4.7 Article

Health co-benefits of sub-national renewable energy policy in the US

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab31d9

关键词

air pollution; premature mortalities; renewable portfolio standard; cost-benefit analysis; climate change policy; health co-benefits; carbon pricing

资金

  1. USEPA [RD-835872]
  2. US Environmental Protection Agency [R835873]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

State and local policy-makers in the US have shown interest in transitioning electricity systems toward renewable energy sources and in mitigating harmful air pollution. However, the extent to which sub-national renewable energy policies can improve air quality remains unclear. To investigate this issue, we develop a systemic modeling framework that combines economic and air pollution models to assess the projected sub-national impacts of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs) on air quality and human health, as well as on the economy and on climate change. We contribute to existing RPS cost-benefit literature by providing a comprehensive assessment of economic costs and estimating economy-wide changes in emissions and their impacts, using a general equilibrium modeling approach. This study is also the first to our knowledge to directly compare the health co-benefits of RPSs to those of carbon pricing. We estimate that existing RPSs in the 'Rust Belt' region generate a health co-benefit of $94 per ton CO2 reduced ($2-477/tCO(2)) in 2030, or 8 cent for each kWh of renewable energy deployed (0.2-40 cent kWh(-1)) in 2015 dollars. Our central estimate is 34% larger than total policy costs. We estimate that the central marginal benefit of raising renewable energy requirements exceeds the marginal cost, suggesting that strengthening RPSs increases net societal benefits. We also calculate that carbon pricing delivers health co-benefits of $211/tCO(2) in 2030, 63% greater than the health co-benefit of reducing the same amount of CO2 through an RPS approach.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据