Quantifying the social equity state of an energy system: environmental and labor market equity of the shale gas boom in Appalachia

Abstract

A fundamental societal concern in energy system transitions is the distribution of benefits and costs across populations. A recent transition, the US shale gas boom, has dramatically altered the domestic energy outlook and global markets; however, the social equity implications have not been meaningfully assessed and accounted for in public and private decision making. In this study, we develop and demonstrate a systematic approach to quantify the multi-dimensional equity state of an energy system, with a focus on the shale gas boom in the Appalachian basin. We tailor variants of standard equity metrics as well as develop new empirical and analytical methods and metrics to assess spatial, temporal, income, and racial equity as it relates to air quality, climate change, and labor market impacts across the natural gas supply chain. We find moderate to high spatial inequities with respect to the distribution of production (Gini coefficient (η)=0.93), consumption for electric power generation (η=0.68), commercial, industrial, and residential end use (η=0.72), job creation (η=0.72), and air pollution-related deaths (η=0.77), which are largely driven by geographicallyfixed natural gas abundance and demand. Air quality impacts are also regressive, such that mortality risk induced by natural gas activity generally increases as income decreases; for example, mortality risk (m) (in units of premature mortality per 100 000 people) for the lowest income class (<$15 000; m=0.22 in 2016) is higher (18%-31%) than for the highest income class (>$150 000; m=0.27 in 2016). These risks are higher for white (m=0.30 in 2016) than non-white (m=0.16 in 2016) populations, which is largely a result of the demographics of rural communities within the vicinity of natural gas development. With respect to local labor market impacts within producing counties, we find marginal declines in income inequality (2.8%±1.0%) and poverty rates (9.9%±1.7%) during the boom, although household income increases for the wealthiest and decreases for the poorest. At a systems-level, there is an implied air quality-employment tradeoff of 3 (<1 to 7) job-years created per life-year lost; this tradeoff varies spatially (−1100 to 4400 life-years lost minus job-years created), wherein the job benefit outweighs the air quality costs in most producing counties whereas in all other counties the reverse is true. We also observe temporal inequities, with air quality and employment impacts following the boom-and-bust cycle, while climate impacts are largely borne by future generations. Cross-impact elasticities (ε), which measure the sensitivity between different types of impacts, reveal that employment increases are sensitive to and coupled with increases in air and climate impacts (ε=1.1 and ε=1.3, respectively). The metrics applied here facilitate the evaluation and design of countervailing policies and systems that explicitly account for social inequities mediated through energy infrastructure, supply, and demand. For example, in future en...

Phasing out coal power plants based on cumulative air pollution impact and equity objectives in net zero energy system transitions

“…There are also spatial inequities with respect to air pollution (η = 0.72), with 60% of deaths concentrated in 10% of counties. For context, estimated spatial inequities of coal generation-related air pollution impacts exceed that of household income inequality in the US (η = 0.49 for 2018) and air pollution impacts across the natural gas supply chain in the Appalachian basin (η = 0.69) (10,50). There are large county-level variations in impacts in 2018.…”

“…The concept of just transitions has evolved to incorporate aspects of energy, environmental, and climate equity and justice, and to include elements related to the distribution of costs, risks, and benefits, such as air pollution and jobs [6][7][8][9]. In the broader context of environmental policy and planning in the United States (US), principles of equity and justice have historically been treated as subsidiary, if considered at all, rather than as explicit objectives [10]. Several studies have modeled least-cost technological pathways to achieve deep decarbonization at the macro-energy systems level based on principles of efficiency [11][12][13][14][15][16], but few studies focus on asset-level transitions based on principles of justice and equity.…”

“…There is a large body of literature attributing health damages to different sectors, showing that coal combustion in the power sector was responsible for 10%-14% of health impacts resulting from emissions of primary PM 2.5 and secondary PM 2.5 formed from the atmospheric oxidation of nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and SO 2 emissions [25,30,[33][34][35]. There is also evidence that air pollution from the electric power sector may disproportionately impact populations on the basis of socioeconomics and race [10,25,34,35]. Several studies have evaluated the air pollution co-benefits associated with transitioning away from coal generation in the US [36][37][38][39][40], but none have performed an assetlevel assessment based on both net zero emissions targets and policy objectives to minimize cumulative air pollution impacts and disparities on the basis of income, race, political geography, population density, and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) nonattainment classification.…”

Ending the Energy-Poverty Nexus: An Ethical Imperative for Just Transitions

“…Our ideas are relevant both to those engaged in efforts to plan for and implement carbon-neutral energy, as well as those seeking to localize energy design to address other structural issues, such as food insecurity or climate adaptation (Lewis et al, 2020). Our analysis should also resonate with researchers seeking to integrate equity and justice into energy modeling (Mayfield et al, 2019) or working with grassroots organizations and communities to help those most affected by energy transitions (Rivera Matos et al, 2021).…”

Costs of Regional Equity and Autarky in a Renewable European Power System

“…Beyond the spatial distribution of generation investments, numerous other dimensions of energy justice and equity principles exist [3]. Equity metrics can also relate to temporal, income, racial, labor and environmental aspects [4][5][6], and perceptions of fairness vary among stakeholders [7,8]. Recent developments of pan-continental models with growing sub-national detail raise the need for recognising their regional implications [6,9].…”