IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v70y2014icp183-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New Source Review and coal plant efficiency gains: How new and forthcoming air regulations affect outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Adair, Sarah K.
  • Hoppock, David C.
  • Monast, Jonas J.

Abstract

Forthcoming carbon dioxide (CO2) regulations for existing power plants in the United States have heightened interest in thermal efficiency gains for coal-fired power plants. Plant modifications to improve thermal efficiency can trigger New Source Review (NSR), a Clean Air Act requirement to adopt of state-of-the-art pollution controls. This article explores whether existing coal plants would likely face additional pollution control requirements if they undertake modifications that trigger NSR. Despite emissions controls that are or will be installed under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) or its replacement, 80% of coal units (76% of capacity) that are expected to remain in operation are not projected to meet the minimum NSR requirements for at least one pollutant: nitrogen oxides or sulfur dioxide. This is an important consideration for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state policymakers as they determine the extent to which CO2 regulation will rely on unit-by-unit thermal efficiency gains versus potential flexible compliance strategies such as averaging, trading, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. NSR would likely delay and add cost to thermal efficiency projects at a majority of coal units, including projects undertaken to comply with forthcoming CO2 regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Adair, Sarah K. & Hoppock, David C. & Monast, Jonas J., 2014. "New Source Review and coal plant efficiency gains: How new and forthcoming air regulations affect outcomes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 183-192.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:70:y:2014:i:c:p:183-192
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002031
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.036?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua Linn & Erin Mastrangelo & Dallas Burtraw, 2014. "Regulating Greenhouse Gases from Coal Power Plants under the Clean Air Act," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 97-134.
    2. Nelson, Randy A & Tietenberg, Tom & Donihue, Michael R, 1993. "Differential Environmental Regulation: Effects on Electric Utility Capital Turnover and Emissions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 75(2), pages 368-373, May.
    3. Bushnell, James B. & Wolfram, Catherine D., 2012. "Enforcement of vintage differentiated regulations: The case of new source review," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 137-152.
    4. Maloney, Michael T & Brady, Gordon L, 1988. "Capital Turnover and Marketable Pollution Rights," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 203-226, April.
    5. Cohan, Daniel S. & Douglass, Catherine, 2011. "Potential emissions reductions from grandfathered coal power plants in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 4816-4822, September.
    6. List John A. & Millimet Daniel L & McHone Warren, 2004. "The Unintended Disincentive in the Clean Air Act," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-28, February.
    7. Heutel, Garth, 2011. "Plant vintages, grandfathering, and environmental policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 36-51, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emodi, Nnaemeka Vincent & Boo, Kyung-Jin, 2015. "Sustainable energy development in Nigeria: Current status and policy options," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 356-381.
    2. Thomson, Vivian E. & Huelsman, Kelsey & Ong, Dominique, 2018. "Coal-fired power plant regulatory rollback in the United States: Implications for local and regional public health," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 558-568.
    3. Chung, Cheng & Pottimurthy, Yaswanth & Xu, Mingyuan & Hsieh, Tien-Lin & Xu, Dikai & Zhang, Yitao & Chen, Yu-Yen & He, Pengfei & Pickarts, Marshall & Fan, Liang-Shih & Tong, Andrew, 2017. "Fate of sulfur in coal-direct chemical looping systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 678-690.
    4. Grant, Don & Running, Katrina & Bergstrand, Kelly & York, Richard, 2014. "A sustainable “building block”?: The paradoxical effects of thermal efficiency on U.S. power plants’ CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 398-402.
    5. Yung-Hsiang Lu & Ku-Hsieh Chen & Jen-Chi Cheng & Chih-Chun Chen & Sian-Yuan Li, 2019. "Analysis of Environmental Productivity on Fossil Fuel Power Plants in the U.S," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-27, December.
    6. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2015. "The political economy of pollution markets: Historical lessons for modern energy and climate planners," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 943-953.
    7. Germeshausen, Robert, 2018. "The European Union emissions trading scheme and fuel efficiency of fossil fuel power plants in Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 18-007, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Zhou, Yishu & Huang, Ling, 2016. "Have U.S. power plants become less technically efficient? The impact of carbon emission regulation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 105-115.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bialek, Sylwia & Gregory, Jack & Revesz, Richard L., 2022. "Still your grandfather's boiler: Estimating the effects of the Clean Air Act's grandfathering provisions," Working Papers 05/2022, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung.
    2. Heutel, Garth, 2011. "Plant vintages, grandfathering, and environmental policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 36-51, January.
    3. Bushnell, James & Wolfram, Catherine, 2008. "Enforcement of Vintage Differentiated Regulations: The Case of New Source Review," Staff General Research Papers Archive 31185, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Chan, H. Ron & Zhou, Yichen Christy, 2021. "Regulatory spillover and climate co-benefits: Evidence from New Source Review lawsuits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    5. Coysh, Daniel & Johnstone, Nick & Kozluk, Tomasz & Nachtigall, Daniel & Cárdenas Rodríguez, Miguel, 2020. "Vintage differentiated regulations and plant survival: Evidence from coal-fired power plants," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    6. Bushnell, James B. & Wolfram, Catherine D., 2012. "Enforcement of vintage differentiated regulations: The case of new source review," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 137-152.
    7. Dalia Patino-Echeverri & Dallas Burtraw & Karen Palmer, 2013. "Flexible mandates for investment in new technology," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 121-155, October.
    8. Nathaniel O. Keohane & Erin T. Mansur & Andrey Voynov, 2009. "Averting Regulatory Enforcement: Evidence from New Source Review," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 75-104, March.
    9. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    10. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Economics," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-54, Resources for the Future.
    11. Stavins, Robert, 2005. "The Effects of Vintage-Differentiated Environmental Regulation," Working Paper Series rwp05-031, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    12. Calcott, Paul, 2012. "Regulatory triggers and New Source Review," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 337-348.
    13. Ian Lange & Joshua Linn, 2008. "Bush v. Gore and the Effect of New Source Review on Power Plant Emissions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 571-591, August.
    14. Alfred Endres & Tim Friehe, 2014. "The reasonable person standard: trading off static and dynamic efficiency," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 249-267, April.
    15. Burtraw, Dallas & Woerman, Matt, 2013. "Economic ideas for a complex climate policy regime," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 24-31.
    16. Levinson, Arik, 1999. "Grandfather regulations, new source bias, and state air toxics regulations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 299-311, February.
    17. Germeshausen, Robert, 2016. "Effects of Attribute-Based Regulation on Technology Adoption - The Case of Feed-In Tariffs for Solar Photovoltaic," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145712, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
    19. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516, Elsevier.
    20. Anthony Heyes, 2009. "Is environmental regulation bad for competition? A survey," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-28, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:70:y:2014:i:c:p:183-192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.