IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-13-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Analysis Deconstructed: Changing Assumptions, Changing Results

Author

Listed:
  • Beasley, Blair

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Woerman, Matt

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Paul, Anthony

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Burtraw, Dallas

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Palmer, Karen

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

Several recent studies have used simulation models to quantify the potential effects of recent environmental regulations on power plants, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), one of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s most expensive regulations. These studies have produced inconsistent results about the effects on the industry, making general conclusions difficult. We attempt to reconcile these differences by representing the variety of assumptions in these studies within a common modeling platform. We find that the assumptions, and their differences from the way MATS will be implemented, make a substantial impact on projected retirement of coal-fired capacity and generation, investments that are required, and emissions reductions. Almost uniformly, the actual regulation, when examined in its final form and in isolation, provides more flexibility than is represented in most models. We find this leads to a smaller impact on the composition of the electricity generating fleet than most studies have predicted.

Suggested Citation

  • Beasley, Blair & Woerman, Matt & Paul, Anthony & Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen, 2013. "Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Analysis Deconstructed: Changing Assumptions, Changing Results," RFF Working Paper Series dp-13-10, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-13-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-13-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony & Woerman, Matt, 2012. "Secular Trends, Environmental Regulation, and Electricity Markets," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-15, Resources for the Future.
    2. Beasley, Blair & Morris, Daniel, 2012. "Modeling the Electricity Sector: A Summary of Recent Analyses of New EPA Regulations," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-52, Resources for the Future.
    3. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony & Beasley, Blair & Woerman, Matt, 2013. "Reliability in the U.S. electricity industry under new environmental regulations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1078-1091.
    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. Eric Bowen & Christiadi & John Deskins & Brian Lego, 2018. "An Overview of the Coal Economy in Appalachia," Working Papers Research Paper 2018-02, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    2. Rahmani, Mohsen & Jaramillo, Paulina & Hug, Gabriela, 2016. "Implications of environmental regulation and coal plant retirements in systems with large scale penetration of wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 196-210.
    3. Zirogiannis, Nikolaos & Simon, Daniel H. & Hollingsworth, Alex J., 2020. "Estimating co-pollutant benefits from climate change policies in the electricity sector: A regression approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).

    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. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen & Munnings, Clayton & Weber, Paige & Woerman, Matt, 2013. "Linking by Degrees: Incremental Alignment of Cap-and-Trade Markets," RFF Working Paper Series dp-13-04, Resources for the Future.
    2. Eyer, Jonathan & Kahn, Matthew E., 2020. "Prolonging coal’s sunset: Local demand for local supply," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    3. Charles F. Mason & Lucija A. Muehlenbachs & Sheila M. Olmstead, 2015. "The Economics of Shale Gas Development," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 269-289, October.
    4. Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony & Keyes, Amelia, 2018. "Changing baselines, shifting margins: How predicted impacts of pricing carbon in the electricity sector have evolved over time," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 371-379.
    5. Bielen, David A., 2018. "Do differentiated performance standards help coal? CO2 policy in the U.S. electricity sector," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 79-100.
    6. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony & Woerman, Matt, 2012. "Secular Trends, Environmental Regulation, and Electricity Markets," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-15, Resources for the Future.
    7. Anthony Paul & Karen Palmer & Matthew Woerman, 2015. "Incentives, Margins, And Cost Effectiveness In Comprehensive Climate Policy For The Power Sector," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(04), pages 1-27, November.
    8. Burtraw, Dallas & Woerman, Matt, 2013. "Economic ideas for a complex climate policy regime," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 24-31.
    9. Linn, Joshua & Anna Muehlenbachs, Lucija & Wang, Yshuang, 2014. "How Do Natural Gas Prices Affect Electricity Consumers and the Environment?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-14-19, Resources for the Future.
    10. Brehm, Paul, 2019. "Natural gas prices, electric generation investment, and greenhouse gas emissions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    11. Linn, Joshua & Muehlenbachs, Lucija, 2018. "The heterogeneous impacts of low natural gas prices on consumers and the environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 1-28.
    12. Kantamneni, Abhilash & Winkler, Richelle & Gauchia, Lucia & Pearce, Joshua M., 2016. "Emerging economic viability of grid defection in a northern climate using solar hybrid systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 378-389.
    13. Alexopoulos, Thomas A., 2017. "The growing importance of natural gas as a predictor for retail electricity prices in US," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 219-233.
    14. Gençer, Emre & Agrawal, Rakesh, 2016. "A commentary on the US policies for efficient large scale renewable energy storage systems: Focus on carbon storage cycles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 477-484.
    15. Paul, Anthony & Beasley, Blair & Palmer, Karen, 2013. "Taxing Electricity Sector Carbon Emissions at Social Cost," RFF Working Paper Series dp-13-23-rev, Resources for the Future.
    16. Hayibo, Koami Soulemane & Pearce, Joshua M., 2021. "A review of the value of solar methodology with a case study of the U.S. VOS," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    17. Beasley, Blair & Morris, Daniel, 2012. "Modeling the Electricity Sector: A Summary of Recent Analyses of New EPA Regulations," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-52, Resources for the Future.
    18. Harker Steele, Amanda J. & Burnett, J. Wesley & Bergstrom, John C., 2021. "The impact of variable renewable energy resources on power system reliability," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    sulfur dioxide; mercury; air toxics; nitrogen oxides; carbon dioxide; electricity; technology; generation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q47 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy Forecasting
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-13-10. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.