Marginal abatement cost curve for nitrogen oxides incorporating controls, renewable electricity, energy efficiency, and fuel switching

References

• Creyts, J., A. Derkach, S. Nyquist, K. Ostrowski, and J. Stephenson. 2007. Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost? U.S. Greenhouse Gas Abatement Mapping Initiative, Executive Report. New York: McKinsey & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Delarue, E.D., Ellerman, A.D., and W.D. D’Haeseleer. 2010. Robust MACCs? The topography of abatement by fuel switching in the European power sector. Energy 35:1465–75. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2009.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, T. 1991. Least-cost greenhouse planning supply curves for global warming abatement. Energy Policy 19:35–46. doi: 10.1016/0301-4215(91)90075-Y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kesicki, F. 2011. Marginal Abatement Curves for Policy Making—Expert-Based vs. Model-Derived Curves. Report—UCL Energy Institute. London: University College London.
   Google Scholar
• Kesicki, F., and N. Strachan. 2011. Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves: Confronting theory and practice. Environ. Sci. Policy 14:1195–204. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.08.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klepper, G., and S. Peterson. 2006. Marginal abatement cost curves in general equilibrium: The influence of world energy prices. Resour. Energy Econ. 28:1–23. doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2005.04.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levihn, F. 2016. On the problem of optimizing through least cost per unit, when costs are negative: Implications for cost curves and the definition of economic efficiency. Energy 114:1155–63. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.089.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levihn, F., Nuur, C., and S. Laestadius. 2014. Marginal abatement cost curves and abatement strategies: Taking option interdependency and investments unrelated to climate change into account. Energy 76:336–44. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.08.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loulou, R., Goldstein, G., and K. Noble. 2004. Documentation for the MARKAL Family of Models. Paris: Energy Technology Perspectives Programme. http://unfccc.int/resource/cd_roms/na1/mitigation/Module_5/Module_5_1/b_tools/MARKAL/MARKAL_Manual.pdf (accessed January 31, 2017).
   Google Scholar
• McKinsey and Company. 2010. Climate Change Special Initiative—Greenhouse Gas Abatement Curves. New York: McKinsey and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Meier, A., Rosenfeld, A.H., and J. Wright. 1982. Supply curves of conserved energy for California’s residential sector. Energy 7:347–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, J., Patlsev, S., and J. Reilly. 2012. Marginal abatement costs and marginal welfare costs for greenhouse gas emissions reductions: Results from the EPPA model. J. Environ. Model. Assess. 17:325–36. doi: 10.1007/s10666-011-9298-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, R., and M. Jaccard. 2011. Energy efficiency and the cost of GHG abatement: A comparison of bottom-up and hybrid models for the US. Energy Policy 39:7146–55. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reis, S. 2005. Costs of Air Pollution Control: Analyses of Emission Control Options for Ozone Abatement Strategies. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rentz, O., Haasis, H.D., Jattke, A., Ru, P., Wietschel, M., and M. Amann. 1994. Influence of energy-supply structure on emission-reduction costs. Energy 19:641–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoft, S.E. 1995. The economics of conserved-energy “supply” curves. Energy J. 16:109–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, S. 2012. The ranking of negative-cost emissions reduction measures. Energy Policy 48:430–8. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014. Annual Energy Outlook 2014 with Projections to 2040. DOE/EIA-0383(2014). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Final Ozone NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES): User guide for MOVES2010a. EPA-420-B-10-036. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Federal implementation plans: Interstate transport of fine particulate matter and ozone and correction of SIP approvals; Final rule. Fed. Regist. 76(152):48207–712.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012. EPA 430-R-10-006. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. EPA U.S. Nine-Region MARKAL Database: Database Documentation. EPA 600/B-13/203(2013). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014a. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington, DC: National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014b. Control Strategy Tool (CoST) Documentation Report. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014c. Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards Final Rule—Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-420-R-14-005. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015a. Carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing stationary sources: Electric utility generating units; Final rule. Fed. Regist. 80(205):64661–5120.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015b. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017a. Control Measures Database (CMDB). Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017b. Download WebFIRE Data in Bulk. Research Triangle Park, NC: Technology Transfer Network Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emission Factors, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Vijay, S., DeCarolis, J.F., and R.K. Srivastava. 2010. A Bottom-up method to develop pollution abatement cost curves for coal-fired utility boilers. Energy Policy 38:2255–61. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.12.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, D.J. 2014. The failure of marginal abatement cost curves in optimizing a transition to a low carbon energy supply. Energy Policy 73:820–2. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, D., Xu, Y., and S. Zhang. 2015. Will joint regional air pollution control be more cost-effective? An empirical study of China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. J. Environ. Manage. 149:27–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.09.032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar