[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eep/report/rr2016034.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Benefits and Costs of Controlling Emissions from Fossil-fired Power Plants: Region IV, Philippines

Author

Listed:
  • Elvira M. Orbetta

    (Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc. (REECS), Suite 405, The Tower at Emerald Square, J.P. Rizal cor. P. Tuazon Streets, Project 4, Quezon City 1109, Philippines)

  • Carlito M. Rufo Jr

    (Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc. (REECS))

  • Anabeth L. Indab

    (Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc. (REECS))

Abstract
The study assessed the incremental benefits and costs of different options to control PM10 and SO2 emissions from fossil-fired power plants using two power plants in Region IV (Southern Tagalog), Philippines, as case studies. Benefits were estimated by modeling the changes in ambient concentrations arising from the control, estimating the improvements, and valuing these in economic terms. The study focused on adverse health effects, using dose-response function established in other studies, and economic values based on the benefit transfer technique. Control costs were estimated using the engineering cost approach. Impacts were assessed within 10 and 50 km radius from each plant. The study showed that existing controls for particulates met the emissions standard. However, the use of fuel with standard sulfur content was not sufficient to meet SO2 emissions standard. Thus, a review of the sulfur content standard in fuel was recommended. SO2 emissions from each of the two power plants translated to maximum predicted ambient concentrations that were significant relative to the maximum allowable ambient concentration. The value of the health effects avoided was much larger when the impact area was extended from 10- to 50-km radius, it was much larger for oil than for coal, with the value of mortality effects avoided dominating the total. Among the different options analyzed only the switch to cleaner fuel for oil and increased thermal efficiency for coal were justified. With a switch to cleaner fuel, the value of health damage avoided considering a 50-km impact area was 0.08% to 3.34% of the current average selling price of electricity, implying a 0.11 % to 4.31 % increase in the average cost of power service if the power plants were made to internalize the health damages.

Suggested Citation

  • Elvira M. Orbetta & Carlito M. Rufo Jr & Anabeth L. Indab, 2016. "Benefits and Costs of Controlling Emissions from Fossil-fired Power Plants: Region IV, Philippines," EEPSEA Research Report rr2016034, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2016.
    • Handle: RePEc:eep:report:rr2016034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eepsea.org/pub/rr/2000_Orbeta.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2016
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oskarsson, K. & Berglund, A. & Deling, R. & Snellman, U. & Stenback, O. & Fritz, J.J., 1997. "A PLanner's Guide for Selecting Clean-Coal Technologies for Power Plants," Papers 387, World Bank - Technical Papers.
    2. Alberini, Anna & Cropper, Maureen & Fu, Tsu-Tan & Krupnick, Alan & Liu, Jin-Tan & Shaw, Daigee & Harrington, Winston, 1997. "Valuing Health Effects of Air Pollution in Developing Countries: The Case of Taiwan," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 107-126, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. A. Myrick Freeman III, 2000. "The Valuation of Environmental Health Damages in Developing Countries: Some Observations," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp200011t1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Nov 2000.
    2. Gemechisa Yadeta Ayana, 2017. "Farmers’ Willingness To Pay For Soil Conservation Practices In Gobu Seyo District, Eastern Wollega Zone, Oromia National Regional State Of Ethiopia," International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research, Malwa International Journals Publication, vol. 3(3), June.
    3. Cinzia Di Novi, 2007. "An Economic Evaluation of Life-Style and Air-pollution-related Damages: Results from the BRFSS," JEPS Working Papers 07-001, JEPS.
    4. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Bartczak, Anna M. & Budziński, Wiktor & Jusypenko, Bartosz & Boros, Piotr W., 2024. "The Impact of Health Status and Experienced Disutility on Air Quality Valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    6. Gupta, Monika, 2016. "Willingness to pay for carbon tax: A study of Indian road passenger transport," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 46-54.
    7. Leslie Richardson & John B. Loomis & Patricia A. Champ, 2013. "Valuing Morbidity from Wildfire Smoke Exposure: A Comparison of Revealed and Stated Preference Techniques," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 76-100.
    8. Eskeland, Gunnar*Chingying Kong, 1998. "Protecting the environment and the poor - a public goods framework applied to Indonesia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1961, The World Bank.
    9. Blackman, Allen & Chandru, Santosh & Mendoza-Domínguez, Alberto & Russell, A.G., 2012. "Health impacts of power-exporting plants in northern Mexico," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 34-45.
    10. Quah, Euston & Chia, Wai-Mun & Tan, Tsiat-Siong, 2021. "Economic impact of 2015 transboundary haze on Singapore," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    11. Zhizhong Liu & Qianying Chen & Guangyue Liu & Xu Han, 2022. "Do Deep Regional Trade Agreements Improve Residents’ Health? A Cross-Country Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-16, November.
    12. Stephanie Simpson & Brid Gleeson Hanna, 2010. "Willingness to pay for a clear night sky: use of the contingent valuation method," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(11), pages 1095-1103.
    13. Sébastien Dessus & David O'Connor, 2003. "Climate Policy without Tears CGE-Based Ancillary Benefits Estimates for Chile," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 287-317, July.
    14. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2001. "Willingness to pay for reduction in air pollution: a multilevel analysis," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(1), pages 17-27, March.
    15. Whitehead, John C., 2005. "Combining willingness to pay and behavior data with limited information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 143-155, June.
    16. Ahmad, Husnain F. & Gibson, Matthew & Nadeem, Fatiq & Nasim, Sanval & Rezaee, Arman, 2022. "Forecasts: Consumption, Production, and Behavioral Responses," IZA Discussion Papers 15831, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Irene Mussio & Sylvia Brandt & Michael Hanemann, 2021. "Parental beliefs and willingness to pay for reduction in their child's asthma symptoms: A joint estimation approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 129-143, January.
    18. Koop, Gary & Tole, Lise, 2004. "Measuring the health effects of air pollution: to what extent can we really say that people are dying from bad air?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 30-54, January.
    19. María Xosé Vázquez & Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. León, 2006. "Economic evaluation of health effects with preference imprecision," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 403-417, April.
    20. Chiara Ravetti & Yana Popp Jin & Mu Quan & Zhang Shiqiu & Timothy Swanson, 2014. "Air pollution in Urban Beijing: The role of Government-controlled information," CIES Research Paper series 27-2014, Centre for International Environmental Studies, The Graduate Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cost benefits; power plant; Philippines;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:eep:report:rr2016034. 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: Arief Anshory yusuf (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eepsesg.html .

    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.