Variation in outcomes and leakage potential across Clean Power Plan compliance designs

Evelyn Wright and Amit Kanudia

Energy Economics, 2016, vol. 60, issue C, 438-450

Abstract: This paper presents results from a “modeler's choice” suite of runs that model the US Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP) regulating carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants under Section 111d of the Clean Air Act more closely than does the core EMF 31 Technology Performance Standard (TPS) case. While the TPS case imposed a national emissions rate standard for the power sector, the CPP imposes its budgets at the state level and provides states a great deal of flexibility in designing their implementation approaches. States may convert their CPP rate targets to a mass basis, and they may join with other states in multi-state trading plans. Under the proposed rule, EPA also left open the question of how new gas units were to be treated under the CPP. This design flexibility leads to a range of possible outcomes when it comes to the impacts of the proposed CPP on emissions, policy costs, electricity generation patterns, and gas markets. We analyzed 40 CPP scenarios in the Framework for Analysis of Climate-Energy-Technology Systems (FACETS), permuting these three design dimensions along with energy efficiency and low shale resource scenarios.

Keywords: Clean Power Plan; Emissions leakage; Shale gas; Carbon dioxide (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q40 Q54 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988316301633
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:60:y:2016:i:c:p:438-450

DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.06.016

Access Statistics for this article

Energy Economics is currently edited by R. S. J. Tol, Beng Ang, Lance Bachmeier, Perry Sadorsky, Ugur Soytas and J. P. Weyant

More articles in Energy Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().