Internalization of External Costs of Energy Generation in Central and Eastern European Countries

In this article a bottom-up approach to quantification of air pollution externalities from electricity generation is used to show that market-based instruments are not very effective in internalizing these external costs in six CEE countries. Although governments in CEE countries have regulated air emissions by imposing strict command-and-control measures, most of them have also introduced air emission charges and more recently taxes on electricity. We find however that the level of internalization by these two economic instruments is fairly low for existing fossil fired power plants ranging from 3% for coal- and lignite-fuelled plants to 31% for gas-fuelled plants. The picture improves if cross-subsidies for renewable electricity are accounted for but the internalization level is still below air pollution–related external costs, between 9% and 55% for coal- and oil-fired power plants. A substantial over-internalization by these three instruments is however encountered in the case of gas-fired power plants

Internalization of External Costs of Energy Generation in Central and Eastern European Countries

In this article a bottom-up approach to quantification of air pollution externalities from electricity generation is used to show that market-based instruments are not very effective in internalizing these external costs in six CEE countries. Although governments in CEE countries have regulated air emissions by imposing strict command-and-control measures, most of them have also introduced air emission charges and more recently taxes on electricity. We find however that the level of internalization by these two economic instruments is fairly low for existing fossil fired power plants ranging from 3% for coal- and lignite-fuelled plants to 31% for gas-fuelled plants. The picture improves if cross-subsidies for renewable electricity are accounted for but the internalization level is still below air pollution–related external costs, between 9% and 55% for coal- and oil-fired power plants. A substantial over-internalization by these three instruments is however encountered in the case of gas-fired power plants

Kvantifikace environmentálních a zdravotních dopadů (externích nákladů) z povrchové těžby hnědého uhlí v Severočeské hnědouhelné pánvi v těžebních lokalitách velkolomů Bílina a ČSA a využití vydobytého hnědého uhlí ve spalovacích procesech pro výrobu elektřiny a tepla na území ČR

This study quantifies environmental and health impacts attributable to revoking the territorial ecological restrictions on open-pit mining of brown coal at Bílina and ČSA mines in the Northern Bohemia mining area, following four options as proposed in 2015 by the Czech government. These impacts are attributable to brown coal mining and burning brown coal in combustion processes to generate electricity and heat and are relevant to the area of the Czech Republic only. Environmental and health impacts are monetarized and mean the external cost from mining and usage of brown coal. Dose response function and Impact pathway analysis are applied to quantify the external costs. External cost of not revoking the territorial ecological restrictions (option 1) declines from 1,200 mil. CZK per annum to zero in 2038, when the mining of brown coal is terminated. For the whole period 2015-2050 the external cost reaches 14 billion CZK cumulatively. Revoking the territorial ecological restrictions at Bílina mine (option 2) increases the external cost by 200 – 500 mil. CZK per annum and by 10 billion CZK cumulatively for the whole period 2015-2050. Revoking the territorial ecological restrictions at Bílina mine and partly at ČSA mine (option 3) differs from option 2 only during 2024-2033 due to partial revoking the territorial ecological restrictions at ČSA mine, when the external cost increases by additional 700 mil. CZK per annum compared to option 1. The cumulative external cost is 14 billion CZK higher in option 3 than in option 1. The complete revoking the territorial ecological restrictions (option 4) leads to cumulative external cost higher by 25 billion CZK compared to option 1. With respect to international pollution transfer and global effects on climate change, the scope of the analysis has crucial role for evaluation of impacts of the national regulation. The underlying scenario of this analysis assumes the impacts on Czech inhabitants only which account for 8-10% of the impacts on the whole EU population. Impacts on energy mix are analysed by partial equilibrium model TIMES

Valuing environmental health for informed policy-making

Monetized environmental health impact assessment helps to better evaluate the environmental burden of various economic activities. Apart from limitations and uncertainties in physical and biological science used in such assessments, assumptions taken in economic valuation may also substantially influence subsequent policy-making considerations. To demonstrate the effect of these considerations in quantitative terms we show how estimated external costs of coal mining and use of extracted coal in electricity and heat generation vary under different policy-making perspectives and choice of monetary values for impacts in different countries

Valuing environmental health for informed policy-making

Monetized environmental health impact assessment helps to better evaluate the environmental burden of various economic activities. Apart from limitations and uncertainties in physical and biological science used in such assessments, assumptions taken in economic valuation may also substantially influence subsequent policy-making considerations. To demonstrate the effect of these considerations in quantitative terms we show how estimated external costs of coal mining and use of extracted coal in electricity and heat generation vary under different policy-making perspectives and choice of monetary values for impacts in different countries

Quantitative and qualitative evaluations of impacts and benefits of nine INHERIT case studies

The INHERIT report Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluations of Impacts and Benefits of Nine INHERIT Case Studies documents the findings relevant to potential impacts and benefits of nine case studies for health, equity and a more sustainable environment. It uses a mixed method approach with quantitative methods augmented in some cases by written responses to survey questions, or by focus group discussions on impacts, as appropriate. Each case study evaluation was led by a different INHERIT partner. In each case, partners formulated the research design appropriate to their case studies and the associated research questions identified within the framework of INHERIT. The coordinating partner, University College London (UCL), developed an evaluation framework to suit the range of case studies examined for impacts and benefits, the case specific logic models developed, and the research questions identified. The nine chapters describe the impact evaluations and findings from the nine case studies using the following format: Background; Overall aims; Context; Research Questions; Methodology; Results; Discussion; Limitations; Learning points for future research; Learning points for potential scale up and transferability

Creating triple-wins for health, equity and environmental sustainability: elements of good practice based on learning from the INHERIT case studies

This report draws out dimensions of good practice for building this triple-win, based on learning from the INHERIT project’s 15 case studies. In the context of the project, good practice refers to ways that support changing contexts and create conditions to enable behaviour change to reach the triple-win. This report summarises key information for consideration by governmental and non-governmental policy-makers and practitioners planning to work across sectors to achieve the triple-win through behaviour change at every level. INHERIT researchers have focused their evaluations of the 15 INHERIT case studies on implementation, intersectoral cooperation, impacts and cost benefits. The researchers have taken dimensions of good practice from INHERIT research to be those elements that appear to be promising or necessary in the contexts in which the INHERIT cases studies are implemented. The extent to which these elements of good practice can be generalised to other contexts merits consideration in developing future initiatives towards creating synergies across sectors. INHERIT researchers have drawn out lessons learned from information gathered in evaluations about triggers for the initiatives, key elements for implementation, success factors in intersectoral cooperation, what could have been done better, what should be done in the future, and the most important learnings from the evaluation of outcomes, costs and benefits

Creating triple-wins for health, equity and environmental sustainability: elements of good practice based on learning from the INHERIT case studies

This report draws out dimensions of good practice for building this triple-win, based on learning from the INHERIT project’s 15 case studies. In the context of the project, good practice refers to ways that support changing contexts and create conditions to enable behaviour change to reach the triple-win. This report summarises key information for consideration by governmental and non-governmental policy-makers and practitioners planning to work across sectors to achieve the triple-win through behaviour change at every level. INHERIT researchers have focused their evaluations of the 15 INHERIT case studies on implementation, intersectoral cooperation, impacts and cost benefits. The researchers have taken dimensions of good practice from INHERIT research to be those elements that appear to be promising or necessary in the contexts in which the INHERIT cases studies are implemented. The extent to which these elements of good practice can be generalised to other contexts merits consideration in developing future initiatives towards creating synergies across sectors. INHERIT researchers have drawn out lessons learned from information gathered in evaluations about triggers for the initiatives, key elements for implementation, success factors in intersectoral cooperation, what could have been done better, what should be done in the future, and the most important learnings from the evaluation of outcomes, costs and benefits

Quantitative and qualitative evaluations of impacts and benefits of nine INHERIT case studies

The INHERIT report Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluations of Impacts and Benefits of Nine INHERIT Case Studies documents the findings relevant to potential impacts and benefits of nine case studies for health, equity and a more sustainable environment. It uses a mixed method approach with quantitative methods augmented in some cases by written responses to survey questions, or by focus group discussions on impacts, as appropriate. Each case study evaluation was led by a different INHERIT partner. In each case, partners formulated the research design appropriate to their case studies and the associated research questions identified within the framework of INHERIT. The coordinating partner, University College London (UCL), developed an evaluation framework to suit the range of case studies examined for impacts and benefits, the case specific logic models developed, and the research questions identified. The nine chapters describe the impact evaluations and findings from the nine case studies using the following format: Background; Overall aims; Context; Research Questions; Methodology; Results; Discussion; Limitations; Learning points for future research; Learning points for potential scale up and transferability