IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-17-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Costs and Benefits of Saving Unprofitable Generators: A Simulation Case Study for US Coal and Nuclear Power Plants

Author

Listed:
  • Shawhan, Daniel

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Picciano, Paul

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

In this paper, we use a detailed power sector model, E4ST, to project effects of preventing a set of unprofitable generators from retiring. We simulate the “Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule” proposed by the US Department of Energy in the fall of 2017, and several variations. In the proposed policy, eligible coal and nuclear generators would be guaranteed revenues sufficient to make them profitable. Our analysis is an examination of that potential policy and an illustrative case study for similar national, regional, or state policies in the United States or elsewhere. The results highlight the importance of estimating environmental net benefits, as they dominate the cost–benefit analysis of all of the policy variations considered. In the simulation results, the total subsidy amount required to guarantee profits for coal and nuclear generators in 2025 is $7.6 billion. If the policy is in effect from 2020 through 2045, it prevents the retirement of approximately 25 GW of coal-fueled capacity, delays the retirement of 20 GW of nuclear capacity, causes 27,000 premature deaths in the United States, and has an estimated total net cost of $263 billion during those 25 years. Of that, $217 billion is environmental damages and $45 billion is nonenvironmental net costs. We find that the policy’s net non-environmental cost for electricity end-users is $72 billion and its net benefit for generation owners is $28 billion. In an alternative scenario, we find that guaranteeing only recovery of costs necessary for continued operation, instead of guaranteeing profits, shifts costs from end-users to generators enough to nullify the policy’s effect on electric bills and make it detrimental to generator profits, but has little effect on the other outcomes. Preventing the retirement of just nuclear capacity is the only simulated policy that produces positive net benefits. Our analysis assumes that the policies do not otherwise affect the efficiency of the electricity markets, and it does not estimate effects on reliability or resilience, but it could be considered in combination with analyses of such effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Shawhan, Daniel & Picciano, Paul, 2017. "Costs and Benefits of Saving Unprofitable Generators: A Simulation Case Study for US Coal and Nuclear Power Plants," RFF Working Paper Series 17-22, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-17-22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/430/RFF-WP-17-22.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. UNICEF & World Bank, 2017. "Lesotho Public Health Sector Expenditure Review," World Bank Publications - Reports 29344, The World Bank Group.
    2. Shawhan, Daniel L. & Taber, John T. & Shi, Di & Zimmerman, Ray D. & Yan, Jubo & Marquet, Charles M. & Qi, Yingying & Mao, Biao & Schuler, Richard E. & Schulze, William D. & Tylavsky, Daniel, 2014. "Does a detailed model of the electricity grid matter? Estimating the impacts of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 191-207.
    3. Li, Hongwei & Tang, Zhigang & He, Zhimin & Cui, Jingjie & Guo, Dong & Zhao, Zhijun & Mao, Xian-zhong, 2017. "Performance evaluation of CO2 capture with diethyl succinate," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 119-131.
    4. Chi, Hong & Li, Jialian & Shao, Xueyan & Gao, Mingang, 2017. "Timeliness evaluation of emergency resource scheduling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 1022-1032.
    5. Ferrer, Rebecca A. & Lipkus, Isaac M. & Cerully, Jennifer L. & McBride, Colleen M. & Shepperd, James A. & Klein, William M.P., 2017. "Developing a scale to assess health regulatory focus," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 50-60.
    6. Jaramillo, Paulina & Muller, Nicholas Z., 2016. "Air pollution emissions and damages from energy production in the U.S.: 2002–2011," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 202-211.
    7. Fischer, Carolyn & Mao, Biao & Shawhan, Daniel, 2018. "Trade between mass- and rate-based regulatory regimes: Bad for emissions?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 326-336.
    8. Jannette van Beek & Michel J.J. Handgraaf & Gerrit Antonides, 2017. "Time orientation effects on health behavior," Chapters, in: Morris Altman (ed.), Handbook of Behavioural Economics and Smart Decision-Making, chapter 23, pages 413-428, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. ., 2017. "Health care cost rapid assessment post check," Chapters, in: Living Wages Around the World, chapter 9, pages 206-213, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Hanna E & Remuzat C & Auquier P & Claude Dussart & Toumi M, 2017. "Could Healthcoin Be A Revolution In Healthcare?," Post-Print hal-01722779, HAL.
    11. Nguyen, Ly & Wilson, Norbert L.W., 2017. "Healthy Foods: Tax or Voucher?," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258491, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Government of India, 2017. "National Health Policy 2017," Working Papers id:11664, eSocialSciences.
    13. Baker, Emma & Beer, Andrew & Lester, Laurence & Pevalin, David & Whitehead, Christine M E & Bentley, Rebecca, 2017. "Is housing a health insult?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 79372, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    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. Robson, Sally & Russell, Ethan & Varela Varela, Ana & Shawhan, Daniel, 2024. "Policies for Reducing the Impacts of Power Sector Air Pollution on Disadvantaged Americans," RFF Working Paper Series 24-15, Resources for the Future.
    2. Picciano, Paul & Aguilar, Francisco X. & Burtraw, Dallas & Mirzaee, Ashkan, 2022. "Environmental and socio-economic implications of woody biomass co-firing at coal-fired power plants," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    3. Shawhan, Daniel & Picciano, Paul, 2018. "Retirements and Funerals: The Emission, Mortality, and Coal-Mine Employment Effects of a Two-Year Delay in Coal and Nuclear Power Plant Retirements," RFF Working Paper Series 18-18, Resources for the Future.
    4. Mills, Andrew & Wiser, Ryan & Millstein, Dev & Carvallo, Juan Pablo & Gorman, Will & Seel, Joachim & Jeong, Seongeun, 2021. "The impact of wind, solar, and other factors on the decline in wholesale power prices in the United States," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    5. Prest, Brian C. & Krupnick, Alan, 2021. "How clean is “refined coal”? An empirical assessment of a billion-dollar tax credit," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. Shawhan, Daniel & Funke, Christoph & Witkin, Steven, 2020. "Benefits of Energy Technology Innovation Part 1: Power Sector Modeling Results," RFF Working Paper Series 20-19, Resources for the Future.

    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. Rice, Thomas & Unruh, Lynn Y. & van Ginneken, Ewout & Rosenau, Pauline & Barnes, Andrew J., 2018. "Universal coverage reforms in the USA: From Obamacare through Trump," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(7), pages 698-702.
    2. Lawrence C. Pellegrini & Kimberley H. Geissler, 2019. "Supplemental Security Income enrollment and health care and social assistance employment and wages," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 1319-1332, October.
    3. Abas, Naeem & Kalair, Ali Raza & Khan, Nasrullah & Haider, Aun & Saleem, Zahid & Saleem, Muhammad Shoaib, 2018. "Natural and synthetic refrigerants, global warming: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 557-569.
    4. Elizabeth A. Minton & Kathryn A. Johnson & Maricarmen Vizcaino & Christopher Wharton, 2020. "Is it godly to waste food? How understanding consumers' religion can help reduce consumer food waste," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 1246-1269, December.
    5. Maddalena Honorati & Sara Johansson de Silva & Natalia Millan & Florentin Kerschbaumer, 2019. "Work for a Better Future in Armenia," World Bank Publications - Reports 34412, The World Bank Group.
    6. Tajul Masron & Mduduzi Biyase & Talent Zwane & Thomas Udimal & Frederich Kirsten, 2023. "Ecological footprint and population health outcomes: an analysis of E7 countries," Economics Working Papers edwrg-07-2023, College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, revised 2023.
    7. G. Kent Fellows & Daniel J. Dutton & Aidan Hollis, 2018. "Making Sure Orphan Drugs Don’t Get Left Behind," SPP Communique, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 10(6), August.
    8. Nicholas Z Muller & Akshaya Jha, 2017. "Does environmental policy affect scaling laws between population and pollution? Evidence from American metropolitan areas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-15, August.
    9. Rebecca J. Davis & J. Scott Holladay & Charles Sims, 2022. "Coal-Fired Power Plant Retirements in the United States," Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(1), pages 4-36.
    10. Fattahi, Mohammad & Keyvanshokooh, Esmaeil & Kannan, Devika & Govindan, Kannan, 2023. "Resource planning strategies for healthcare systems during a pandemic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(1), pages 192-206.
    11. Richard Isralowitz & Mor Yehudai & Daichi Sugawara & Akihiro Masuyama & Shai-li Romem Porat & Adi Dagan & Alexander Reznik, 2022. "Economic Impact on Health and Well-Being: Comparative Study of Israeli and Japanese University “Help” Profession Students," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, November.
    12. Shu Yan & Lizi Pan & Yan Lu & Juan Chen & Ting Zhang & Dongzi Xu & Zhaolian Ouyang, 2023. "Towards Sustainable Drug Supply in China: A Bibliometric Analysis of Drug Reform Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.
    13. Liang-Chung Huang & Wu-Fu Chung & Shih-Wei Liu & Jau-Ching Wu & Li-Fu Chen & Yu-Chun Chen, 2019. "Characteristics of Non-Emergent Visits in Emergency Departments: Profiles and Longitudinal Pattern Changes in Taiwan, 2000–2010," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-16, June.
    14. Bozena Wielgoszewska & Alex Bryson & Monica Costa-Dias & Francesca Foliano & Heather Joshi & David Wilkinson, 2021. "Exploring the Reasons for Labour Market Gender Inequality a Year into the Covid-19 Pandemic: Evidence from the UK Cohort Studies," DoQSS Working Papers 21-23, Quantitative Social Science - UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.
    15. Shi, Wunan & Wouters, Olivier J. & Liu, Gordon & Mossialos, Elias & Yang, Xiuyun, 2020. "Association between provincial income levels and drug prices in China over the period 2010–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    16. Anshul Kastor & Sanjay K Mohanty, 2018. "Disease-specific out-of-pocket and catastrophic health expenditure on hospitalization in India: Do Indian households face distress health financing?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, May.
    17. Sperling, Martina & Schryen, Guido, 2022. "Decision support for disaster relief: Coordinating spontaneous volunteers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 690-705.
    18. Francesco Bogliacino & Rafael Charris & Camilo Gómez & Felipe Montealegre & Cristiano Codagnone, 2021. "Expert endorsement and the legitimacy of public policy. Evidence from Covid19 mitigation strategies," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3-4), pages 394-415, April.
    19. Katie Adamek & Sarah Bardin & So O'Neil & Dara Lee Luca, "undated". "Accelerating Teen Pregnancy Prevention in Phillips County, Arkansas and Coahoma County, Mississippi," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 7fda86cbb1bf4303a84f466e8, Mathematica Policy Research.
    20. Lijian Xie & Suhong Zhou & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Associations between Objective and Subjective Housing Status with Individual Mental Health in Guangzhou, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-14, January.

    More about this item

    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-17-22. 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.