IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v37y2009i3p774-777.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Renewable portfolio standards and cost-effective energy-efficiency investment

Author

Listed:
  • Mahone, A.
  • Woo, C.K.
  • Williams, J.
  • Horowitz, I.

Abstract

Renewable portfolio standards (RPSs) and mandates to invest in cost-effective energy efficiency (EE) are increasingly popular policy tools to combat climate change and dependence on fossil fuels. These supply-side and demand-side policies, however, are often uncoordinated. Using California as a case in point, this paper demonstrates that states could improve resource allocation if these two policies were coordinated by incorporating renewable-energy procurement cost into the cost-effectiveness determination for EE investment. In particular, if renewable energy is relatively expensive when compared to conventional energy, increasing the RPS target raises the cost-effective level of EE investment.

Suggested Citation

  • Mahone, A. & Woo, C.K. & Williams, J. & Horowitz, I., 2009. "Renewable portfolio standards and cost-effective energy-efficiency investment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 774-777, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:3:p:774-777
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(08)00725-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Clara Pardo Martínez, 2011. "Energy efficiency in the automotive industry evidence from Germany and Colombia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 367-383, April.
    2. Tolliver, Clarence & Keeley, Alexander Ryota & Managi, Shunsuke, 2020. "Policy targets behind green bonds for renewable energy: Do climate commitments matter?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    3. Kahrl, Fredrich & Williams, Jim & Jianhua, Ding & Junfeng, Hu, 2011. "Challenges to China's transition to a low carbon electricity system," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4032-4041, July.
    4. Yushchenko, Alisa & Patel, Martin Kumar, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs: How to better understand and improve from multiple stakeholder perspectives?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 538-550.
    5. Woo, C.K. & Zarnikau, J. & Moore, J. & Horowitz, I., 2011. "Wind generation and zonal-market price divergence: Evidence from Texas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 3928-3938, July.
    6. Cappers, Peter & Goldman, Charles, 2010. "Financial impact of energy efficiency under a federal combined efficiency and renewable electricity standard: Case study of a Kansas "super-utility"," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 3998-4010, August.
    7. DeBenedictis, A. & Hoff, T.E. & Price, S. & Woo, C.K., 2010. "Statistically adjusted engineering (SAE) modeling of metered roof-top photovoltaic (PV) output: California evidence," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 4178-4183.
    8. Chandler, Jess, 2009. "Trendy solutions: Why do states adopt Sustainable Energy Portfolio Standards?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3274-3281, August.
    9. Woo, C.K. & Sreedharan, P. & Hargreaves, J. & Kahrl, F. & Wang, J. & Horowitz, I., 2014. "A review of electricity product differentiation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 262-272.
    10. Woo, C.K. & Chen, Y. & Olson, A. & Moore, J. & Schlag, N. & Ong, A. & Ho, T., 2017. "Electricity price behavior and carbon trading: New evidence from California," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 531-543.
    11. Rouhani, Omid M. & Niemeier, Debbie & Gao, H. Oliver & Bel, Germà, 2016. "Cost-benefit analysis of various California renewable portfolio standard targets: Is a 33% RPS optimal?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1122-1132.
    12. Sreedharan, P. & Miller, D. & Price, S. & Woo, C.K., 2012. "Avoided cost estimation and cost-effectiveness of permanent load shifting in California," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 115-121.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    RPS Electricity Energy efficiency;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:3:p:774-777. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.