IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natene/v3y2018i9d10.1038_s41560-018-0202-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empirical evaluation of the stringency and design of renewable portfolio standards

Author

Listed:
  • Sanya Carley

    (Indiana University)

  • Lincoln L. Davies

    (University of Utah)

  • David B. Spence

    (University of Texas at Austin)

  • Nikolaos Zirogiannis

    (Indiana University)

Abstract

In two decades of experience with state renewable portfolio standards (RPSs), the United States has observed immense growth in renewable energy markets, initially in wind energy and more recently in solar power. During this time, RPSs have experienced considerable policy reinvention and increased diversity. Here, we explain how changes in RPS policy design features relate to different market outcomes. We develop a score for measuring RPS stringency and show that a one-point increase in RPS stringency leads to increases of 0.2%, 1% and 0.3% in renewable energy, solar generation and renewable energy capacity, respectively. Other important design features include resource eligibility, planning processes, cost recovery and geographical restrictions. These findings are then reaffirmed through 42 semi-structured phone interviews with experts in the field of RPS implementation from government agencies, including public utility commissions and state energy offices, electric utilities and various renewable energy firms and associations.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanya Carley & Lincoln L. Davies & David B. Spence & Nikolaos Zirogiannis, 2018. "Empirical evaluation of the stringency and design of renewable portfolio standards," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(9), pages 754-763, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natene:v:3:y:2018:i:9:d:10.1038_s41560-018-0202-4
    DOI: 10.1038/s41560-018-0202-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0202-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41560-018-0202-4?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.

    More about this item

    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:nat:natene:v:3:y:2018:i:9:d:10.1038_s41560-018-0202-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    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.