Gingerich Daniel B, Sun Xiaodi, Behrer A Patrick, Azevedo Inês L, Mauter Meagan S
Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Feb 21;114(8):1862-1867. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1524396114. Epub 2017 Feb 6.
Coal-fired power plants (CFPPs) generate air, water, and solids emissions that impose substantial human health, environmental, and climate change (HEC) damages. This work demonstrates the importance of accounting for cross-media emissions tradeoffs, plant and regional emissions factors, and spatially variation in the marginal damages of air emissions when performing regulatory impact analyses for electric power generation. As a case study, we assess the benefits and costs of treating wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater at US CFPPs using the two best available treatment technology options specified in the 2015 Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs). We perform a life-cycle inventory of electricity and chemical inputs to FGD wastewater treatment processes and quantify the marginal HEC damages of associated air emissions. We combine these spatially resolved damage estimates with Environmental Protection Agency estimates of water quality benefits, fuel-switching benefits, and regulatory compliance costs. We estimate that the ELGs will impose average net costs of $3.01 per cubic meter for chemical precipitation and biological wastewater treatment and $11.26 per cubic meter for zero-liquid discharge wastewater treatment (expected cost-benefit ratios of 1.8 and 1.7, respectively), with damages concentrated in regions containing a high fraction of coal generation or a large chemical manufacturing industry. Findings of net cost for FGD wastewater treatment are robust to uncertainty in auxiliary power source, location of chemical manufacturing, and binding air emissions limits in noncompliant regions, among other variables. Future regulatory design will minimize compliance costs and HEC tradeoffs by regulating air, water, and solids emissions simultaneously and performing regulatory assessments that account for spatial variation in emissions impacts.
燃煤发电厂会产生空气、水和固体排放物,这些排放物会对人类健康、环境和气候变化造成重大损害。这项研究表明,在对发电进行监管影响分析时,考虑跨介质排放权衡、电厂和区域排放因子以及空气排放边际损害的空间变化非常重要。作为一个案例研究,我们使用2015年废水排放限制指南(ELGs)中规定的两种最佳可用处理技术选项,评估了美国燃煤发电厂处理湿法烟气脱硫(FGD)废水的收益和成本。我们对FGD废水处理过程中的电力和化学投入进行了生命周期清单分析,并量化了相关空气排放的边际人类健康、环境和气候变化损害。我们将这些空间分辨率的损害估计与美国环境保护局对水质效益、燃料转换效益和监管合规成本的估计相结合。我们估计,ELGs将对化学沉淀和生物废水处理分别征收每立方米3.01美元的平均净成本,对零液体排放废水处理征收每立方米11.26美元的平均净成本(预期成本效益比分别为1.8和1.7),损害集中在煤炭发电量占比高或化学制造业规模大的地区。FGD废水处理净成本的研究结果对于辅助电源、化学制造地点以及不合规地区的约束性空气排放限制等变量的不确定性具有稳健性。未来的监管设计将通过同时监管空气、水和固体排放,并进行考虑排放影响空间变化的监管评估,来最小化合规成本和人类健康、环境和气候变化权衡。