13
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Benefits
We estimate the potential life-cycle GHG benefits of the Existing RPS and High RE scenarios, relative to
the No RPS scenario, by quantifying the economic value of those GHG reductions in mitigating the
severity of climate-related damages and in meeting potential future carbon-reduction compliance
obligations.
ReEDS calculates operational combustion-related CO
2
emissions that result from electric sector
dispatch.
33
Additionally, based on the comprehensive literature assessment conducted under the auspices
of NREL’s Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization project,
34
embedded within and calculated by ReEDS
are assumptions that enable an evaluation of the full life-cycle GHG impacts associated with: (1) ongoing
fuel-cycle emissions from the production and transport of fuels and from other aspects of power plant
operations, (2) construction-related emissions, and (3) emissions from end-of-life decommissioning.
35
By
applying these life-cycle adjustments, we capture avoided fuel cycle, construction, and decommissioning
emissions from displaced fossil generation and capacity while also accounting for increased fuel cycle,
construction, and decommissioning emissions from renewable generation and capacity.
We estimate the monetary benefits of reduced climate-change damages from GHG reductions using social
cost of carbon (SCC) estimates. The SCC provides an estimate of climate change-induced monetary
damages to agricultural productivity, human health, property, ecosystem services, and other systems,
presented below in units of $/(metric ton CO
2
). There is a wide range of SCC estimates in the scientific
literature, illustrating the deep uncertainties involved. SCC estimates are particularly sensitive to the
choice of discount rates, estimates of future climate change damage and the potential for catastrophic
climate tipping points, as well as the representation of abatement policies (Nordhaus 2014). Meta-
analyses (Tol 2008; Tol 2011; Tol 2013) of independent SCC estimates have been conducted, with the
most recent work (Tol 2013) finding mean and median SCC values of $53 and $37, respectively, and an
associated standard deviation of $88. Tol (2013) developed these values based on 75 studies containing
588 estimates of the SCC. Havranek et al. (2015) build on the work by Tol (2013) and attempt to correct
for selective reporting bias, finding a mean SCC estimate between $0 and $39. Still others, such as van
den Bergh and Botzen (2014), argue for a lower bound SCC value of $125.
33
We do not consider the possible erosion of the GHG or air emissions benefits due to the increased cycling,
ramping, and part loading required of fossil fueled generators in electric systems with higher penetrations of
variable renewable generation, as these impacts are not fully considered in ReEDS. This omission will not
meaningfully bias our results, however, because the available literature demonstrates that these impacts are
generally relatively small (Fripp 2011; Göransson and Johnsson 2009; Gross et al. 2006; Pehnt et al. 2008; Perez-
Arriaga and Batlle 2012; Oates and Jaramillo 2013; Valentino et al. 2012; GE Energy Consulting 2014; Lew et al.
2013).
34
See http://www.nrel.gov/harmonization.
35
Specifically, median life-cycle, non-combustion GHG emission values were identified for each generation
technology and for the fuel cycle, construction, and decommissioning phases based on the NREL’s Life Cycle
Assessment Harmonization project literature assessment. We use the same emission factors as those employed in
the Hydropower Vision study (DOE 2016, Appendix G). To estimate non-combustion GHG emissions from the
fuel cycle, we use the electricity-production estimates (in ) provided by ReEDS for all generation technologies and
apply the median, literature-derived estimates of technology-specific, non-combustion fuel-cycle GHG emissions.
There is uncertainty in these estimates (Brandt et al. 2014, Arent et al. 2015). We assume that biomass GHG
combustion emissions are entirely offset by carbon absorption to produce the biomass feedstocks (i.e., we do not
estimate land-use related emissions), and that any landfill gas used for electric production would otherwise have
been flared. To estimate GHG emissions from construction, we use the capacity estimates (in megawatts) provided
by ReEDS over the 2015 to 2050 timeframe and apply the median, literature-derived estimates of technology-
specific, construction-related GHG emissions. Finally, to estimate GHG emissions from decommissioning, we use
decommissioning capacity estimates (in megawatts) provided by ReEDS over the 2015 to 2050 timeframe and
apply the median, literature-derived estimates of technology-specific, decommissioning-related GHG emissions.
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.