Progress Report - Affected Communities
Affected Communities
On this page:
Last updated on October 1, 2024
Data current through 2023
Regulatory programs to reduce power sector emissions under the Clean Air Act have delivered substantial air quality improvements since the first nationwide program was implemented decades ago.1 However, fossil-fuel fired power plants continue to be an important source of ozone- and particulate-forming pollution, impacting our communities, lands, and waterways.
Environmental impacts can be inequitably distributed in the United States, with people of color and low-income populations consistently bearing a disproportionate burden of pollution in some areas.2 Further, climate change broadly impacts human health through increasing concentrations of ambient air pollutants, including ground-level ozone.3 In this chapter of the Progress Report, we examine the results of the EPA’s power sector programs through an environmental justice lens to better understand the impacts of those programs on changes in emissions at plants located near disadvantaged communities.
We draw on detailed air emissions data that EPA collects from power plants across the country to provide three types of analyses.4 First, we estimate the U.S. population living within three miles of a fossil-fuel fired power plant and characterize the demographics in those areas.5 Second, we compare 2023 emissions from plants located near areas of potential environmental justice (EJ) concern to emissions from all other plants. Lastly, we present emission trends associated with these plants from 2014, prior to implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), through 2023. These analyses rely on approaches established by EPA’s environmental justice screening and mapping tools, including EJScreen, which provides a nationally consistent approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators to highlight places that may have higher environmental burdens and vulnerable populations.
This chapter focuses on the people who live within three miles of the power plants regulated under EPA’s Acid Rain Program (ARP) and the CSAPR programs.6 At this time, we are not considering other pollution sources which may contribute to a disproportionate environmental burden for some of these people, nor does it consider the people who live more than three miles from each plant and who may be affected by air pollution from these facilities.
People Living Near Power Plants
Proximity analysis is a frequently used approach to examine potential impacts on people who live in areas that may be affected by a pollution source. In 2023, over 1,300 fossil-fuel fired power plants were covered under the ARP and CSAPR programs. Of the 327.5 million people in the contiguous U.S. (excluding Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories),7 10 percent live within three miles of one or more of these power plants.8 Most of that population (greater than 9 percent) live near a plant fueled by natural gas. Approximately 2 percent live near other types of fossil-fuel fired, such as coal-fired or oil-fired power plants,9 which typically emit more pollution (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Clean Air Power Sector Programs Affected Communities Mapping Tool
The federal government has long recognized the heightened vulnerability of people of color and low-income10 individuals to environmental pollutants. EPA compared the percentages of people of color and low-income populations living within three miles of these power plants to the national average and found that there is a greater percentage of people of color and low-income individuals living near power plants than in the rest of the country on average. According to the Census Bureau’s ACS 2017-2021 5-year Summary, on average, the U.S. population is comprised of 39 percent people of color and 31 percent low-income individuals. In contrast, the population living near fossil-fuel fired power plants is comprised of 53 percent people of color and 34 percent low-income individuals. For higher-emitting coal plants, the average population of people of color living within three miles is lower than the national average at 24 percent, and the average percent of low-income population is equivalent to the national average at 31 percent. Figure 2 summarizes the percentages for people of color and low-income populations.
Figure 2. Comparative Percentages of People of Color and Low-Income Populations Within Three Miles of a Power Plant, by Primary Fuel Type
| Demographic | National Percentage | All Plants | Coal | Gas | Oil | Other Fuel |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People of Color | 39% | 53% | 24% | 55% | 50% | 46% |
| Low Income | 31% | 34% | 31% | 34% | 32% | 43% |
The rest of this chapter takes a closer look at the emissions coming from with plants that are located near areas of potential EJ concern. In the following analyses, those plants include any that are located within three miles of at least one census block group11 where the population is characterized by either a relatively high population12 of people of color or low-income people, based on data available in EPA’s EJScreen. As shown in Figure 1, 68 percent of all power plants (910 out of 1,343 plants) were located near areas of potential EJ concern in 2023.13
Additionally, EPA is providing a new tool for users to expand upon this analysis. The Affected Communities 2023 Dashboard offers users the ability to explore different definitions of “areas of potential EJ concern” as well as the ability to focus on particular groups of power plants. This dashboard provides summary statistics (e.g., how many power plants are located near areas of potential EJ concern), as well as trends in emissions over time (e.g., how have emissions decreased at plants located near areas of potential EJ concern).
Emissions Affecting People Living Near Power Plants
This section focuses on 2023 sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from plants located near areas of potential EJ concern. Sulfur dioxide is a highly reactive gas that is generated primarily from coal-fired power plants. In addition to acid rain and fine particle pollution, SO2 emissions are linked to many harmful human health impacts. Nitrogen oxide emissions contribute to ground-level ozone and fine particle pollution, which also cause many harmful health impacts, including decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, and premature death.
A measure of power plant output like electricity generation (i.e., the amount of electricity produced) can give a sense of scale to comparisons between different groups of plants or when comparing changes across time periods. Sixty two percent of 2023 electricity generation from all ARP and CSAPR power plants came from plants located near areas of potential EJ concern.
This group of plants is responsible for approximately 43 percent of SO2 emissions, 53 percent of annual NOX emissions, and 54 percent of ozone season (May 1-September 30) NOX emissions near areas of potential EJ concern (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Comparative 2023 Generation and Emissions
Emission Trends 2014–2023
EPA analyzed emission trends between 2014 and 2023 for the ARP and CSAPR power plants. During this time, the percent reduction in total net annual SO2 and annual NOX emissions was greater at the group of plants located near areas of potential EJ concern than for all other plants. On average, SO2 emissions decreased by 79 percent at the plants located near areas of potential EJ concern, compared to a 64 percent reduction from all other plants. Annual NOX emissions decreased by 51 percent from plants near areas of potential EJ concern, slightly greater than the 49 percent reduction at all other plants. Seasonal NOX emissions decreased by 46 percent from plants near areas of potential EJ concern, slightly less than the reduction of 49 percent at all other plants (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Changes in Power Plant Emissions, 2014–2023
Conclusion
This chapter of the Progress Report combines publicly available emissions data with information in EJScreen and contributes to our understanding of the relationship between the power sector and nearby areas of potential EJ concern. The intent of this chapter is to focus on emissions at the fossil-fuel fired power plants in the contiguous U.S. which are covered by EPA’s regulatory programs developed to reduce acid rain and cross-state transport of particulate matter and ozone and relate those emissions to nearby areas. It does not yet consider the aggregate of all pollutants affecting these areas. Additionally, unlike EPA’s regulatory analyses, this chapter does not consider the ability of emissions to travel more than three miles and combine with other pollutants. These considerations are important to evaluating the full impact of the fossil-fuel fired power plants in the U.S.
The chapter provides a first step toward that evaluation and consists of three analyses, the results of which are summarized below:
First, EPA looked within three miles of each power plant regulated under EPA’s ARP and CSAPR programs and found that 10 percent of people in the contiguous U.S. live within three miles of a power plant. These are mostly gas-fired power plants, with approximately 2 percent of people living near coal- or oil-fired plants. Compared to the national average, the population living near power plants is characterized by a higher percentage people of color and low-income people than the national population.
Next, looking carefully at each census block group within a three-mile radius, EPA found that most of these power plants are located near at least one area of potential EJ concern.14 These plants were responsible for 43 percent of annual SO2 emissions, 53 percent of annual NOX emissions, and 54 percent of ozone season NOX emissions in 2023.
Finally, the third analysis found that aggregate emission trends between 2014 and 2023 show a greater percent reduction in annual SO2 and annual NOX emissions from plants located near areas of potential EJ concern, compared to all other ARP and CSAPR plants. Specifically, SO2 emissions decreased by 79 percent at the plants located near areas of potential EJ concern, compared to a 64 percent reduction from all other plants. Annual NOX and ozone season NOX emissions decreased by 51 percent and 46 percent, respectively, from plants near areas of potential EJ concern, which is comparable to the decrease in emissions from all other ARP and CSAPR plants.
While EPA’s programs have been effective in achieving overall emissions reductions, further analysis will address the health and environmental harms associated with power plant emissions and advance examination of the fair distribution of air quality and human health benefits from EPA’s emission reduction programs. We are dedicated to continuous progress toward these goals. EPA will continue to assess and provide access to the results of existing and future power plant emissions reduction programs through an environmental justice lens. Future analyses will build upon the findings presented in this chapter.
EPA invites your feedback. We would like to make this work accessible and useful to as many people as possible and welcome your ideas about how to do so. The data informing these analyses can be found here. We also encourage you to explore our Power Plants and Environmental Justice webpage, which includes the Power Plants and Neighboring Communities tool and the Power Plant Environmental Justice Screening Methodology.
A wealth of additional public data, interactive maps, graphs, and other resources is available through our Clean Air Power Sector Programs website.
More Information
- Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJ Screen)
- Power Plants and Neighboring Communities
- Power Sector Emissions, Operations, and Environmental Data
References
1 For more information about reductions in emissions and improved air quality, see the emissions reductions section of the Progress Report.
2 See, for example, Cole, L. W., & Foster, S. R. (2001). From the ground up: Environmental racism and the rise of the environmental justice movement (Vol. 34). NYU Press; Jbaily, A., Zhou, X., Liu, J., Lee, T. H., Kamareddine, L., Verguet, S., & Dominici, F. (2022). Air pollution exposure disparities across US population and income groups. Nature, 601(7892), 228-233; and Liu, J., Clark, L. P., Bechle, M. J., Hajat, A., Kim, S. Y., Robinson, A. L., ... & Marshall, J. D. (2021). Disparities in air pollution exposure in the United States by race/ethnicity and income, 1990–2010. Environmental Health Perspectives, 129(12), 127005.
3 Nolte, C.G., Dolwick, P.D., Fann, N., Horowitz, L.W., Naik, V., Pinder, R.W., Spero, T.L., Winner, D.A., Ziska, L.H. (2018a). Air Quality. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC.
4 The most recent annual emissions data are from 2023.
5 We utilize the U.S. Census Bureau’s American community Survey 2017-2021 5-year Summary data.
6 These are power plants that combust fossil fuels to generate electricity and emit air pollution. CSAPR programs refer to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the CSAPR Update, the Revised CSAPR Update, and the Good Neighbor Plan.
7 U.S. Census Bureau. "ACS DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING ESTIMATES." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Selected Population Data Profiles, Table DP05, 2021. Accessed on September 19, 2024.
8 It is important to note that the impacts of power plant emissions are not limited to a three-mile radius. Because pollution can travel over long distances from a power plant, the impacts of both potential increases and decreases in power plant emissions can be felt many miles away, meaning that the air quality in a community can be due to far-distant pollution sources as well as those sited within a community. Still, being aware of the characteristics of communities closest to power plants is a starting point in understanding the potential sources of pollution that may impact a community and how changes in a power plant’s air emissions may affect the air quality experienced by some of those already vulnerable to environmental burdens.
9 This number adds up to more than 10 percent because some people live near both gas- and coal-fired power plants.
10 EJScreen defines people of color as the percent of individuals in a block group who list their racial status as a race other than white alone and/or list their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino (all people other than non-Hispanic white-alone individuals). The word "alone" in this case indicates that the person is of a single race, not multiracial. EJScreen defines low-income as the percent of a block group’s population in households where the household income is less than or equal to twice the federal "poverty level."
11 Census block groups are statistical divisions of census tracts and are generally defined as containing between 600 and 3,000 people.
12 In this report, we define “relatively high” to include percentile values greater than or equal to the 80th percentile on a national basis. This threshold is applied here as a starting point for the purpose of identifying geographic areas that may warrant further consideration, analysis, or outreach. The application of this threshold in this report is not intended to determine the existence or absence of EJ concerns or designate an area as an “EJ community.” Rather, the intent of this report is to provide screening level analysis.
13 In this example, for an area to be in the 80th percentile nationwide means that the percent people of color and/or low-income within that block group is higher than 80 percent of all block groups across the country. In other words, the percent people of color and/or low income in the area is significantly higher than average.
14 Again, in this report, an “area of potential EJ concern” is defined as a census block group where the population is characterized by either a relatively high people of color or low-income population. It does not take the number of people living within the block group into account.