Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 269–287 | Cite as

The spatial distribution of welfare costs of Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States electricity sector

  • Anthony Oliver
  • Madhu KhannaEmail author
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Issue on Space and the Environment


In the US, renewable energy policy has largely followed a regional approach; 29 states are currently implementing Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs) at varying levels of stringency, while the other states have no renewable energy policy. Requiring individual states to achieve given targets is likely to be less efficient and lead to different levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement than a national RPS that achieves the same national share of renewable electricity generation since the latter allows more flexibility in the regional shares based on their relative costs of renewable electricity generation. RPSs are also likely to be less efficient than a national GHG cap and trade (GHG Cap) policy which allow flexibility in achieving GHG abatement through a variety of approaches. We examine the welfare costs and GHG abatement achieved by the existing state RPSs relative to a hypothetical national RPS and a national GHG Cap policy. We undertake this analysis using a dynamic, multi-region, partial-equilibrium, price-endogenous model of the US electricity, agricultural, and transportation sectors, called the Biofuel and Environmental Policy Analysis Model (BEPAM-E). Our results show that a hypothetical national RPS and can induce an equivalent share of renewable-based electricity generation as the state RPSs but at a $61 billion lower welfare cost over the 2007–2030 period. The national RPS would also achieve greater GHG reductions than the state-level RPSs, as it induces a larger decrease in coal generation. We find that the national RPS and national GHG Cap are 55 and 74% more cost-effective in reducing GHG emissions than the state RPSs.


Regional policy analysis Spatial analysis Renewable Portfolio Standards Cost-effectiveness Greenhouse gas emissions Sector model 



The authors are grateful for support provided by the Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley and NIFA/USDA for this research.


  1. Bird, L., Chapman, C., Logan, J., Sumner, J., Short, W.: Evaluating renewable portfolio standards and carbon cap scenarios in the U.S. electric sector. Energy Policy 39(5), 2573–2585 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen, C., Wiser, R., Mills, A., Bolinger, M.: Weighing the costs and benefits of state renewables portfolio standards in the United States: a comparative analysis of state-level policy impact projections. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13(3), 552–566 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, X., Huang, H., Khanna, M., Onal, H.: Alternative fuel standards: welfare effects and climate benefits. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 241–257 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DSIRE: “Quantitative RPS data.” Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, NC Clean Energy Technology Center. North Carolina State University (2011)Google Scholar
  5. Dumortier, J.: Co-firing in coal power plants and its impact on biomass feedstock availability. Energy Policy 60, 396–405 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dwivedi, P., Wang, W., Hudiburg, T., Jaiswal, D., Parton, W., Long, S., DeLucia, E., Khanna, M.: Cost of abating greenhouse gas emissions with cellulosic ethanol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49(4), 2512–2522 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EIA: “Annual Energy Outlook 2010: With Projections to 2035.” U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy (2010)Google Scholar
  8. Fischer, C.: Renewable portfolio standards: when do they lower energy prices? Energy J 31(1), 101–119 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holland, S.P., Hughes, J.E., Knittel, C.R.: Greenhouse gas reductions under low carbon fuel standards? Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 1, 106–146 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huang, H., Khanna, M., Onal, H., Chen, X.: Stacking low carbon policies on the renewable fuel standard: economic and greenhouse gas implications. Energy Policy 56, 5–15 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hudiburg, T.W., Wang, W., Khanna, M., Long, S.P., Dwivedi, P., Parton, W.J., Hartmann, M., DeLucia, E.H.: Impacts of a 32 billion gallon bioenergy landscape on land and fossil fuel use in the US. Nature Energy 1, 15005 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Humbird, D., Davis, R., Tao, L., Kinchin, C., Hsu, D., Aden, A., Schoen, P., Lukas, J., Olthof, B., Worley. M.: Process Design and Economics for Biochemical Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol National Renewable Energy Laboratory Report NREL. TP-5100-47764 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, E.P.: The cost of carbon dioxide abatement from state renewable portfolio standards. Resour. Energy Econ. 36(2), 332–350 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khanna, M., Zilberman, D.: Freer markets and the abatement of carbon emissions: the electricity-generating sector in India. Resour. Energy Econ. 21, 125–152 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kydes, A.S.: Impacts of a renewable portfolio generation standard on US energy markets. Energy Policy 35(2), 809–814 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McKitrick, R.: A derivation of the marginal abatement cost curve. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 37(3), 306–314 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miah, M.S., Ahmed, N.U., Chowdhury, M.: Optimum policy for integration of renewable energy sources into the power generation system. Energy Econ. 34(2), 558–567 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nogee, A., Deyette, J., Clemmer, S.: The projected impacts of a national renewable portfolio standard. Electr. J. 20(4), 33–47 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oliver, A., Khanna, M.: Demand for biomass to meet renewable energy targets in the United States: implications for land use. GCB Bioenergy 9(9), 1476–1488 (2017a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oliver, A., Khanna, M.: What is the cost of a renewable energy based approach to greenhouse gas mitigation? Land Econ. 93, 437–458 (2017b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Palmer, K., Burtraw, D.: Cost-effectiveness of renewable electricity policies. Energy Econ. 27(6), 873–894 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Palmer, K., Paul, A., Woerman, M., Steinberg, D.C.: Federal policies for renewable electricity: impacts and interactions. Energy Policy 39(7), 3975–3991 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Palmer, K., Sweeney, R., Allaire, M.: Modeling policies to promote renewable and low-carbon sources of electricity. Backgrounder. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future (2010)Google Scholar
  24. Perlack, R.D., Stokes, B.J.: U.S. billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN (2011)Google Scholar
  25. Qin, X., Mohan, T., El-Halwagi, M., Cornforth, G., McCarl, B.A.: Switchgrass as an alternate feedstock for power generation: an integrated environmental, energy and economic life-cycle assessment. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 8, 233–249 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tra, C.I.: Have renewable portfolio standards raised electricity rates? Evidence from U.S. electric utilities. Contemp. Econ. Policy 34(1), 184–189 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Williams, R.C.: Growing state-federal conflicts in environmental policy: the role of market-based regulation. J. Public Econ. 96(11–12), 1092–1099 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wiser, R., Namovicz, C., Gielecki, M., Smith, R.: The experience with renewable portfolio standards in the United States. Electr. J. 20(4), 8–20 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South Coast Air Quality Management DistrictDiamond BarUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Consumer EconomicsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations