Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Expansion of electricity generation from other renewable sources is specified exogenously according to projections from the AEO (EIA 2010).
The levelized cost is net of fuel cost and bio-power generation is assumed to take place in the CRD in which the feedstock is produced (for further details see Oliver and Khanna 2017b).
Changes in state RPSs since 2011 are not considered in this analysis.
We note that this paper is focusing on comparing the welfare costs of abatement with alternative policies to achieve a given level of GHG emissions and not on estimating the marginal costs of abatement at various levels of abatement. We are not deriving a marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve at various levels of abatement. For reasons derived in McKitrick (1999) it is possible that the MAC curve could be non-differentiable when firms have the option of achieving abatement by reducing output and/or switching to an abatement technology. This can affect choice of policy instruments under uncertainty or in the presence of asymmetric information; these issues are beyond the scope of this paper.
References
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)
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)
Chen, X., Huang, H., Khanna, M., Onal, H.: Alternative fuel standards: welfare effects and climate benefits. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 241–257 (2014)
DSIRE: “Quantitative RPS data.” Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, NC Clean Energy Technology Center. North Carolina State University (2011)
Dumortier, J.: Co-firing in coal power plants and its impact on biomass feedstock availability. Energy Policy 60, 396–405 (2013)
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)
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)
Fischer, C.: Renewable portfolio standards: when do they lower energy prices? Energy J 31(1), 101–119 (2010)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Johnson, E.P.: The cost of carbon dioxide abatement from state renewable portfolio standards. Resour. Energy Econ. 36(2), 332–350 (2014)
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)
Kydes, A.S.: Impacts of a renewable portfolio generation standard on US energy markets. Energy Policy 35(2), 809–814 (2007)
McKitrick, R.: A derivation of the marginal abatement cost curve. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 37(3), 306–314 (1999)
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)
Nogee, A., Deyette, J., Clemmer, S.: The projected impacts of a national renewable portfolio standard. Electr. J. 20(4), 33–47 (2007)
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)
Oliver, A., Khanna, M.: What is the cost of a renewable energy based approach to greenhouse gas mitigation? Land Econ. 93, 437–458 (2017b)
Palmer, K., Burtraw, D.: Cost-effectiveness of renewable electricity policies. Energy Econ. 27(6), 873–894 (2005)
Palmer, K., Paul, A., Woerman, M., Steinberg, D.C.: Federal policies for renewable electricity: impacts and interactions. Energy Policy 39(7), 3975–3991 (2011)
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)
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)
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)
Tra, C.I.: Have renewable portfolio standards raised electricity rates? Evidence from U.S. electric utilities. Contemp. Econ. Policy 34(1), 184–189 (2016)
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)
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)
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for support provided by the Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley and NIFA/USDA for this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Oliver, A., Khanna, M. The spatial distribution of welfare costs of Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States electricity sector. Lett Spat Resour Sci 11, 269–287 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-018-0208-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-018-0208-3