Individual-level health effects of living near a gas-fired "Peaker" power plant.
6 affiliations
- 1Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, USA.
- 2Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Mass General Brigham, USA.
- 3Departments of Epidemiology and Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Washington School of Public Health, USA.
- 4Department of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering, George Mason University, USA.
- 5Department of Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, USA.
- 6Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA.
Abstract
Introduction
"Peaker" electrical power plants operate only during periods of peak energy needs. Rapid fossil-fuel combustion ramp-up produces high emissions, and peaker plants are significant sources of CO₂ and particulate air pollution. We evaluated whether residents living near a gas-fired peaker plant experienced increased pollution-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits associated with air pollution related to the "on" phases of peaker operation.Methods
ED/UC visits for patients in a primary care practice serving the neighborhoods surrounding a peaker plant in Massachusetts were analyzed for 5 years (2017-2021) for visit diagnoses including respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, headache, and pregnancy complications. Daily exposure to peaker-related emissions using HyADS, an air-parcel trajectory model-derived unitless measure of exposure magnitude, was assigned by the zip code of each patient's residential address. A case-crossover design evaluated the association between daily peaker exposure and cause-specific ED/UC visits, adjusting for heat index, PM2.5 from other sources, holidays, and seasonality.Results
Average daily peaker plant exposure was 1.4 (unitless); large variability reflected plant intermittency (SD=16). Background PM2.5 exposure was 8.5 μg/m³ (SD=6.4). Analyses included 2,310 ED/UC visits for assessed diagnoses among patients residing ≤ 30 km from the plant. Main analyses showed a positive association between short-term peaker emissions and increased risk of ED/UC visits for respiratory conditions (OR 1.044; 95 % CI 1.001-1.090). In addition, we found respiratory disease-related visits were elevated among the non-white group (OR 1.347; 95 % CI 1.034-1.755). There was no association noted between peaker emissions and visits for cardiovascular, headache, or pregnancy diagnoses.Conclusion
The peaker plant worsened air quality when turned on. Although we did not observe consistent associations across all assessed ED/UC visit categories, there was a positive same-day association between modeled peaker-plant exposure and respiratory-related visits. Replacing combustion-driven peaker plants with renewable energy in densely populated neighborhoods could yield measurable global and local air quality-related health benefits.
Related
- Biomarkers of Individual Health Status Provide a Biological Signature of the Whole Person Living with Chronic Pain
- Individual-level Social Vulnerability and Cognitive Function Among Older Adults in the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
- Individual-Level Double Burden of Malnutrition among Ethiopian Women: Prevalence, Machine-Learning Prediction and Explainability Using the 2024/25 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey
- Toward a population-level public health approach to support families living under continuous traumatic stress
- Individual- and community-level factors associated with intimate partner controlling behavior among women in Somaliland: a multilevel analysis of the 2020 Somaliland demographic and health survey.
BibTeX
@article{jung2026individuallevel,
title = {{Individual-level health effects of living near a gas-fired "Peaker" power plant.}},
author = {Youn Soo Jung and Adrienne Allen and Joan Casey and Lucas Henneman and Xiaorong Shan and Hugh Shirley and Kari Nadeau and Ann-Christine Duhaime},
journal = {The journal of climate change and health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1016/j.joclim.2026.100762},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42903668},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Individual-level health effects of living near a gas-fired "Peaker" power plant.
AU - Youn Soo Jung
AU - Adrienne Allen
AU - Joan Casey
AU - Lucas Henneman
AU - Xiaorong Shan
AU - Hugh Shirley
AU - Kari Nadeau
AU - Ann-Christine Duhaime
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/12
JO - The journal of climate change and health
DO - 10.1016/j.joclim.2026.100762
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42903668
AB - Introduction "Peaker" electrical power plants operate only during periods of peak energy needs. Rapid fossil-fuel combustion ramp-up produces high emissions, and peaker plants are significant sources of CO₂ and particulate air pollution. We evaluated whether residents living near a gas-fired peaker plant experienced increased pollution-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits associated with air pollution related to the "on" phases of peaker operation.Methods ED/UC visits for patients in a primary care practice serving the neighborhoods surrounding a peaker plant in Massachusetts were analyzed for 5 years (2017-2021) for visit diagnoses including respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, headache, and pregnancy complications. Daily exposure to peaker-related emissions using HyADS, an air-parcel trajectory model-derived unitless measure of exposure magnitude, was assigned by the zip code of each patient's residential address. A case-crossover design evaluated the association between daily peaker exposure and cause-specific ED/UC visits, adjusting for heat index, PM2.5 from other sources, holidays, and seasonality.Results Average daily peaker plant exposure was 1.4 (unitless); large variability reflected plant intermittency (SD=16). Background PM2.5 exposure was 8.5 μg/m³ (SD=6.4). Analyses included 2,310 ED/UC visits for assessed diagnoses among patients residing ≤ 30 km from the plant. Main analyses showed a positive association between short-term peaker emissions and increased risk of ED/UC visits for respiratory conditions (OR 1.044; 95 % CI 1.001-1.090). In addition, we found respiratory disease-related visits were elevated among the non-white group (OR 1.347; 95 % CI 1.034-1.755). There was no association noted between peaker emissions and visits for cardiovascular, headache, or pregnancy diagnoses.Conclusion The peaker plant worsened air quality when turned on. Although we did not observe consistent associations across all assessed ED/UC visit categories, there was a positive same-day association between modeled peaker-plant exposure and respiratory-related visits. Replacing combustion-driven peaker plants with renewable energy in densely populated neighborhoods could yield measurable global and local air quality-related health benefits.
SN - 2667-2782
ER -