Our “Clean” Energy Future May Increase Harmful Air Pollution. Here’s How to Course Correct.

There are a number of climate policy “solutions” that can actually make local air quality worse. That’s right, some energy resources that are classified as “renewable” and “clean” by governments are increasing harmful pollution.

In Baltimore, Maryland, predominantly Black and brown households living next to a trash incinerator facility breathe in toxic fumes and harmful pollution every day. Yet the state has classified this facility, which produces toxic ash and burns heaps of plastic every day, as “renewable” because it can turn heat into energy. In Springfield, Massachusetts, another pollution-burdened community surrounded by power plants spent nine years fighting off a large biomass facility that would have made their already toxic air worse. This “renewable” facility would have burned 1,200 tons of wood per day in one of the top “Asthma Capitals” of the country.

These communities, already burdened by toxic air quality, are now having to fight policies that would spew even more pollution into their neighborhoods – all under the guise of “clean energy.” The fight has even reached the national stage: In efforts to accelerate the energy transition, the federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Act included funding for energy resources that would increase pollution in local communities. Without steps to reduce air pollution and other harms, policies that claim to move us to a “clean” energy future are potentially creating even more harmful environments.

Without steps to reduce air pollution and other harms, policies that claim to move us to a “clean” energy future are potentially creating even more harmful environments.

Harmful Claims of “Renewable” and “Clean” in Policy

The problem lies both in how policies classify what is a “renewable” and “clean” energy source, as well as how fossil plants are used when the grid transitions to more renewable resources. Without getting lost in the weeds of contested definitions, the general assumption is that renewable energy is cleaner and greener than fossil fuel energy, and therefore would not harm local communities. It’s important to note that this assumption, while true for technologies such as solar and wind, is not true for a number of energy sources (see Table 1). The energy sources listed in Table 1 are argued as better alternatives for communities, but they are, in fact, still harmful.

Some energy sources are defined as “renewable” when they still release significant greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. These emitting “renewable” sources can then increase the toxic pollution especially felt by frontline communities – a trend true for energy sources like biomass and biogas combustion and municipal waste incineration.

Other energy sources are used in different, more polluting ways. For example, gas power plants that start and stop frequently to back up solar and wind energy often emit more pollution than average due to more frequent starts and stops. Plenty of less-polluting alternatives exist, such as battery storage, small scale hydro power, geothermal, and demand-side options like demand response.

Note: Many of these energy sources will be covered in more detail in future Equity Fund articles and briefs.

Three Ways to Advocate For Do-No-Harm Climate Policies

The resources in Table 1 ultimately have no role in a just, equitable, and clean energy transition. Here are three ways communities can mitigate the potential of increased pollution by centering equity and ensuring climate policies do no harm:

First, and foremost, communities can advocate for definitions of “clean” and “renewable” energy in federal and state law to NOT include resources that emit harmful pollution. This would mean, for example, excluding energy from biomass and municipal waste from being classified as “clean, renewable energy.” In general, climate solutions should always prioritize air pollution reduction for frontline communities.
Second, communities can demand increased accountability to ensure that air pollution from energy resources is tracked and minimized. While the federal government has clear reporting requirements for larger fossil facilities, the same is not true for smaller facilities, like biofuel facilities, that are often located within communities. In addition to stronger reporting, communities can advocate for improved regulations and increased enforcement to ensure that air pollution from facilities, especially in overburdened communities, is minimized to the greatest extent possible. For example, communities could advocate for enforcement and implementation of the Clean Air Act to mandate facilities to install better controls to reduce pollutant emissions.
Third, communities can advocate for emission reductions in areas that disproportionately bear the burden of the current energy system. This can look like policies that target and prioritize frontline communities for truly clean and renewable energy policies and pollution reduction goals. This can also look like mandated plans that retire polluting facilities within and near communities where folks live and work, particularly for historically marginalized areas.

A clear plan to reduce air pollution in frontline communities and a multi-faceted approach that looks at air pollution requirements as well as utility energy planning can transition a community to an equitable and truly clean energy future.

Giving harmful energy resources a role in the transition will only erode trust in policy promises for clean energy and continue harm in already overburdened communities.

An Equitable Clean Energy Future is Achievable

In Oxnard, California, a community fought back and won against a plan to build a gas power plant as a backup for renewables through political pressure and a technical plan for a stronger alternative – battery storage installation. New York recently rejected plans for the construction of new fossil gas plants because the plans were not consistent with the state’s climate requirements.

“Giving harmful energy resources a role in the transition will only erode trust in policy promises for clean energy and continue harm in already overburdened communities.”

How we define “clean,” prioritize historically marginalized communities, and design policy will determine if we can achieve a just transition. Giving harmful energy resources a role in the transition will only erode trust in policy promises for clean energy and continue harm in already overburdened communities. We must course-correct now – our clean energy solutions need to be equitable, truly clean, renewable, and do no harm.

For more information, check out these resources:

Sonum Nerurkar is the federal strategist at the Equity Fund.
Deborah Behles is a policy consultant to the Equity Fund.