13 billion to $9.3 billion), and reduced exposure to O3 averts 175 deaths (101 to 244) valued at $1.6 billion ($0.15 billion to $4.5 billion). This translates into a health savings rate of $0.049/kWh ($0.031/kWh for PM2.5 and $0.018/kWh for O3). These results illustrate the importance of capturing the health benefits of EE and its potential as a strategy to achieve air standards.

Integrating Air Quality and Public Health Benefits in U.S. Decarbonization Strategies

“…-U.S. EPA's AVoided Emissions and geneRation Tool (AVERT) (105) was the most used emissions model, used in four studies (83)(84)(85)(86).…”

“…Four compare the co-benefits of different renewable energy deployments in various regions of the U.S. (79,81,83,86); two, the air quality co-benefits of renewable energy deployed across the continental United States (82,85). Emissions were quantified with data and analysis tools (83,85,86), a capacity expansion model (80,82), a production cost model (81,84) or an emissions inventory (79). Most use a reduced-form air quality model; only Abel et al (84) and Plachinski et al (80) use a full physics air quality model to evaluate energy efficiency and renewable energy benefits.…”

“…However, the response of ambient air pollution is sub-linear, showing percentage improvements much less than the percentage total reduction in precursor emissions. Abel et al (85) reported that a 12% summertime baseload electricity demand reduction due to energy efficiency could yield a decrease of 13.2% in NO x emissions and a decrease of 12.6% in SO 2 emissions. However, the model calculated ambient near-surface PM 2.5 concentrations decreasing by 0.55% and O 3 concentrations decreasing by 0.45%.…”

“…The solar energy study by Abel et al (84) found the largest reductions in PM 2.5 on the most polluted days, suggesting that increased PV offers a strategy for potential compliance with the NAAQS for PM 2.5 . The energy efficiency study by Abel et al (85) calculated a reduction in the number of days violating the O 3 NAAQS in counties across the United States. An analysis of California's climate legislation by Zapata et al (71) found PM 2.5 concentrations were reduced by 2-3 µg/m 3 over most urban areas during weather conditions that often produce air pollution exceeding federal standards (see Appendix I for supplementary information on how weather and climate change impact air quality).…”

“…This resulted in co-benefits valued at 1.4c of co-benefits per kWh of solar installed. The levelized cost of electricity for wind and solar PV as well as the price of electricity are included as a comparison (85,130). All but two co-benefits exceed the LCOE of renewables, indicating that air quality benefits alone exceed the cost of deployment.…”