Evaluating Renewable Portfolio Standards for In-State Renewable Deployment: Accounting for Policy Heterogeneity

被引:21
|
作者
Shrimall, Gireesh [1 ,2 ]
Chan, Gabriel [3 ]
Jenner, Steffen [4 ]
Groba, Felix [5 ]
Indvik, Joe [6 ]
机构
[1] Monterey Inst Int Studies, Monterey, CA 93940 USA
[2] Stanford Univ, Steyer Taylor Ctr Energy Finance & Policy, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[3] Harvard Univ, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[4] Tech Univ Berlin, D-10623 Berlin, Germany
[5] German Inst Econ Res, D-10117 Berlin, Germany
[6] SparkFund, Washington, DC 20004 USA
关键词
Renewable energy Renewable portfolio standards; Panel data models; Energy policy; ENERGY;
D O I
10.5547/2160-5890.4.2.gshr
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Renewable poryblio standards (RPS) are the most common state-level policies for promoting renewable electricity in the United States. State RPS policies are heterogeneously designed, particularly with respect to their use of flexibility mechanisms that allow obligations to be met with renewable energy generated in other states. However; the renewable energy that is produced within an RPS-enacting state itself is of high political importance, making in-state renewable energy deployment an important evaluation metric for RPS policies. In this papen we develop a novel dataset of state-level RPS policies and renewable energy deployment. We show that failing to effectively limit comparisons to similarly designed RPS policies may lead to the misperception that more stringent RPS policies do not necessarily lead to higher renewable deployment. We then show that after controlling for specific policy design features, states with more stringent RPS policies tend to have greater in-state renewable energy deployment. Specifically, we find that a 1 percentage point increase in the stringency of an RPS policy is associated with a a28-0.29 percentage point increase in the share of in-state renewable electricity capacity Articulate modeling of policy variety has been largely lacking from past studies and is essential for accurate econometric analysis of heterogeneous energy policies.
引用
收藏
页码:127 / 142
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Do state renewable portfolio standards promote in-state renewable generation?
    Yin, Haitao
    Powers, Nicholas
    [J]. ENERGY POLICY, 2010, 38 (02) : 1140 - 1149
  • [2] In-state generation requirements and the acceptability of renewable portfolio standards
    Cherry, Todd L.
    Brimley, Peri M.
    Longuevan, Joseph D.
    Thunstrom, Linda
    [J]. UTILITIES POLICY, 2023, 85
  • [3] Policy Tool Interactions and the Adoption of State Renewable Portfolio Standards
    Yi, Hongtao
    Feiock, Richard C.
    [J]. REVIEW OF POLICY RESEARCH, 2012, 29 (02) : 193 - 206
  • [4] Spatial Dependence in State Renewable Policy: Effects of Renewable Portfolio Standards on Renewable Generation within NERC Regions
    Bowen, Eric
    Lacombe, Donald J.
    [J]. ENERGY JOURNAL, 2017, 38 (03): : 177 - 193
  • [5] Are State Renewable Portfolio Standards Contagious?
    Dincer, Oguzhan
    Payne, James E.
    Simkins, Kristi
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY, 2014, 73 (02) : 325 - 340
  • [6] Renewable Portfolio Standards
    Feldman, Rachel
    Levinson, Arik
    [J]. ENERGY JOURNAL, 2023, 44 (05): : 1 - 20
  • [7] Causal effects of Renewable Portfolio Standards on renewable investments and generation: The role of heterogeneity and dynamics
    Deschenes, Olivier
    Malloy, Christopher
    McDonald, Gavin
    [J]. RESOURCE AND ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2023, 75
  • [8] Evolution from the renewable portfolio standards to feed-in tariff for the deployment of renewable energy in Japan
    Dong, Yanli
    Shimada, Koji
    [J]. Renewable Energy, 2017, 107 : 590 - 596
  • [9] Evolution from the renewable portfolio standards to feed-in tariff for the deployment of renewable energy in Japan
    Dong, Yanli
    Shimada, Koji
    [J]. RENEWABLE ENERGY, 2017, 107 : 590 - 596
  • [10] The Disparate Influence of State Renewable Portfolio Standards on Renewable Electricity Generation Capacity
    Maguire, Karen
    Munasib, Abdul
    [J]. LAND ECONOMICS, 2016, 92 (03) : 468 - 490