Mapping Tool Results and Recommendations
The Climate and Equitable Jobs Act (CEJA) in Illinois and federal clean energy legislation both prioritize funding for certain communities to ensure the benefits of clean energy investments are fairly distributed. However, the tools and methods they use to identify these communities differ significantly, leading to different communities being prioritized.
This study examined the geospatial mapping tools and methodologies used by both Illinois and the federal government to determine which communities will benefit from clean energy funding and which may be overlooked.
The Illinois mapping tool focuses on Environmental Justice (EJ) and Restore, Reinvest, Renew (R3) communities. These are communities affected by high pollution, socioeconomic vulnerabilities, excessive incarceration, and economic disinvestment. The tool analyzes 23 criteria in two burden categories. On the other hand, the federal Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) examines 31 criteria across eight burden categories to identify target communities.
We compare the areas identified as target communities by both tools to explore how differences in methodology and criteria impact which communities are included or left out. The analysis showed that just under 50% of the total population falls within communities identified by both tools, but only around 20% of the geographic areas overlap. This indicates that the methodologies used by these tools result in significant differences in the communities being prioritized.
Additionally, it can be seen that the federal tool identifies more rural communities as “priority communities.” To better understand why, we examined three rural counties identified by the federal tool but not by the Illinois tool. We found that rural communities may experience, on average, higher rates of population loss due to climate change, higher energy costs, and higher transportation costs compared to urban areas—factors considered by the federal tool but not by the Illinois tool.
This research highlights the significant differences in which populations and areas are considered “priority communities” depending on the tool used. Although both tools aim to prioritize historically marginalized communities, the differences in methodology result in notable geographic disparities, with the federal tool identifying more rural communities.
Recommendations
While the findings do not suggest that one tool is inherently better than the other, they underscore the need for cross-learning between the tools. This can help address potential blind spots and lead to a more equitable clean energy transition.
- Broaden Burden Categories and Criteria: Both tools could benefit from incorporating additional criteria to make them more comprehensive. For instance, the Illinois tool could consider including criteria related to future climate impacts, such as expected agricultural loss or building loss. Similarly, the federal tool might benefit from including factors like excessive incarceration rates.
- Adjust Calculation and Weighting Methods: The Illinois tool uses a composite scoring method, while the federal tool emphasizes high scores in individual burden categories. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, but a closer examination of these methods could help ensure that the right communities are identified as “priority communities.”
- Enhance Flexibility and Community Input: Communities themselves are often the best sources of information about the burdens they face. Therefore, it’s essential to build mechanisms for collecting community feedback before funding is allocated for clean energy transition projects. This ensures that the funding better reflects local needs and priorities.
