Observations on Extending the Set of Externalities to be Quantified

  • Robert D. Rowe
  • Carolyn Lang
Conference paper

Abstract

In the past, consideration of environmental and social impacts of electricity generation were often confined to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and siting processes and focused upon the existence of impacts, mitigation strategies and costs, and whether acceptable levels of externalities could be reached to allow operation of a facility in a selected location. Today, the emphasis has expanded to quantify the social value (damage) of externalities that may remain even after siting regulations are met. Resource selection decisions are then based upon total social costs rather than just financial costs.

Keywords

Combustion Mercury Leukemia Steam Transportation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rowe, Robert D., Lauraine G. Chestnut, Donald C. Peterson and Craig Miller. 1986. The Benefits of Air Pollution Control in California. (Two Volumes) Prepared for California Air Resource Board by Energy and Resource Consultants, Inc., Boulder, Colorado. Contract No: A2-118-32.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thayer, M., et al. 1991. Estimating the Air Quality Impacts of Alternative Energy Resources, Phase IV. Prepared by Regional Economic Research for the California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California. December 26.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thayer, M. 1991. Valuing the Environmental Impacts of Alternative Energy Resources: Phase III Task I Report. Prepared by Regional Economic Research for the California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California. July 15.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rae, D., R.D. Rowe, J. Murdoch and R. Lula. 1991. Valuation of Other Externalities: Air Toxics, Water Consumption, Wastewater, and Land Use. Prepared by RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc. for New England Power Service Company, Westborough, MA.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harrison, David and Albert L. Nichols. 1990. Benefits of the 1989 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin: A Reassessment. Prepared for California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance by National Economic Research Associates, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hall, Jane V. 1989. Economic Assessment of the Health Benefits from Improvement in Air Quality in the South Coast Air Basin. Prepared for South Coast Air Management District by California State University Fullerton Foundation, Fullerton, California. Contract No. 5685.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krupnick, A, and R. Kopp. 1988. The Health and Agricultural Benefits from Reductions in Ambient Ozone in the United States. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. Discussion Paper QE88-10.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krupnick, A.J. and J. Kurland. 1988. An Analysis of Selected Health Benefits from Reductions in Photochemical Oxidants in the Northeast United States. Prepared for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina by Resources for the Future. Edited by Brian J. Morton.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krupnick, A. and P. Portney. 1991. “Controlling Urban Air Pollution: A Benefit-Cost Assessment.” Science. Vol. 252(April) pp. 522–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cantor, Robin. 1991. The External Costs of Fuel Cycles: Background Document to the Approach and Issue. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thayer, M. 1990. Estimating the Air Quality Impacts of Alternative Energy Resources: Phase II Report. Prepared by Regional Economic Research for the California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California. July 31.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwartz, J. and D.W. Dockery. 1992. “Increased Mortality in Philadelphia Associated with Daily Air Pollution Concentrations.” American Review of Respiratory Disease. Vol. 145 pp. 600–604.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartz, Joel and Douglas W. Dockery. 1992. “Particulate Air Pollution and Daily Mortality in Steubenville, Ohio.” American Journal of Epidemiology. Vol. 135(1) pp. 12–19.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwartz, Joel. 1991. “Particulate Air Pollution and Daily Mortality in Detroit.” Environmental Research. Vol. 56 pp. 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. An Acid Aerosols Issue Paper Health Effects and Aerometrics. Prepared by the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/8–88/005F.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Costs and Benefits of Reducing Lead in Gasoline. Office of Policy Analysis, Washington DC. EPA-230-05-85-006.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brennan, Kathleen M. and Jerome T. Bentley. 1990. Regulatory Impact Analysis on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead (Draft). Prepared for Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Mathtech, Inc. Princeton, NJ. EPA Contract Number: 68D80094.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brennan, K.M., R.L. Horst, J.M. Hobart, R.M. Black and K.T. Brown. 1987. Methodology for Valuing Health Risks of Ambient Lead Exposure (Final Report). Prepared by Mathtech, Inc. for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Strategies, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA Contract No. 68-02-4323.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Case Study Benefit Analysis of Alternative National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead (Draft Final Report). Prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Ambient Standards Branch, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Reducing Lead in Drinking Water: A Benefit Analysis (Draft Final Report).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wade Miller Associates Inc. and Abt Associates Inc. 1991. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Drinking Water, Washington, DC. EPA Contract No. 68-CO-0069.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Centers for Disease Control. 1991. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 108 p.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shriner, David S. 1990. Responses of Vegetation to Atmospheric Deposition and Air Pollution. NAPAP SOS/T 18. In: National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, Acidic Deposition: State of Science and Technology, Washington, DC, Vol. III.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    U.S. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. 1991. 1990 Integrated Assessment Report. Office of the Director, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions — Interim Final. Prepared by the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/6-900.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Inorganic Mercury; Methyl Mercury. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clement Associates Inc. 1989. Toxicological Profile for Mercury (Draft). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health Service.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Adriano, D.C., A.L. Page, A.A. Elseewi, A.C. Chang and I. Straughan. 1980. “Utilization and Disposal of Fly Ash and Other Coal Residues in Terrestrial Ecosystems: A Review.” Journal of Environmental Quality. Vol. 9(July-September) pp. 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alloway(ed.), B.J. 1990. Heavy Metals in Soils. Blackie. London. 339 p.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Long, R.P. and D.D. Davis. 1989. “Major and Trace Element Concentrations in Surface Organic Layers, Mineral Soil, and White Oak Xylem Downwind from a Coal-Fired Power Plant.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research. Vol.19 pp. 1603–1614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Arthur, Mary A, Gail Rubin, Robert E. Schneider and Leonard H. Weinstein. 1992. “Uptake and Accumulation of Selenium by Terrestrial Plants Growing on a Coal Fly Ash Landfill. Part I: Corn.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Vol.11 pp. 541–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    MacNicol, D. and P.H.T. Beckett. 1985. “Critical Tissue Concentrations of Potentially Toxic Elements.” Plant and Soil. Vol. 85 pp. 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Croke, Kevin, Robert Fabian and Gary Brenniman. 1987. “Estimating the Value of Beach Preservation in an Urban Area.” The Environmental Professional. Vol. 9 pp. 42–48.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1991. “Recommendations of the Commission.” Annals of the ICRP. Vol. 21(1–3)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Becker, David V. 1989. “Concluding Remarks (Low Level Radioactive Waste: How Does Society Respond? As part of a Symposium of Science and Society: Low Level Radioactive Waste. Controversy and Resolution).” Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. Vol. 65(4) pp. 553–554.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    National Research Council. 1990. Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BIER V. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ad Hoc Advisory Committee for the Study of Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities. 1990. Consensus Statement of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee for the Study of Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities. Co-chairmen of Advisory Committee: P. Correa, Louisiana State University Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana; and, M. Szklo, Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1991. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (Main Report/Draft Report for Comment). Prepared by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, DC. NUREG-1437 Vol. 1.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Baker, D.A. 1990. Population Dose Commitments Due to Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Plant Sites in 1987. Prepared for the Office of Information Resources Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. NUREG/CR--2850-Vol.9.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Baum, J.W. 1991. “Valuation of Dose Avoided at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants.” Nuclear Plant Journal. (March-April) pp. 40–44.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1989. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants — Appendices (Second Draft for Peer Review). Formerly entitled “Reactor Risk Reference Document”. Prepared by Division of Systems Research, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, DC. NUREG-1150 Vol.2.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Evans, John S., Dade W. Moeller and Douglas W. Cooper. 1985. Health Effects Model for Nuclear Power Plant Accident Consequence Analysis — Part I: Introduction, Integration, and Summary — Part II: Scientific Basis for Health Effects Models. Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC04-76DP00789. Reproduced by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. NUREG/CR-4214. 234 p.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    International Advisory Committee. 1991. The International Chernobyl Project An Overview: Assessment of Radiological Consequences and Evaluation of Protective Measures. Published by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna. 57 p.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Seneviratne, Gamini. 1988. “UNSCEAR Finds Chernobyl Doses Lower Though More Core Got Out.” Nucleonics Week. (July 7) pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bergeron, M.P., J.L. Smoot, M.L. Kemner and W.E. Cronin. 1991. Hydrogeologic Performance Assessment Analysis of the Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility near West Valley, New York. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (operated by Battelle Memorial Institute) for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. NUREG/CR-5737, PNL-7688.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    International Atomic Energy Agency. 1991. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards (Final Draft). Approved for Publication but not yet edited by IAEA Publications Section. Technical Report Series. Vienna.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    RCG/Hagler Bailly Inc. 1990. A Review of Workplan for a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Options to Mitigate Power Plant Impacts on Hudson River Fish Populations. Prepared for Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc., New York, New York. August 27,1990.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1991. 6 NYCRR Part 700–705, Water Quality Regulations for Surface Waters and Groundwaters (Effective Regulation). Division of Water, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1991. Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values. Division of Water, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Niagara Mohawk Corporation. 1985. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Lower Raquette River Project. Exhibit E — Environmental Report. Niagra Mohawk Power Corporation, Syracuse, New York. FERC No. 2330.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Boyd, D.W., R.F. Jr. Nease, J.S. Rice and M. Taleb-Ibrahimi. 1990. Evaluating Hydro Relicensing Alternatives: Impacts on Power and Nonpower Values of Water Resources. Prepared by Decision Focus Inc., Los Altos, CA for Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. Final Report August, EPRI GS-6922.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Council of Environmental Quality. 1976. MERES and the Evaluation of Energy Alternatives. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Stock Number 041-011-0026-2.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    The Science and Public Policy Program. 1975. Energy Alternatives: A Comparative Analysis. University of Okalhoma, Norman, OK. May.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1991. Proceedings of the Scientific Workshop on the Health Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields on Workers. Cincinnati, Ohio. 229 pp.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields (Review Draft). Prepared by the Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/6-90/005B. October.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Review of the Report to Congress: The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States. Prepared by the Global Climate Change Subcommittee, Office of the Administrator — Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC. EPA-SAB/EC-89-016. 23 p.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1990. Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Cambridge University Press. New York. 364 p.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1992. 1992 IPCC Supplement. Sponsored by the the World Meterological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, Washington, DC, February. 70 p.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nordhaus, William D. 1992. Rolling the Dice: An Optimal Transition Path for Controlling Greenhouse Gases. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago, Illinois, February, 1992.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cline, William R. 1992. Global Warming: The Economic Stakes. Institute for International Economics. Washington, DC. 103 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert D. Rowe
    • 1
  • Carolyn Lang
    • 1
  1. 1.RCG/Hagler, Bailly Inc.BoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations