Health at the Heart of Rural Energy Transitions: A Tale of Two Power Plants

I’ve worked on the energy transition for several years now, and one of the questions I get most from community members is about the health and workforce impacts of moving away from fossil fuels. 

Last fall, I had the opportunity to dive into this question through Stanford’s “Action Lab – Renewable Energy Transition in Rural America.” Working alongside community-based organizations, the class split into two teams to conduct Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) of power plant transitions in rural communities. My team partnered with Renew Missouri to assess the health implications of transitioning away from the New Madrid coal plant and the revitalization of an aluminum plant, and the other team worked with Clean Wisconsin to evaluate the proposed Nemadji Trail Energy Center (NTEC) natural gas plant. Both teams’ work demonstrated the importance of centering human and community health metrics in energy policy decisions.

The New Madrid coal plant and the proposed NTEC facility are, in many ways, the two sides of the rural energy transition. Tucked away in a southeastern corner of Missouri, the New Madrid plant has been a major employer and energy provider for decades. It’s also, however, the state's biggest polluter. Responsible for 98% of the county’s nitrous oxide emissions, the plant makes New Madrid the only county in Missouri out of compliance with EPA requirements. While the plant provides 180 good-paying jobs, its emissions cause nearly 100 deaths annually and impose $731 million in health costs each year.

In Wisconsin, the proposed 625-megawatt NTEC promises to create new, good-paying jobs firing what had, until recently, been trumpeted by industry as a “bridge” fuel between traditional fossil fuels and renewable energy. New gas plants, however, would lock in decades of emissions. In NTEC’s case, the facility would release 90 tons of fine particulate matter and 83 tons of nitrogen oxides annually, with lifetime carbon dioxide emissions exceeding 109 million tons. The social cost is estimated between $1.8-14.6 billion. Many of these impacts would be shouldered by nearby Tribal Nations and communities already facing limited healthcare access.

Our Health Impact Assessments revealed striking parallels in how fossil fuel projects affect human and community health. In New Madrid County, we found higher rates of asthma (11.24%, compared with a state average of 9.4%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12.3%, compared with 8.5%), and high blood pressure (40%, compared with 35.1%). The impacts extend beyond Missouri’s borders. In fact, the communities impacted most acutely span Illinois, Tennessee, Ohio, and Indiana. In Wisconsin, NTEC would increase respiratory illness and mortality rates in an area already struggling with environmental justice concerns.

Transitioning away from fossil fuels without leaving rural communities won’t be easy. Where workforces are on the line, many worry (rightfully) that new industries may not deliver the number and quality of jobs offered by legacy industries. Many communities have been promised jobs and economic benefits that never appeared or were short-lived. And what happens when the solar farm takes the coal plant’s place and no one in town has the skillsets necessary to maintain it? Transitions like these won’t happen smoothly without comprehensive planning. They’ll require worker retraining programs, transitional health insurance, and leveraging funding to attract clean energy development. They’ll require that community preferences and needs be taken into account. 

Through these projects, I learned that health impacts must be central to energy policy decisions. Health Impact Assessments provide crucial data for communities weighing complex choices about their energy future. As rural America navigates the transition to cleaner energy, understanding and addressing health impacts will be essential for ensuring transitions that benefit both local economies and community wellbeing.

Because while renewable energy alternatives offer to abate human health concerns like asthma and pulmonary heart disease, building healthy communities requires a “whole of community” approach. The challenge now is ensuring rural communities have the support they need to make this transition successfully.