IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v60y2016icp451-459.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is the fuel of the future? Prospects under the Clean Power Plan

Author

Listed:
  • Ross, Martin T.
  • Murray, Brian C.

Abstract

EPA proposed the Clean Power Plan (CPP) to regulate CO2 emissions from existing power plants. The CPP establishes state-by-state emission rate goals for affected fossil units, largely existing coal and natural gas combined cycle generators. A key element of the proposal is its flexibility mechanisms, including the ability of states to trade obligations with other states and to convert to mass-based targets. How states decide to take advantage of this flexibility may have significant impacts on fuel markets of the future. This analysis uses the DIEM economy/electricity model to examine the consequences of a range of these alternative choices for fuel demands across the United States. Key findings for the June 2014 proposal include: the CPP tends to continue an ongoing shift in fuel consumption by electricity generators from coal to natural gas, a rate-based approach to CPP leads to more gas use in the early years than a mass-based approach but the effect disappears over time as new more-efficient gas units are constructed, and there may be substantial regional variation and stresses in fuel markets, especially over the next five years.

Suggested Citation

  • Ross, Martin T. & Murray, Brian C., 2016. "What is the fuel of the future? Prospects under the Clean Power Plan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 451-459.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:60:y:2016:i:c:p:451-459
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.09.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988316302651
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.09.021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Murray, Brian C. & Pizer, William A. & Ross, Martin T., 2015. "Regulating existing power plants under the U.S. Clean Air Act: Present and future consequences of key design choices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 87-98.
    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. Mignone, Bryan K. & Showalter, Sharon & Wood, Frances & McJeon, Haewon & Steinberg, Daniel, 2017. "Sensitivity of natural gas deployment in the US power sector to future carbon policy expectations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 518-524.
    2. Zachary A. Wendling & David C. Warren & Barry M. Rubin & Sanya Carley & Kenneth R. Richards, 2020. "A Scalable Energy–Economy Model for State-Level Policy Analysis Applied to a Demand-Side Management Program," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 34(4), pages 372-386, November.
    3. Keller, Victor & Lyseng, Benjamin & English, Jeffrey & Niet, Taco & Palmer-Wilson, Kevin & Moazzen, Iman & Robertson, Bryson & Wild, Peter & Rowe, Andrew, 2018. "Coal-to-biomass retrofit in Alberta –value of forest residue bioenergy in the electricity system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 373-383.

    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. Rode, David C. & Fischbeck, Paul S. & Páez, Antonio R., 2017. "The retirement cliff: Power plant lives and their policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 222-232.
    2. Ying Sun & Fengqin Liu & Huaping Sun, 2022. "Does Standardization Improve Carbon Emission Efficiency as Soft Infrastructure? Evidence from China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Zachary A. Wendling & David C. Warren & Barry M. Rubin & Sanya Carley & Kenneth R. Richards, 2020. "A Scalable Energy–Economy Model for State-Level Policy Analysis Applied to a Demand-Side Management Program," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 34(4), pages 372-386, November.
    4. Brown, Marilyn A. & Kim, Gyungwon & Smith, Alexander M. & Southworth, Katie, 2017. "Exploring the impact of energy efficiency as a carbon mitigation strategy in the U.S," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 249-259.
    5. Martin T. Ross, 2018. "Regional Implications Of National Carbon Taxes," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(01), pages 1-39, February.
    6. Brown, Kristen E. & Henze, Daven K. & Milford, Jana B., 2017. "How accounting for climate and health impacts of emissions could change the US energy system," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 396-405.
    7. Anderson, Jeffrey J. & Rode, David & Zhai, Haibo & Fischbeck, Paul, 2021. "Transitioning to a carbon-constrained world: Reductions in coal-fired power plant emissions through unit-specific, least-cost mitigation frontiers," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 288(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Electricity generation; Clean Power Plan; Natural gas; Emission rates;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C68 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computable General Equilibrium Models
    • Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q43 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy and the Macroeconomy
    • Q47 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy Forecasting
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    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:eee:eneeco:v:60:y:2016:i:c:p:451-459. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    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.