US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits

Driscoll, Charles T.; Buonocore, Jonathan J.; Levy, Jonathan I.; Lambert, Kathleen F.; Burtraw, Dallas; Reid, Stephen; Fakhraei, Habibollah; Schwartz, Joel

doi:10.1038/nclimate2598

Cited by 184 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, we estimate 25 and 14 deaths avoided per 1 M tCO 2 avoided (based on pooled mortality results). We compare this with 7.3 deaths avoided per 1 M tCO 2 reduced as reported by Driscoll et al (2015) in 2020 as a result of a nationwide carbon reduction policy covering the power sector.…”

Section: Discussion/policy Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Major sources of GHGs addressed by these policies are also major sources of conventional air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NO x ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH 3 ), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Therefore, numerous studies have found that policies designed to reduce GHGs will also reduce these other pollutants and their atmospheric products, leading to air quality improvements Driscoll et al, 2015;Burtraw et al, 2014;Thompson et al, 2014a;West et al, 2013;Muller 2012;Grossman et al, 2011;Nemet et al, 2010;Bell et al, 2008a;Smith and Haigler 2008). Studies also suggest that climate policy would be an effective way to approach an integrated policy that incorporates climate mitigation and air pollution reduction (McCollum et al, 2013;Ravishankara et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although many existing air quality co-benefit studies focus examination on electricity sector carbon policies Driscoll et al, 2015;Burtraw et al, 2014), it is also important to consider the cost-andbenefit trade-offs arising from targeting emissions from the electricity sector compared with a more inclusive economy-wide approach. A previous national co-benefit study found an economy-wide cap-and-trade (CAT) approach to be most cost effective versus policies that cap carbon emissions from only a single sector of the economy, even finding that ancillary benefits of CAT policies can exceed the costs of the policy (Thompson et al, 2014a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Air quality co-benefits of subnational carbon policies

Thompson

Rausch

Saari

et al. 2016

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To mitigate climate change, governments ranging from city to multi-national have adopted greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. While the location of GHG reductions does not affect their climate benefits, it can impact human health benefits associated with co-emitted pollutants. Here, an advanced modeling framework is used to explore how subnational level GHG targets influence air pollutant co-benefits from ground level ozone and fine particulate matter. Two carbon policy scenarios are analyzed, each reducing the same total amount of GHG emissions in the Northeast US: an economy-wide Cap and Trade (CAT) program reducing emissions from all sectors of the economy, and a Clean Energy Standard (CES) reducing emissions from the electricity sector only. Results suggest that a regional CES policy will cost about 10 times more than a CAT policy. Despite having the same regional targets in the Northeast, carbon leakage to noncapped regions varies between policies. Consequently, a regional CAT policy will result in national carbon reductions that are over six times greater than the carbon reduced by the CES in 2030. Monetized regional human health benefits of the CAT and CES policies are 844% and 185% of the costs of each policy, respectively. Benefits for both policies are thus estimated to exceed their costs in the Northeast US. The estimated value of human health co-benefits associated with air pollution reductions for the CES scenario is two times that of the CAT scenario.Implications: In this research, an advanced modeling framework is used to determine the potential impacts of regional carbon policies on air pollution co-benefits associated with ground level ozone and fine particulate matter. Study results show that spatially heterogeneous GHG policies have the potential to create areas of air pollution dis-benefit. It is also shown that monetized human health benefits within the area covered by policy may be larger than the model estimated cost of the policy. These findings are of particular interest both as U.S. states work to develop plans to meet state-level carbon emissions reduction targets set by the EPA through the Clean Power Plan, and in the absence of comprehensive national carbon policy.PAPER HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Discussion/policy Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Air quality co-benefits of subnational carbon policies

Thompson

Rausch

Saari

et al. 2016

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…"Because of the public nature of some of this science, I think we probably need a much tighter rein on what disclosure is. " Disclosure demands are coming from both sides of the aisle: climate sceptics have objected to a Nature Climate Change study 6 that analysed some of the US Environ mental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas regulations, because it was written by researchers who have received grants from the agency -even though the grants are listed in a public database.…”

Section: By E W E N C a L L Awaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Earth science wrestles with conflict-of-interest policies

Tollefson¹

2015

Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Various aspects of our methods to estimate GHG and air pollution benefits build on or complement approaches used by U.S. regulatory agencies (GAO 2014; EPA 2015c) and academic researchers (NRC 2010;Arent et al 2014;Buonocore et al 2016a;Buonocore et al 2016b;Callaway et al 2015;Chiang et al 2016;Cullen 2013;Graff Zivin et al 2014;Driscoll et al 2015;Fann et al 2012;Johnson et al 2013;Kaffine et al 2013;McCubbin and Sovacool 2013;Novan 2014;Rouhani et al 2016;Siler-Evans et al 2013;Shindell 2015). The basic approach used for estimating water use impacts has also been applied in multiple studies Macknick et al 2012;Macknick et al 2015;Rogers et al 2013).…”

Section: Evaluating the Benefits And Impacts Of State Rps And High Rementioning

confidence: 99%

A Prospective Analysis of the Costs, Benefits, and Impacts of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards

Mai

Wiser

Barbose

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PREFACEThis is one report in a series that explores the costs, benefits, and other impacts of state renewable portfolio standards (RPS), both retrospectively and prospectively. The first report, A Survey of State-Level Cost and Benefit Estimates of Renewable Portfolio Standards, published in 2014, comprehensively summarized historical RPS compliance costs, drawing in part on estimates developed by utilities and state regulatory agencies. The study also reviewed analyses of the broader societal benefits and impacts of several states' RPS policies, typically conducted for or by the regulatory agencies or RPS administrators in those states. However, the small number of such studies, and their widely varying methods and scopes, ultimately limited the ability to compare benefits across states or to generalize beyond the specific studies performed. That limitation set the stage for future reports.The second report in the series, A Retrospective Analysis of the Benefits and Impacts of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards, published in January 2016, analyzed historical benefits and impacts of renewable energy (RE) used to meet all state RPS policies, in aggregate, employing a consistent and well-vetted set of methods and data sets. The analysis focuses on three specific benefits: air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and water use. It also analyzes three other impacts: gross job additions, wholesale electricity market price suppression, and natural gas price suppression. These are an important subset, but by no means a comprehensive set, of all possible effects associated with RPS policies. That report did not include a comparison of costs and benefits of renewables used to meet RPS policies, and nor did it assess the potential costs, benefits, and impacts prospectively based on future increases in RPS targets.The present report fills that gap by evaluating the future costs, benefits, and other impacts of renewable energy used to meet current state RPS polices. It also examines a future scenario where RPSs are expanded. The analysis examines changes in electric system costs and retail electricity prices, which include all fixed and operating costs, including capital costs for all renewable, non-renewable, and supporting (e.g., transmission and storage) electric sector infrastructure; fossil fuel, uranium, and biomass fuel costs; and plant operations and maintenance expenditures. The analysis uses the same framework as the second report to analyze three specific benefits: air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and water use. It also analyzes two other impacts, RE workforce and economic development, and natural gas price suppression.The terminology applied in this series does not align precisely with the traditional concepts of costs and benefits, but rather is a function of how RPS programs have often been evaluated in practice. This analysis series, particularly the present report, evaluates renewable energy used to meet RPS policies in terms of costs, benefits, and other impacts:• Cost metrics presented in this r...

show abstract

US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits

Cited by 184 publications

References 5 publications

Air quality co-benefits of subnational carbon policies

Air quality co-benefits of subnational carbon policies

Earth science wrestles with conflict-of-interest policies

A Prospective Analysis of the Costs, Benefits, and Impacts of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About