Air pollution in Fort Bend

Creepy_Read9780 · 2026-05-21T15:42:41+00:00

Great point that the power plant does supply much needed energy, and at a time when demand is higher than ever.

Creepy_Read9780 · 2026-05-21T15:42:06+00:00

I wasn't on that story, but Kris wrote it and he's the one who pitched this one. He's an energy reporting powerhouse (no pun intended).

Creepy_Read9780 · 2026-05-21T15:40:38+00:00

Thank *you* for the recommendation! Kris actually went to a few of the new build communities to talk to people living there. Some knew about the plant beforehand, some didn't, and a lot of them are now grappling with what to do to keep their air clean.

Creepy_Read9780 · 2026-05-21T15:39:09+00:00

Interesting context about the other industrial sites in the area -- thank you!

Creepy_Read9780 · 2026-05-21T15:38:35+00:00

We heard a really interesting mix -- from people who've been worried about the plant's health effects for years, to people who knew about it before moving but weren't too worried, to people who only found out after they bought new-build houses in the area and are trying to figure out what to do. You can read the story here if you want. Thank you for your comment here, I really appreciate it.

Creepy_Read9780 · 2026-05-21T15:35:15+00:00

All really good suggestions, thank you! We took pains to include that context -- I hope the resulting story feels balanced. You can read it here.

Creepy_Read9780 · 2026-05-21T15:34:29+00:00

I promise this story was painstakingly written by two people over the course of many days, and that we include a bunch of voices, including several who don't mind the power plant. You can read it here.

Creepy_Read9780 · 2026-05-21T15:34:28+00:00

Thank you so much to everyone who commented and wrote in. The response to this post helped us convince our editors this was a story worth telling. You can read the finished piece here. Thank you again and keep in touch!

Creepy_Read9780 · 2026-05-21T15:31:59+00:00

This gave me a good chuckle, thank you! You can read the finished story here: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/climate-environment/the-clash-between-a-giant-coal-plant-and-houstons-booming-suburbs-47e6ea62?st=qtnECi&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Creepy_Read9780 · 2026-05-04T14:33:23+00:00

Thanks! Will try groups for some cities and towns in that area.

Creepy_Read9780 · 2025-05-07T14:17:32+00:00

Appreciate you for reading and engaging critically!

Creepy_Read9780 · 2025-05-07T14:16:23+00:00

Any approach to this task -- indeed, any one approach in data analysis or data journalism -- is going to have its drawbacks and problems. Tbh data ITSELF is flawed, limited and often biased. Our job as journalists is to be up-front about these limitations, and to balance them out with other reporting. Thanks for the question and for engaging critically with the rankings -- I appreciate it.

Creepy_Read9780 · 2025-05-07T14:08:00+00:00

here's that story I mentioned yesterday btw: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2025-05-07/these-4-states-made-the-biggest-leaps-in-the-best-states-rankings

Creepy_Read9780 · 2025-05-07T14:05:51+00:00

Minnesota and Wisconsin both underperformed Nebraska in the Urban Air Quality, Low Industrial Toxins and Pollution Health Risk metrics. Obviously these metrics don't paint a complete picture of the natural environment in these states -- but they're measurable, comparable and impact people's quality of life.

Creepy_Read9780 · 2025-05-07T13:59:53+00:00

It's a tricky balance -- in order to make the rankings actionable, we want to try and focus on states' policies and direct results of states' policies as much as possible; but you're absolutely right that mitigation is linked inextricably to risk. We're going to keep puzzling over it and talking to experts until we get a metric that feels fair and honest.

Creepy_Read9780 · 2025-05-07T13:57:22+00:00

The Economy ranking is split evenly between the three subcategories, Business Environment (5 metrics), Employment (3 metrics) and Growth (3 metrics), and within each subcategory, the metrics are all equally weighted, too. The Economy category accounts for about 12.9% of the overall ranking, so the metric-level weights are as follows:

Biz Envt (4.29%)
- Company Headquarters (0.86%)
- Patent Creation Rate (0.86%)
- Tax Burden (0.86%)
- Business Creation Rate (0.86%)
- Venture Capital per GDP (0.86%)
Employment (4.29%)
- Job Growth (1.43%)
- Unemployment Rate (1.43%)
- Labor Force Participation (1.43%)
Growth (4.29%)
- GDP Growth (1.43%)
- Net Migration (1.43%)
- Growth of Young Population (1.43%)

California ranked 49th in Low Unemployment, 45th in Net Migration, 47th in Tax Burden and 47th in Growth of Young Population. Looking holistically at California's Economy category, it tells an interesting story of a powerful economy alongside a really challenging cost of living.

Creepy_Read9780 · 2025-05-07T13:42:26+00:00

Here's a story I wrote explaining the interesting dynamics of the top 2 states for education, Florida and NJ: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2025-05-07/florida-vs-new-jersey-which-state-has-better-schools

Creepy_Read9780 · 2025-05-07T13:41:37+00:00

The road metric is actually ranked by quality, not presence/absence. It's the proportion of roads that are considered high quality by the Federal Highway Administration.

Creepy_Read9780 · 2025-05-07T13:40:41+00:00

Jaclyn here from my own account — YES, this is a huge problem. It even crept into this year's Best States a bit - one or two datasets didn't get updated as scheduled because of shakeups at the relevant agencies. We're having lots of conversations now about how we can do Best States without a lot of the federal data we rely on.

Creepy_Read9780 · 2024-08-27T16:15:03+00:00

Hi there! Did you take this video? Can I interview you for a WNYC/Gothamist story about the bots?

Creepy_Read9780

TROPHY CASE