Quantifying the Efficiency and Equity Implications of Power Plant Air Pollution Control Strategies in the United States

Abstract

BackgroundIn deciding among competing approaches for emissions control, debates often hinge on the potential tradeoffs between efficiency and equity. However, previous health benefits analyses have not formally addressed both dimensions.ObjectivesWe modeled the public health benefits and the change in the spatial inequality of health risk for a number of hypothetical control scenarios for power plants in the United States to determine optimal control strategies.MethodsWe simulated various ways by which emission reductions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides, and fine particulate matter (particulate matter < 2.5 μm in diameter; PM2.5) could be distributed to reach national emissions caps. We applied a source–receptor matrix to determine the PM2.5 concentration changes associated with each control scenario and estimated the mortality reductions. We estimated changes in the spatial inequality of health risk using the Atkinson index and other indicators, following previously derived axioms for measuring health risk inequality.ResultsIn our baseline model, benefits ranged from 17,000–21,000 fewer premature deaths per year across control scenarios. Scenarios with greater health benefits also tended to have greater reductions in the spatial inequality of health risk, as many sources with high health benefits per unit emissions of SO2 were in areas with high background PM2.5 concentrations. Sensitivity analyses indicated that conclusions were generally robust to the choice of indicator and other model specifications.ConclusionsOur analysis demonstrates an approach for formally quantifying both the magnitude and spatial distribution of health benefits of pollution control strategies, allowing for joint consideration of efficiency and equity.

Socioeconomic distribution of emissions and resource use in Ireland

“…This paper also informs the environmental justice literature. That literature is typically concerned with analysing which household types are more affected by environmental pollution (Krieg & Faber, 2004;Levy et al, 2007). Instead, we focus on which household types are more responsible for environmental pollution.…”

Capturing climate’s effect on pollution abatement with an improved solution to the omitted variables problem

“…For example, a city wishing to analyze its air pollution could gather data on both pollution concentrations and on the pollution emissions of all major polluters. The concentrations could then be allocated to individual polluters using techniques like source-receptor matrices (Levy et al, 2007). 15 An analysis similar to our disaggregate analysis could then be conducted where the allocated concentrations data would be used in place of electricity and the emissions of the individual polluters used in place of our inputs.…”

The Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Health of Everyone: The Relationship Between Social Inequality and Environmental Quality

“…Indeed, research has suggested that targeting environmental regulations to improve conditions for those who are most negatively impacted by environmental hazards can improve overall outcomes at the population level. For example, Levy et al (53) considered both the equity and efficiency benefits of a suite of hypothetical rollouts of emissions-control technology at power plants in the United States; they found that reductions in spatial inequality in mortality associated with emissions of SO 2 and fine particulate matter correlated with higher total reductions in mortality. A later study looking at controls on tail-pipe emissions on public buses in Boston drew similar conclusions (52).…”