The startling costs of air pollution on unborn children

robert wyly cleveland pollution
robert wyly cleveland pollution

Industrial pollution obscures Cleveland’s cityscape in this 1960 photo from Robert Wyly (courtesy of Elvin Wyly).

In a developing fetus, one of the the last organs to form fully is the lungs. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) defines a preterm birth (PTB) as one that occurs before 37 weeks of gestation. This definition is, in part, due to the fact that the fetus does not begin to develop pulmonary surfactant, a vital lipoprotein that allows the lungs to remain expanded as one breathes, until around 30 weeks. All told, a child born before 36 weeks will struggle to breathe on his/her own.

PTB remains a serious issue in the United States. It is responsible for 35% of infant deaths, making it the single leading cause of infant mortality, and it can contribute to major cognitive and developmental disabilities. Given the vital role that lung function plays in infant health, it is clear that PTB directly affects a child’s ability to take in air. But what about the reverse? Could the air that a fetus (and its mother) breathes contribute to PTB? New research suggests that’s the case.

Drawing the link between air quality and preterm birth

Earlier this week, the journal Environmental Health Perspectives published a study from three researchers at New York University that explored the connection between air pollution and PTB. As I’ve noted in the past, there is a plethora of studies linking air pollution to low birth weight, PTB, and infant mortality. This study builds upon that literature by determining the proportion of PTB that is directly attributable air pollution.

In order to explore this issue, the researchers decided to examine the impact of the single worst criteria air pollutant, fine particulate matter (PM2.5). They assembled county level PTB values during 2010 from the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) WONDER database. Next, sing established epidemiological methods, they then calculated the proportion of PTBs in each county attributable to PM2.5 pollution, using a reference ambient concentration of 8.8 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). This level of pollution is what the World Health Organization uses to determine the global burden of disease caused by outdoor air pollution.

Nationally, PTB rates have fallen to 11.3%, but they remain far too high. According to the study’s authors, 3.32% of all preterm births in the continental United States during 2010 were due to particle pollution. This amounts to 15,808 PTBs in that year alone.

Calculating the social costs of PTB from air pollution

But the authors did not stop there.  Theirs is the first study to quantify the economic impacts of this link. They developed estimates of the medical costs associated with PTB for children from birth through 5 years of age. To this value, they added the costs of lost economic productivity from reduced cognitive function and potential.

According to the study, the average premature child suffers an 11.9 point IQ decrement, which leaves them significantly disadvantaged compared to their peers.

Based on the best available data, the authors find:

These estimated numbers of attributable preterm births cost $760 million in medical care…and $4.33 billion…in lost economic productivity was also identified (based on estimated reductions in IQ and estimated consequences for productivity over a lifetime). In total, we estimated that $5.09 billion in preterm birth-related costs (medical care costs and lost economic productivity combined) could be attributed to PM2.5

Uneven distribution of costs

But, predictably, these costs are not distributed evenly among counties or demographic groups. The single highest fraction of PTBs attributable to particle pollution occurred here in Ohio, where 5.44% of all PTBs – 924 children in 2010 – are due to our polluted air. Compare this to New Mexico and Wyoming, states with drastically lower PTB rates, where the attributable fraction is just 0.12%. This leads to total annual costs of just under $300 million in Ohio: $253 million in lost economic productivity and $44.4 million in medical care costs.

Unfortunately, the authors did not provide supplemental data breaking down these attributable fractions and costs by county or metro area. They do provide a map that shows the percentage of PTB attributable to particle pollution by county, but it lumps all values above 5% together.

preterm birth from pollution by county

The percentage of preterm births attributable to particle pollution by county in 2010.

That said, Greater Cleveland has extremely high levels of both particle pollution and PTB. Cuyahoga County is one of just nine nonattainment areas for the 2012 PM2.5 standard, and Cleveland has the third highest PTB rate in the country. Pollution almost certainly accounts for a larger proportion of PTBs here then the state average. Additionally, based on data from the Ohio EPA, the annual ambient concentration of PM2.5 in Cuyahoga County during 2010 was 13.7μg/m3, 56% higher than the reference level of 8.8μg/m3 that the authors applied. Given this fact, I have to conclude that significantly more than 5% of PTBs in this region are tied to air pollution.

But let’s be conservative and assume that particle pollution is only responsible for 6% of preterm births in Cuyahoga County. That still means that the parents of 126 premature children born in 2010 can place the blame squarely on our elevated levels of particle pollution. If we raise this threshold to 10% – not an unreasonable assumption – this number increases to 209.

Additionally, Cuyahoga County accounts for 12.3% (2,093 out of 17,007) of all PTBs in Ohio during 2010. If we apportion this share, that means the county incurred $36.6 million in costs.

These numbers are equal parts dumbfounding and infuriating. The quality – or lack thereof – of the air we breathe day in and day out affects everyone of us here in Greater Cleveland. But it doesn’t just harm those of who have the means to choose where we live. It reaches into the womb and directly affects the futures of children who have never even taken a breath.

It’s well past time we stop pretending that air quality doesn’t affect every one of us profoundly and in a number of ways.

If you want to make a walkable city, you need to do the little things well

saddest crosswalk sign
saddest crosswalk sign

The saddest crosswalk sign in Cleveland.

Last week, while riding my bike to work, I stumbled across a sight that was both frightening both for its content and for how commonplace it seems to have become recently.

As I came to a stop at the corner of West 25th and Chatham Avenue, I saw a person lying in the street, surrounded by concerned onlookers. A bus idled parallel to the crowd, and a car with obvious front-end damage was stopped in the middle of the street.

It was at this point that the light changed, and I had to resume my commute. I only saw the scene for a minute or two, but it was enough for me to piece together some semblance of a narrative. It appeared as though the pedestrian – I never actually saw the person from the waist up – had attempted to cross West 25th to catch the waiting bus. At that point, this person was struck by the car, which bore the telltale signs of damage around the driver’s side headlight. I have no way of knowing whether or not the person had the right of way, but the fact that the car was damaged suggests the collision was violent.

This was not the first time that I came across the aftermath of a car-on-pedestrian collision. Back in 2011, again while biking, I happened upon a 17-year old young man lying dead in a pool of his own blood on Ontario Street, just south of Public Square. The driver who struck him was standing outside his car, speaking to police. He was visibly shaken. I later learned that the 17-year old had run into the street after his skateboard, and the driver was unable to stop in time. It’s a scene that haunts me to this day. While the driver was found not to be at fault, this was a visceral reminder of the stark imbalance between drivers and pedestrians. If a teenager makes one bad decision, he may never make another.

It’s through this lens that I read the glowing coverage on the proposed updates to the City of Cleveland’s downtown zoning regulations. The City Planning Commission seems committed to moving towards form-based zoning, at least in limited areas, in an attempt to make our city more walkable and pedestrian friendly. Unfortunately, this pilot “urban core overlay” would only occur in the area of downtown near the proposed Weston-Citymark development. While this is welcome, it risks reinforcing one of the complaints that a number of us have made over the past few years – namely, the City seems preoccupied with big, shiny, expensive projects, rather than the types of small changes that can immediately improve peoples’ lives.

If you know me or have read things that I’ve written here in the past, you probably realize that I’m a proponent of incremental progress. It’s great to push for the Big Things that can help shift paradigms, but we shouldn’t ignore the types of small, tangible changes that help people at the margins. It’s just as important to do the little things well.

With this in mind, I’ve been wanting to explore how well the City of Cleveland addresses the small details that can go a long way towards improving pedestrians’ quality of life. Vibrant NEO 2040, the landmark report produced by the Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium, laid out a few of the important things that cities can do to enhance their walkability (see “Pedestrian Orientation” section). The City of Cleveland was an active participant in this process, and this document is supposed to inform planning in the region going forward. Using these criteria, let’s consider Cleveland’s progress – or lack thereof.

1.) Do all intersections include crosswalks and pedestrian signals?

One of the simplest and most important things a city can do is to ensure that every intersection is equipped with crosswalks and pedestrian signals. This simple addition of some painted lines and signals carves out a small part of the street where pedestrians have a legally enforceable right to space. It is only in these crosswalks during these designated periods when a pedestrian can reasonably expect to have his/her rights protected from the 2,000 pound metal boxes that dominate our roads. Surely Cleveland is succeeding in this most fundamental of areas, right?

Not exactly. Consider the intersection where I came across that injured pedestrian last week. The collision occurred roughly parralel to that red marker. As you can see in the satellite image below, there are only crosswalks at three of the four points at this busy intersection. Keep in mind that this is just south of the corner of Lorain Avenue, home to the West Side Market and an array of bars, restaurants, and shops.

west 25th chatham

The intersection of West 25th Street and Chatham Avenue in the Ohio City neighborhood (courtesy of Google Maps).

If you head just about a block northwest of this intersection, you will come across another heavily trafficked area – the West 25th Street rapid station on Lorain Avenue. Again, this is one of the busiest stations in RTA’s rail network, and it lies just across the street from the West Side Market. Surely pedestrians should be able to head out of the station and immediately cross Lorain to get to the Market? Well, as you can see, that’s not possible. Instead, they have to first cross West 24th Street/Gehring Avenue, then wait to cross Lorain. It’s all the more galling when you consider that this intersection is located on the edge of one of Cleveland’s pedestrian retail overlay districts.

west 25th rapid station

An aerial view of the streets around the West 25th rapid station in Cleveland (courtesy of Google Maps).

2.) Are all pedestrian signals set to actuate at all times (i.e. not pedestrian actuated)?

Once again, this seems like a small thing. It makes a pedestrian’s life a lot easier if she knows that regardless of when she gets to the intersection during the cycle, the walk signal is going to trigger when it’s supposed to. If that’s not the case, you may either have to wait through multiple cycles of the light to cross safely or take the risk of crossing when the walk sign is not activated.

Let’s head just two blocks east from our last intersection, down Lorain Avenue, to corner of West 20th Street. This is a very popular cut through point for commuters who want to avoid traffic on I-71 as they enter downtown via the Lorain-Carnegie (Hope Memorial) Bridge. Likewise, I frequently bike down Abbey to West 20th in order to access the multi-use path on the bridge more safely.

But, alas, the signals at West 20th and Lorain are pedestrian actuated. If I fail to trigger the signal before the light on West 20th turns green – which, I would estimate, happens roughly half of the time – I either have to wait another cycle or risk crossing the street without the signal in the face of drivers making aggressive right-hand turns onto the bridge. I cannot count the number of times that I have nearly been run down in that intersection, even when I had the signal.

west 20th lorain

Intersection of West 20th Street and Lorain Avenue, just west of the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge (courtesy of Google Maps).

3.) Has the city installed “leading pedestrian interval” signals, which allow pedestrians to start ahead of vehicular traffic?

To be honest, this one is more aspirational than anything. I came across these signals throughout Washington, DC, but I hold out little hope that they’ll be installed here soon. (Keep in mind that the State of Ohio passed a law in 2013 requiring pedestrians to yield to cars turning right.)

Realistically, I just want the City to ensure that every pedestrian signal is synced to the traffic light. That is, the walk sign should activate as soon as the light turns green for cars, and the signal should not switch from flashing don’t walk to sold don’t walk until that traffic light turns yellow. At the very least, pedestrians should be afforded the same legal rights as the cars, right?

fulton bridge west 32nd

The five-points intersection of Fulton Road (north-south), Bridge Avenue (east-west) and West 32nd Street in Ohio City (courtesy of Google Maps).

Once again, that’s not the case. Let’s consider the case of the five-points intersection of Fulton Road, Bridge Avenue, and West 32nd Street. If you are walking down Fulton, you will soon discover that the walk signal does not remain activated long enough for you to cross Bridge.

From crossing this intersection on a nearly daily basis, I have learned that from the moment that the solid don’t walk sign comes on, I have exactly 12 seconds to cross Bridge before the light turns yellow. In other words, the City affords drivers a full 12 extra seconds of legal authority that pedestrians cannot claim. If I was hit by a driver turning onto Bridge, it’s entirely possible that I could be found at fault for crossing without the signal.

This is far from the only example of the City further stacking the decks in the favor of drivers.

Let’s consider the curious case of West St. Clair Avenue. Say you are a visitor to Cleveland, attending an event at our $425 million, publicly financed Convention Center, and you wanted to head to the nearest Starbucks to get your overpriced caffeine fix. You would need to head west down West St. Clair, form West Mall Drive to West 6th Street. Along the way, you would need to go through three separate intersections – Ontario Avenue, West 3rd, and West 6th. The traffic lights at each of these intersections includes a left turn arrow so that drivers heading south down one of these cross streets can get a head start. But that shouldn’t affect you as you head west down the north side of the street, right? I mean, those cars can’t possibly hit you when they’re turning the exact opposite direction.

west st. clair

West St. Clair Avenue in downtown Cleveland (courtesy of Google Maps).

Yet, for a reason about as clear as asphalt, the pedestrian signals on the north side of St. Clair at each of these intersections are set such that the walk sign does not come on until the left turn arrow deactivates. That may make sense if there was a right turn arrow or if the left turn signal applied for cars heading in both directions on West St. Clair. But it doesn’t. Instead, someone in the City decided that it made sense to force pedestrians to wait so that cars three lanes south of then could turn farther south. Because logic.

There are a number of other criteria that we could use to judge Cleveland’s walkability. Are there mid-block crossings? (Yes.) Are they plentiful? (No.) Do they all have signs? (Some, but they aren’t maintained – see above.) Do drivers respect them? (Hell no.) Do all of the pedestrian signals have countdown timers? (Not even in downtown.) Do any of the pedestrian signals include verbal cues for the visually impaired? (No, given that I have had to escort a confused blind man across Superior Avenue.)

I certainly recognize that Cleveland is making very real progress in its effort to enhance bike and pedestrian infrastructure. But, all too often, we spend money on things that look nice or seem nice in theory, even as we overlook the little things that can make a tangible difference. I understand that elected officials don’t get to attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony when you sync a pedestrian signal to the traffic light, but these seemingly small things matter. Until officials commit to tackling these easy-to-fix problems, the focus on the Big projects will seem like little more than PR.

Idling cars are the tools of the devil

vehicle exhaust
vehicle exhaust

Vehicle exhaust contains a number of harmful pollutants, including fine particulate matter, and it is increasingly the primary source of urban air pollution (courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).

Thus far, El Niño has more or less kept winter at bay here in Cleveland. Well, that’s all changing this week. I guess once Mother Nature heard an overgrown rodent said we were getting an early spring this year, she got pissed.

Winter is back with a vengeance. We’re going to see temperatures drop to perhaps their lowest point of the year this weekend, and forecasters are calling for five or six separate fronts to bring snow over the next week or so. All of this should help to cut into our substantial snow deficit. As of Monday, the National Weather Service had recorded just 11.2 inches of snow this winter, roughly 26 inches below normal. That deficit has already shrunk by one-fifth, and it will continue to decrease.

The return of winter means a few things. First, our profuse application of road salt – with all its inherent environmental consequences – means that everything will adopt a fine coating of sodium chloride. Second, those of us walking through the city will trudge through unshoveled sidewalks and try to avoid the ubiquitous puddles of filthy, half-melted slush, which could either be an inch deep or the bottomless pit that Ozzie Smith fell into on The Simpsons. And third, people will idle their cars left and right. The other day, I walked past a St. Ignatius security guard who was idling his car in a parking lot on Lorain Avenue. When I came back an hour later, he was still idling his vehicle, all the while straddling three separate parking spots (including a handicapped space).

Now, I see the appeal of vehicle idling in the winter, but I don’t really understand the level of passion that idlers bring to the table. A few weeks ago, our local ABC affiliate, WEWS, reposted an article on why drivers should avoid idling their cars during the winter. Within a few hours, the pro-idling commenter horde descended to inform the reporters just how wrongheaded they were.

I know – never read the comments – but individuals insisted that “this is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. Warming up car by idle (sic) is very good” and “cold oil will destroy your engine.” And, of course, the coup de grace: “Stupid article with gas prices at a (sic) all time low I could careless (sic) if I waste gas warming up my car especially when the windows are frosted or frozen.”

Let’s assume for a minute that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and basically every other authority on this topic, including car-makers, know more about vehicle idling than random internet commenters. Can we marshal the available information to help dissuade some of these pervasive myths on idling? Of course we can. So let’s do that.

“Warming up car by idle is very good”

This one is perhaps the most common idling myth, and, like all good myths, there is a kernel of truth here.

The EPA says that, on average, cars get 12% worse gas mileage during cold weather. However, this was a much bigger issue for older model years, particularly those that employed carburetors. Modern fuel injection systems automatically adjust to exterior weather conditions. Furthermore, cars warm up twice as quickly when driven as they do while stationary. It may be nice to sit in a car that you warmed up with your remote start on frigid winter mornings, but you’re not doing your car any favors.

“Cold oil will destroy your engine”

No, no it won’t. Again, this myth is ubiquitous, but it’s highly out of date. Modern, synthetic engine oils do not need to warm up first. They can flow properly at temperatures as low as -40°F. It may have been cold as hell last February, but we still live in Cleveland, not Barrow or Yellowknife.

Beyond this, idling is actually harder on your car than driving it normally. While batteries commonly stall out in cold temperatures, idling does more long-term damage. As they idle, car batteries continue to expend energy to the car’s components. This process leads to deeper engine cycling, which forces the battery to discharge more energy during normal engine operation. Discharged batteries, in turn, produce less power; this means that subsequent engine starts will require even more energy and take longer, which will shorten a battery’s lifespan.

Idling is hard on cars in other ways as well. It is true that a number of vehicle components, such as the starter, are designed to last a set number of starts. This would seem to suggest that idling your car would place less wear and tear on a vehicle over time. But again, this is not true. According to Natural Resources Canada, idling your car for just 46 seconds is worse and more costly than turning it off and back. In addition to straining the battery, idling engines do not run at an optimal temperature, which leads to the incomplete combustion of gasoline. This leaves fuel residue in the engine – not to mention producing more pollution – and can cut fuel economy by around 5%.

“I could careless if I waste gas warming up my car”

Would that I were so wealthy. But let’s consider exactly how much gas this gentleman – who I assume is Rich Uncle Pennybags from Monopoly – is wasting by idling.

Every two minutes that a vehicle spends idling consumes the same amount of gas as driving two miles. The average vehicle spends 60-73 hours idling per year, which accounts for 5-7% of total fuel use. Based on information from the Argonne National Laboratory, if a person idles for 10 minutes per day, s/he can waste up to 30-50 gallons of gas per year.

The true costs of vehicle idling

But, if you’re familiar with anything I’ve ever written, I’m more interested in trying to figure out the social costs of our idling habits. If everyone in Cleveland idles so profligately, what are the effect on the larger scale? How might all of that extra, inefficient fuel use add to the costs of air pollution and climate change?

With that question in mind, I decided to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. According to a 2009 study from Amanda Carrico and colleagues, the average American idles approximately 16.1 minutes per day. More than half of that idle time (8.2 minutes) occurs due to traffic lights, congestion, stop signs, and the like, so we’ll eliminate it. This leaves 7.9 minutes of idling per day – 4.2 minutes for warming up the car and 3.7 minutes while waiting (to pick some up one, in the drive thru, etc.).

Next, we need to determine the population of passenger cars in the Cleveland area. According to data from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, there were 2,130,794 passenger vehicles registered in the seven counties that make up Northeast Ohio last year. Of course, not all of those vehicles will idle that amount each day, so I will adjust these numbers to reflect the percentage of the general population that reported idling for warming (48%) and waiting (46%) for more than 30 seconds at a time in the Carrico et al. study.

We now need to figure out how much pollution and fuel cars consume while idling. Fortunately, the EPA has provided this information, though they do not have estimates for particulate matter emissions (which are, by far, the most harmful conventional pollutant in vehicle exhaust).

idling emissions calculations

Annual vehicle idling emissions in the seven counties of Northeast Ohio (author’s estimates).

Using information from the US Department of Transportation (updated to 2015$) and the EPA’s social cost of carbon, we can estimate the total public health costs of these idling emissions per year.

idling cost calculations

Total annual costs of vehicle idling in Northeast Ohio (author’s estimates).

So, by my (admittedly rough) estimates, vehicle idling carries social costs of more than $58 million per in Northeast Ohio alone. While the vast majority of these costs come from wasted fuel, there are still nearly $3.5 million in air pollution related costs. I could go down the rabbit hole of trying to estimate the morbidity and mortality costs associated with these pollutants, but I’ll spare you the arm-waving wonkery. But let’s not pretend that this wasted fuel has no effects. Oil extraction has significant environmental consequences throughout the process from well to tank, and – given that is a nonrenewable resource – all of this valuable fuel could have been put to more productive uses. Waste is waste is waste.

As all the available evidence and my calculations show, vehicle idling is far from beneficial. On the contrary, is wasteful, costly, and illegal in many places. If this one small component of driving carries this large of an impact on our region, can you imagine the aggregate costs of our cars? Comfort is important, but it’s not everything. So turn the damn engine off next time. Your lungs and wallet will thank you.

If you want to improve air quality, end the sprawl

interchange los angeles
interchange los angeles

The I-10/I-110 Interchange in Los Angeles (courtesy of Politico).

For centuries, people have fled the supposed squalor of cities in pursuit of the fresh air that is so vital for our health and well-being. Before Louis Pasteur’s development of germ theory, most scientists and physicians subscribed to the belief that miasmas – essentially the foul smells associated with rotting organic matter – were the source of major diseases. The cure for illness, they argued, was for people to escape cities to get fresh country air.

Doctors prescribed fresh air as a treatment for various illnesses into the 20th century. American physicians encouraged their patients suffering from tuberculosis to head West in pursuit of the restorative benefits of the clean air. This movement helped foster the growth of many prominent Western cities, including Denver and Phoenix.

The clean air premium

Today, we tend to refer to the deleterious emissions that plague many cities by a different term: air pollution. But that same underlying precept – that we need to leave cities behind in the pursuit of fresh air and better health – remains.

Multiple studies demonstrate that people view air quality as an amenity and are willing to pay for it. According to economists Kennethy Chay and Michael Greenstone, reductions in particulate matter during the 1970s were “associated with a $45 billion aggregate increase in housing values,” while a separate study found that Americans were willing to pay $149–$185 for a one unit reduction in particulate matter levels.

Clearly, we place a premium on the concept of “fresh air.” But could our pursuit of this good actually be making air quality worse for others?

How might sprawl affect air quality?

The link between our sprawl-based development patterns and air pollution seems pretty obvious on the surface. The more we spread out, the more we have to drive to reach workplaces, schools, stores, entertainment venues, etc. All of this adds to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and each additional mile we drive increases our mobile emissions.

But perhaps it’s not as simple as it seems. Moving people away from the worst polluters was clearly beneficial for public health. And pollution levels are typically higher in denser areas with high traffic volumes.

Additionally, one of the main targets of the landmark 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) was vehicle emissions. As a result, cars purchased today run more than 90% cleaner than those manufactured 46 years ago. This trend has helped to offset the rise in VMT. Thanks to these regulations, emissions of carbon monoxide and ground-level ozone have fallen by 85% and 33%, respectively, since 1980, while particulate matter emissions have declined by more than one-third since 1990. These improvements have occurred even as VMT has nearly trebled from 1.12 trillion when the 1970 CAAA was signed to just under 3.14 trillion last year.

annual vmt

Rolling 12-month change in vehicle miles traveled in the US (courtesy of St. Louis Federal Reserve).

With all of this in mind, I decided to comb through the literature to see what the best available science says on the relationship between sprawl and air pollution, and what I found may surprise you.

Just kidding, no it won’t.

Sprawl and air quality: The evidence

One of the first scholars to explore this relationship, in depth, was Brian Stone, Jr., who published his findings back in 2008. He probed the relationship between the number of days that ground-level ozone concentrations exceeded the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and sprawl index scores for 45 large cities from 1990 to 2002.

Stone, Jr. argued there are three major reasons that urban form could affect ozone levels. First, it can influence emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the two pollutants that combine to form ground-level ozone. Secondly, sprawling cities are more prone to the urban heat island effect, which can increase the ambient temperatures in urban areas by more than 20°F; higher temperatures facilitate the formation of ozone. Thirdly, large, sprawling cities are more likely to have a broad ozone monitoring network, which may increase the odds that high ozone levels are observed.

The study found a strong, statistically significant link between urban form and air quality, even when controlling for weather conditions. According to Stone, Jr.’s results, a one standard deviation increase a city’s sprawl index score produced 5.6 more ozone exceedance days per year. In turn, a one standard deviation increase in population density – one of the four components of the sprawl index – was associated with 8 fewer exceedance days. Based on his findings, he notes that “urban form is significantly associated with both ozone precursor emissions and ozone exceedances…Overall, the most sprawling cities were found to experience over 60% more high ozone days than the most compact cities.”

To put that into perspective, Cleveland has a composite sprawl score of 85.62, meaning it is just over 14 units less compact than the average metro area. If it was as dense as Madison, Wisconsin (136.69) or Detroit (137.17), we would have had 11.2 fewer ozone exceedance days per year through 2002. Given that we averaged 20.5 exceedances per year from 1997-2002, this would represent a 55% reduction.

Strengthening the connection

Multiple subsequent studies support these findings. A 2013 article from Bradley Bereitschaft and Keith Debbage examined the connections between ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions and five separate sprawl indices. Each of the indices computed sprawl in a slightly different way, accounting for various measures of urban form. The authors folded these into two key measures – urban continuity (the degree to which the urban landscape is fragmented) and urban complexity (the degree of the “jaggedness” of the urban boundary).

The authors note that each of the sprawl indices produced a significant connection between sprawl and pollution levels. A one standard deviation increase in the most prominent sprawl index score was associated with 3.4% and 7.8% increases in ozone and PM2.5, respectively. The density of residential properties appears to be a particularly important correlate for air quality. Increasing residential density by one standard deviation lowers ozone and PM2.5 levels by 8% and 16%, respectively. This change in density can also lower on-road CO2 emissions by an average of 1.9 million tons. Using a social cost of carbon of $37 per ton, this produces social benefits of $70.3 million.

Bereitschaft and Debbage argue that “an increase in residential density might improve air quality and contribute to a reduction in per capita CO2 emissions at the metropolitan scale primarily by decreasing automotive dependency and tailpipe emissions.”

Additionally, the authors examined the connection between urban form and the direct emissions of NOx, VOCs, and PM2.5. Their results are striking. A one standard deviation rise in urban shape complexity increases PM2.5 emissions by 3,055 tons (12.4%) per year. Using EPA damage factors for on-road emissions, this additional pollution would cause 128 to 287 premature deaths and carry public health costs of up to $2.47 billion per year.

If more sprawl leads to worse air quality, will reversing that trend in Rust Belt cities lead to cleaner air? Stone, Jr. looked at this issue in a 2007 piece for the Joumal of the American Planning Association. He studied how shifting from a business as usual scenario to a more compact growth approach modeled on Portland could affect VMT and air quality in 11 Midwestern cities through 2050. By shifting from our current sprawl-heavy trajectory, Cleveland could lower household VMT by 9% and reduce emissions of CO, NOx, VOCs, and PM2.5 by anywhere from 7-9.2% each.

All the evidence points to one conclusion – sprawl is exacerbating air pollution. In our haste to find fresh air, we’ve simply made things worse for those who do not have the means to keep moving farther and farther out.

As Bereitschaft and Debbage put it, “Planning for density therefore becomes an issue of environmental justice, particularly at the metropolitan level. Simulations suggest that by relocating to peripheral suburban areas, residents might reduce their exposure to certain air pollutants…[while] simultaneously contributing to a decline in regional air quality by increasing the total volume of automotive traffic.”

I’ve argued before that, despite our poor air quality, almost no one in Greater Cleveland seems interested in talking about the issue and how we might solve it. Perhaps that’s because, unlike in the past, the real source of the problem isn’t just some large coal-fired power plant or steel mill. No, the problem is our individual driving habits. We’ve met the enemy, and it is us. Unless we face up to that fact, we aren’t going to change things for the better.

Our pursuit of the American Dream is undermining it

suburban cul de sacs
suburban cul de sacs

Cul de sacs as far as the eye can see (courtesy of Belt Magazine).

When I was in high school, a teacher once asked my class to use a word or term to describe the United States. A classmate of mine said it was “a meritocracy.” The teacher, who wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, wrote “Ameritocracy” on the chalkboard.

It was pretty funny — because words are hard — but it gets to a larger issue, albeit purely by chance. For most people, the US is so closely synonymous to meritocracy that they might as well be the same word. America is the land of opportunity; the American Dream claims that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can succeed and make a better life for your children.

One of the key vehicles by which to achieve the American Dream is home ownership. It’s the way most people set down roots and accumulate wealth. But what happens if the system we have developed to promote the vehicle (home ownership) undermines the goal itself?

Read the rest at Belt Magazine.

New images show how freeways tore apart Cleveland’s neighborhoods

Carnegie-Ontario 1951

Earlier this week, Chris Olsen of ESRI uploaded some amazing aerial maps of Cleveland into ArcGIS, which document the land use changes in the region over the past 65 years. As we all know, since 1950, while Cuyahoga County’s population declined from 1950 to the present, the remaining population has spread out throughout it and neighboring counties. As a result, whereas just 26% of the county’s land was developed in 1948, this number exploded to 98% by 2002.

One of the major factors contributing to this trend was the development of the interstate highway system, which began after the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. Accordingly, the aerial maps from 1951 provide us with a snapshot in time just after the City of Cleveland’s population reached its peak of 914,000 and just before the highway system helped usher in decades of population loss and decline.

But, beyond just aiding the movement of people out of the City of Cleveland and into the suburbs and – eventually – exurbs, these images demonstrate the extent to which the Interstate Highway System devastated wide swathes of the city. Whole neighborhoods were torn apart as homes and businesses were demolished to make way for freeways. It would take decades for many of the neighborhoods carved up by these freeways, such as Tremont, to stem the associated decline. Other neighborhoods, such as Slavic Village and Clark-Fulton, have yet to rebound. The images below display what some of these areas looked like in 1951 and how these same areas look today, six decades later.

Gateway District (Downtown)

This image displays the southern reaches of downtown Cleveland, including the eastern end of the Lorain-Carnegie (Hope Memorial) Bridge and what is now known as the Gateway District. While this portion of downtown was densely developed through 1951, the construction of the Interbelt beginning in 1954 radically altered the area. The replacement of the Interbelt Bridge, which has since become functionally obsolete, is still ongoing.

Campus District (Downtown)

These images document the changes in the Campus District around Cleveland State University. CSU, which did not exist until 1964, has taken over a significant portion of the eastern section of downtown in recent decades. But this area was also divided in two with the construction of Interstate 90.

Slavic Village/East 55th Street (Near East Side)

Further east, we find the area around Cleveland’s Industrial Flats and East 55th Street. This neighborhood has seen its fair share of ups and downs over the years. The railroad depot in the upper right-hand quadrant was formerly known as Kingsbury Run; this was the location of the infamous Cleveland Torso Murders of the 1930s that eventually ended Eliot Ness’ career in law enforcement.  This same railyard is now the primary rail hub for the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. Ultimately, the images display the extent to which the construction of I-90 and, later, I-490, drove a massive wedge into this area. While the continuation of I-490 further east fortunately never materialized, the controversial Opportunity Corridor is essentially the reboot of this project.

Tremont/Industrial Flats (Near West Side)

Heading southwest across the Cuyahoga River, we find ourselves on the southern fringes of Tremont. Much like the areas around East 55th, Tremont has been broken into four sections by the junction of I-90/Interbelt and I-490. This newly trendy, gentrified neighborhood had historically been home to low-income, blue collar workers of various ethnic groups. When I-90 broke off the neighborhood off from Ohio City, located just to its northwest, Tremont entered into a decades-long decline.

Clark-Fulton/Stockyards (Near West Side)

Further southwest of Tremont is the Clark-Fulton neighborhood. This area, too, has historically been home to blue collar workers, hence its other moniker – the Stockyards neighborhood. The construction of I-71 and Ohio Route 176, which break apart in the upper right of the modern image (near the Alcoa plant) brought about the bulldozing of much of this neighborhood.

West Boulevard/Cudell (West Side)

Lastly, this image shows the change in area around West Boulevard/Cudell. This neighborhood has become notorious as the location where Cleveland police officer Timothy Loehmann killed 12-year old Tamir Rice. But if you drive down West Boulevard or West 98th Street, you can see that, decades ago, this area was home to upper middle class Clevelanders. Today, I-90 leaves a massive scar through the middle of the area, making large portions of the surrounding surface streets, like Lorain Avenue, extremely difficult and unpleasant to bike or walk across.

Ultimately, these aerial images provide a striking juxtaposition of two Clevelands: one at its economic zenith, the other struggling to emerge from its nadir. While the Interstate Highway System provided a lot of benefits to the United States that aided its post-war economic growth, these images really help us understand just how devastating that change was for cities like Cleveland.

Air pollution adds to a number of Cleveland’s ills. So why does no one talk about it?

vehicle exhaust
vehicle exhaust

Vehicle exhaust contains a number of harmful pollutants, including fine particulate matter, and it is increasingly the primary source of urban air pollution (courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).

A few weeks ago, Rachel Dissell and Brie Zeltner from The Plain Dealer released their roughly 26-part series,Toxic Neglect,” which provided an incredible deep dive into the City of Cleveland’s chronic lead poisoning crisis. The series is truly outstanding journalism, something that is becoming increasingly rare in Northeast Ohio these days, and enough to max out your rage meter. If lines like “[Cleveland puts] more money into baiting for mosquitoes to curb West Nile virus and to prevent rabies in raccoons than we put into lead poisoning” and “national policy for decades has been to use primarily poor, minority children as household lead detectors” don’t enrage you, you don’t have a heart.

Dissell and Zeltner’s thorough investigation shines a light upon a major issue that is too often ignored in this region – the fact that at least 2,000 Cleveland children are poisoned by lead each year – and documents the City’s completely inability (desire?) to mitigate the crisis. They attempted to put a price tag on the problem, noting that lead reduces IQ and lifetime earnings potential, increasing healthcare costs, and contributes to violent crime in a city already plagued by them.

Dissell and Zeltner do an incredible job of displaying how the environment into which Cleveland children are born and in which they are raised irrevocably affects their futures. Their investigation centers on the city’s legacy of lead paint in its aged housing stock, the chief source of lead in the region. While airborne lead used to be an urban scourge, tetraethyl lead was finally phased out of all gasoline in the US in 1996. While much of that lead remains in our contaminated soils to this day, it is no longer the main culprit.

This series is just the latest in a string of great work from Zeltner, including earlier explorations of childhood asthma and infant mortality. But whereas it makes sense to minimize the role of air pollution in the lead series, this omission makes far less sense in the other two cases. We know that it is a important driver for both. But, for some reason, people in Northeast Ohio keep turning a blind eye to a problem that, quite literally, is all around them at all times.

It was with all of this in the back of my mind that I read a recent article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives that examined the impacts of vehicle emissions on the cognitive development of children. The study, written by a group of public health professionals in the Boston area, focused on how exposure to pollution from traffic during late pregnancy and early childhood affects the brains of children later in life. The authors looked at the results of cognitive analyses for 1,109 children, aged 6-11 years old, who were part of an existing health study from 1999-2002. Because they tapped into this cohort, the authors had access to data on a number of variables, including household income, mother’s IQ, exposure to lead, and whether or not the mother smoked. Accordingly, they were able to control for each of these factors when conducting their analysis.

They split their sample into three main groups: those children living less than 50 meters from a major roadway, those living between 50 and 200 meters away, and those living more than 200 meters away. These distances are significant, as coarse and fine particulate matter rarely travels more than 10 to 100 meters in the air before settling back to the surface. This allowed them to examine how children growing up in close proximity to heavy daily automobile traffic would fair later in life. The results were stark:

Among children residing primarily in urban and suburban Eastern Massachusetts, prenatal residential proximity to major roadways (< 50 m) predicted lower nonverbal intelligence, verbal intelligence, and visual motor abilities in mid-childhood.

Those children living closest to heavily trafficked roads scored, on average, 7.5 points lower on nonverbal IQ tests, 3.8 points lower on verbal IQ tests, and 5.3 points lower on visual motor skills tests. In other words, the cognitive effects of growing up alongside a major roadway is comparable to an increase from the 5th percentile of childhood blood levels to the 95th percentile. In fact, at a 6.9 point decline in IQ from lead, the effects of traffic appear to be even greater.

Interestingly, the authors were unable to find a statistically significant effect of traffic-related air pollution on childhood IQ, perhaps because the effects of pollution were so tightly entangled with socioeconomic factors.

But the evidence does not stop there. In a 2008 study using another cohort of children from Boston, Suglia and colleagues looked at the connection between early childhood exposure to black carbon, a particularly harmful component of fine particulate matter, and cognitive function when children were 8 to 11 years old. They found that children exposed to high levels of traffic-related black carbon pollution saw their IQ scores fall by 3 points, even when controlling for socioeconomic variables, exposure to tobacco smoke, and blood lead levels. The authors noted that this IQ decrement was comparable to those experienced by children born to smokers (4 points) and by children poisoned by lead (1-5 points). Additionally, a separate 2011 study found a connection between prenatal exposure to traffic pollution and an elevated risk of childhood autism.

All told, mounting evidence suggests that children exposed to high levels of traffic-related pollution before and after birth are far more likely to have lower IQs and to suffer from developmental disorders. Just because we rarely see visible pollution like that from the mid-20th century these days does not mean that the problem is behind us.

It’s incredibly important for a city like Cleveland, which is struggling to break free from repeated cycles of poverty and abandonment, to come to grips with this reality fully, for two main reasons.

First, it may force us to recognize the consequences of our individual actions. Our driving habits are responsible for the majority of fine particulates and nitrogen oxide emissions in this region. We are part of the problem. Maybe the girl growing up on East 79th or West 98th is struggling in school, at least partly, because of the toxic environment into which she born. If we finally start to talk about this, perhaps we can make changes, even if just on the margins. Was driving half a mile to the store really worth aggravating her asthma? Was idling so you could run the AC while waiting to pick up your child worth the extra pollution you exposed him to?

Secondly, acknowledging these issues will force us to rethink our regional development choices. If we want to help improve the lives of low-income Clevelanders, should we really be, say, building a $331 million urban highway that will just bring more traffic, noise, pollution, and dislocation to communities that already have a surplus of them? Is that wisest use of our limited resources? Are we honestly going to help lift people out of poverty by exacerbating some of its causes?

We can’t drive our way out of a driving problem, and we can’t sprawl our way out of a sprawl problem. I don’t know if air pollution is topic that can bring all of this to the fore. Obviously I’m biased. But it’s also a ubiquitous problem in this region, and it plays a factor in a host of our pressing problems. It’s time to make it a permanent part of the conversation.

That ‘Cleveland rail shutdown’ looks more likely by the day

red line winter
red line winter

The aging infrastructure and rail cars on GCRTA’s Red Line have struggled to cope with the past two brutal winters in Cleveland (courtesy of YouTube).

WCPN has a story today from Nick Castele on the untenable fiscal position in which the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) finds itself. All Aboard Ohio, the rail advocacy organization, recently ran a post arguing that GCRTA’s rail cars are rapidly approaching the end of their useful life, and the system faces an “unavoidable” rail shutdown sometime after 2020 without a substantial infusion of capital.

Castele interviewed GCRTA’s General Manager Joe Calabrese, who confirmed much of All Abroad Ohio’s account, though the agency has sought to downplay the hysteria around the issue. According to Calabrese, GCRTA needs to raise $280 million in capital funds by 2025 to replace 65-70 of its aging rail cars. He emphasized that GCRTA “can’t get there alone. It’s going to take a more major investment.”

What Calabrese failed to discuss is what happens if that influx of funding doesn’t materialize. As I have discussed on a number of occasions, I’m not sure it would be possible for the State of Ohio to care less about public transit if it tried. The state provided just $7.3 million in general funds for transit in its latest budget, down 83.5% from 2000. So, at that rate, Ohio won’t scrape together $280 million for all transit funding throughout the entire state for another 38.4 years.

But that obviously doesn’t accurately reflect the state funding actually coming GCRTA’s way. In recent years, the state has broken transit funding into four main tranches: the Urban Transit Program, the Rural Transit Program, the Elderly and Disabled Transit Fare Assistance Program (E&D), and coordination grants (which it eliminated in 2009). Because Northeast Ohio is an urbanized area with a population well over 50,000, GCRTA receives funding from the Urban Transit Program. Given that it is the largest transit agency in the state, it receives the biggest chunk of urban transit funding (18%) each year. The agency used to receive E&D funding ($2.8 million per year in 2008-2009), but the state eliminated that funding for urban areas in 2009, reallocating it to rural agencies.

ohio transit funding 2000-2014

Transit funding, by program, from the Ohio Department of Transportation from 2000-2014 (courtesy of ODOT).

The only problem is that urban transit funding has evaporated in Ohio. For fiscal year 2016, GCRTA will receive $1,360,080 in funding through this program. If the agency devoted every penny of this allocation to procuring new rail cars, it would only take 206 years for it to save up $280 million. But, once again, this actually exaggerates Ohio’s support, as it includes federal funds. Urban transit funding from the state has, quite literally, fallen off a cliff since 2001. Whereas the 2000-2001 budget provided nearly $30 million in total funding for urban transit operators, that funding was halved in 2002 and has continued to dwindle to just $1.4 million by 2014. Given that GCRTA gets 18% of this funding, the state is really providing roughly $252,000 of its budget to fund transit in Northeast Ohio. Accordingly, if we wanted Ohio to foot the bill for this, GCRTA could expect to get its new rail cars running sometime in the year 3126.

It still seems a bit hyperbolic to claim that GCRTA’s light and heavy rail lines will inevitably shut down next decade. But, unless something changes dramatically at the Statehouse, the odds of that outcome increase each day.

Rep. Bill Patmon to fight infant mortality through the power of condescension

bill patmon planned parenthood
bill patmon planned parenthood

Bill Patmon announces his bill to defund Planned Parenthood in Ohio.

Last month, two seemingly unrelated reports came out. The first involved a series of leaked videos from an anti-abortion activist group that purported to show Planned Parenthood employees trying to sell the tissue and organs of aborted fetuses. The second was a report updating Ohio’s abysmal record on infant mortality rates. Now, at first glance, these two stories have nothing to do with one another. That is, unless you’re Representative Bill Patmon of Cleveland.

On July 28, Rep. Patmon stood on the steps of the Ohio Statehouse to announce that he had introduced House Bill 294, a bill that would bar the state from issuing state and certain federal funds from “any entity that performs or promotes elective abortions.” Apparently Rep. Patmon and his primary co-sponsor, Rep. Margaret Conditt (R-Liberty Township), decided that the controversy over the Planned Parenthood videos provided perfect cover for them to try and defund the organization in Ohio.

Now, in order for this bill to make any legal sense, Reps. Patmon and Conditt need for you to ignore a few details. Like the fact that Planned Parenthood devotes just 3% of its resources to performing abortion services. Or the fact that Ohio law already places Planned Parenthood at the end of the line for state funding. Or the fact that, under provisions in the Medicaid law, the state has no authority to bar patients from visiting the health care provider of their choice. But Rep. Patmon has never been one to let facts get in the way of a chance to preach at Ohioans.

But the truly galling part of this bill is the way that Reps. Patmon and Conditt are attempting to cloak it as a way to address Ohio’s infant mortality crisis. In an email to colleagues, the two claim that the funding taken from Planned Parenthood would be shifted to “empower groups who are committed to combating Ohio’s atrocious statistics [on infant mortality].”

As recent reports from the Ohio Department of Public Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services show, the state ranks near the bottom – 45th out of 50 – when it comes to infant mortality rates. While Ohio’s infant mortality rate did decline somewhat in 2013 – down to 7.33 deaths per 1,000 live births from 7.6 in 2012 – it remains 21% above the national average of 5.96 deaths. The issue is drastically worse in Cuyahoga County, which had a rate of 8.9 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2013. For Cleveland, that number was a depressing 13.0 deaths in 2013. The 2012 rate for African Americans in Cleveland was even higher at 15.73 deaths per 1,000 live births, more than 2.5 times the national rate.

Of course, HB 294 will do absolutely nothing to address this ongoing issue. On the contrary, it could actually make the problem worse. As I noted, Planned Parenthood devotes just 3% of its resources to abortion. The other 97% goes towards a variety of other medical services, including sex ed, contraception, STD and HIV/AIDS testing and treatment, cancer screenings and referrals, pregnancy tests, and referrals for prenatal care for pregnant women. Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio treated nearly 57,000 patients last year alone. Many of the patients who rely on Planned Parenthood’s services are low-income and have few other options. As Rep. Gretta Johnson (D-Akron) stated, “This legislation is a purely political maneuver that will further restrict access to necessary healthcare for Ohio’s women, particularly those who are economically disadvantaged and already struggling to meet their basic health needs.”

That Rep. Patmon would place his ideology above the interests of his constituents is hardly surprising. This is the same man who co-sponsored the “Ohio Religious Freedom Restoration Act” in 2013-2014, a bill that would have allowed business owners to discriminate against LGBT individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs. Patmon eventually backed down, but only after drawing intense criticism. So don’t fall for the (D) that comes after his name. Bill Patmon is a Democrat in the same way that Adam Sandler is funny – some people may have believed that back in the 90s, but we should all know better by now.

Rather than actually stand up for the interests of his constituents, Rep. Patmon is more interested in lecturing them. While announcing HB 294, Rep. Patmon had the nerve to attack African Americans in Northeast Ohio – the majority of people in his House district – for being concerned over excessive use of police force within their communities. “You hear a lot of demonstrations across the country now about Black Lives Matter,” he said. “Well, they skipped one place – they should be in front of Planned Parenthood.”

Perhaps Rep. Patmon has to use condescension to cover up the fact that he has done nothing to address the actual challenge of infant mortality within his district. Instead, he has consistently stood up for the interests of the fossil fuel industry to pollute poor and minority communities throughout the state. The third largest contributor to Rep. Patmon’s campaigns for the Statehouse has been FirstEnergy.  That’s the same FirstEnergy that operated the Lake Shore Power Plant on Cleveland’s east side for 104 years before it was forced to shut down this April in response to the Obama administration’s mercury regulations. That plant sits just upwind from much of Rep. Patmon’s district, including neighborhoods like University Circle and Kinsman that have infant mortality rates higher than Bangladesh, Haiti, North Korea, or Pakistan. In 2012, the NAACP ranked Lake Shore as the 6th worst coal plant in the country for environmental justice, given its high levels of pollution and proximity to tens of thousands of low-income persons of color.

Yet, if Rep. Patmon actually cared about infant mortality, as he claims, he would step up and tackle air pollution. A litany of studies have demonstrated a clear link between in utero and neonatal exposure to air pollution and a host of negative health outcomes, including low birth weight, preterm birth, and infant mortality. In a landmark 2003 study, researchers Kenneth Chay and Michael Greenstone explored the impacts of the decline in particulate matter pollution as a result of the 1980-1982 recession and changes in infant mortality rates. Their results were stunning. They found that the decline in air pollution was responsible for 80% of the total reduction in neonatal mortality in the United States during that period. In their conclusion, they state [FYI, TSP means total suspended particulates, another name for coarse particulate matter]:

We find that a 1 µg/m3 reduction in TSPs is associated with 4-7 fewer infant deaths per 100,000 live births at the county level…Most of these effects are driven by fewer deaths occurring within one month of birth, suggesting that fetal exposure during pregnancy is a biological pathway. Consistent with this, we find significant effects of TSPs reductions on deaths within 24 hours of birth and on infant birth weight. The analysis also reveals nonlinear effects of TSPs and large infant mortality effects at TSPs concentrations below the EPA-mandated air quality standard. Overall, the estimates imply that about 2,500 fewer infants died from 1980-82 than would have in the absence of the [10% reduction] in air pollution.

Additionally, multiple studies demonstrate that exposure to air pollution from natural gas extraction is linked to lower birth weight and higher rates of infant mortality. Despite this, Rep. Patmon was 1 of just 3 Democrats to vote for HB 483, which drastically increased the setback requirements for wind turbines in the state. This bill ensured that setbacks for wind turbines in Ohio are now up to 10 times greater than those for oil and gas wells. Patmon also cast the deciding vote to move HB 375, the pathetic House GOP severance tax bill for oil and gas extraction, out of committee; fortunately it died in the full House. His fealty to fossil fuels knows nearly no bound.

So it’s great that Rep. Bill Patmon has a new-found concern for Ohio’s infant mortality crisis. But perhaps he should spend more time addressing the actual causes of the issue and less time delivering morality lectures to this constituents.

SB 310 makes it far harder for Ohio to comply with the Clean Power Plan

obama clean power plan
obama clean power plan

President Obama delivers his speech announcing the final Clean Power Plan on Monday, August 3 (courtesy of Susan Walsh/Associated Press).

Last Monday, President Obama stood at the podium in the East Room of the White House to announce “the single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against global climate change” – the final Clean Power Plan (CPP). As the President noted in his remarks, this final rule amounts to “the first-ever nationwide standards to end the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from power plants” into our atmosphere. The EPA projects that, if fully implemented, carbon emissions from US power plants should be 32% lower in 2030 than in 2005.

Here in Ohio, the rule was met by a mixture of excitement from those of us who want the country to take action on climate change and outrage from those who oppose such steps. Attorney General Mike DeWine joined 11 other attorneys general in a lawsuit to derail the rule, while notorious Ohio coal firm and serial litigant Murray Energy intends to file no fewer than 5 separate suits.

Changes to the final Clean Power Plan that affect Ohio

Given all of this controversy over the CPP, it may be wise to take a step back and consider just how the rule would affect Ohio. Last year, I explored how Ohio fared in the proposed CPP and how the state’s clean energy standards put it on a solid path towards meeting its carbon reduction targets. While that analysis was relevant at the time, we need to revisit it, as the final CPP is different from the proposed version in a lot of ways. For the sake of this post, here are a few of the key changes that will affect Ohio:

  1. State compliance plan date: Under the proposed CPP, states needed to submit their compliance plans to the EPA by June 30, 2016. The final rule pushes this date back to September 6, 2018, but with a caveat. States still need to submit either a final plan or an interim plan in 2016, but they can request a 2-year extension of the deadline if they meet certain criteria. This matters, as Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler has already stated that he will wait until to submit a plan until he sees how the rule fares in the federal court system, which may take years.
  2. Emissions cuts to begin later: Whereas the proposed CPP required states to begin cutting carbon emissions in 2020 and continue through 2030, the final rule delays that effective date until 2022. This 2-year delay is important for Ohio as a result of SB 310, as I will explore later.
  3. Changing the way that emissions reductions are measured: Originally, the EPA planned to measure emissions reductions as the change in how many pounds of carbon emissions a state produces per megawatt hour (MWh) of energy it produced (“rate-based”). But the Agency has now added a “mass-based” approach, which shows reductions in the actual tons of carbon states emit. Additionally, EPA has changed the state-by-state targets to account for the fact that the utility sector operates within 3 broader regions. As a result, Ohio’s rate-based target was strengthened from 1,338 lbs/MWh to 1,190, up to 37.4% from a 27.7%. The mass-based reduction remains at a comparable 27.85%.
  4. Eliminating the energy efficiency benchmark: The proposed CPP created federal guidelines for state compliance plans that included 4 main building blocks: improved coal plant efficiency, more use of natural gas, increasing renewable energy generation, and improving demand-side energy efficiency. EPA has removed the energy efficiency building block, which has significantly reduced the CPP’s legal vulnerability. Fortunately, EPA did not scrap demand-side energy efficiency entirely. Instead, it will allow states to include it as part of their state compliance plan.

How Ohio can meet its Clean Power Plan requirements

Fortunately, Ohio is well-positioned to meet its emissions reduction targets under the CPP, as multiple analyses have shown.

In a 2013 analysis, the World Resources Institute found that, if Ohio fully implemented its renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and energy efficiency resource standard (EERS) that the state passed nearly unanimously back under SB 221, it could cut its carbon emissions by 17% through 2020.

WRI’s analysis also calculated the emissions savings from the other 2 building blocks in the CPP. It estimated that Ohio could cut its emissions by 7% by 2020 if it increased the operating capacity of its existing natural gas fleet (building block 2). The state could further cut emissions by 2% if it improved its coal plant efficiency by 2.5% (building block 1). Combined, these four actions would get Ohio to a 26% cut by 2020, before the CPP’s requirements even kick in. And if Ohio continued to implement its EERS and RPS beyond their current end date, the state would be able to meet and exceed its required carbon targets.

wri ohio emissions clean power plan

Ohio can cut its carbon emissions by up to 24% through 2020, depending on the policies it implements under the Clean Power Plan (courtesy of World Resources Institute).

SB 310 will make increase the costs of compliance

While Ohio is currently in decent shape, SB 310 will unquestionably make it more difficult and more expensive for the state to comply with the CPP.

The two-year freeze on the RPS and EERS will deprive the state of renewable energy and energy efficiency gains that it could count towards future benchmarks. Though it pushed back the date when states have to demonstrate emissions cuts by 2 years, EPA wants to encourage states to reduce their carbon emissions before that point. Accordingly, the final CPP creates a Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), which allows states to get credits for renewable energy generation and energy efficiency measures taken in 2020 and 2021 and apply these to reduction targets in subsequent years. For every 1 MWh of wind or solar that a utility brings on line, it will get a 1 MWh credit towards future emissions reductions. And for every 1 MWh saved through energy efficiency projects in low-income communities, utilities will get a 2 MWh credit.

Because SB 310 freezes Ohio’s RPS and EERS for 2015 and 2016, the RPS and EERS benchmarks will be lower during 2020 and 2021. RPS benchmarks will decline to 6.5% and 7.5% from 8.5% and 9.5%, respectively, while the efficiency requirement for 2020 will be halved to 1%. According to projections from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), the state’s major electric utilities would have generated almost 25.9 million MWh of renewables in 2020 and 2021; however, thanks to SB 310, this number will fall by nearly 25% to 19.4 million MWh.

The freeze will also cut into the amount of low-income energy efficiency projects carried out in the state. From 2009-2012, Ohio’s major electric utilities realized  55,084 MWh in energy savings from low-income projects. This accounted for just under 1% of total savings. Based on estimates from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Ohio was on course to save 56,410 MWh from energy efficiency in 2020 and 2021 before SB 310. Using revised energy savings from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which account for SB 310’s effects, this number would fall to 46,866 MWh. Because these savings get double credit in the CEIP, Ohio will lose out on 19,048 MWh of emissions reduction credits (ERCs).

All told, the 2-year freeze on Ohio’s clean energy standards enacted under SB 310 will cause the state to miss out 6,476,386 MWh of ERCs. If we assume that each of those MWh would have offset a unit from a fossil fuel plant, we can estimate how many tons of carbon emission reductions the state will lose. EPA has calculated that Ohio’s power plants release 1,900 pounds of CO2 per MWh; as such, Ohio will lose ERCs worth roughly 6,152,567 short tons of CO2. Applying a social cost of carbon at $40 per ton means that this one effect of SB 310 will cost the state more than $246 million.

But that doesn’t account for any potential reductions in the RPS and EERS benchmarks. The bill’s language makes it perfectly clear that the Ohio legislature intends to “enact legislation in the future… that will reduce the mandates.” Any future reductions to these clean energy standards will make it that much harder for Ohio to comply with the Clean Power Plan.

What should Ohio’s elected officials do?

Clearly, SB 310 carries a big price tag for Ohio. The state’s elected officials should take action on three fronts to address this issue.

First, the legislature needs to pass a bill restoring Ohio’s clean energy standards as enacted under SB 221. It should not wait until the freeze comes to an end on December 31, 2016. Instead, legislators should use the final report from the Energy Mandates Study Committee, which is expected to be released this fall, as a reason to restore the standards effective January 1. Interestingly, OEPA Director Butler told Gongwer (subscription required) that, despite his reservations, he realizes restoring the standards from SB 221 would help Ohio meet its emission reductions targets. Beyond this step, however, the legislature should look to pass a follow-up bill by the end of the next session that will extend and, preferably, strengthen these standards through at least 2030.

Second, Ohio should begin exploring how it can partner with other states to form a regional carbon trading system. The final CPP explicitly allows and even encourages states to pursue this route. Several Midwestern states have been meeting under the auspices of the Great Plans Institute to discuss this option, but Ohio has conspicuously been absent. It would be in the state’s best interest to work with its neighbors in order to lower the cost of compliance.

Third, Ohio needs to double down on low-income energy efficiency. According to Policy Matters Ohio, the state currently weatherizes roughly 7,000 homes per year. This number accounts for just 1.5% of the households in the state who seek emergency assistance for their utility bills each year. Not only will ramping up low-income weatherization allow the state to get additional credits through the CEIP, it will generate tangible benefits. Every $1 million invested in weatherization leads to the creation of 75 jobs.

Ultimately, SB 310 has cost Ohio considerably, but it’s not too late to mitigate those effects. Every day that Ohio continues to languish under this bill will continue to add to those costs. It’s time to act.

Update (8/13/2015, 3:45pm): Since I posted this, the Union of Concerned Scientists has updated its state-by-state projections on the Clean Power Plan. In June, they concluded that Ohio was on track to meet and actually exceed its 2020 interim reduction benchmark under the proposed CPP. The new analysis finds that Ohio is now on track to achieve 84% compliance with its rate-based goal and 130% compliance with its mass-based goal for the 2022 benchmark. Without implementing additional policies, however, the state would only 44% and 56% of its rate- and mass-based targets, respectively.

Additionally, I noted that, based on the EPA’s social cost of carbon ($40 per ton), the emissions reductions that Ohio will miss in 2020 and 2021 as a result of SB 310 would carry a cost of more than $246 million. This number does not account for the costs of other air pollutants that power plants release in addition to CO2. Based on a 2010 study, which reviewed the literature on the air quality co-benefits of carbon reductions, the average air quality benefit for developed countries per ton of CO2 is $44. Based on this number, Ohio would not only incur climate change-related costs of $246 million, it would also forego air quality improvements worth more than $270 million. Combined, SB 310 will cost the state nearly $517 million in 2020 and 2021 alone.