Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “equity and environmental justice”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

Building Environmental Justice and Equity into the Development of Critical Mineral Industries

The global transition toward low-carbon energy not only means an increase in demand for clean electricity and renewable resources, but also an increase in demand for the critical minerals (CMs) and rare earth elements (REEs) that these technologies rely upon. Indeed, low-carbon energy technologies, such as those used for wind turbines and electric vehicle motors, require significantly more lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, graphite, and other CMs than fossil-based energy technologies. The growing demand for new forms of low- carbon energy will necessitate a proportional scale-up of CM and REE extraction and processing. Presently, the majority of extraction and processing activities for CMs and REEs are concentrated in very few countries, primarily in China and the Global South. CM and REE supply chain activities conducted in or controlled by these countries are commonly associated with widespread and well- documented human rights abuses and environmental degradation. As a result of concerns related to supply chain security, worker welfare, and the overall need for additional sources of CMs and REEs, governments worldwide have begun to explore policy pathways for the development of new supply chains. The development of new supply chains for CMs and REEs re s a multifold opportunity to accelerate the global deployment of low-carbon energy fleets, reduce global carbon emissions, build political resilience—and also to enhance policy objectives of environmental justice and equity in the clean energy transition. Fulfilling these policy objectives requires energy producers to navigate a maze of global supply chain policies designed to shape and accelerate the growth of new markets. In the United States, for instance, President Biden recently implemented fiscal and trade policies that incentivize both domestic and global reliance on U.S.-produced CMs and REEs, leveraging key relationships in Asia and Europe to ensure the accelerated buildout of the U.S. supply chain. The Biden Administration’s framework also emphasizes that new supply chains for CMs, REEs, and other low-carbon energy pathways must generate benefits for marginalized and disadvantaged communities, build energy equity, and contribute to the Biden Administration’s vision of environmental justice. present CM and REE supply chains include several stages, including mining, processing, transport, utilization, and disposal, each of which involves different environmental justice considerations and potential injustices. This study explores how technical innovation, paired with responsible community engagement and empowerment, can help inform the development of energy equity and environmental justice at all stages of new supply chains. The study highlights these opportunities on a broad scale. We also lend a specific focus to research at the University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources that aims to guide the development of CM and REE industries in communities with high economic dependence on coal and other fossil fuel industries, identifying pathways to grow a U.S. domestic supply chain by producing CMs from coal, coal by-products, and coal waste streams. These production pathways represent a potential new supply for CMs across the U.S. and elsewhere, thereby enhancing national security and accelerating the widespread deployment of low-carbon energy technologies, while also generating alternative applications for remaining coal reserves and aiding in a just transition for rural energy-producing communities.

Gerace, Selena↗

Equitable Energy Metrics for Integration into Building Performance Standard Tracking Platforms: Preprint

Building Performance Standards (BPS) are being adopted globally and in the United States of America, where 14 different states and jurisdictions have a policy in place and many others are under development (Department of Energy (DOE) 2023). Accurate and equitable data sources are essential to make informed decisions about focusing investment on upgrading buildings to meet jurisdictional goals. There have been multiple new tools developed related to Energy Equity and Environmental Justice (EEEJ) and the resulting datasets need to be integrated into large building port-folios for quick access and better scalability. Integrating EEEJ data in a user-friendly format can help decision makers more quickly assess impacts and analyze the multitude of potentially significant metrics for which there is not yet consensus. In the U.S. and Canada, many BPS ordinances rely primarily on ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager (ESPM) to capture building characteristics and energy and water consumption data. These datasets can then be imported into city-specific building tracking tools like the Standard Energy Efficiency Data Platform (SEED). Crucially, BPS decision makers require an efficient means of identifying buildings in priority communities to effectively allocate resources and funding. This process must integrate seamlessly with existing jurisdictional toolsets for optimal utility. This paper will demonstrate, for the case of Washington D.C.'s (the District) data, a workflow that provides actionable data for building upgrade investment prioritization in disadvantaged communities.

BPS↗

Hydrogen Sustainable Infrastructure Guidelines (H2SIG)

Infrastructure interacts with major global challenges inclusive of climate change, resilience, equity and social justice, environmental protection and biodiversity, public health, and economic recovery. This effort directly addresses how to apply sustainability assessments to the unique aspects of hydrogen (H2) infrastructure projects using the Envision® sustainability framework developed by the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI). Envision is a flexible system of criteria and performance objectives to aid decision makers and help project teams identify sustainable approaches during planning, design and construction of infrastructure projects that will continue throughout the project’s operations, maintenance, and end-of-life phases. The goal of this work is to support those interested in conducting sustainability assessments for hydrogen infrastructure projects. Through this work the team has developed hydrogen-specific guidelines and best practices to assist project developers, investors and regulators in straightforward application of the Envision framework to systematically enhance clarity and increase objectivity across hydrogen projects. Subject matter experts from 20 different organizations (industry, non-profits, municipalities, emissions regulators, national labs) were engaged through 7 focus groups to discuss the H2-prioritized Envision requirements and elements to be included in the guidelines. In addition to these guidelines, the team conducted case studies as a way of demonstrating and informing the guidelines and providing examples or ideas for implementing sustainability in future projects. Through this study, the authors found that hydrogen infrastructure projects can incorporate many sustainable practices including reducing GHG emissions affecting climate change, reducing air pollutant emissions affecting the health of communities, synergistically handling waste byproducts, integrating into existing infrastructure, incorporating renewable energy, and addressing equity and environmental justice. Additionally, hydrogen infrastructure projects could benefit from 2-way communication engagement and collaborative planning with stakeholders, educational awareness of hydrogen technology, tracking and reporting on water use and water quality, and including monetized environmental and social benefits in life-cycle cost estimates. This document is the final technical report for the Hydrogen Sustainability Assessment Methods for Project Development project. While the main focus of the report is to provide guidelines for applying sustainability to hydrogen infrastructure, there are sections within the appendix providing completed project tasks and methodology.

08 HYDROGEN↗

Siting bioenergy facilities in the United States: Measuring participation in decisions and distribution of effects

Scientists and stakeholders can inform the process of siting renewable energy facilities in ways that do not perpetuate socioeconomic disparities associated with fossil fuel industries or create new ones. Procedural justice indicators and distributional justice indicators that incorporate environmental, social, and economic objectives can be used to site energy facilities in ways that increase benefits and reduce negative impacts to disadvantaged and underserved populations. A generic list of potential energy justice indicators for siting bioenergy facilities was developed collaboratively between U.S. bioenergy researchers and diverse agriculture, energy, and energy and environmental justice stakeholders and experts. From this list smaller numbers of indicators can be selected or modified with communities for local siting of bioenergy facilities. Groups of indicators can be used to guide biorefinery or biopower siting and permitting decisions, e.g., to compare siting options, to draw early attention to key problems, or to track progress toward justice-related targets.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Decarbonizing the US Energy System

Recent rapid and unexpected cost reductions in decarbonization technologies have accelerated the cost-effective decarbonization of the US economy, with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions falling by 20% from 2005 to 2020. The literature on US economy-wide decarbonization focuses on maximizing long-term GHG emissions reduction strategies that rely mostly on renewable energy expansion, electrification, and efficiency improvements to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. While these studies provide a valuable foundation, further research is needed to properly support decarbonization policy development and implementation. In this review, we identify key decarbonization analysis gaps and opportunities, including issues related to cross-sectoral linkages, spatial and temporal granularity, consumer behavior, emerging technologies, equity and environmental justice, and political economy. We conclude by discussing the implications of these analysis gaps for US decarbonization pathways and how they relate to challenges facing major global emitters.

08 HYDROGEN↗

Climate, air quality, and equity benefits from hydrogen substitution for fossil fuels used in process heat

Fossil fuel combustion for process heat in heavy industry accounts for ~15% of all United States CO 2 emissions and emits PM 2.5 and its precursors, emissions that have a disproportionate impact on minority populations. Decarbonizing process heat in the U.S. via hydrogen substitution presents an opportunity to reduce emissions of CO 2 and PM 2.5 and mitigate resulting exposure disparity. Here, we show that hydrogen substitution in steelmaking provides a large reduction in CO 2 emissions and air quality-related premature mortality, while hydrogen substitution in petroleum refining substantially benefits disadvantaged communities. When reductions in CO 2 emissions and premature mortality are monetized using standard regulatory values, we find that the sum of air pollution and climate benefits outweighs the difference in private cost associated with hydrogen substitution in steelmaking, regardless of the method of hydrogen production. The approach developed here can support evaluations of equity-focused decarbonization strategies in other industries and for specific sites.

08 HYDROGEN↗

Centering Energy and Environmental Justice in the Buildings Energy Sector

We face incredible challenges for decarbonizing our economy and raising the standard of living for all members of our society at the same time. Historical energy efficiency efforts have been effective in making small steps, but they fall far short of the massive changes we need to make, and they completely miss helping communities of disadvantage (e.g. low-income, African American, Hispanic American, Native American and tribal nations, etc). Business as usual efforts do not take the time to connect with and understand the challenges of these historical underinvested communities and therefore have not been effective at helping these communities. The Biden Harris Administration has set ambitious goals for decarbonization of our economy that include a requirement that 40% of efforts support energy and environmental justice communities. If we are to meet our decarbonization goals, it is imperative that we change our approach to research, development, and deployment of new technologies. The Department of Energy has set energy justice as a priority and is working with the national laboratories to change our approaches. This paper starts with definitions of what we mean by energy and environmental justice and how they apply to building technologies and deployment efforts. We provide several examples of how historical efforts have succeeded and how they have failed to account for challenges of communities of disadvantage. We identify market and technology barriers to decarbonization and energy efficiency for specific technologies and how these barriers are exacerbated for disadvantaged communities. From these examples, we propose a new framework for integrating energy and environmental justice into all aspects of technology development, deployment, and policy efforts within the building energy sector.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

EV Charging Infrastructure Energization An Overview of Approaches for Simplifying and Accelerating Timelines to Processing EV Charging Load Service Requests

The United States has seen significant growth in electric vehicle (EV) adoption, leading to increased demand for EV charging infrastructure. Over the past decade, EV charging infrastructure site developers, site hosts, and electric distribution utilities have navigated the process to integrate chargers onto the electric grid. Site developers and site hosts have raised the alarm that the integration process for high-powered EV charging projects does not meet the needs of the EV market for timeliness or cost. High-powered charging stations typically require a load service request or an agreement with the local utility to connect to the grid. The process of energizing a new high-powered charging site can be complex and time-consuming, often taking up to 2 years. This timeline is the result of current utility energization processes having been designed for construction projects that take longer to build (i.e., buildings). The specific challenges stem from various factors, including compartmentalization in application processes, the integration of EV charging process approvals with other distributed energy resources (DERs), and the need to ensure grid reliability. The energization process needs to evolve to meet the growing demand for high-powered EV charging. This white paper compiles information gathered through various conversations with key stakeholders, including utilities, utility regulators, EV charging operators, site developers, and authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ) as well as through an extensive literature review. This document identifies the challenges and provides potential solutions to streamline the process of connecting EV charging infrastructure to the power grid in the United States, serving as a starting point for future conversations around these solutions. The solutions noted in this white paper require collaborative efforts among utilities, regulators, and EV charging infrastructure developers to streamline the grid connection process for EV charging infrastructure. They are broadly organized into four areas: 1. Increase data access and transparency: Develop automated load service request tools, integrate hosting capacity and load service request analyses, incorporate EV adoption forecasts, and provide transparency on the processing queue. 2. Improve energization processes and timing: Create fast-track options based on prescreening criteria, provide flexibility or phased approvals in the load service request/interconnection process, build internal knowledge within utilities about EV charging technologies, and provide standardized workforce training. 3. Promote economic efficiency: Right size distribution components to accurately reflect the load requirements of EV charging infrastructure, make proactive investments in grid infrastructure based on EV adoption forecasts and growth projections, and consider energy equity and environmental justice factors such as equitable access to EV charging when planning infrastructure. 4. Improve grid reliability and resilience: Use load management/power control systems (PCS) at EV charging stations, adopt and implement harmonized standards for communication protocols and information models between the EV charging and grid control infrastructure, and address cybersecurity considerations by implementing robust security measures and standards for EV charging infrastructure—with particular emphasis on clarifying the security requirements for the interface to the grid. The objective of the solutions proposed in this white paper is to accelerate the timeline and decrease costs associated with connecting EV charging infrastructure to the grid. Electric utilities, utility regulators, EV charging infrastructure developers, and site hosts will first need to understand which solutions are available in their service territory, and if warranted, which combination of solutions would support their specific needs. Through the successful implementations of solutions at scale detailed here, industry will demonstrate a new and innovative ecosystem where timely deployment and energization of EV charging infrastructure with greater grid resiliency and reliability is a reality.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

LA100 Equity Strategies. Chapter 1: Justice as Recognition

The LA100 Equity Strategies project synthesizes community guidance with robust research, modeling, and analysis to identify strategy options that can increase equitable outcomes in Los Angeles' clean energy transition. Grounded in the analysis of past and ongoing energy inequities and engagement with underserved communities, the project presents community-guided and community-tailored strategies that aim to operationalize recognition and procedural justice. This chapter focuses on recognition justice, identifying and analyzing past and present social, cultural, and institutional barriers to affordable and clean energy for LA communities, as well as disparities in the distribution of energy system burdens and benefits. Acknowledging historical and structural factors behind current energy inequities is a first step in developing energy equity strategies for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) to achieve distributional justice - the just and equitable distribution of energy benefits and burdens in LA's energy transition. Recognition, procedural, and distributional justice are the three tenets of energy justice around which the LA100 Equity Strategies project is organized. In the United States, theory and practice around justice have historically focused on unequal distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. The historical siting of hazardous infrastructure such as power plants and transportation corridors in communities of color and low-income communities has disproportionately concentrated negative environmental impacts in their neighborhoods. Those inequities are reproduced via programs, policies, and other efforts (e.g., zoning and regulations, rebates and incentives, lending, investment, and financing) that directly affect people's lives and livelihoods. In recent decades, energy justice scholars and activists broadened their analysis to examine how environmental inequities intersect with other forms of social difference in the distribution of energy benefits and burdens. This approach investigates how differences in class, race, gender, age, and abilities, among others, intersect to understand the social, cultural, and institutional processes that create and perpetuate energy inequities. The LA100 Equity Strategies project embraces this approach to developing a more just clean energy future for LA. Because recognizing and understanding past and existing inequities is vital to addressing them in ways that ensure an equitable energy transition for all Angelenos, this chapter focuses on identifying and analyzing the challenges and inequities of LA's past and existing energy system, including LADWP programs.

community↗

Practical Approaches to Embed Energy and Environmental Justice into DOE Technology Portfolios (August 2021–August 2024)

This document serves as a resource to science and technology offices within DOE seeking to incorporate energy and environmental justice (EEJ) into their programs and portfolios. It provides background information on EEJ principles, how those principles apply from early-stage technology development through deployment and commercialization. Through providing foundational information about justice and equity, and how they apply to technology development and program facilitation, this document provides information to take tangible and interim steps towards these goals.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Summary of a Workshop on Integrating Energy Equity into Power System Planning and Operation

On November 29 and 30, 2023, the Energy Systems Integration Group convened a one-and-a-half-day workshop in Arlington, Virginia, to improve knowledge and practices for integrating energy equity considerations into power system planning and operation. Workshop participants were invited to discuss approaches for integrating energy equity aspects into models and tools and to explore possible pathways for enhanced technical practices. Participants included utility planning and modeling practitioners, social science and energy justice academics, representatives from energy and environmental justice nongovernmental organizations, non-profits, consumer advocates, and representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, national labs, and other government agencies. This report summarizes the discussion points and outcomes of the workshop, which prioritized the technical aspects of incorporating the challenges and solutions identified by electricity-futures stakeholders and communities. These technical activities include the fundamental grid structure and hardware, detailed modeling approaches that benchmark energy system performance and justify future investments, and engineering designs and limitations for potential solutions to meet energy equity goals in communities.

energy equity↗

Quantifying Energy Justice Goals in the Power Sector: Developing and Using Metrics

New policy goals are explicitly guiding the future grid toward greater energy equity. At the same time, policy goals also guide the grid toward decarbonization and resilience, while maintaining cost, security, and reliability cornerstone requirements. In conclusion, these pressures create a dilemma: moving urgently to address climate change and respond to energy disruptions, but also slowly to engage communities on the climate frontlines in earnest.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Identifying Disadvantaged Communities in the United States: An Energy-Oriented Mapping Tool that Aggregates Environmental and Socioeconomic Burdens

This paper defines a policy-relevant nationwide composite index to identify communities disproportionately impacted by environmental, energy, and climate injustices in the United States. We review existing vulnerability indicators and indices to assess the tradeoffs of different design parameters, including variable selection, geographic unit, dimensionality reduction, weighting, and aggregation methods. From this methodological review, we create the first nationwide, census tract-level index of cumulative burden that includes energy-relevant indicators alongside climate, social, environmental, and economic indicators, and is flexible to the inclusion of additional data sources. We provide a summary of the sources of inputs used to develop a definition for "disadvantaged communities" that can be used to prioritize energy investments. We discuss use-cases for this index including the implementation of the Justice40 Initiative, which calls for 40% of certain federal clean energy benefits to flow to disadvantaged communities in the United States. We use our results to examine historic allocations of federal energy investments and show that communities that we identify as disadvantaged received about 37% fewer funds per capita than non-disadvantaged communities.

cumulative burden↗

An editorial to the Special Issue on “Severe climate Risks”

The history of this Special Issue (https://www.sciencedirect.com/special-issue/10JD7LNJNQ0) indirectly dates back to the early 1990s, when the signature of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change kicked-off an international political process based on one overarching and foundational principle: to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” at the global level. More than three decades later, such a principle remains central, though complementary aims made their way through the climate negotiation process, such as the importance of ensuring equity and justice, to give just one example here. Scientific knowledge also considerably progressed and we know more about the range of risks that climate change imposes and will continue to impose to the biosphere and humankind, worldwide and at all territorial levels. It is also clear that societal responses to these risks —“climate adaptation” as we know it— are increasingly happening, but definitely not at the pace of climate risk trends (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021, Erisken et al., 2021, Olazabal and Ruiz De Gopegui, 2021, Magnan et al., 2023a, Reckien et al., 2023, UNEP, 2023). As a result, concerns have emerged over the recent years in both the scientific and policy arenas around the idea that societies may not be able to address all climate risks, and that limits to adaptation and induced residual risks need to be considered more seriously. Such concerns further highlight the continuing importance of the imperative to minimise dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, at any scale. But what does “dangerous interference” mean? How can we decide that we are entering the “dangerous” space, compared to a broader range of climate risks that would qualify as problematic but not necessarily “dangerous”? Who should make such a decision? Which conditions drive risk severity over time, including in the future? And what would be the environmental, economic, social and cultural implications of prioritising some climate risks over others? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a pioneer in addressing such questions through the development of the “Key Risks” framing that describes those climate risks having the potential to become dangerous or “severe” over the course of this century (Schellnhuber et al., 2006, Schneider et al., 2007, Oppenheimer et al., 2014, O’Neill et al., 2022). The Fifth and Sixth assessment cycles (AR5 and AR6) went a step further by identifying about 120 Key Risks across regions and sectors, and clustering them into 8 “Representative Key Risks” covering a range of geographical systems (low-lying coasts, and to terrestrial and ocean ecosystems), sectors (critical infrastructure, living standards, human health, food security, and water security) and human dimensions (peace and mobility) (Oppenheimer et al., 2014, O’Neill et al., 2022). This Special Issue was born of the efforts of a range of authors, during the development of the IPCC AR6 main Assessment Report between 2019 and 2022, to characterise Key Risks and Representative Key Risks, and advance knowledge on what shapes “severe climate risks” conceptually as well as in the real-world. The series of papers forming this Special Issue is not intended to cover the topic exhaustively, but rather to give readers an overview through the following narrative: defining “severe climate risks” is highly challenging (Magnan et al., 2023b), but knowledge is expanding on the driving climate hazards (Tebaldi et al., 2023) and their implications on geographical systems, sectors and human dimensions, using here food security (Mirzabaev et al., 2023), human mobility (Gilmore et al., 2024) and peace (Buhaug et al., 2023) as illustrative examples. The overall intention is to support especially decision-makers, whatever the scale or sector considered, in asking severity-driven questions to identify sector- and context-specific “priority” risks from climate change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

A comparative analysis of US state-level policies and programs to advance energy justice

Abstract The US energy system is undergoing massive changes that have environmental, technological, and societal implications. Decisions and actions taken now will dramatically alter the trajectory of our future energy system. Though new technologies can lessen the dangers of anthropogenic climate change, an effective and sustainable transition requires addressing social justice issues as a priority. To this end, many states have implemented policies and programs that address energy justice. A formal survey of state-level energy justice policies and programs is needed to better understand the methods used to assist communities targeted and the impacts of these efforts. Such an analysis should include an analysis of the metrics used to judge the effectiveness of the enacted policies and programs. In this paper, we analyze the energy justice policies and programs of seven different US states. From this analysis, we identify three important aspects of state energy policies. First, most policies and programs do not articulate their goals, nor cite metrics to judge their successes. This lack of transparency and accountability is a major roadblock to truly just solutions. Second, states focus on a very narrow range of solutions for energy justice issues. The most prevalent being utility bill assistance, which does not address the systemic and enduring challenges faced by many low-income or historically marginalized communities. Lastly, comprehensive energy policy does not acknowledge and address housing, employment, education, and healthcare inequities that exacerbate energy system inequities. The work presented in this paper sheds light on the progress of state-level energy justice policies and programs across the United States, and we argue more work needs to be done to understand best practices in energy justice policymaking.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗