Cost-effectiveness and Economic Incidence of a Clean Energy Standard

Mignone, Bryan K.; Alfstad, Thomas; Bergman, Aaron; Dubin, Kenneth A.; Duke, Richard D.; Friley, Paul; Martinez, Andrew; Mowers, Matthew; Palmer, Karen; Paul, Anthony; Showalter, Sharon; Steinberg, Daniel; Woerman, Matt; Wood, Frances

doi:10.5547/2160-5890.1.3.5

Cited by 30 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prospective cost-effectiveness evaluations for several states have also been conducted in concert with major revisions to state RPS programs (e.g., Rouhani et al 2016). Prospective studies with a national scope have focused primarily on the potential effects of a national RPS or clean energy standard (EIA 2012;Goulder et al 2016;Logan et al 2009;Mignone et al 2012;Paul et al 2014). To date, however, we are aware of no prior work that has sought to prospectively evaluate the cost and benefits of all state RPS programs in aggregate.…”

Section: Scope Methods and Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other generation technologies are also estimated to experience cost declines of varying levels as reported in the Annual Technology Baseline 2016 data. Storage and transmission costs are based 5 ReEDS has been widely used in previous analysis of long-term renewable futures (DOE 2015(DOE , 2016Wiser et al 2016a;NREL 2012) and to simulate scenarios for analyses of a broad range of state and federal energy policies and regulations Cole et al 2015;Lantz et al 2014;Mignone et al 2012;Bird et al 2011;Logan et al 2009 Eurek et al 2016). All three model scenarios-No RPS, Existing RPS, and High RE-rely on the same set of assumptions.…”

Section: Key Input Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Prospective Analysis of the Costs, Benefits, and Impacts of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards

Mai

Wiser

Barbose

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PREFACEThis is one report in a series that explores the costs, benefits, and other impacts of state renewable portfolio standards (RPS), both retrospectively and prospectively. The first report, A Survey of State-Level Cost and Benefit Estimates of Renewable Portfolio Standards, published in 2014, comprehensively summarized historical RPS compliance costs, drawing in part on estimates developed by utilities and state regulatory agencies. The study also reviewed analyses of the broader societal benefits and impacts of several states' RPS policies, typically conducted for or by the regulatory agencies or RPS administrators in those states. However, the small number of such studies, and their widely varying methods and scopes, ultimately limited the ability to compare benefits across states or to generalize beyond the specific studies performed. That limitation set the stage for future reports.The second report in the series, A Retrospective Analysis of the Benefits and Impacts of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards, published in January 2016, analyzed historical benefits and impacts of renewable energy (RE) used to meet all state RPS policies, in aggregate, employing a consistent and well-vetted set of methods and data sets. The analysis focuses on three specific benefits: air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and water use. It also analyzes three other impacts: gross job additions, wholesale electricity market price suppression, and natural gas price suppression. These are an important subset, but by no means a comprehensive set, of all possible effects associated with RPS policies. That report did not include a comparison of costs and benefits of renewables used to meet RPS policies, and nor did it assess the potential costs, benefits, and impacts prospectively based on future increases in RPS targets.The present report fills that gap by evaluating the future costs, benefits, and other impacts of renewable energy used to meet current state RPS polices. It also examines a future scenario where RPSs are expanded. The analysis examines changes in electric system costs and retail electricity prices, which include all fixed and operating costs, including capital costs for all renewable, non-renewable, and supporting (e.g., transmission and storage) electric sector infrastructure; fossil fuel, uranium, and biomass fuel costs; and plant operations and maintenance expenditures. The analysis uses the same framework as the second report to analyze three specific benefits: air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and water use. It also analyzes two other impacts, RE workforce and economic development, and natural gas price suppression.The terminology applied in this series does not align precisely with the traditional concepts of costs and benefits, but rather is a function of how RPS programs have often been evaluated in practice. This analysis series, particularly the present report, evaluates renewable energy used to meet RPS policies in terms of costs, benefits, and other impacts:• Cost metrics presented in this r...

show abstract

Section: Scope Methods and Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Key Input Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Prospective Analysis of the Costs, Benefits, and Impacts of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards

Mai

Wiser

Barbose

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wiser et al 2016a, DOE 2016, NREL 2012 and to simulate scenarios for analyses of a broad range of state and federal energy policies and regulations (e.g. Mai et al 2016b, Mignone et al 2012, Bird et al 2011.…”

Section: Electricity Sector Modeling and Cost Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rouhani et al 2016). Prospective studies with a national scope have focused primarily on the potential effects of a national RPS or clean energy standard (EIA 2012, Goulder et al 2016, Mignone et al 2012, Paul et al 2014.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the costs and benefits of US renewable portfolio standards

Wiser

Mai

Millstein

et al. 2017

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) exist in 29 US states and the District of Columbia. This article summarizes the first national-level, integrated assessment of the future costs and benefits of existing RPS policies; the same metrics are evaluated under a second scenario in which widespread expansion of these policies is assumed to occur. Depending on assumptions about renewable energy technology advancement and natural gas prices, existing RPS policies increase electric system costs by as much as $31 billion, on a present-value basis over 2015−2050. The expanded renewable deployment scenario yields incremental costs that range from $23 billion to $194 billion, depending on the assumptions employed. The monetized value of improved air quality and reduced climate damages exceed these costs. Using central assumptions, existing RPS policies yield $97 billion in air-pollution health benefits and $161 billion in climate damage reductions. Under the expanded RPS case, health benefits total $558 billion and climate benefits equal $599 billion. These scenarios also yield benefits in the form of reduced water use. RPS programs are not likely to represent the most cost effective path towards achieving air quality and climate benefits. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that US RPS programs are, on a national basis, cost effective when considering externalities.

show abstract

“…The geographic scope of SWITCH is limited to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), which is divided into 50 model regions. These models have been used to examine implications of various energy policy options, particularly those related to the electric sector (Logan et al 2009;Mignone et al 2012;Nelson et al 2012). The detailed grid representation in these types of model has become increasingly necessary with recent historical and potential trends in the power sector, particularly with increasing renewable technology deployment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%