IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v161y2022ics1364032122002325.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon drawdown potential of utility-scale solar in the United States: Evidence from the state of Georgia

Author

Listed:
  • Brown, Marilyn A.
  • Tudawe, Ranal
  • Steimer, Hamilton

Abstract

Governments around the world recognize the need to identify options for reducing their carbon footprints, tailored to local conditions. In an analysis of the U.S. state of Georgia, both utility-scale and rooftop solar were down-selected among 20 from a set of 100 options, prompting analysis of the pros and cons of different types of solar systems. Analysis included simulating a modest carbon tax (starting at $10/tonne CO2) in a computable general equilibrium model of the U.S. energy system. On the one hand, the results indicate that utility-scale solar could reduce Georgia's carbon footprint by an additional 10% by 2030. Currently, 98% of Georgia's solar electricity comes from utility-scale solar and only 2% from rooftop solar. Each additional tonne of CO2 avoided in 2030 would have private costs of -$3.9 to +$71 and would produce significant social benefits of $68 to $79. On the other hand, the modeling suggests that a $10 carbon tax is not sufficient to spur the growth of rooftop solar in Georgia. Additional incentives would be needed, but their traditional design could hurt low-income customers. As a class, low-income households subsidize affluent homeowners who own rooftop solar by paying higher electricity prices that allow utilities to offer solar incentives. These trade-offs are prompting proposals to grow utility-scale solar at the expense of rooftop solar. However, choosing one or the other type of solar represents a false dichotomy. Ultimately, meeting science-based climate goals will require a broad, deep, and rapid response that engages both utility-scale and rooftop solar.

Suggested Citation

  • Brown, Marilyn A. & Tudawe, Ranal & Steimer, Hamilton, 2022. "Carbon drawdown potential of utility-scale solar in the United States: Evidence from the state of Georgia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:161:y:2022:i:c:s1364032122002325
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122002325
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112318?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bowen, Frances, 2011. "Carbon capture and storage as a corporate technology strategy challenge," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2256-2264, May.
    2. Galina Alova, 2020. "A global analysis of the progress and failure of electric utilities to adapt their portfolios of power-generation assets to the energy transition," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 920-927, November.
    3. Brown, Marilyn A. & Favero, Alice & Thomas, Valerie M. & Banboukian, Aline, 2019. "The economic and environmental performance of biomass as an “intermediate” resource for power production," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 52-62.
    4. Brown, Marilyn A. & Levine, Mark D. & Short, Walter & Koomey, Jonathan G., 2001. "Scenarios for a clean energy future," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(14), pages 1179-1196, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bortoni, Edson C. & Magalhães, Leonardo P. & Nogueira, Luiz A.H. & Bajay, Sérgio V. & Cassula, Agnelo M., 2020. "An assessment of energy efficient motors application by scenarios evaluation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    2. Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2006. "Energy Conservation in the United States: Understanding its Role in Climate Policy," NBER Working Papers 12272, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Moreno, Blanca & López, Ana Jesús, 2008. "The effect of renewable energy on employment. The case of Asturias (Spain)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 732-751, April.
    4. Grace D. Kroeger & Matthew G. Burgess, 2024. "Electric utility plans are consistent with Renewable Portfolio Standards and Clean Energy Standards in most US states," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 1-18, January.
    5. Rosemary Ostfeld & David M Reiner, 2019. "Exploring public support for climate action and renewables in resource-rich economies: The case of Scotland," Working Papers EPRG1934, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    6. Newell, Richard G. & Jaffe, Adam B. & Stavins, Robert N., 2006. "The effects of economic and policy incentives on carbon mitigation technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 563-578, November.
    7. McMeekin, Andrew & Geels, Frank W. & Hodson, Mike, 2019. "Mapping the winds of whole system reconfiguration: Analysing low-carbon transformations across production, distribution and consumption in the UK electricity system (1990–2016)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1216-1231.
    8. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    9. Davies, Lincoln L. & Uchitel, Kirsten & Ruple, John, 2013. "Understanding barriers to commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration in the United States: An empirical assessment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 745-761.
    10. Jackson, Jerry, 2010. "Promoting energy efficiency investments with risk management decision tools," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 3865-3873, August.
    11. Kyriakos Maniatis & David Chiaramonti & Eric van den Heuvel, 2021. "Post COVID-19 Recovery and 2050 Climate Change Targets: Changing the Emphasis from Promotion of Renewables to Mandated Curtailment of Fossil Fuels in the EU Policies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-44, March.
    12. Greene, David L. & Plotkin, Steven E., 2001. "Energy futures for the US transport sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(14), pages 1255-1270, November.
    13. de la Chesnaye, Francisco & Harvey, Reid & Kruger, Dina & Laitner, John A. Skip, 2001. "Cost-effective reductions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(14), pages 1325-1331, November.
    14. van Os, Herman W.A. & Herber, Rien & Scholtens, Bert, 2014. "Not Under Our Back Yards? A case study of social acceptance of the Northern Netherlands CCS initiative," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 923-942.
    15. Gillingham, Kenneth & Newell, Richard G. & Palmer, Karen L., 2004. "Retrospective Examination of Demand-Side Energy Efficiency Policies," Discussion Papers 10477, Resources for the Future.
    16. Steffen, Bjarne & Karplus, Valerie & Schmidt, Tobias S., 2022. "State ownership and technology adoption: The case of electric utilities and renewable energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    17. Xi Liang & Hengwei Liu & David Reiner, 2014. "Strategies for Financing Large-scale Carbon Capture and Storage Power Plants in China," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1430, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    18. Carley, Sanya, 2011. "Decarbonization of the U.S. electricity sector: Are state energy policy portfolios the solution?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1004-1023, September.
    19. Moura, Maria Cecilia P. & Branco, David A. Castelo & Peters, Glen P. & Szklo, Alexandre Salem & Schaeffer, Roberto, 2013. "How the choice of multi-gas equivalency metrics affects mitigation options: The case of CO2 capture in a Brazilian coal-fired power plant," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1357-1366.
    20. Nandimandalam, Hariteja & Gude, Veera Gnaneswar, 2022. "Renewable wood residue sources as potential alternative for fossil fuel dominated electricity mix for regions in Mississippi: A techno-economic analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 1105-1119.

    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:rensus:v:161:y:2022:i:c:s1364032122002325. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.