Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Podcast: NC Health Policy Forum
    • Upcoming Scientific Articles
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribers
  • About Us
    • About the North Carolina Medical Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • RSS
  • Other Publications
    • North Carolina Medical Journal

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
North Carolina Medical Journal
  • Other Publications
    • North Carolina Medical Journal
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
North Carolina Medical Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Podcast: NC Health Policy Forum
    • Upcoming Scientific Articles
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribers
  • About Us
    • About the North Carolina Medical Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • RSS
  • Follow ncmj on Twitter
  • Visit ncmj on Facebook
Research ArticlePolicy Forum

The Health Impacts of Environmental Policy

The North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act

Julia Kravchenko, H. Kim Lyerly and William Ross
North Carolina Medical Journal September 2018, 79 (5) 329-333; DOI: https://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.79.5.329
Julia Kravchenko
assistant professor, Environmental Health Scholars Program, Division of Surgical Sciences, Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: julia.krauchanka@duke.edu
H. Kim Lyerly
director, Environmental Health Scholars Program; George Barth Geller Professor of Cancer Research; professor, Departments of Surgery, Immunology, and Pathology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William Ross
partner, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act and related policies led to substantial decreases of emitted air pollutants from coal-fired power plants. Improved air quality was associated with statewide improvements in respiratory, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular health in North Carolina. The effectiveness of environmental policies can be monitored for impact on both environmental and health outcomes.

Although the federal Clean Air Act of 1970 aimed to reduce air pollution by establishing standards for new fossil-fueled electric power plants, it left existing plants unregulated. Lawmakers assumed that older plants would be retired and replaced by cleaner, more modern plants, but the assumptions proved wrong. Most of the coal-fired power plants were still in operation 30 years later, and air pollution in surrounding and downwind regions affected by these power plants was a growing concern [1]. Two investor-owned utility companies in North Carolina housed 45 coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) at 14 sites across the state, and Western North Carolina also suffered from airborne pollutants that blew into the region from the coal-fired power plants of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in East Tennessee. Due to widespread concerns about the impacts of air pollution on human health, the environment, and the economy in the Appalachian Region, North Carolina and 7 other states formed the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative in 1992. The findings from that innovative 10-year, multi-state, multi-partner study, and steadily growing worries and evidence of the impact of emissions from coal-fired power plants on air quality and public health, set the stage for the enactment in 2002 of a North Carolina law called the Clean Smokestacks Act. This law mandated significant reductions in emissions from coal-fired power plants, specifically requiring North Carolina's 2 investor-owned utilities to permanently reduce their total year-round nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by 77% by 2009, and their sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 73% by 2013. In addition to harmful emissions reduction, the Clean Smokestacks Act helped North Carolina to reach its goal of improving visibility in the Smoky Mountains and other scenic vistas in the state by reducing the level of haze-causing contaminants. Furthermore, the steps used to reduce SO2 and NOx levels had the additional benefit of reducing acid rain in the state and lowering mercury emissions (the latter of which helps to decrease concentrations of mercury in ocean and freshwater fish species in Eastern North Carolina). Finally, it was expected that the emission reductions would have health benefits for the North Carolina population (as well as for the neighboring states) by significantly reducing the level of air contaminants.

Among other stipulations, the law directed North Carolina's attorney general to seek comparable reductions from upwind states and utilities. Under this provision, the attorney general sued the TVA in 2006 to force it to clean up its coal-fired power plants in the vicinity of North Carolina's western border. In 2011, TVA agreed to a court-approved settlement that achieved the Clean Smokestacks Act goal of reductions in TVA emissions that were comparable to the reductions required of the North Carolina utilities in terms of extent and schedule.

A decade and a half after the 2002 enactment of the Clean Smokestacks Act, the environmental results of the law are clear. The affected North Carolina utility companies have retired or scheduled retirement of a majority of the coal-fired power plants and have added SO2 flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubbers and NOx burners or selective catalytic or non-catalytic reduction (SCR/SNCR) technology on all the rest. In addition, one utility has built one large, new coal-fired power plant to operate far more efficiently using advanced emissions control technology [1]. The utilities have also invested in new gas-fired generating plants, as well as in renewable energy and energy efficiency incentive programs [1, 2]. The law set no specific caps for mercury, particulate matter (PM), or CO2, but an additional benefit of closing or upgrading all the coal-fired plants for SO2 and NOx control was a significant reduction in mercury emissions. Specifically, mercury emissions dropped 87% between 2002 and 2012 [3]. As of 2014, the utilities collectively had reduced NOx emissions by 83% and SO2 emissions by 89% relative to 1998 emission levels [3].

With the emissions reductions mandated by the Clean Smokestacks Act and various other air pollution control initiatives at the state and federal levels, and with the impact of other significant factors—such as the falling price of natural gas and the expanding use of renewables and energy efficiency—North Carolina's air quality has been able to sustain the improvements achieved since 2002. All areas of the state are now measuring in compliance with, or have reached attainment or maintenance status for, all air quality standards (oral communication between Ross and Mike Abraczinskas, director, NC Division of Air Quality, 2018). And, in the mountains, where the problem was acute in 2002, mountain views have improved dramatically. For example, at the Look Rock observation ledge overlooking the Great Smoky Mountains National Park the National Park Service reports that visual range has improved from 9 miles to 31 miles even on the worst haze index days (ie, on the worst 20% of days for visibility, when air pollutants as well as relative humidity and other physical factors affect visibility) (oral communication from Abraczinskas, referencing information from Jim Renfro, air quality specialist, National Park Service, 2018).

As stated at the outset, a primary driver for the passage of the Clean Smokestacks Act was the concern of many North Carolina citizens that outdoor air pollution was having an adverse effect on their health. People anticipated that improving air quality would also lead to improved health, and a variety of predictive studies, including modeling of potential health benefits, supported these beliefs. In the years since the enactment of the law, independent government agencies have accumulated large sets of data on both air quality and health. Although these datasets had not been previously juxtaposed, the existence of these sets of big data offered an opportunity to evaluate whether the anticipated and projected health benefits were being realized across the state during the same period in which air quality was improving. The Research Triangle Environmental Health Collaborative, which plans and holds meetings about important issues in the field of environmental health, conducted an environmental health “summit” that resulted in discussions of potential research involving the nexus of environmental and health sets of big data [4].

This work set the stage for collaborations between Duke University and the NC Division of Air Quality in the NC Department of Environmental Quality to study the dynamics of health outcomes in North Carolina populations and improving air quality as a result of air pollution control laws (including the Clean Smokestacks Act), regulations, and policies. In this collaborative work, investigators could demonstrate that the innovative North Carolina air pollution control policies, along with various national policies in the past few decades, have coincided with a measured reduction in the levels of these pollutants in outdoor air (see Figure 1). Further, the contribution of improved air quality to a descrease in deaths caused by respiratory diseases (see Figure 2) has been evaluated. Specifically, using monthly measurements from air-monitoring stations across North Carolina from 1993 to 2010, the investigators evaluated the associations between monthly fluctuations of the levels of air pollutants and age-adjusted death rates of respiratory diseases, adjusting for smoking prevalence and seasonal fluctuations of disease-specific respiratory deaths [5]. They calculated how a 1-unit reduction of air pollutant level coincided with a drop in death rates from emphysema, asthma, and pneumonia. Among gaseous pollutants, reductions of SO2 levels correlated with lower death rates from emphysema, asthma and pneumonia; decreases in CO and NO2 were significantly associated with lower emphysema and asthma mortality; decreases in fine particulates coincided with lower emphysema death rates (for PM2.5) and reductions in asthma mortality (for PM10) [5]. Temporal associations between the long-term dynamics of decreasing death rates of emphysema, asthma, and pneumonia and reductions of the levels of air pollutants in North Carolina support the hypothesis that improvement in air quality in the state contributed to the improved respiratory health of the population.

FIGURE 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.

Levels of Six Air Pollutants in North Carolina, 1993-2011

FIGURE 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.

Trends of Death Rates of Emphysema, Asthma, and Pneumonia in North Carolina, 1983-2010

Subsequent independent studies have confirmed these results. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) researchers analyzed SO2 and particulate sulfate (PM2.5 sulfate) concentrations in the southeastern United States during 2002 through 2012 [6]. Their trend analysis showed that significant declines in SO2 (-20.3%/year) and PM2.5 sulfate concentrations (-8.7%/year) since passage of the Clean Smokestacks Act were correlated with the risk model estimates showing decreased risk of premature death attributable to PM2.5 sulfate in North Carolina by about 63%, resulting in an estimated 1,700 (95%CI = 1500-1800) deaths prevented in 2012.

The studies of long-term effects of air pollution on health in North Carolina are innovative, as studies of the association between respiratory symptoms or respiratory diseases and long-term (rather than short-term) changes in air quality remain rare. Most previous long-term studies have focused on the association of PM with increased risk of COPD [7, 8], as well as hospital admissions for neurological disorders [9], and all-cause mortality [10]. Because poor health outcomes have been reported after exposure to air with levels of PM that fall below current national standards [11], some wonder if there is any safe threshold for outdoor air pollution. Consequently, studies have been proposed to investigate whether even low-dose exposure to ambient air pollutants can exacerbate the progression of COPD [12, 13]. The improving air quality in North Carolina could be the standard-bearer for these types of studies, as data from both air quality and all-cause and disease-specific mortality over decades are available.

Although the impact of cleaner air on respiratory health is impressive, the full impact of the cleaner air that resulted from the Clean Smokestacks Act and associated policies is not limited to a drop in the number of respiratory deaths; the reduction in morbidity associated with respiratory diseases including emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and lost work days also have enormous societal benefits. For example, significant health benefits of clean air can also impact cardiovascular and cerebrovascular health [14]. PM2.5 has a link to cardiovascular disease possibly via accelerated atherosclerosis: long-term exposure to PM2.5 was associated with an increased risk of higher intima-media thickness of the common carotid artery [15]. These findings help explain the associations between PM2.5 concentrations and clinical cardiovascular events. Using approaches analogous to their studies of respiratory diseases [5], Duke investigators have recently found that older North Carolinians (over 65 years of age) had decreasing death rates of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cerebrovascular disease (including stroke) from 1992 to 2010 that correlated with decreasing levels of SO2, NO2, PM2.5, and PM10 in the air [17]. For example, a 10-unit reduction in SO2 concentrations in the air (63% of sources of SO2 emission in North Carolina are from coal power plants [16]) led to a 5.5% reduction in myocardial infarction deaths, a 2.0% reduction in heart failure deaths, and a 4.7% reduction of cerebrovascular deaths [17]. As before, a limitation of this study is the reliance on retrospective data. Future studies using prospective analysis demonstrating the improvement in health with improving air quality will help support the policies that have benefited so many lives in North Carolina and will help our state envision new policies—state, regional, and local—that can provide additional benefits.

While longitudinal studies showed general reductions in respiratory, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular mortality correlating with improved air quality in North Carolina, there remains substantial regional variation in mortality associated with outdoor air pollution. For example, cross-sectional studies show increased mortality persists in communities geographically located near sources of power generation [18]. Although overall emissions from active coal power plants in North Carolina decreased from 1998 to 2013, all-cause, respiratory, and cardiovascular mortality among younger residents (aged 15-44 and 45-64) living in communities located in close proximity to coal power plants remains higher than in communities without nearby power plants (even when adjusted for socioeconomic characteristics, number of primary care providers, and smoking prevalence) [19]. Therefore, premature death and morbidity remains an important health issue in these communities and an assessment of factors that contribute to this issue is required.

To maintain a focus on population-based longitudinal and community based cross-sectional studies and to build on the progress made in the studies described above, public health agencies, universities, and other partners continue to collaborate to make large datasets available to researchers and the public. Some of the novel or emerging efforts aimed at making environmental and public health data, especially in large datasets, available to the public and researchers are shown in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 1.

Definitions of Environmental Justice Currently in Use by US and International Agencies and Organizations

In conclusion, recent studies demonstrating the benefits to health from policies such as the Clean Smokestacks Act are proving to be significant in describing population health outcomes as a potential tool to fully appreciate the impact of changes in the environment. Furthermore, due to these innovative collaborative studies, North Carolina has emerged as a leader in the field, establishing a study direction focused on analyses of the health outcomes in residential populations and multiple environmental exposures, although other states are beginning their own efforts and analysis. For example, a recent California study demonstrated the positive health impacts of retiring power plants, describing a reduction in the proportion of preterm births in communities within 5 km of a retired power plant (from 7.0% to 5.1%) [20]. Further studies on health and the environment in North Carolina and efforts focused on cost-benefit analysis will allow us to estimate the costs and quantify the benefits of health improvements associated with cleaner air due to environmental policy.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mina Shehee, PhD, from the NC Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Public Health for valuable information on environmental and public health data in North Carolina available to the public and researchers, and Jessica L. Rinsky, PhD, MPH, epidemiologist at the Division of Public Health, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, NC Department of Health and Human Services, for her help writing this article.

Potential conflicts of interest. All authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

  • ©2018 by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and The Duke Endowment. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Andrews RN
    State Environmental Policy Innovations: North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act. Environmental Law. 2013;43(4):881-939.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Duke Energy
    Duke Energy Carolinas Integrated Resource Plan (Annual Report). Charlotte, NC: Duke Energy; 2012.
  3. ↵
    1. North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,
    2. North Carolina Utilities Commission
    Implementation of the “Clean Smokestacks Act”: A Report to the Environmental Review Commission and the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources; 2014. http://www.ncuc.commerce.state.nc.us/reports/csa2012.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2018.
  4. ↵
    1. Kearney GD,
    2. Shehee M,
    3. Lyerly HK
    Bridging the information gap between health and the environment in North Carolina. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2013;19(5):475-478.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Kravchenko J,
    2. Akushevich I,
    3. Abernethy AP,
    4. Holman H,
    5. Ross WG, J,
    6. Lyerly HK
    Long-term dynamics of death rates of emphysema, asthma, and pneumonia and improving air quality. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2014;9:613-627.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Li YR,
    2. Gibson JM
    Health and air quality benefits of policies to reduce coal-fired power plant emissions: a case study in North Carolina. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(17):10019-10027.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Karakatsani A,
    2. Andreadaki S,
    3. Katsouyanni K, et al.
    Air pollution in relation to manifestations of chronic pulmonary disease: a nested case–control study in Athens, Greece. Eur J Epidemiol. 2003;18(1):45-53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Schikowski T,
    2. Sugiri D,
    3. Ranft U, et al.
    Long-term air pollution exposure and living close to busy roads are associated with COPD in women. Respir Res. 2005;6(1):152.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Kioumourtzoglou MA,
    2. Schwartz JD,
    3. Weisskopf MG, et al.
    Long-term PM2.5 exposure and neurological hospital admissions in the northeastern United States. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124(1):23-29.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Chung Y,
    2. Dominici F,
    3. Wang Y,
    4. Coull BA,
    5. Bell ML
    Associations between long-term exposure to chemical constituents of fine particulate matter (PM2. 5) and mortality in Medicare enrollees in the eastern United States. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123(5):467-474.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Di Q,
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Zanobetti A, et al.
    Air pollution and mortality in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(26):2513-2522.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Ling SH,
    2. van Eeden SF
    Particulate matter air pollution exposure: role in the development and exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2009;4:233-243.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Lipton R,
    2. Banerjee A,
    3. Dowling KC,
    4. Treno AJ
    : The geography of COPD hospitalization in California. COPD. 2005;2(4):435-444.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    Ambient (outdoor) air quality and health. World Health Organization website. http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health. Accessed June 11, 2018.
  15. ↵
    1. Adar SD,
    2. Sheppard L,
    3. Vedal S, et al.
    Fine particulate air pollution and the progression of carotid intima-medial thickness: A prospective cohort study from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis and air pollution. PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001430.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. North Carolina Division of Air Quality
    Air Quality Trends in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Division of Air Quality; 2016. https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Air%20Quality/Air_Quality_Trends_in_North_Carolina.pdf Accessed June 3rd, 2018.
  17. ↵
    1. Kravchenko J,
    2. Lyerly H
    Long-term dynamics of respiratory, cardio- and cerebrovascular death rates among older adults and improving air quality. The Gerontologist. 2015;55(2):282.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Lelieveld J,
    2. Evans JS,
    3. Fnais M,
    4. Giannadaki D,
    5. Pozzer A
    The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature. 2015;525(7569):367-371.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Lyerly HK,
    2. Kravchenko J
    Air Quality and Health. Clean Air Carolina website. https://cleanaircarolina.org/ncbreathe2018/ncbreathe2018-new-research-in-air-quality-health/. Accessed on Jun 3, 2018.
  20. ↵
    1. Casey JA,
    2. Karasek D,
    3. Ogburn EL, et al.
    Coal and oil power plant retirements in California associated with reduced preterm birth among populations nearby. Am J Epidemiol. doi:10.1093/aje/kwy110.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

North Carolina Medical Journal: 79 (5)
North Carolina Medical Journal
Vol. 79, Issue 5
September-October 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on North Carolina Medical Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Health Impacts of Environmental Policy
(Your Name) has sent you a message from North Carolina Medical Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the North Carolina Medical Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 14 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
The Health Impacts of Environmental Policy
Julia Kravchenko, H. Kim Lyerly, William Ross
North Carolina Medical Journal Sep 2018, 79 (5) 329-333; DOI: 10.18043/ncm.79.5.329

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Health Impacts of Environmental Policy
Julia Kravchenko, H. Kim Lyerly, William Ross
North Carolina Medical Journal Sep 2018, 79 (5) 329-333; DOI: 10.18043/ncm.79.5.329
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Health and the Environment in North Carolina
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Policy Forum

  • Health Policy Gets Personal
  • Breaking the Cycle
  • Breaking the Cycle
Show more Policy Forum

INVITED COMMENTARIES AND SIDEBARS

  • Sidebar: Community-driven Approaches to Preventing Overdoses Among American Indians
  • Sidebar: History Shaping the Future: How History Influences Health in North Carolina Native American Communities
  • Sidebar: Impact of Racial Misclassification of Health Data on American Indians in North Carolina
Show more INVITED COMMENTARIES AND SIDEBARS

Similar Articles

About & Contact

  • About the NCMJ
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback

Info for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers

Articles & Alerts

  • Archive
  • Current Issue
  • Get Alerts
  • Upcoming Articles

Additional Content

  • Current NCIOM Task Forces
  • NC Health Data & Resources
  • NCIOM Blog
North Carolina Medical Journal

ISSN: 0029-2559

© 2022 North Carolina Medical Journal

Powered by HighWire