The climate and air-quality benefits of wind and solar power in the United States


Wind and solar energy reduce combustion-based electricity generation and provide air-quality and greenhouse gas emission benefits. These benefits vary dramatically by region and over time. From 2007 to 2015, solar and wind power deployment increased rapidly while regulatory changes and fossil fuel price changes led to steep cuts in overall power-sector emissions. Here we evaluate how wind and solar climate and air-quality benefits evolved during this time period. We find cumulative wind and solar air-quality benefits of 2015 US$29.7–112.8 billion mostly from 3,000 to 12,700 avoided premature mortalities, and cumulative climate benefits of 2015 US$5.3–106.8 billion. The ranges span results across a suite of air-quality and health impact models and social cost of carbon estimates. We find that binding cap-and-trade pollutant markets may reduce these cumulative benefits by up to 16%. In 2015, based on central estimates, combined marginal benefits equal 7.3 ¢ kWh−1 (wind) and 4.0 ¢ kWh−1 (solar).

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Total wind and solar capacity and generation in the continental US by month.
Figure 2: Regions within the AVERT model.
Figure 3: Marginal emissions benefits and proportion of generation offsetting natural gas.
Figure 4: Annual avoided air-quality and climate damage.
Figure 5: Annual benefits by region.


  1. 1

    Arent, D. et al. Implications of high renewable electricity penetration in the US for water use, greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, and materials supply. Appl. Energy 123, 368–377 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Valentino, L., Valenzuela, V., Botterud, A., Zhou, Z. & Conzelmann, G. System-wide emissions implications of increased wind power penetration. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 4200–4206 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Wiser, R. et al. Long-term implications of sustained wind power growth in the United States: potential benefits and secondary impacts. Appl. Energy 179, 146–158 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Wiser, R. et al. The environmental and public health benefits of achieving high penetrations of solar energy in the United States. Energy 113, 472–486 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Barbose, G. et al. A retrospective analysis of benefits and impacts of US renewable portfolio standards. Energy Pol. 96, 645–660 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Buonocore, J. J., Dong, X., Spengler, J. D., Fu, J. S. & Levy, J. I. Using the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model to estimate public health impacts of PM 2.5 from individual power plants. Environ. Int. 68, 200–208 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    McCubbin, D. & Sovacool, B. K. Quantifying the health and environmental benefits of wind power to natural gas. Energy Pol. 53, 429–441 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Rhodes, J. D. et al. A geographically resolved method to estimate levelized power plant costs with environmental externalities. Energy Pol. 102, 491–499 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M. G. & Apt, J. Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits of wind and solar generation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 11768–11773 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Cullen, J. Measuring the environmental benefits of wind-generated electricity. AEJ: Econ. Pol. 5, 107–133 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Denholm, P., Margolis, R. M. & Milford, J. M. Quantifying avoided fuel use and emissions from solar photovoltaic generation in the western United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 226–232 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Kaffine, D. T., McBee, B. J. & Lieskovsky, J. Emissions savings from wind power generation in Texas. Energy J. 34, 155–175 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Brown, K. E., Henze, D. K. & Milford, J. B. Accounting for climate and air quality damages in future US electricity generation scenarios. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 3065–3072 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Fann, N., Baker, K. R. & Fulcher, C. M. Characterizing the PM 2.5-related health benefits of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the US. Environ. Int. 49, 141–151 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Jenner, S. & Lamadrid, A. J. Shale gas versus coal: policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States. Energy Pol. 53, 442–453 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Kerl, P. Y. et al. New approach for optimal electricity planning and dispatching with hourly time-scale air quality and health considerations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 10884–10889 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Machol, B. & Rizk, S. Economic value of US fossil fuel electricity health impacts. Environ. Int. 52, 75–80 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Shindell, D. T. The Social Cost of Atmospheric Release (Economics Discussion Papers, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use (National Academies, 2010).

  20. 20

    Annual Electric Generator Report EIA-860 (Energy Information Administration, 2016).

  21. 21

    US Solar Market Insight Report: 2015 Year in Review (GTM Research and Solar Energy Industries Association, 2016).

  22. 22

    US Solar Market Trends 2013 (Interstate Renewable Energy Council, 2014).

  23. 23

    AVoided Emissions and Generation Tool (AVERT) User Manual: Version 1.2 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014).

  24. 24

    Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data: Average Annual Emissions, Criteria pollutants National Tier 1 for 1970–2016 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

  25. 25

    Cai, H., Wang, M., Elgowainy, A. & Han, J. Updated Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Factors and their Probability Distribution Functions for Electricity Generating Units (Argonne National Laboratory, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Cai, H., Wang, M., Elgowainy, A. & Han, J. Updated Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Factors of the US Electric Generating Units in 2010 (Argonne National Laboratory, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide (National Academies, 2017).

  28. 28

    Penn, S. L. et al. Estimating state-specific contributions to PM2. 5- and O3-related health burden from residential combustion and electricity generating unit emissions in the United States. Environ. Health Perspect. 125, 324–332 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Buonocore, J. J. et al. Health and climate benefits of different energy-efficiency and renewable energy choices. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 100–105 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Borenstein, S. The private and public economics of renewable electricity generation. J. Econ. Perspect. 26, 67–92 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Edenhofer, O. et al. On the economics of renewable energy sources. Energy Econ. 40, S12–S23 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 3 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Fell, H. & Linn, J. Renewable electricity policies, heterogeneity, and cost effectiveness. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 66, 688–707 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Fischer, C. & Newell, R. G. Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 55, 142–162 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Kalkuhl, M., Edenhofer, O. & Lessmann, K. Renewable energy subsidies: second-best policy or fatal aberration for mitigation? Resour. Energy Econ. 35, 217–234 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Lew, D. et al. The Western Wind and Solar Integration Study Phase 2 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Fisher, J., DeYoung, R. K. & Santen, N. R. Assessing the emission benefits of renewable energy and energy efficiency using EPA’s avoided emissions and generation tool (AVERT). In 2015 Int. Emission Inventory Conf. Air Quality Challenges Tackling Changing Face of Emissions (EPA, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Air Emissions Displacement by Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: A Survey of Data, Methods, and Results (Synapse Energy Economics, 2015).

  39. 39

    Levy, J. I. et al. Carbon reductions and health co-benefits from US residential energy efficiency measures. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 034017 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Ohler, A. M. & Ta, C. L. Modeling impacts from EPA’s clean power plan and building block 3 for renewable energy. Electr. J. 28, 72–82 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    Power Plant Operations Report Report no. EIA-923 (Energy Information Administration, 2016).

  42. 42

    AWEA Market Database Pro (American Wind Energy Association, 2016).

  43. 43

    The Clean Air Benefits of Wind Energy (American Wind Energy Association, 2014).

  44. 44

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Electronic Quarterly Reports (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2016).

  45. 45

    Wiser, R. & Bolinger, M. 2015 Wind Technologies Market Report (US Department of Energy, 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46

    Bolinger, M. & Seel, J. Utility-Scale Solar 2015: An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost, Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47

    Dobos, A. P. PVWatts Version 5 Manual (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2014);

  48. 48

    Technical Notes to the Electric Power Monthly (Energy Information Administration, 2015).

  49. 49

    Heo, J., Adams, P. J. & Gao, H. O. Public health costs of primary PM2.5 and inorganic PM2.5 precursor emissions in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 6061–6070 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50

    Heo, J., Adams, P. J. & Gao, H. O. Reduced-form modeling of public health impacts of inorganic PM 2.5 and precursor emissions. Atmos. Environ. 137, 80–89 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    Muller, N. Z. Boosting GDP growth by accounting for the environment. Science 345, 873–874 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52

    Muller, N. Z., Mendelsohn, R. & Nordhaus, W. Environmental accounting for pollution in the United States economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 1649–1675 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53

    Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2015).

  54. 54

    User’s Manual for the Co-Benefits Risk Assessment (COBRA) Screening Model Version: 2.61 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014).

  55. 55

    Krewski, D. et al. Extended follow-up and spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and mortality. Res. Rep. Health Eff. Inst. 140, 5–114 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56

    Lepeule, J., Laden, F., Dockery, D. & Schwartz, J. Chronic exposure to fine particles and mortality: an extended follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities study from 1974 to 2009. Environ. Health Perspect. 120, 965–970 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57

    Roman, H. A. et al. Expert judgment assessment of the mortality impact of changes in ambient fine particulate matter in the US. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 2268–2274 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58

    Driscoll, C. T. et al. US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 535–540 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59

    ENVIRON CAMx User’s Guide Version 5.41 (Environ International Corporation, 2012).

  60. 60

    Byun, D. & Schere, K. L. Review of the governing equations, computational algorithms, and other components of the Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system. App. Mech. Rev. 59, 51–77 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61

    Ching, J. & Byun, D. Science Algorithms of the EPA Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System: Introduction to the Models-3 framework and the Community Multiscale Air Quality model (CMAQ) (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62

    Latimer, D. A. Particulate Matter Source-Receptor Relationships Between All Point and Area Sources in the United States and PSD Class I Area Receptors (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63

    Tol, R. S. The social cost of carbon: trends, outliers and catastrophes. Econ. E-J. 2, 2008–2025 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64

    Tol, R. S. The social cost of carbon. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 3, 419–443 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65

    Tol, R. S. Targets for global climate policy: an overview. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 37, 911–928 (2013).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66

    Nordhaus, W. D. Revisiting the social cost of carbon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 1518–1523 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67

    Gillingham, K. et al. Modeling Uncertainty in Climate Change: A Multi-Model Comparison (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68

    Nordhaus, W. Estimates of the social cost of carbon: concepts and results from the DICE-2013R model and alternative approaches. J. Assoc. Environ. Res. Econ. 1, 273–312 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69

    Ackerman, F., Stanton, E. A., Hope, C. & Alberth, S. Did the Stern Review underestimate US and global climate damages? Energy Pol. 37, 2717–2721 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70

    Van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. & Botzen, W. J. W. A lower bound to the social cost of CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 253–258 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71

    Weitzman, M. L. Tail-hedge discounting and the social cost of carbon. J. Econ. Lit. 51, 873–882 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72

    Havranek, T., Irsova, Z., Janda, K. & Zilberman, D. Selective reporting and the social cost of carbon. Energy Econ. 51, 394–406 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was funded by the Wind Energy Technologies Office, Solar Energy Technologies Office, and Office of Strategic Programs Office, all within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the US Department of Energy, under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. We would like to thank M. Goggin and H. Hunt at AWEA for providing information related to regional wind power transfers. We also thank J. Solomon-Culp for helping to develop the wind and solar generation time series.

Author information




All authors jointly developed the research design. D.M. carried out all of the simulations and analysed the model outcomes. With input from all authors, D.M. led the overall manuscript development. R.W. provided critical input and review throughout the manuscript. M.B. and R.W. led development of the comparison with incentives and market prices. G.B., D.M. and R.W. developed the distributed solar generation estimates.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dev Millstein.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes 1 and 2, Supplementary References. (PDF 266 kb)

Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Tables 1–4. (XLSX 147 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Millstein, D., Wiser, R., Bolinger, M. et al. The climate and air-quality benefits of wind and solar power in the United States. Nat Energy 2, 17134 (2017).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.
Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing