Dynamic Management of NOx and SO2 Emissions in the Texas and Mid-Atlantic Electric Power Systems and Implications for Air Quality

Environmental Science and Technology

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 1611-1619

  McDonald Buller, Elena ^a   Kimura, Yosuke ^a   Craig, Michael ^b   McGaughey, Gary ^a   Allen, David ^a   Webster, Mort ^c  

^a The University of Texas at Austin   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AIR POLLUTION; AIR QUALITY; COST EFFECTIVENESS; COSTS; ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS; NITROGEN OXIDES; OZONE; SULFUR DIOXIDE;

AIR QUALITY MODELING; CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM; COAL FIRED GENERATION; ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS; EMISSIONS REDUCTION; FINE PARTICULATE MATTER; INTEGRATED POWER SYSTEMS; METEOROLOGICAL CONDITION;

ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION NETWORKS;

FUEL; NITROGEN OXIDE; OZONE; SULFUR DIOXIDE; AIR POLLUTANT; COAL; PARTICULATE MATTER;

AIR QUALITY; ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; CONCENTRATION (COMPOSITION); ECONOMETRICS; ELECTRICAL POWER; EMISSION CONTROL; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; NITROGEN OXIDES; OZONE; PARTICULATE MATTER; POWER PLANT; SULFUR DIOXIDE; TRADE-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONS;

AIR POLLUTION; AIR QUALITY; ARTICLE; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); ELECTRIC POWER PLANT; METEOROLOGY; PARTICULATE MATTER; REDUCTION; RELIABILITY; UNITED STATES; AIR POLLUTANT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; ELECTRICITY; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEASON; TEXAS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

MARYLAND; NEW JERSEY; PENNSYLVANIA; TEXAS; UNITED STATES;

AIR POLLUTANTS; AIR POLLUTION; COAL; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ELECTRICITY; MID-ATLANTIC REGION; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NITROGEN OXIDES; OZONE; PARTICULATE MATTER; POWER PLANTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEASONS; SULFUR DIOXIDE; TEXAS;

EID: 84957563933     PISSN: 0013936X     EISSN: 15205851     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04175     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. x Programs; http://www.epa.gov/captrade/documents/nox.pdf (accessed October 2014).
2. x Budget Trading Program, 2012 Progress Report (December 2013); http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR12 downloads/ARPCAIR12 01.pdf (accessed October 2014).
3. Palmer, K. and Burtraw, D. The Environmental Impacts of Electricity Restructuring: Looking Back and Looking Forward, Resources for the Future. RFF DP 05-07, 2005; http://www.rff.org/documents/rff-dp-05-05.pdf (accessed October 2014).
4. x, Resources for the Future. RFF DP 05-05, 2005; http://www.rff.org/documents/rff-dp-05-05.pdf (accessed October 2014).
5. U.S. EPA. Cap and Trade: Acid Rain Program Results; http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/ctresults.pdf (accessed October 2014).
6. 2 Allowance Trading System: The Ironic History of a Grand Policy Experiment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. CEEPR WP 2012-012, 2012; http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2012-012.pdf (accessed October 2014).
7. Lange, I.; Bellas, A. Technological change for sulfur dioxide scrubbers under market-based regulation Land Econ. 2005, 81, 546-556 10.3368/le.81.4.546
8. 2 allowance-trading system and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: Reflections on 20 years of policy innovation Ntnl. Tax J. 2012, 65, 419-452 10.17310/ntj.2012.2.06
9. x, Resources for the Future. RFF DP 09-40, 2009; http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-09-40.pdf (accessed October 2014).
10. U.S. EPA. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Basic Information; http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/CSAPR/basic.html (accessed October 2014).
11. Mauzerall, D.; Sultan, B.; Kim, N.; Bradford, D. NO emissions from large point sources: variability in ozone production, resulting health damages and economic costs Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 2851-2866 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.12.041
12. Muller, N. Z. Linking Policy to Statistical Uncertainty in Air Pollution Damages B.E. J. Econ Anal. Policy 2011, 11, 1-29 10.2202/1935-1682.2925
13. Levy, J. I.; Baxter, L. K.; Schwartz, J. Uncertainty and variability in health-related damages from coal-fired power plants in the United States Risk Anal. 2009, 29, 1000-14 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01227.x
14. Tong, D. Q.; Muller, N. Z.; Mauzerall, D. L.; Mendelsohn, R. O. Policy Analysis Integrated Assessment of the Spatial Variability of Ozone Impacts from Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 1395-1400 10.1021/es052452n
15. Martin, K. C. Implementing a Time- and Location-Differentiated Cap-and-Trade Program: Flexible Nitrogen Oxide Abatement from Power Plants in the Eastern United States. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2008.
16. Muller, B. N. Z.; Mendelsohn, R. Efficient pollution regulation: Getting the prices right Am. Econ. Rev. 2009, 99, 1714-1739 10.1257/aer.99.5.1714
17. Tietenberg, T. Cap-and-Trade: The evolution of an economic idea Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2010, 39, 359-367
18. Farkas, C. M.; Moeller, M. D.; Felder, F. A.; Baker, K. R.; Rodgers, M.; Carlton, A. G. Temporalization of peal electric generation particulate matter emissions Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 4696-4704 10.1021/es5050248
19. Yun, J.; Doraiswamy, P.; Hogrefe, C.; Zalewsky, E.; Hao, W.; Ku, J.-Y.; Beauharnois, M.; Demerjian, K. L. Developing real-time emissions estimates for enhanced air quality forecasting EM 2013, 11, 22-27 (2013)
20. x Emissions Trading and Episodic Air Quality Violations In Maryland, Final Report Prepared for the Power Plant Research Program, State of Maryland, 2004.
21. x abatement from power plants in the eastern United States Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 5607-5615 10.1021/es204290s
22. Craig, M.; McDonald-Buller, E.; Webster, M. Technology adoption under time-differentiated market-based instruments for pollution control. Submitted to Energy and Economy, 2015.
23. Morales-españa, G.; Latorre, J. M.; Ramos, A. Tight and compact MILP formulation of start-up and shut-down ramping in unit commitment IEEE T. Power Syst. 2013, 28, 1288-1296 10.1109/TPWRS.2012.2222938
24. Baldick, R.; Baughman, M. L. An oligopoly simulation of a restructured ERCOT: Will future prices be competitive? Electricity Journal 2003, 16, 59-71 10.1016/S1040-6190(03)00029-0
25. U.S. EPA. eGRID 2012, version 1.0; http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/index.html (accessed October 2013).
26. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Form EIA-860 DetailedData; http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/ (accessed March 2014).
27. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Form EIA-923 DetailedData; http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/ (accessed April 2014).
28. U.S. EPA Air MarketsProgram Data: Query: Acid Rain Program(ARP), Continuous Emissions Monitoring Data, 2012, Retrieved October9, 2013, from http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ (accessed October 2013).
29. De Sisternes, F. J.; Webster, M. D. Optimal Selection of Sample Weeks for Approximating the Net Load in Generation Planning Problems. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineering Systems Division Working Paper Series, 2013-03, pp 1-12, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
30. Patiño-Echeverri, D.; Morel, B.; Apt, J.; Chen, C. Should a coal-fired power plant be replaced or retrofitted? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 7980-6 10.1021/es0711009
31. x Budget Trading Program; http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR11
32. U.S. EPA. FederalImplementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matterand Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 Federal Register 152(August 8, (2011), pp 48207-48712.
33. U.S. EPA. AirQuality Modeling Final Rule Technical SupportDocument, (2011; http://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.
34. U.S. EPA. Technical Support Document (TSD)Preparation ofEmissions Inventories for the Version 6.0, 2011 Emissions ModelingPlatform; http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/2011v6/outreach/2011v6 2018base EmisMod TSD 26feb2014.pdf (accessed September 2015).