Evaluating experience with renewables portfolio standards in the United States

被引:6
|
作者
Wiser R. [3 ]
Porter K. [1 ]
Grace R. [2 ]
机构
[1] Exeter Associates, Inc., Columbia, MD 21044
[2] Sustainable Energy Advantage, LLC, Natick, MA 01760
[3] Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, MS 90-4000, Berkeley, CA 94720
关键词
Energy policy; Policy evaluation; Renewable energy; Renewables portfolio standard; Wind power;
D O I
10.1007/s11027-005-6573-4
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Increased use of renewable energy is one of several promising methods for reducing emissions of local, regional, and global air pollutants, including greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil-fuel based electricity production. Among the available options for encouraging renewable electricity generation, the renewables portfolio standard (RPS) has become especially popular in recent years. The RPS is a newly established policy mechanism, however, and experience with its use has not been widely documented and evaluated. This paper describes and evaluates the design, impacts, and early experience of 13 U.S. state RPS policies. These 13 policies share a common goal of encouraging renewable energy supply, but each specific RPS is designed differently. Our evaluation shows both successes and failures with this policy mechanism; some state RPS policies are positively impacting renewable energy development, while others have been poorly designed and will do little to advance renewable energy markets.We emphasize the importance of policy design details, and specifically highlight critical design pitfalls that have been commonly experienced. Though experience with the RPS is still limited, we have now gained some knowledge of the conditions and design features necessary to make an RPS policy work. An important objective of this article is therefore to identify and describe broad policy design principles and specific best practice design elements that might be used to guide the design of future renewables portfolio standards. © Springer 2005.
引用
收藏
页码:237 / 263
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Supporting solar power in renewables portfolio standards: Experience from the United States
    Wiser, Ryan
    Barbose, Galen
    Holt, Edward
    [J]. ENERGY POLICY, 2011, 39 (07) : 3894 - 3905
  • [2] Costs and benefits of renewables portfolio standards in the United States
    Barbose, Galen
    Bird, Lori
    Heeter, Jenny
    Flores-Espino, Francisco
    Wiser, Ryan
    [J]. RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2015, 52 : 523 - 533
  • [3] The political economy of renewable portfolio standards in the United States
    Thombs, Ryan P.
    Jorgenson, Andrew K.
    [J]. ENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE, 2020, 62
  • [4] The effects of renewables portfolio standards on renewable energy generation
    Pastor, Daniel J.
    [J]. ECONOMICS BULLETIN, 2020, 40 (03): : 2121 - +
  • [5] Weighing the costs and benefits of state renewables portfolio standards in the United States: A comparative analysis of state-level policy impact projections
    Chen, Cliff
    Wiser, Ryan
    Mills, Andrew
    Bolinger, Mark
    [J]. RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2009, 13 (03): : 552 - 566
  • [6] SETTING MUSEUM STANDARDS, THE UNITED-STATES EXPERIENCE
    IGOE, K
    [J]. MUSEUM INTERNATIONAL, 1994, 46 (03) : 57 - 59
  • [7] DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS OF CARE - THE UNITED-STATES EXPERIENCE
    不详
    [J]. BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL, 1991, 170 (06) : 228 - 230
  • [8] Market and welfare effects of renewable portfolio standards in United States electricity markets
    Bhattacharya, Suparna
    Giannakas, Konstantinos
    Schoengold, Karina
    [J]. ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2017, 64 : 384 - 401
  • [9] Are renewables portfolio standards cost-effective emission abatement policy?
    Dobesova, K
    Apt, J
    Lave, LB
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2005, 39 (22) : 8578 - 8583
  • [10] Evaluation of Renewables Portfolio Standards Trading Volume and Analysis of Influencing Factors
    Li, Ziqian
    Wang, Caixia
    Ye, Xiaoning
    Li, Yueyue
    Lei, Xuejiao
    [J]. 2019 CHINESE AUTOMATION CONGRESS (CAC2019), 2019, : 3897 - 3900