Assessing the Economic and Environmental Impacts of Alternative Renewable Portfolio Standards: Winners and Losers

State-mandated renewable portfolio standards affect substantial portions of the total U.S. electricity supply. Renewable portfolio standards are environmentally motivated policies, yet they have the potential to greatly impact economy. There is not an agreement in the literature on the impact of renewable portfolio standards policies on regional economies, especially on job creation. By integrating various methodologies including econometrics, geographic information system, and input-output analysis into a unique system dynamics model, this paper estimates the economic and environmental impacts of various renewable portfolio standards scenarios in the state of New Mexico, located in Southwestern U.S. The state is endowed with traditional fossil fuel resources and substantial renewable energy potential. In this work we estimated and compared the economic and environmental tradeoffs at the county level under three renewable portfolio standards: New Mexico's original standard of 20% renewables, the recently adopted 100% renewables standard, and a reduced renewable standard of 10%. The final one would be a return to a more traditional generation profile. We found that while the 20% standard has the highest market-based economic impact on the state as a whole, it is not significantly different from other scenarios. However, when environmental impacts are included, the 100% standard yields the highest value. In addition, while the state level economic impacts across the three scenarios are not significantly different, the county-level impacts are substantial. This is especially important for a state like New Mexico, which has a high reliance on energy for economic development. A higher renewable portfolio standard appears to be an economic tool to stimulate targeted areas' economic growth. These results have policy implications.