1 / 20

Changing the Energy Portfolio? An Empirical Evaluation of the Renewable Portfolio Standard

Changing the Energy Portfolio? An Empirical Evaluation of the Renewable Portfolio Standard. Deborah Baker Brannan, Ph.D. Candidate University of Colorado Boulder 30 th USAEE/IAEE North American Conference October 10, 2011. Renewable Portfolio Standard.

ita
Download Presentation

Changing the Energy Portfolio? An Empirical Evaluation of the Renewable Portfolio Standard

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Changing the Energy Portfolio? An Empirical Evaluation of the Renewable Portfolio Standard Deborah Baker Brannan, Ph.D. Candidate University of Colorado Boulder 30th USAEE/IAEE North American Conference October 10, 2011

  2. Renewable Portfolio Standard • Requires a certain percentage share of electricity generated by electric utilities use renewable energy sources • E.g. Colorado’s RPS: Investor-owned utilities 30% by 2020, Municipal and cooperatively-owned utilities 10% by 2020 • Considerable variation in policy design across states • Target amount, target year, entities subject to policy, definition of renewable energy, non-compliance mechanism, treatment of Renewable Energy Credits • Emerged as the preferred state-level renewable energy policy • 1998 – 3 states • 2011 – 29 states, DC (8 goals)

  3. RPS Policies 2011 (DSIRE)

  4. Motivation • RPS Objectives • Increase deployment of renewable energy • Reduce pollution, improve national security, job creation, lower electricity prices • Most secondary benefits achieved through fossil fuel displacement • Secondary benefits vary with the type of fossil fuel that is displaced • Displacement should differ – marginal cost, type of power plant • Ex Ante • Coal unlikely to be displaced, Natural gas likely to be displaced • Anecdotal evidence suggests this is not always the case • Natural gas manages intermittency • Limited available supply of natural gas

  5. Research Questions • What is the relationship between the adoption of an RPS policy and electricity generation using renewable energy sources? • What is the relationship between the adoption of an RPS policy and electricity generation using natural gas? Coal?

  6. Preview of Results • Strong and positive relationship between adoption of an RPS and renewable generation • Negative relationship between adoption of an RPS and both natural gas and coal

  7. Difference of Means

  8. Utility vs. Independent Power Producer

  9. Empirical Approach ln(Git) = αi + γt + βRPSit + μMit + θEit + δSit + εit Git is electricity generation Mit are electricity market characteristics Eit are political and environmental attitudes Sit are socioeconomic characteristics αi are state fixed effects, and γt are year fixed effects • Specifications vary with type of energy resource • Renewable Energy (wind, solar, geothermal) • Natural Gas • Coal

  10. Endogeneity • Model assumes the RPS policy is exogenous • Ideal solution is an instrumental variable approach • Unable to identify an instrument that is valid and excludable • Assume the RPS policy is exogenous • Factors affecting the adoption of an RPS (Chandler 2009, Lyon and Yin 2008, Huang et al. 2007) • State and year fixed effects • RPS policy variable is constructed as a binary variable

  11. Data • Panel data • 1998-2009, 50 states • Data Sources • Electricity data • Energy Information Administration (EIA) • RPS data • Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE) • Electricity market characteristics • EIA, Census • Political and environmental attitudes • DSIRE, Conservative Ideology (Poole and Rosenthal), Environmental Protection Agency • Socioeconomic factors • Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census

  12. Renewable Energy Result • Positive relationship between an RPS and electricity generated using renewable energy sources.

  13. Utility vs. Independent Power Producer • Renewable generation primarily driven by IPPs • Evidence that utilities are owning and operating renewable generation facilities

  14. Renewable Energy Credits • Implications for both primary and secondary objectives • E.g. Out-of-state REC purchases • Important policy feature BUT no data • Proxy for the size of the REC market • Percent of neighbors with an RPS • Wind development of other states in REC market (Bird et al. 2010) • Installed wind capacity as a percent of potential wind capacity

  15. REC Market • Expect states with an RPS generate less renewable energy in a growing REC market • Empirical evidence suggests otherwise • Policy features to support in-state generation

  16. Natural Gas and Coal • Negative relationship between adoption of an RPS policy and both coal and natural gas generation by electric utilities

  17. Conclusions • A positive relationship between RPS policy adoption and renewable generation, driven primarily by IPPs, persistent even in a growing REC market • Evidence of coal and natural gas displacement • Fossil fuel displacement will be state-specific and vary with the composition of energy portfolio, energy prices. • Research on displacement in particular RTO’s (e.g. Cullen 2011, Novan 2011) • Inform policy makers on potential to achieve secondary benefits

  18. Questions? Comments? Contact Information: Deborah Baker Brannan deborah.brannan@colorado.edu

More Related