Areas of Expertise:
electricity policy, climate and energy, natural gas, markets, energy efficiency, systems modeling
David Hoppock joined Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in June 2008 as a Research Analyst specializing in energy efficiency, natural gas markets, and electricity policy. His research interests include utility market structure, commercial and residential building codes, energy efficiency policy, natural gas markets under a carbon cap, transmission and renewable energy, and reducing electricity sector emissions.
He is currently working on environmental risk in public utility commission and utility decision making; reviewing the electricity sector provisions of proposed energy legislation, and incorporating storage into carbon capture and storage (CCS) for coal plants.
Master of Public Affairs; LBJ School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin. 2008.
Bachelor of Science; Tau Beta Phi, Civil and Environmental Engineering. The University of California at Berkeley. 1999.
The U.S. electricity sector faces significant uncertainty as it makes large capital investments to replace aging infrastructure and to comply with forthcoming environmental regulations. Near- and long-term uncertainties include fuel prices, demand growth, and environmental and climate policy. Utilities and regulators must manage these risks in order to maintain reliable electricity at affordable prices. Energy efficiency investments can provide an important tool for managing risk by reducing exposure to uncertain costs, deferring major generation investments, and reducing environmental emissions. This paper describes an example analysis of an investment in a natural gas power plant with and without energy efficiency under natural gas price uncertainty and the value of efficiency as a hedge against a price spike. The example presented illustrates a method to quantify the value of energy efficiency as a hedge against a variety of risks.
Author(s):David Hoppock and Dalia Patino Echeverri
The development and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies is critical to any plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In 2011, coal-fired power generation contributed nearly 35% of national greenhouse gas emissions. The public sector has continued investing in research and development in recent years, and has made funds available for early demonstration projects. But even with federal funding, advanced coal demonstration projects have faced barriers at the state level, highlighting the important, but often overlooked, role that state regulators will play in deploying low-carbon coal technologies. Demonstrating and deploying low-carbon coal technologies at scale poses a number of challenges, including unique regulatory hurdles in states with traditionally regulated electricity markets. To address these challenges, this draft paper provides (1) an overview of the federal and state policies affecting deployment of low-carbon coal technologies, (2) a case study of two proposed Appalachian Power Company demonstration projects that illustrate the particular challenges in traditionally regulated states, and (3) options for both traditionally regulated and restructured states to address state-level challenges regarding technology deployment.
Author(s):Sarah K. Adair, David Hoppock, Jonas Monast, and Dalia Patino Echeverri
Flexible operation of a carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant can lower the cost of foregone electricity sales in competitive wholesale electricity markets, but it reduces the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) captured over the lifetime of a CCS plant and increases the capital cost of CCS systems per unit of emissions captured. Whether the benefits of flexible CCS exceed the increased costs depends on a relationship between capital and operating costs and cyclical electricity price differentials. This paper explores these tradeoffs, proposes a method to quantify them, and applies this framework to U.S. data on CCS capital costs and electricity prices.
Author(s):Dalia Patino-Echeverri and David C. Hoppock
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and Mercury Air Toxics (MATS) Rule require power plants to install technologies that reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and other harmful emissions. Federal environmental regulations such as these often require compliance on restricted timelines, forcing some utilities to make significant investments over short time periods and causing sudden jumps in electricity rates for consumers. This report examines the ratepayer impacts and health benefits of North Carolina’s Clean Smokestacks Act, a law passed in 2002 requiring emission reductions similar to MATS and CSAPR. The law allowed North Carolina to stagger the cost of pollution-control technologies over a longer period and positioned the state well to comply with the EPA rules while enjoying health benefits and avoiding a sudden spike in consumer electricity rates.
Author(s):David Hoppock, Sarah K. Adair, Brian Murray, and Jeremy Tarr
