Search for: All records

Abstract Energy transitions and decarbonization require rapid changes to a nation’s electricity generation mix. There are many feasible decarbonization pathways for the electricity sector, yet there is vast uncertainty about how these pathways will advance or derail the nation’s energy equality goals. We present a framework for investigating how decarbonization pathways, driven by a least-cost paradigm, will impact air pollution inequality across vulnerable groups (e.g., low-income, minorities) in the US. We find that if no decarbonization policies are implemented, Black and high-poverty communities may be burdened with 0.19–0.22 μg/m³higher PM_2.5concentrations than the national average during the energy transition. National mandates requiring more than 80% deployment of renewable or low-carbon technologies achieve equality of air pollution concentrations across all demographic groups. Thus, if least-cost optimization capacity expansion models remain the dominant decision-making paradigm, strict low-carbon or renewable energy technology mandates will have the greatest likelihood of achieving national distributional energy equality. Decarbonization is essential to achieving climate goals, but myopic decarbonization policies that ignore co-pollutants may leave Black and high-poverty communities up to 26–34% higher PM_2.5exposure than national averages over the energy transition. 

Abstract Income-based energy poverty metrics ignore people’s behavior patterns, particularly reducing energy consumption to limit financial stress. We investigate energy-limiting behavior in low-income households using a residential electricity consumption dataset. We first determine the outdoor temperature at which households start using cooling systems, the inflection temperature. Our relative energy poverty metric, theenergy equity gap, is defined as the difference in the inflection temperatures between low and high-income groups. In our study region, we estimate the energy equity gap to be between 4.7–7.5 °F (2.6–4.2 °C). Within a sample of 4577 households, we found 86 energy-poor and 214 energy-insecure households. In contrast, the income-based energy poverty metric, energy burden (10% threshold), identified 141 households as energy-insecure. Only three households overlap between our energy equity gap and the income-based measure. Thus, the energy equity gap reveals a hidden but complementary aspect of energy poverty and insecurity. 

Ensuring an equitable energy transition requires models and tools that can account for equity and energy justice goals. Power system models (PSMs) are widely used throughout industry, government, and academia to simulate or optimize the operations and planning of current and future electricity systems under different scenarios, parameter assumptions and policy frameworks. These models are important tools that allow users to understand how the power system may evolve under different future conditions, but importantly, they are also used to inform policy implementation and investment decisions across all aspects of the power system. However, existing models seldom include energy justice considerations and therefore energy justice priorities are not reflected in the policies and other decision-making processes that are informed by these models. The purpose of this review is to provide a framework that energy modelers can draw upon to integrate energy justice and equity goals into PSMs. To this end, 99 papers that examine the intersection of energy justice and power system models are summarized and ten core aspects of the power system that can impact energy justice outcomes, and therefore require new modeling approaches, are identified. This review then establishes key current practices, challenges, and opportunities associated with capturing energy justice considerations in power system models across these ten aspects. This review concludes by proposing four key research directions that should be pursued to improve the representation of energy justice and equity in power system modeling. Finally, this review also addresses challenges raised by United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 7, which aims to ensure affordable energy access to everyone and Sustainable Development Goal 13, which aims to take urgent action to address climate change. 

With increasing focus on equitable and just energy transition, it is critical to understand the trade-offs of different decarbonization outcomes across economic, environmental, and social sustainability criteria. In this analysis, we use a multi-criteria decision analysis to quantify sustainability outcomes across 32 decarbonization outcomes in 2050 in the U.S. The economic sustainability criteria we use are system cost, national average retail rate, and electricity system employment. The environmental sustainability criteria we use are life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, life cycle water depletion, life cycle land transformation, and air pollution fatalities. The social sustainability (distributional impacts) criteria we use are retail rate equality across states, electricity employment equality across low-income households, and air pollution disparities across census tracts. We evaluate performance across these criteria under eleven different stakeholder preference scenarios. We find that decarbonization policies with indefinitely extended tax credits have the highest sustainability score under equal criteria weighting, with greater investments in renewable energy technologies, and result in better environmental, system cost, job, and air pollution disparities compared to mid-case scenarios, that only include current policies and CO2 reduction targets. We also see that our multi-criteria decision analysis identifies decarbonization outcomes that would not have been identified as optimal under a single objective, which highlights the importance of trade-off analyses to understand decarbonization outcomes more holistically.