Dan Shawhan

Economist @rff and @cornelldyson focusing on electricity sector environmental policy & market design. Tweets are my own.

[Dan Shawhan @D_Shawhan]

This rule might or might not survive, so this study is relevant to important upcoming decisions. Sally Robson, Ethan Russell, and I participated in the study using our detailed E4ST power sector model.

[Resources for the Future @rff]

New research alert!📣💥

A study in @ScienceMagazine finds that EPA's 2024 rules limiting emissions from power plants could reduce power-sector emissions by 74-86% by 2040.

Coal-fired plants also retire faster, which benefits public health. ����

https://t.co/j6u8Hfj9kN

[Dan Shawhan @D_Shawhan]

The 32 offshore wind farms we modeled would prevent an estimated 2,100 premature deaths per year of operation.

[Resources for the Future @rff]

#OffShoreWind creates much larger benefits than costs, according to new RFF modeling.📢

Atlantic & Gulf offshore wind farms will reduce emissions and energy bills—they'll also reduce air pollution deaths, esp. in the NYC area & among the disadvantaged.👇

https://t.co/PcBhXOQtKc

[Dan Shawhan @D_Shawhan]

There are other possible policies that are more effective, less costly, or both. For instance, emitters could be charged the estimated value of the harm they cause to EO DACs (or everywhere), to achieve large benefits to EO DACs at low cost. Study: https://t.co/vYJYEm4yZ2 17/17

[Dan Shawhan @D_Shawhan]

CO2 price outperforms EJ policies on air quality in disadvantaged communities, in this new study. For tweet summary, see my reply below.

[Resources for the Future @rff]

Which policies for the #electricity sector might be best at improving #AirQuality in disadvantaged communities? 🌤️🏙️

In a new paper, @D_Shawhan, Sally Robson, Ethan Russel, and Ana Valera Valera, use the E4ST model to get at this question.

Learn more! 🔎
https://t.co/dVkW1kYl5X

[Dan Shawhan @D_Shawhan]

All these policies could be made more stringent or less stringent. For example, the CO2 price could be higher, causing it to prevent more deaths and cost more. 16/17

[Dan Shawhan @D_Shawhan]

There are other possible policies that are more effective, less costly, or both. For instance, emitters could be charged the estimated value of the harm they cause to EO DACs (or everywhere), to achieve large benefits to EO DACs at low cost. Study: https://t.co/ObqMWjvu24 17/17

[Dan Shawhan @D_Shawhan]

The paper also estimates ground-level ozone and climate change effects of the policies and provides a benefit-cost analysis. Particulate, ozone, and climate effects account for most expected deaths from power plants, but the policies have other effects we do not estimate. 15/17