State renewable energy electricity policies: An empirical evaluation of effectiveness

被引:386
|
作者
Carley, Sanya [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ N Carolina, Dept Publ Policy, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[2] Univ N Carolina, Ctr Sustainable Energy Environm & Econ Dev, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
关键词
Renewable portfolio standard; Renewable energy; State electricity policy; PORTFOLIO STANDARD; WIND POWER;
D O I
10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.062
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Over the past decade, state governments have emerged as US energy policy leaders. Across the country, states are adopting policy instruments aimed at carbon mitigation and renewable energy deployment. One of the most prevalent and innovative policy instruments is a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which seeks to increase the share of renewable energy electrification in the electricity market. This analysis evaluates the effectiveness of state energy programs with an empirical investigation of the linkage between state RPS policy implementation and the percentage of renewable energy electricity generation across states. We use a variant of a standard fixed effects model, referred to as a fixed effects vector decomposition, with state-level data from 1998 to 2006. Results indicate that RPS implementation is not a significant predictor of the percentage of renewable energy generation out of the total generation mix, yet for each additional year that a state has an RPS policy, they are found to increase the total amount of renewable energy generation. These findings reveal a potentially significant shortcoming of RPS policies. Political institutions, natural resource endowments, deregulation, gross state product per capita, electricity use per person, electricity price, and the presence of regional RPS policies are also found to be significantly related to renewable energy deployment. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:3071 / 3081
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] OPTIMAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY INVESTMENT: EVIDENCE FROM THE TEXAS ELECTRICITY MARKET
    Wibulpolprasert, Wichsinee
    [J]. CLIMATE CHANGE ECONOMICS, 2016, 7 (04)
  • [42] Renewable energy use for electricity generation in transition economies: Evolution, targets and promotion policies
    Pablo-Romero, Maria P.
    Sanchez-Braza, Antonio
    Galyan, Anna
    [J]. RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2021, 138
  • [43] Cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency investments for high renewable electricity systems
    Dranka, Geremi Gilson
    Ferreira, Paula
    Vaz, A. Ismael F.
    [J]. ENERGY, 2020, 198
  • [44] Efficiency and effectiveness of factors affecting renewable energy projects; an empirical perspective
    Maqbool, Rashid
    [J]. ENERGY, 2018, 158 : 944 - 956
  • [45] The effectiveness of federal renewable policies in India
    Shrimali, Gireesh
    Srinivasan, Sandhya
    Goel, Shobhit
    Nelson, David
    [J]. RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2017, 70 : 538 - 550
  • [46] Evaluation of renewable energy policies in an integrated economic-energy-environment model
    Kancs, d'Artis
    Wohlgemuth, Norbert
    [J]. FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS, 2008, 10 (03) : 128 - 139
  • [47] Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Policies
    Dessouky, Yasser Gaber
    [J]. MEDITERRANEAN GREEN ENERGY FORUM 2013: PROCEEDINGS OF AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE MGEF-13, 2013, 42 : 15 - 15
  • [48] Evaluation of an integrated renewable energy system for electricity generation in rural areas
    Rozakis, S
    Soldatos, PG
    Papadakis, G
    Kyritsis, S
    Papantonis, D
    [J]. ENERGY POLICY, 1997, 25 (03) : 337 - 347
  • [49] Renewable energy regulation and structural breaks: An empirical analysis of Spanish electricity price volatility
    Ciarreta, Aitor
    Pizarro-Irizar, Cristina
    Zarraga, Ainhoa
    [J]. ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2020, 88
  • [50] Evaluation of Electricity Storage Technologies for Renewable Energy Production: A Proposed Model
    Lee, Demei
    Ho, Jonathan C.
    [J]. PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (PICMET 2016): TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION, 2016, : 2837 - 2845