Environmental Economics in the News: New York WWS Energy Policy

Examining the Feasibility of Converting New York State’s All-Purpose Energy Infrastructure to One Using Wind, Water, and Sunlight
Mark Z. Jacobson, Robert W. Howarth, Mark A. Delucchi, Stan R. Scobie, Jannette M. Barth, Michael J. Dvorak, Megan Klevze, Hind Katkhuda, Brian Miranda, Navid A. Chowdhury, Rick Jones, Larson Plano, Anthony R. Ingraffea

A group of scientists and energy analysts has laid out a path under which New York State could, in theory, eliminate its use of fossil fuels and nuclear power — including for transportation — by 2050 with the use of renewable Wind, Water, Solar (WWS) energy.

In gauging the costs and benefits of various energy options, the authors include the costs from illness and death linked to pollution from fossil fuels.

Conversion to a WWS energy infrastructure will reduce air pollution mortality and morbidity, health costs associated with mortality and morbidity, and costs due to global warming. The premature mortality rate in the US due to cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and complications from asthma due to air pollution (e.g., ozone, PM2.5) has been calculated conservatively to be at least 50,000 to 100,000 per year (about 3% of all deaths by some accounts). Using an EPA estimate to value a statistical life at $7.7 million (2007 dollars), and scaling for New York's population as a percentage of the US, 4,000 (1,200 to 7,600) premature mortalities due to air pollution cost New York state roughly $31 ($9 to $59) billion per year.  EPA estimates that non-mortality-related costs add an additional ~7% of the mortality-related costs.

The estimated payback time to convert the state as a whole to WWS, is ~16 years from the mean air pollution cost savings alone.

One of the study's authors makes the following points regarding the economics of paying for this proposed policy:

• Instead of upgrading, maintaining, and replacing deteriorating existing infrastructure, invest in new infrastructure. If we don’t appreciably accelerate retirement, there is no “extra” (early-retirement) cost to consider.
• Retrofit and rebuild for maximum efficiency and minimum environmental impact. The correct basis for evaluating this economically is a full social lifetime cost-benefit analysis with a near-zero discount rate. On this basis, I believe that most improvements will be economical.

Read Andrew Revkin's take in the NY Times blog, Dot Earth.

Read the complete paper here.

Making Decisions On Complex Environmental Issues

Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES) is an open-source, web-based decision analysis framework, being developed by an integrated trans-disciplinary research team of EPA, university, and private company researchers. DASEES focuses on sustainable systems and communities. Referred to in technical circles as "multi-attribute decision analysis", DASEES is flexible but rigorous, transparent and auditable, and adapts to new information.  Benefits of this approach is that it is inclusive and incorporates input from many stakeholders that are affected by decisions on environmental issues, and considers many of the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of ecosystems.

Visit the EPA website for more information.

Economic and Environmental Benefits to Reducing Nitrogen Pollution

A new study recently published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology shows that reducing nitrogen pollution generated by wastewater treatment plants can come with "sizable" economic benefits, as well as the expected benefits for the environment.

"Our study shows that there's a win-win-win situation out there waiting to be realized," said James Wang, the chief author of the paper. "The creation of an emissions trading market could provide the needed incentive for wastewater treatment plants to adopt technologies that would reduce climate pollution, help clean up our waterways, and even save energy and money."

Five scientists from around the US worked on the study, including James Wang of NOAA's Air Resources Laboratory and formerly of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF); Steve Hamburg, Chief Scientist for EDF; Donald Pryor of Brown University; professor Kartik Chandran of Columbia University; and Glen Daigger of CH2MHill.

Read more at Columbia Engineering.

Environmental Economist Joins White House Staff

Nathaniel Keohane, most recently the chief economist at the Environmental Defense Fund, has moved to the National Economic Council at the White House to help direct environmental and energy policy.

Mr. Keohane is a vigorous proponent of the market-based system of cap and trade to control greenhouse gas emissions.

The top job at the economic council is currently vacant; the former director, Lawrence H. Summers, resigned at the end of 2010. Carol M. Browner, the White House coordinator for energy and climate policy, is rumored to be moving to a new post, possibly deputy chief of staff.

Via Green, a blog about energy and the environment, at NYTimes.com.