The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector

Fossil fuel combustion releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere along with co-pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and others. These emissions result in environmental externalities primarily in terms of climate and air quality. Here we quantify the cost of co-pollutant emissions pe...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Irene C Dedoussi, Florian Allroggen, Robert Flanagan, Tyler Hansen, Brandon Taylor, Steven R H Barrett, James K Boyce
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: IOP Publishing 2019-01-01
Series:Environmental Research Letters
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab34e3
_version_ 1797748018058887168
author Irene C Dedoussi
Florian Allroggen
Robert Flanagan
Tyler Hansen
Brandon Taylor
Steven R H Barrett
James K Boyce
author_facet Irene C Dedoussi
Florian Allroggen
Robert Flanagan
Tyler Hansen
Brandon Taylor
Steven R H Barrett
James K Boyce
author_sort Irene C Dedoussi
collection DOAJ
description Fossil fuel combustion releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere along with co-pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and others. These emissions result in environmental externalities primarily in terms of climate and air quality. Here we quantify the cost of co-pollutant emissions per ton of CO _2 emissions from US electric power generation. We measure the co-pollutant cost of carbon (CPCC) as the total value of statistical life associated with US-based premature mortalities attributable to co-pollutant emissions, per mass of CO _2 . We find an average CPCC of ∼$45 per metric ton (mt) of CO _2 for the year 2011 (in 2017 USD). This is ∼20% higher than the central Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) measure of climate damages that was used by the Obama administration in its regulatory impact analysis for the Clean Power Plan (CPP), and >8 times higher than the SCC used by the Trump administration in its analysis for the Plan’s repeal. At the state-level, the CPCC ranged from ∼$7/mt CO _2 for Arizona to ∼$96/mt CO _2 for New Jersey. We calculate the CPCC trends from 2002 to 2017 and find a 71% decrease at the national level, contributing to total savings of ∼$1 trillion in averted mortality from power plant emissions over this period. By decomposing the aggregate and fuel-specific co-pollutant intensities into simultaneous (CO _2 -driven) and autonomous components, we conclude that the CPCC trends originated mainly from targeted efforts to reduce co-pollutant emissions, e.g. through fuel switching (from coal to natural gas) and autonomous changes in co-pollutant emissions. The results suggest that the overall benefit to society from policies to curtail carbon emissions may be enhanced by focusing on pollution sources where the associated air-quality co-benefits are greatest. At the same time, continued efforts to reduce co-pollutant intensities, if technologically feasible, could help to mitigate the air-quality damages of the CPP’s repeal and replacement.
first_indexed 2024-03-12T15:58:56Z
format Article
id doaj.art-b2fa54d151444fa995de7814e852d945
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1748-9326
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-12T15:58:56Z
publishDate 2019-01-01
publisher IOP Publishing
record_format Article
series Environmental Research Letters
spelling doaj.art-b2fa54d151444fa995de7814e852d9452023-08-09T14:44:42ZengIOP PublishingEnvironmental Research Letters1748-93262019-01-0114909400310.1088/1748-9326/ab34e3The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sectorIrene C Dedoussi0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8966-9469Florian Allroggen1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0712-2310Robert Flanagan2Tyler Hansen3Brandon Taylor4Steven R H Barrett5https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4642-9545James K Boyce6https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7711-6752Massachusetts Institute of Technology , 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States of America; Delft University of Technology , Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS, Delft, The NetherlandsMassachusetts Institute of Technology , 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States of AmericaIntensity Corporation, 12730 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, CA 92130, United States of AmericaUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst , 418 N. Pleasant St., Amherst, MA 01002, United States of AmericaUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst , 418 N. Pleasant St., Amherst, MA 01002, United States of AmericaMassachusetts Institute of Technology , 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States of AmericaUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst , 418 N. Pleasant St., Amherst, MA 01002, United States of AmericaFossil fuel combustion releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere along with co-pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and others. These emissions result in environmental externalities primarily in terms of climate and air quality. Here we quantify the cost of co-pollutant emissions per ton of CO _2 emissions from US electric power generation. We measure the co-pollutant cost of carbon (CPCC) as the total value of statistical life associated with US-based premature mortalities attributable to co-pollutant emissions, per mass of CO _2 . We find an average CPCC of ∼$45 per metric ton (mt) of CO _2 for the year 2011 (in 2017 USD). This is ∼20% higher than the central Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) measure of climate damages that was used by the Obama administration in its regulatory impact analysis for the Clean Power Plan (CPP), and >8 times higher than the SCC used by the Trump administration in its analysis for the Plan’s repeal. At the state-level, the CPCC ranged from ∼$7/mt CO _2 for Arizona to ∼$96/mt CO _2 for New Jersey. We calculate the CPCC trends from 2002 to 2017 and find a 71% decrease at the national level, contributing to total savings of ∼$1 trillion in averted mortality from power plant emissions over this period. By decomposing the aggregate and fuel-specific co-pollutant intensities into simultaneous (CO _2 -driven) and autonomous components, we conclude that the CPCC trends originated mainly from targeted efforts to reduce co-pollutant emissions, e.g. through fuel switching (from coal to natural gas) and autonomous changes in co-pollutant emissions. The results suggest that the overall benefit to society from policies to curtail carbon emissions may be enhanced by focusing on pollution sources where the associated air-quality co-benefits are greatest. At the same time, continued efforts to reduce co-pollutant intensities, if technologically feasible, could help to mitigate the air-quality damages of the CPP’s repeal and replacement.https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab34e3air pollutionparticulate matterco-pollutantselectric powergenerationhuman health
spellingShingle Irene C Dedoussi
Florian Allroggen
Robert Flanagan
Tyler Hansen
Brandon Taylor
Steven R H Barrett
James K Boyce
The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector
Environmental Research Letters
air pollution
particulate matter
co-pollutants
electric power
generation
human health
title The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector
title_full The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector
title_fullStr The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector
title_full_unstemmed The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector
title_short The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector
title_sort co pollutant cost of carbon emissions an analysis of the us electric power generation sector
topic air pollution
particulate matter
co-pollutants
electric power
generation
human health
url https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab34e3
work_keys_str_mv AT irenecdedoussi thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector
AT florianallroggen thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector
AT robertflanagan thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector
AT tylerhansen thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector
AT brandontaylor thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector
AT stevenrhbarrett thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector
AT jameskboyce thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector
AT irenecdedoussi copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector
AT florianallroggen copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector
AT robertflanagan copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector
AT tylerhansen copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector
AT brandontaylor copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector
AT stevenrhbarrett copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector
AT jameskboyce copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector