While carbon taxes and other market-based instruments are widely regarded as optimal for climate mitigation, political constraints have prevented governments from using them. Instead, narrower instruments, including the feed-in tariff (FIT) for renewable electricity generation, have become popular. However, their causal effect on renewable electricity generation remains subject to uncertainty. We use instrumental variables to estimate the causal effect of FITs on renewable electricity generation in 26 industrialized countries, 1979–2005. We find that increasing the FIT by one U.S. cent (2000 constant prices) per kilowatt hour increases the percentage change in renewable electricity’s share of the total by 0.11 % points. All else constant, if a country implemented for a decade the sample mean FIT of three U.S. cents, the national share of renewable electricity would increase by 3.3 % points, which is more than the sample mean. In addition to demonstrating that the FIT is an effective way to increase renewable electricity generation, our approach lays the foundation for future studies of the causal effects of renewable energy policies.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Söderholm and Klaassen (2007), in contrast, report that FITs are not endogenous to diffusion or learning in wind power.
See “Cuts Redraw Germany’s Solar Power Landscape.” Financial Times March 27, 2012. Available at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf523938-741b-11e1-bcec-00144feab49a.html. Accessed on July 7, 2012.
See http://22.214.171.124/countries for these and other energy data used in our analysis. Accessed on June 5, 2012.
The measure of population that is used as the denominator comes from the Penn World Table Version 6.3 (Heston et al. 2009).
The country-years that are excluded are Denmark 1994–2005, Finland 1992, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003, Hungary 2005, Japan 1982, Netherlands 1982 and 2005, Portugal 2005, and USA 1989.
Angrist JD, Pischke J-S (2008) Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58(2):277–297
Burke PJ (2010) Income, resources, and electricity mix. Energy Econ 32(3):616–626
Cheon A, Urpelainen J (2012) Oil prices and energy technology innovation: an empirical analysis. Glob Environ Change 22(2):407–417
Cook RD (1977) Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technometrics 19(1):15–18
Couture T, Gagnon Y (2010) An analysis of feed-in tariff remuneration models: implications for renewable energy investment. Energy Policy 38(2):955–965
Frisch R, Waugh FV (1933) Partial time regressions as compared with individual trends. Econometrica 1(4):387–401
Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110(2):353–377
Heston A, Summers R, Aten B (2009) Penn World Table Version 6.3. Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and prices at the University of Pennsylvania
Johnstone N, Hascic I, Popp D (2010) Renewable energy policies and technological innovation: evidence based on patent counts. Environ Resour Econ 45(1):133–155
Kalkuhl M, Edenhofer O, Lessmann K (2012) Learning or lock-in: optimal technology policies to support mitigation. Resour Energy Econ 34(1):1–23
Lovell MC (2008) A simple proof of the FWL theorem. J Econ Educ 39(1):88–91
Lyon TP, Yin H (2010) Why do states adopt renewable portfolio standards? An empirical investigation. Energy J 31(3):131–155
Mendonça M (2007) Feed-in tariffs: accelerating the deployment of renewable energy. Earthscan, London
Mitchell C, Bauknecht D, Connor PM (2006) Effectiveness through risk reduction: a comparison of the renewable obligation in England and wales and the feed-in system in Germany. Energy Policy 34(3): 297–305
REN21 (2012) Renewables Global Status Report: 2012 Update. REN21 Secretariat, Paris
Smith MG, Urpelainen J (2013) Why has public R &D on alternatives to fossil fuels decreased in industrialized countries? Environ Sci Policy 25:127–137
Söderholm P, Klaassen G (2007) Wind power in Europe: a simultaneous innovation–diffusion model. Environ Resour Econ 36(2):163–190
Söderholm P, Sundqvist T (2007) Empirical challenges in the use of learning curves for assessing the economic prospects of renewable energy technologies. Renew Energy 32(15):2559–2578
Stavins RN (1998) What can we learn from the grand policy experiment? Lessons from SO2 allowance trading. J Econ Perspect 12(3):69–88
Stock JH, Wright JH, Yogo M (2002) A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. J Bus Econ Stat 20(4):518–529
Stock JH, Yogo M (2005) Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In: Donald WKA, Stock JH (eds) Identification and inference for econometric models–essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg, vol 5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 80–108
Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge
We thank Nick Johnstone for sharing data on feed-in tariffs. We are grateful to Patrick Bayer, Matthew Kotchen, the anonymous reviewers, and the associate editor of Environmental and Resource Economics, David Popp, for useful comments
In order to address the potential that the use of a spatial instrument introduces correlation between the errors of adjacent countries, we also estimated a series of models using standard errors that are robust to heteroskedasticity and are clustered by year and region. We categorize the countries in the data in to six regions following the United Nations: North America, Northern Europe, Western Europe, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Oceania, and Eastern Asia. See http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm for a full list of the countries in these regions. In order to estimate a variance-covariance matrix using clustered standard errors, however, the majority of exogenous regressors must be partialled out. By the Frisch–Waugh–Lovell theorem (Frisch and Waugh 1933; Lovell 2008), the coefficients for the regressors that are not partialled out remain the same as they would be if the partialled out variables were included. The conformity of the produced coefficients to the equivalent models without clustered standard errors supports this assertion.
The models are shown in Tables 16 (the first-stage results) and 17 (the second stage results). Models 1 and 2 replicate models 1 and 2 in the main results (Tables 4, 5), and models 3 and 4 replicate models 4 and 5. The list of partialled-out variables is included in the table. Every model includes country and year fixed effects, though these are also partialled out.
The results found using clustered standard errors are very similar to those found previously. The only notable exception is that the coefficient on Adjacent Country Mean FIT is no longer statistically significant at the \(p < 0.05\) level in the first stage models; however, it remains significant at the \(p < 0.06\) level in the first two models. More importantly, the coefficient and standard errors for the instrument mean FIT in the second stage results is essentially identical to those reported in the main results. The fit of these models is somewhat questionable, as the adjusted R\(^2\) in the second stage results is negative, and the models fail to pass the over-identification test.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, M.G., Urpelainen, J. The Effect of Feed-in Tariffs on Renewable Electricity Generation: An Instrumental Variables Approach. Environ Resource Econ 57, 367–392 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9684-5
- Feed-in tariffs
- Renewable energy
- Energy policy
- Environmental economics
- Energy economics