A framework for evaluating geographic disparities in energy transition vulnerability

Abstract

The path towards decarbonization promises many societal benefits such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions and new technological innovation. The adverse effects of policies that are helping to facilitate the energy transition, such as price spikes or job displacement, however, are not evenly spread across the population, and some individuals and communities are more vulnerable to possible adverse impacts than others. Here, we adapt a framework for conceptualizing vulnerability from the climate change adaptation literature to the energy context. We construct the dimensions of the framework, provide an illustration using the case of the renewable portfolio standard, generate a vulnerability score measure and map vulnerability across US counties. Our analysis shows that this framework can be used to identify geographical disparities, and should be further developed in future research to provide deeper insights about a just transition.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: US energy transition vulnerability scoping diagram.
Fig. 2: Renewable portfolio standards maps.
Fig. 3: Vulnerability score map.

References

  1. 1.

    Solomon, B. D. & Krishna, K. The coming sustainable energy transition: history, strategies, and outlook. Energy Policy 39, 7422–7431 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Allen, R. C. Backward into the future: the shift to coal and implications for the next energy transition. Energy Policy 50, 17–23 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hernandez, D. Sacrifice along the energy continuum: a call for energy justice. Environ. Justice 8, 151–156 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sovacool, B. K. & Dworkin, M. H. Energy justice: conceptual insights and practical applications. Appl. Energy 142, 435–444 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Miller, C. A., Iles, A. & Jones, C. F. The social dimensions of energy transitions. Science as Culture 22, 135–148 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H. & Rehner, R. Energy justice: a conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 174–182 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    McCauley, D. A., Heffron, R. J., Stephan, H. & Jenkins, K. Advancing energy justice: the triumvirate of tenets. Int. Energy Law Rev. 32, 107–110 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Blonz, J., Burtraw, D. & Walls, M. Social safety nets and US climate policy costs. Clim. Policy 12, 474–490 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Williams, R., Gordon, H., Burtraw, D., Carbone, J. & Morgenstern, R. The Initial Incidence of a Carbon Tax Across US States 14–24 (Resources for the Future, 2014).

  10. 10.

    IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) 1–32 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2014).

  11. 11.

    Coletti, A., De Nicola, A. & Villani, M. L. Building climate change into risk assessments. Nat. Hazards 84, 1307–1325 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Howe, P. D., Yarnal, B., Coletti, A. & Wood, N. J. The participatory vulnerability scoping diagram: deliberative risk ranking for community water systems. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 103, 343–352 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Füssel, H. M. & Klein, R. J. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim. Change 75, 301–329 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Brooks, N. Vulnerability, Risk and Adaptation: a Conceptual Framework Research (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, 2003).

  15. 15.

    Smit, B. & Wandel, J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 282–292 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Eriksen, S. H. & Kelly, P. M. Developing credible vulnerability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessment. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 12, 495–524 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Polsky, C., Neff, R. & Yarnal, B. Building comparable global change vulnerability assessments: The vulnerability scoping diagram. Glob. Environ. Change 17, 472–485 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Coletti, A., Howe, P. D., Yarnal, B. & Wood, N. J. A support system for assessing local vulnerability to weather and climate. Nat. Hazards 65, 999–1008 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kahn, M. E. & Mansur, E. T. Do local energy prices and regulation affect the geographic concentration of employment? J. Pub. Econ. 101, 105–114 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Upton, G. B. & Snyder, B. F. Funding renewable energy: an analysis of renewable portfolio standards. Energy Econ. 66, 205–216 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Fischer, C. & Burtraw, D. Cost-effectiveness of renewable electricity policies. Energy Econ. 27, 873–894 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Fischer, C. Renewable portfolio standards: when do they lower energy prices? Energy J. 31, 101–119 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kydes, A. Impacts of a renewable portfolio generation standard on US energy markets. Energy Policy 35, 809–14 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Tra, C. Have renewable portfolio standards raised electricity rates? Evidence from US electric utilities. Contemp. Econ. Policy 34, 184–189 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Wiser, R. & Bolinger, M. Can deployment of renewable energy put downward pressure on natural gas prices? Energy Policy 35, 295–306 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Born, P. The economic effects of energy price shocks. J. Econ. Lit. 46, 871–909 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Alberini, A., Gans, W. & Velez-Lopez, D. Residential consumption of gas and electricity in the US: The role of prices and income. Energy Econ. 33, 870–881 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Poyer, D. A. & Williams, M. Residential energy demand: additional empirical evidence by minority household type. Energy Econ. 15, 93–100 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Poyer, D. A., Henderson, L. & Teotia, A. P. Residential energy consumption across different population groups: comparative analysis for Latino and non-Latino households in USA. Energy Econ. 19, 445–463 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Reames, T. G. Targeting energy justice: Exploring spatial, racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban residential heating energy efficiency. Energy Policy 97, 549–558 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Ribeiro, D. et al. The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Scorecard (American Council for anEnergy-Efficient Economy, 2017).

  32. 32.

    Tompkins, E. & Adger, W. N. Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecol. Soc. 9, 10 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hsiang, S. et al. Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science 356, 1362–1369 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Cutter, S. L., Ash, K. D. & Emrich, C. T. The geographies of community disaster resilience. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 65–77 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Bhattacharya, J., DeLeire, T., Haider, S. & Currie, J. Heat or eat? Cold-weather shocks and nutrition in poor American families. Am. J. Public Health 93, 1149–1154 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Reames, T. G. A community-based approach to low-income residential energy efficiency participation barriers. Local Environ. 21, 1449–1466 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Thompson, A. L. Protecting Low-Income Ratepayers as the Electricity System Evolves. Energy Law J. 37, 265–306 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Cragg, M. I., Zhou, Y., Gurney, K. & Kahn, M. E. Carbon geography: the political economy of congressional support for legislation intended to mitigate greenhouse gas production. Econ. Inq. 51, 1640–1650 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    SimplyAnalytics (2017). EASI/MRI Consumer Expenditure Data 2016. Retrieved 15 March 2018 from SimplyAnalytics database.

  40. 40.

    USAspending.gov. 2009. Archived Web Site. Retrieved from the Library of Congress (Accessed 15 March 2018); https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwa00093149/.

  41. 41.

    Tickamyer, A. R. & Duncan, C. M. Poverty and opportunity structure in rural America. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 16, 67–86 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    ArcGIS Desktop 10.5. (ESRI, 2016).

  43. 43.

    Price, C. W., Brazier, K. & Wang, W. Objective and subjective measures of fuel poverty. Energy Policy 49, 33–39 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Kammen, D. M., Kapadia, K. & Fripp, M. Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?. (University of California, Berkeley, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Seefeldt, K. S. Constant consumption smoothing, limited investments, and few repayments: The role of debt in the financial lives of economically vulnerable families. Soc. Serv. Rev. 89, 263–300 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Bennett, A. & Loomis, J. Are housing prices pulled down or pushed up by fracked oil and gas wells? A Hedonic price analysis of housing values in Weld County, Colorado. Soc. Nat. Res. 28, 1168–1186 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Gopalakrishnan, S. & Klaiber, H. A. Is the shale energy boom a bust for nearby residents? Evidence from housing values in Pennsylvania. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 96, 43–66 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Heintzelman, M. D. & Tuttle, C. M. Values in the wind: a hedonic analysis of wind power facilities. Land Econ. 88, 571–588 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Atkinson-Palombo, C. & Hoen, B. Relationship Between Wind Turbines and Residential Property Values in Massachusetts (University of Connecticut, 2014).

  50. 50.

    Muehlenbachs, L., Spiller, E. & Timmins, C. Shale Gas Development and Property Values Differences Across Drinking Water Sources (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012).

  51. 51.

    Konisky, D. M. & Reenock, C. Regulatory enforcement, riskscapes, and environmental justice. Policy Stud. J. 46, 7–36 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge financial support for this project offered by the Indiana University’s Office for the Vice Provost for Research through the IU Collaborative Research Grant. B.Wiley and L. Platzer provided valuable research assistance. Helpful feedback was offered on an earlier version of this manuscript by T. Fitzgerald, R. Gifford, K. Gillingham, M. Kahn, T. Kavulla, R. Kellogg, L. Kiesling, C. Kulander, I. Lange, J. Makholm, S. Masten, L. Muehlenbachs, A. Ohler, S. Puller, D. Williamson and F. Wolak.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors developed the concept for the paper and conducted the analysis. M.G. gathered the quantitative data. S.C., M.G., and D.K. co-wrote the paper. T.E. developed the maps and edited the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanya Carley.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publishers note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carley, S., Evans, T.P., Graff, M. et al. A framework for evaluating geographic disparities in energy transition vulnerability. Nat Energy 3, 621–627 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0142-z

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing