| Autor: |
Campos Morales C; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, United States.; School of Public and International Affairs and Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, United States., Pakhtigian EL; School of Public Policy, The Pennsylvania State University; 322 Pond Laboratory, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, United States., Landry JR; College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, United States., Wiseman H; Penn State Law, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, United States., Pham AT; School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States., Peng W; School of Public and International Affairs and Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, United States. |
| Abstrakt: |
Retiring coal power plants can reduce air pollution and health damages. However, the spatial distribution of those impacts remains unclear due to complex power system operations and pollution chemistry and transport. Focusing on coal retirements in Pennsylvania (PA), we analyze six counterfactual scenarios for 2019 that differ in retirement targets (e.g., reducing 50% of coal-based installed capacity vs generation) and priorities (e.g., closing plants with higher cost, closer to Environmental Justice Areas, or with higher CO 2 emissions). Using a power system model of the PJM Interconnection, we find that coal retirements in PA shift power generation across PA and Rest of PJM, leading to scenario-varying changes in the plant-level release of air pollutants. Considering pollution transport and the size of the exposed population, these emissions changes, in turn, give rise to a reduction of 6-136 PM 2.5 -attributable deaths in PJM across the six scenarios, with most reductions occurring in PA. Among our designed scenarios, those that reduce more coal power generation yield greater aggregate health benefits due to air quality improvements in PA and adjacent downwind regions. In addition, comparing across the six scenarios evaluated in this study, vulnerable populations─in both PA and Rest of PJM─benefit most in scenarios that prioritize plant closures near Environmental Justice Areas in PA. These results demonstrate the importance of considering cross-regional linkages and sociodemographics in designing equitable retirement strategies. |
