Suchergebnisse

Across the world, there is a growing commitment to power from renewable sources. The benefits are obvious and well known: reduce reliance on fossil fuel consumption and thereby achieve both lower greenhouse gas emissions and greater local control over the power industry. The main challenge, however, is that private costs of green power production remain higher than for power from conventional resources. There are numerous policy approaches that can be used to overcome this competitive disadvantage, one of which is to legislate that power from renewable sources is to constitute a minimum percent of all power sold to end users, i.e., a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Such standards have previously been reviewed in general terms by Rader and Norgaard (1996), who motivate the RPS on efficiency grounds given market imperfections. Rader (1998) points out that it is unlikely that restructured electricity markets will enhance the market position of renewable sources of electricity. Accordingly, many states and countries that have gone through restructuring to enhance competition have adopted an RPS. Berry and Jaccard (200 I) review implementation issues in several countries and US stales that have taken this route.

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) are one of the most common state policies meant to encourage clean energy use. They require that utilities purchase electricity from certain qualifying electricity generators, usually with no reference to the cost of that electricity. AlthoughRPS are meant to clean up electricity generation through using clean energy sources instead of fossil fuels, they may not do so effectively. Further, some energy companies may lobby state legislators to include their energy sources regardless of their actual environmental benefit. The actual relationship between enacting an RPS and a state's emissions from energy production is unclear. I explore RPS associations with carbon emissions. I collect data from 1960 to 2017 on factors related to environmental quality, energy production, and state economic factors. The data availability varies, however, so the most expansive variables are from 1960 to 2017 while many others fall into a shorter timeframe.The dataset relies heavily on the State Energy Data System (SEDS) that the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) maintains, but also draws from a variety of other academic sources. Other variables, such as the dates of electricity market restructuring, I collect myself from primary sources.After accounting for existing linear trends in the data there appears to be no statistically significant relationship with RPS and carbon emissions.

AbstractThis study examines whether the target levels of a state's renewable portfolio standard (RPS) are influenced by target levels in neighboring states, controlling for state‐specific characteristics. Contrary to previous studies, target levels in neighboring states have a positive and statistically significant impact. In addition, the renewable energy potential and transmission capacity within a state, as well as in neighboring states, all have a positive and statistically significant impact. Both a state's unemployment rate and its educational attainment have a positive impact. Furthermore, states with Democratic governors have higher RPS target levels. The results also indicate significant regional variation in RPS target levels.

Berkeley Lab's annual status report on U.S. renewables portfolio standards (RPS) provides an overview of key trends associated with U.S. state RPS policies. The report, published in slide-deck form, describes recent legislative revisions, key policy design features, compliance with interim targets, past and projected impacts on renewables development, and compliance costs. The 2018 edition of the report presents historical data through year-end 2017 and projections through 2030. Key trends from this edition of the report include the following: • Evolution of state RPS programs: Significant RPS-related policy revisions in 2018 include increased RPS targets in CA, CT, MA, and NJ; a phase-out of NJ's solar carve-out; a clean peak standard in MA; and new or increased offshore wind carve-outs in NJ and NY. • Historical impacts on renewables development: Roughly half of all growth in U.S. renewable electricity (RE) generation and capacity since 2000 is associated with state RPS requirements. Nationally, the role of RPS policies has diminished over time, representing 34% of all U.S. RE capacity additions in 2017. However, within particular regions—namely, the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West—RPS policies continue to play a central role in supporting RE growth. • Future RPS demand and incremental needs: Meeting RPS demand growth will require roughly a 50% increase in U.S. RE generation by 2030, equating to 56 GW of new RE capacity. To meet future RPS demand, total U.S. RE generation will need to reach 15% of electricity sales by 2030 (compared to 11% today), though other drivers will also continue to influence RE growth. • RPS target achievement to-date: States have generally met their interim RPS targets in recent years, with only a few exceptions reflecting unique, state-specific policy designs. • REC pricing trends: Prices for NEPOOL Class I RECs continued to fall in 2018, as surplus RPS supplies grew, while PJM Tier I REC prices began to rebound. Price trends for solar RECs vary by state, though no major shifts occurred in 2018. • RPS compliance costs and cost caps: RPS compliance costs totaled $4.1 billion in 2017, which equates to 2.0% of average retail electricity bills in RPS states. Though total U.S. RPS compliance costs rose from 2016, recent trends show that falling RE costs and REC prices have helped to offset the upward pressure on compliance costs from rising RPS targets.

Berkeley Lab's annual status report on U.S. renewables portfolio standards (RPS) provides an overview of key trends associated with U.S. state RPS policies. The report, published in slide-deck form, describes recent legislative revisions, key policy design features, compliance with interim targets, past and projected impacts on renewables development, and compliance costs. The 2019 edition of the report presents historical data through year-end 2018 and projections through 2030. Key trends from this edition of the report include the following: • Evolution of state RPS programs: States continue to refine and revise their RPS policies. Among other significant changes since the start of 2018, ten states enacted higher RPS targets (CA, CT, DC, MA, MD, NE, NJ, NM, NV, and NY), in most cases setting targets equal to at least 50% of retail sales. One state (OH) reduced its RPS targets. • Historical impacts on renewables development: Roughly half of all growth in U.S. renewable electricity (RE) generation and capacity since 2000 is associated with state RPS requirements, though not all of that is strictly attributable to RPS policies. Nationally, the role of RPS policies has diminished over time, representing just under 30% of all U.S. RE capacity additions in 2018. However, within particular regions—especially the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and to a lesser extent the West—RPS policies continue to serve a central role in motivating RE growth. • Future RPS demand and incremental needs: RPS demand growth will require roughly a 50% increase in U.S. RE generation by 2030, equating to 73 GW of new RE capacity. To meet future RPS obligations, U.S. non-hydro RE generation will need to reach 17% of electricity sales by 2030 (compared to 12% today), though other drivers will also continue to influence RE growth. • RPS target achievement to-date: States have generally met their interim RPS targets in recent years, with only a few exceptions reflecting unique, state-specific policy designs. • REC pricing trends: Prices for NEPOOL Class I RECs fell in 2018, before rebounding in early 2019, while PJM Tier I REC prices have remained relatively flat. Price trends for solar RECs vary by state, with the highest prices in DC, MA, and NJ. • RPS compliance costs and cost caps: RPS compliance costs—which reflect only a sub-set of all impacts—totaled $4.7 billion in 2018, equating to 2.6% of average retail electricity bills in RPS states, compared to $4.0 billion and 1.7% of retail bills in 2017. Cost increases from rising RPS targets have been offset to some degree by falling RE costs and REC prices.

Berkeley Lab's annual status report on U.S. renewables portfolio standards (RPS) provides an overview of key trends associated with U.S. state RPS policies. The report, published in slide-deck form, describes recent legislative revisions, key policy design features, compliance with interim targets, past and projected impacts on renewables development, and compliance costs. The 2021 Early Release, published in lieu of a 2020 edition, presents historical data through year-end 2019, with some limited results for the year 2020. Key trends from this edition of the report include the following: -Evolution of state RPS programs: States continue to refine and revise their RPS policies. Among other significant changes since the start of 2019, eight states enacted higher RPS targets or created new clean-energy/zero-carbon targets (AZ, DC, MD, NM, NV, VA, WA), in most cases setting targets equal to at least 50% of retail sales. -Historical impacts on renewables development: Roughly half of all growth in U.S. renewable electricity (RE) generation and capacity since 2000 is associated with state RPS requirements, though that percentage has declined in recent years, representing 23% of all U.S. RE capacity additions in 2019. However, within particular regions—namely, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic—RPS policies continue to serve a central role in motivating RE growth. -Future RPS demand and incremental needs: RPS demand growth through 2030 will require roughly 90 GW of new RE capacity and will require total U.S. non-hydro RE generation to reach 17% of electricity sales (compared to 12% in 2019). Relative to EIA projections, this amounts to roughly one-third of projected RE growth over the next decade. -RPS target achievement to-date: States have generally met their interim RPS targets in recent years, with only a few exceptions reflecting unique, state-specific issues. -REC pricing trends: Prices for NEPOOL Class I RECs rose steeply over 2019, reaching $40/MWh and remaining at roughly that level over 2020. PJM Tier I REC prices continued to rise at a modest pace over the course of 2020, reaching $10/MWh by year-end. Prices for solar RECs remained relatively stable over 2020, and continue to exhibit wide variation across states, with the highest prices ($200-450/MWh) in NJ, MA, and DC. -RPS compliance costs and cost caps: RPS compliance costs in 2019 averaged roughly 2.6% of retail electricity bills in RPS states, compared to 2.3% in 2018, with costs in most states ranging from 0.5% to 4.5% of retail electricity bills.

AbstractRenewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) are U.S. state mandates that utilities produce some of their electricity using renewable energy sources in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While advocates highlight the potential long‐term benefits of RPS, critics argue that RPS will increase electricity prices due to the higher costs of renewable energy generation. However, to date, there are no published empirical studies of the effect of RPS on electricity prices. Using state‐level panel data from 1990 to 2011 and the difference‐in‐differences method, I find that implementation increases electricity prices when the RPS policy first becomes binding.

AbstractThis research investigates whether an obligation to meet a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) target in U.S. states affects the policy effectiveness, which is defined as the RPS‐related renewable electricity capacity additions. A voluntary RPS target can serve as a political device for signaling commitment to certain goals, though there is no penalty if the goal is not met. Alternatively, mandatory RPS targets have varying stringency and uneven enforcement. Our results indicate that the compulsoriness of a state RPS is an insignificant determinant of RPS‐related renewable electricity capacity additions. Factors other than whether an RPS target or goal is compulsory are more important in influencing renewable electricity development, including policy stringency. If a state seeks a modest level of renewable electricity development, setting a voluntary goal can sometimes be effective and more efficient. Nonetheless, a mandatory RPS may be required to accomplish a more significant level of renewable electricity deployment.