Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 369–375 | Cite as

The social cost of carbon: implications for modernizing our electricity system

  • Laurie T. JohnsonEmail author
  • Starla Yeh
  • Chris Hope


The US government must use an official estimate of the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) to estimate carbon emission reduction benefits for proposed environmental standards expected to reduce CO2 emissions. The SCC is a monetized value of the marginal benefit of reducing one metric ton of CO2. Estimates of the SCC vary widely. The US government uses values of $11, $33, and $52 per metric ton of CO2, classifying the middle value as the central figure and the two others for use in sensitivity analyses. Three other estimates using the same government model but lower discount rates put the figures at $62, $122, and $266/ton. In this article, we calculate, on a cents-per-kilowatt-hour basis, the environmental cost of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel generation and add it to production costs. With this, we compare the total social cost (generation plus environmental costs) of building new generation from traditional fossil fuels versus cleaner technologies. We also examine the cost of replacing existing coal generation with cleaner options, ranging from conventional natural gas to solar photovoltaic. We find that for most SCC values, it is more economically efficient (from a social cost–benefit perspective) for the new generation to come from any of these cleaner sources rather than conventional coal, and in several instances, the cleanest sources are preferable to conventional natural gas. For existing generation, for five of the six SCC estimates we examined, replacing the average existing coal plant with conventional natural gas, natural gas with carbon capture and storage, or wind increases economic efficiency. At the two highest SCCs, solar photovoltaic and coal with carbon capture and storage are also more efficient than maintaining a typical coal plant.


Social cost of carbon Cost–benefit analysis Climate change Regulatory impact analysis 


  1. Hand MM, Baldwin S, DeMeo E, Reilly JM, Mai T, Arent D, Porro G, Meshek M, Sandor D (eds) (2012) Renewable Electricity Futures Study. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Scholar
  2. Johnson LT, Hope C (2012) The social cost of carbon in U.S. regulatory impact analyses: An introduction and critique. J Environ Stud Sci 2(3).
  3. Lashof DA, Yeh S, Doniger D, Carter S, Johnson L (2012) Closing the Power Plant Carbon Pollution Loophole: Smart Ways the Clean Air Act Can Clean Up America’s Biggest Climate Polluters. Natural Resources Defense Council.
  4. SNL Financial LC. 2010 Power Plant Unit database.
  5. US Department of Energy (2007) Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Vol. 1, DOE/NETL-2007/1281. B_NG_051507
  6. US Energy Information Administration (2013) Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013 Early Release.
  7. US Environmental Protection Agency (2011a). Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the final Transport Rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491.
  8. US Environmental Protection Agency (2011b). The benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020.
  9. US Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Stationary Sources; Electricity Utility Generating Units, 72 Federal Register: 22,392-22441.
  10. US Government (2010) Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Technical support document: social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order 12866.
  11. US Government (2013) Interagency Working Group in the Social Cost of Carbon. Technical support document: technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order 12866.
  12. US Office of Management and Budget (2003) Regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4).
  13. Vitolo T, Keith G, Biewald B, Comings T, Hausman E, Knight P (2013) Meeting Load with a Resource Mix Beyond Business as Usual: A Regional Examination of the Hourly System Operations and Reliability Implications for the United States Electric Power System with Coal Phased Out and High Penetrations of Efficiency and Renewable Generating Resources. Cambridge, MA: Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Copyright information

© AESS 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural Resources Defense CouncilWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Judge Business SchoolUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations