The interplay of future solar energy, land cover change, and their projected impacts on natural lands and croplands in the US.

Projections for deep decarbonization require large amounts of solar energy, which may compete with other land uses such as agriculture, urbanization, and conservation of natural lands. Existing capacity expansion models do not integrate land use land cover change (LULC) dynamics into projections. We explored the interaction between projected LULC, solar photovoltaic (PV) deployment, and solar impacts on natural lands and croplands by integrating projections of LULC with a model that can project future deployment of solar PV with high spatial resolution for the conterminous United States. We used scenarios of LULC projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emission Scenarios from 2010 to 2050 and two electricity grid scenarios to model future PV deployment and compared those results against a baseline that held 2010 land cover constant through 2050. Though solar PV's overall technical potential was minimally impacted by LULC scenarios, deployed PV varied by -16.5 to 11.6 % in 2050 from the baseline scenario. Total land requirements for projected PV were similar to other studies, but measures of PV impacts on natural systems depended on the underlying land change dynamics occurring in a scenario. The solar PV deployed through 2050 resulted in 1.1 %-2.4 % of croplands and 0.3 %-0.7 % of natural lands being converted to PV. However, the deepest understanding of PV impacts and interactions with land cover emerged when the complete net gains and losses from all land cover change dynamics, including PV, were integrated. For example, one of the four LULC projections allows for high solar development and a net gain in natural lands, even though PV drives a larger percentage of natural land conversion. This paper shows that integrating land cover change dynamics with energy expansion models generates new insights into trade offs between decarbonization, impacts of renewables, and ongoing land cover change.

Optimizing Emissions Reductions from the U.S. Power Sector for Climate and Health Benefits.

Improved air quality and human health are often discussed as "co-benefits" of mitigating climate change, yet they are rarely considered when designing or implementing climate policies. We analyze the implications of integrating health and climate when determining the best locations for replacing power plants with new wind, solar, or natural gas to meet a CO2 reduction target in the United States. We employ a capacity expansion model with integrated assessment of climate and health damages, comparing portfolios optimized for benefits to climate alone or both health and climate. The model estimates county-level health damages and accounts for uncertainty by using a range of air quality models (AP3, EASIUR, and InMAP) and concentration-response functions (American Cancer Society and Harvard Six Cities). We find that reducing CO2 by 30% yields $21-68 billion in annual health benefits, with an additional $9-36 billion possible when co-optimizing for climate and health benefits. Additional benefits accrue from prioritizing emissions reductions in counties with high population exposure. Total health benefits equal or exceed climate benefits across a wide range of modeling assumptions. Our results demonstrate the value of considering health in climate policy design and the need for interstate cooperation to achieve additional health benefits equitably.