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

Abstract

Carbon dioxide emissions standards for US power plants will influence the fuels and technologies used to generate electricity, alter emissions of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and influence ambient air quality and public health. We present an analysis of how three alternative scenarios for US power plant carbon standards could change fine particulate matter and ozone concentrations in ambient air, and the resulting public health co-benefits. The results underscore that carbon standards to curb global climate change can also provide immediate local and regional health co-benefits, but the magnitude depends on the design of the standards. A stringent but flexible policy that counts demand-side energy efficiency towards compliance yields the greatest health benefits of the three scenarios analysed.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Comparison of each scenario and the proposed US EPA Clean Power Plan by SO2 and NOx averted, and premature deaths avoided, per tonne of CO2 averted.
Figure 2: Maps for the continental USA of difference in annual average concentrations of PM2.5 in 2020 for scenarios 1 and 2, less the reference scenario.
Figure 3: Maps for the continental USA of difference in annual average concentrations of peak summertime O3 in 2020 for scenarios 1 and 2, less the reference scenario.
Figure 4: Change in premature deaths avoided for states of the continental USA from the 2020 reference case for scenarios 1 and 2.

References

  1. 1

    Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units 79 FR 34829 (US EPA, 2014); https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-13726

  2. 2

    National Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013 Publication No. 430-R-14–003 (US EPA, 2014); http://go.nature.com/GSeOar

  3. 3

    Annual Energy Outlook 2014 with Projections to 2040 (DOE/EIA, 2014); http://go.nature.com/BPZObe

  4. 4

    Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants and Emission Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants Publication No. EPA-452/R-14-002 (US EPA, 2014); http://go.nature.com/M5JBzy

  5. 5

    Jerrett, M. et al. Long-term ozone exposure and mortality. New Engl. J. Med. 360, 1085–1095 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Fann, N. et al. Estimating the national public health burden associated with exposure to ambient PM2.5 and ozone. Risk Anal. 32, 81–95 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Burtraw, D., Linn, J., Palmer, K. & Paul, A. The costs and consequences of greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 557–562 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Muller, N. Z. & Mendelsohn, R. Efficient pollution regulation: Getting the prices right. Am. Econ. Rev. 99, 1714–1739 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Fraas, A. & Lutter, R. Efficient pollution regulation: Getting the prices right: Comment. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 602–607 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 (US EPA, 2011); http://www.epa.gov/cleanairactbenefits/feb11/summaryreport.pdf

  11. 11

    Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Publication No. EPA-452/R-11-011 (US EPA, 2011); http://go.nature.com/6cBliV

  12. 12

    Population by Single Year of Age (Woods & Poole Economics, 2008).

  13. 13

    HCUPnet, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2007).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial support for this work was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Grantham Foundation and Mistra's Indigo Program. The authors thank colleagues M. Weiss, K. Driscoll, M. Hale, J. Macedonia, S. Pan, S. Sekar and S. Yeh.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles T. Driscoll.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information (PDF 1074 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Driscoll, C., Buonocore, J., Levy, J. et al. US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits. Nature Clim Change 5, 535–540 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2598

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing