Abstract
The computer model, EXMOD, quantifies externalities associated with electric generating facilities using the damage function approach. EXMOD uses data for facilities sited in New York State and for impacts in the northeastern U.S. and Canada. EXMOD is able to address some of the limitations and uncertainties inherent in the damage function approach by providing the user with access to the model’s fundamental assumptions used to calculate physical impacts and the monetary estimates of those impacts. In this paper, a set of alternative default facility, impact, and valuation assumptions has been developed. The effect of these alternative assumptions on the external costs computed by EXMOD has been tested in a case study of a coal plant situated near New York City. Results show that central estimates of the external costs are about 7 mills per kWh for a new facility with EXMOD’s default assumptions, and about 70 mills per kWh for an existing facility using alternative impact and valuation assumptions. Because of its strengths and flexibility, if carefully applied and interpreted, EXMOD can be a valuable tool in electricity resource assessment and policy, complementing other tools and approaches, in a wide range of contexts and locations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bernow, S., Biewald, B., and Raskin, P., 1994. From Social Costing to Sustainable Development: Beyond the Economic Paradigm, in Social Costs of Energy: Present Status and Future Trends., Proceedings of an International Conference held at Racine, Wisconsin, September 1992. Edited by Olav Hohmeyer and Richard Ottinger. Published by Springer-Verlag.
Bernow, S., Biewald, B., Dougherty, W., Margolis, R., and Lazarus, M., 1994. Valuation of Environmental and Human Health Risks Associated with Electric Power Generation: A Discussion of Methods and a Review of Greenhouse Gas Studies, Tellus Report #94–202.
Bernow, S., Rowe, R., White, D., Bailey, K., Biewald, B., Goldstein, J., and Latimer, D., 1995. New York State Environmental Externalities Cost Study: Report 3a: EXMOD User Manual, ESEERCO Project EP91–50.
Bernow, S., Rowe, R., White, D., Bailey, K., Biewald, B., Goldstein, J., and Latimer, D., 1995. New York State Environmental Externalities Cost Study: Report 3b: EXMOD Reference Manual, ESEERCO Project EP91–50.
Bernow, S., Rowe, R., White, D., Bailey, K., Biewald, B., Dougherty, W., Goldstein, J., and Latimer, D., 1995. New York State Environmental Externalities Cost Study: Report 4: Case Studies, ESEERCO Project EP91–50.
Boulding, K., 1993. The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth, in Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics, Herman Daly and Kenneth Townsend, editors, The MIT Press.
Cline, W., 1992. The Economics of Global Warming, Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C.
Freeman, A. Myrick III. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Resources for the Future. Washington, D.C.
Hirst, E. and Eto, J., 1995. Justification for Electric-Utility Energy-Efficiency Programs, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/CON-419 LBL-37593.
Kaufmann, R., 1994. The Economic Impact of Global Climate Change: Making Sure the ‘DICE’ Model Isn’t Loaded, Center for Energy and Environment Studies, Boston University.
Krutilla, John V. and Anthony C. Fisher. 1975. The Economics of Natural Environments. Published for Resources for the Future by Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland.
McCombie, C., 1994. Disposal Objectives: Are they fair and Properly Defined?, in Environmental and Ethical Aspects of Long-Lived Radioactive Waste Disposal Proceedings of an International Workshop organized by the Nuclear Energy Agency in Cooperation with the Environmental Directorate, Paris, 1–2 September.
Morgan, M.G., M. Henrion, 1990. Uncertainty, A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Nordhaus, W., 1992. The Cost of Slowing Climate Change: A Survey, The Energy Journal, Volume 12, No. l, pp. 37–65.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 1989. Environmental Policy Benefits: Monetary Valuation, Paris.
Randall, Alan, 1991. Total and Non-Use Values, in Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, edited by Braden and Kolstad, pp. 303–321.
Rowe, R., Lang, C., Bird, L., Callaway, J., Chestnut, L., Eldridge, M., Latimer, D., Lipton, J., Rae, D., and Murdoch, J., 1993. New York State Environmental Externalities Cost Study: Report 1: Externalities Screening and Recommendations, ESEERCO Project EP91–50.
Rowe, R., Bernow, S., Bird, L., Callaway, J., Chestnut, L., Eldridge, M., Lang, C., Latimer, D., Murdoch, J., Ostro, B., Patterson, A., Rae, D., and White, D., 1994. New York State Environmental Externalities Cost Study: Report 2: Methodology, ESEERCO Project EP91–50.
Rowe, R., Chestnut, L., Lang, C., Bernow, S., and White, D., 1995. The New York Environmental Externalities Cost Study: Summary of Approach and Results, presented at the Workshop on External Costs of Energy organized by the EC and IEA-OECD, Brussels.
Shlyakhter, A., I. Shlyakhter, C. Broido, R. Wilson, 1993. Estimating Uncertainty in Physical Measurements, Observational and Environmental Studies: Lessons from Trends in Nuclear Data, Proceedings Second International Symposium on Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis, IEEE Computer Society Press.
Shogren, J., Shin, S., Hayes, D., and Kleibenstein, J., 1994. Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept, The American Economic Review, Volume 84, No. 1, pp. 255–270.
Solow, R., 1974. The Economics of Resource or the Resources of Economics. Richard T. Ely Lecture, American Economic Review 64, No. 2. May.
Tengs, T., Adams, M., Pliskin, J., Safran, D., Siegel, J., Weinstein, M., Graham, J., 1994. Five-hundred Life-Saving Interventions and their Cost-Effectiveness, Center for Health Policy Research and Education, Duke University.
Union of Concerned Scientists (publishers), 1992. America’s Energy Choices: Investing in a Strong Economy and a Clean Environment. Technical Appendices.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Staff Paper, Draft report on a federal standard for fine particulates (PM-2.5), under review.
Van Horen, C., 1995. Externalities in South Africa’s Electricity Industry, Industrial Strategy Project, Energy & Development Research Centre, University of Capetown, November.
White, D., 1995. A Practical Approach for Incorporating Uncertainty in Environmental Impact Models, Tellus Institute, draft.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bernow, S., Biewald, B., Dougherty, W., White, D. (1997). Counting the Costs: Scientific Uncertainty and Valuation Perspective in EXMOD. In: Hohmeyer, O., Rennings, K., Ottinger, R.L. (eds) Social Costs and Sustainability. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60365-5_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60365-5_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-64372-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-60365-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive