Skip to main content

Revisiting renewable portfolio standard effectiveness: policy design and outcome specification matter

Policy Sciences volume 46, pages 277–310 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) differ widely across US states. Prior research findings on the effectiveness of these policies to stimulate renewable electricity deployment are equally wide ranging. This study investigates patterns of RPS policy design and analyzes the effects on policy outcomes measured at the level of utility compliance. Measuring organizational outcomes of RPS corrects for the first time the challenges of prior research focused on state-level renewable capacity or generation outcomes. The quantitative analysis also takes into account the complexity of RPS design, by making use of a state-by-state database of RPS design characteristics developed for this study. Patterns of RPS design across states are compared, including the compliance schedule, scope, eligibility of resources, quotas and subsidies, renewable energy credit provisions, as well as enforcement and penalties. Together, the map of state RPS design and the new approach to RPS outcome analysis illuminate the diversity of RPS policy practice across the United States. They suggest the need to both account for the variety of design characteristics and accurately specify the policy outcomes in evaluations of these policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. For example, California produces close to 12 % of its electricity from renewable energy (EIA 2009), making it one of the cleanest states in the country. In reality, CA imports about 18 % of the electricity consumed in the state (Jiusto 2006), and much of this power stems from fossil fuel plants.

  2. Due to the large number of state RPS, a graphic depiction of individual compliance schedules is difficult. A state-by-state listing of RPS schedules (ultimate year and goal) and the average annual percentage point increase is included in the final summary Fig. 3.

  3. This goal only applies to Minnesota’s largest utility, selling two thirds of the state’s electricity.

  4. Although Texas has a capacity goal, compliance is based on renewable energy credits (MWh). Regulators calculate the required credits using a capacity factor.

  5. Arguably, these elements make the standard more flexible, but with regard to the primary policy outcome investigated in this study, their chief impact is on goal stringency.

  6. 2007 is the first year in which more than half of all RPS states have a goal.

  7. Ratings were available for ten out of twelve states (not Hawaii and DC).

  8. Shrimali and Kniefel (2011) find an effect of capacity requirements, but not of generation requirements.

References

  • Apt, J., Lave, L. B., & Pattanariyankool, S. (2008). A national renewable portfolio standard? Not practical. Issues in Science & Technology, 25 (1), 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D. (2002). The market for tradable renewable energy credits. Ecological Economics, 42(3), 369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D., & Jaccard, M. (2002). The renewable portfolio standard: Design considerations and an implementation survey. Energy Policy, 29, 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, L., Hurlbut, D., Donohoo, P., Cory, K., & Kreycik, C. (2009). An examination of the regional supply and demand balance for renewable electricity in the United States through 2015. Report NREL/TP-6A2-45041, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.

  • Blyth, W., Bradley, R., Bunn, D., Clarke, C., Wilson, T., & Yang, M. (2007) Investment risks under uncertain climate change policy. Energy Policy, 35(11), 5766–5773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehmke, F. J., & Skinner, P. (2012). State policy innovativeness revisited. State Politics & Policy Quarterly (forthcoming).

  • Bohn, C., & Lant, C. (2009). Welcoming the wind? Determinants of wind power development among US states. The Professional Geographer, 61(1), 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • del Brío, J. A., Fernández, E., & Junquera, B. (2002). The role of the public administrations in the promotion of the environmental activity in Spanish industrial companies. Ecological Economics, 40(2), 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunekreeft, G., & McDaniel, T. (2005). Policy uncertainty and supply adequacy in electric power markets. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 21(1), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D. (1997). Introduction to the policy sciences. Policy Sciences, 30(4), 191–215. doi:10.1023/A:1004240107843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckman, G. (2011). The effectiveness of renewable portfolio standard banding and carve-outs in supporting high-cost types of renewable electricity. Energy Policy, 39(7), 4105–4114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunker, D. (1972). Policy sciences perspectives on the implementation process. Policy Sciences, 3, 71–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burtraw, D. (1995). Efficiency sans allowance trades? Evaluating the SO2 emission trading program to date. Discussion paper no. 95-30, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.

  • Bushnell, J., & Peterman, C. C. W. (2008). Local solutions to global problems: Climate change policies and regulatory jurisdiction. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2, 174–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, A. J. (2003). Reputation and the control of pollution. Ecological Economics, 47(2/3), 197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley, S. (2009). State renewable energy electricity policies: An empirical evaluation of effectiveness. Energy Policy, 37. 3071–3081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley, S. (2011). The era of state energy policy innovation: A review of policy instruments. Review of Policy Research, 28(3), 265–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CESA. (2012). Designing the right RPS. A guide to selecting goals and program options for a renewable portfolio standard. Report, Clean Energy States Alliance. Prepared by Warren Leon for the State-Federal RPS collaborative and the National Association of Utility Commissioners.

  • Chen, C., Wiser, R., Mills, A., & Bolinger, M. (2009). Weighing the costs and benefits of state renewables portfolio standards in the United States: A comparative analysis of state-level policy impact projections. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(3), 552–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, C. (2008). A national renewable portfolio standard: Politically correct or just plain correct? Electricity Journal, 21(5), 9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cory, K., Couture, T., Kreycik, C. (2009). Feed-in tariff policy: Design, implementation, and RPS policy interactions. Report NREL/TP-6A2-45549, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.

  • Cory, K. S., & Swezey, B. G. (2007). Renewable portfolio standards in the states: Balancing goals and rules. Electricity Journal, 20(4), 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello, K. (2005). Regulatory discretion in implementing renewable portfolio standards: The case of Hawaii. Electricity Journal, 18(5), 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crandall, K. (2010). Trust and the green consumer: The fight for accountability in renewable energy credits. Colorado Law Review, 81, 895–958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, L. L. (2012). State renewable portfolio standards: Is there a “race” and is it “to the top”? San Diego Journal of Climate & Energy Law, 3(1), 3–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A. , & Montes-Sancho, M. J. (2011). U.S. state policies for renewable energy: Context and effectiveness. Energy Policy, 39(5):2273–2288. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobesova, K., Apt, J., & Lave, L. B. (2005). Are renewables portfolio standards cost-effective emission abatement policy? Environmental Science & Technology, 39(22), 8578–8583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doris, E., McLaren, J., Healey, V., & Hockett, S. (2009). State of the states 2009: Renewable energy development and the role of policy. Report NREL/TP-6A2-46667, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.

  • EIA. (1998). Electric trade in the United States 1996. Report DOE/EIA-0531(96), Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

  • EIA. (2009). State renewable electricity profiles 2007. Report, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

  • EIA. (2011). Electric power monthly. Periodical, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

  • Espey, S. (2001). Renewables portfolio standard: A means for trade with electricity from renewable energy sources? Energy Policy, 29(7), 557–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, C. (2010). Renewable portfolio standards: When do they lower energy prices? Energy Journal, 31(1), 101–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischlein, M., Smith, T. M., & Wilson, E. J. (2009). Carbon emissions and management scenarios for consumer-owned utilities. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 778–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischlein, M., Larson, J., Hall, D., Chaudhry, R., Stephens, J. C., Wilson, E. J.,et al. (2010). Policy stakeholders and deployment of wind power in the sub-national context: A comparison of four U.S. states. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4429–4439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fremeth, A. J. (2009). The dynamic relationship between firm capabilities, regulatory policy, and environmental performance: Renewable energy policy and investment in the U.S. electric utility sector. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota.

  • Friedlander, S. C., & Sawyer, S. W. (1983). Innovation traditions, energy conditions, and state energy policy adoption. Policy Sciences, 15, 307–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuss, S., Johansson, D. J. A., Szolgayova, J., & Obersteiner, M. (2009). Impact of climate policy uncertainty on the adoption of electricity generating technologies. Energy Policy, 37(2), 733–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaul, C., & Carley, S. (2012). Solar set asides and renewable energy certificates: Early lessons from North Carolina’s experience with its renewable portfolio standard. Energy Policy, 48, 460–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillenwater, M. (2008a). Redefining RECs—part 1: Untangling attributes and offsets. Energy Policy, 36(6), 2109–2119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillenwater, M. (2008b). Redefining RECs—part 2: Untangling certificates and emission markets. Energy Policy, 36(6), 2120–2129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, I., & Thakar, N. (2010). A survey of state renewable portfolio standards: Square pegs for round climate change holes? William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 35, 183–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden, K. S. (2003). Senate bill 1078: The renewable portfolio standard—California asserts its renewable energy leadership. Ecology Law Quarterly, 30(3), 693–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, W., & Scholz, J. (1993). Does regulatory enforcement work—A panel analysis of OSHA enforcement. Law & Society Review, 27, 177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, S. (2006). The impact of California’s global warming legislation on the electric utility industry. Electricity Journal, 19(9), 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. (2001). From heresy to dogma: An institutional history of corporate environmentalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, E., Wiser, R., & Bolinger, M. (2006). Who owns renewable energy certificates? An exploration of policy options and practice. Report LBNL-59965, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.

  • Holt, E. A., & Wiser, R. H. (2007). The treatment of renewable energy certificates, emissions allowances, and green power programs in state renewables portfolio standards. Report, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.

  • Hopper, N., Barbose, G., Goldman, C., & Schlegel, J. (2008). Energy efficiency as a preferred resource: Evidence from utility resource plans in the western united states and canada. Report LBNL-1023E, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.

  • Horiuchi, C. (2007). One policy makes no difference? Administrative Theory & Praxis, 29(3), 432–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M. Y., Alavalapati, J. R., Carter, D. R., Langholtz, M. H. (2007). Is the choice of renewable portfolio standards random? Energy Policy, 35, 5571–5575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huitema, D., Jordan, A., Massey, E., Rayner, T., van Asselt, H., Haug, et al. (2011). The evaluation of climate policy: Theory and emerging practice in europe. Policy Sciences, 44, 179–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbut, D. (2008). A look behind the Texas renewable portfolio standard: A case study. Natural Resources Journal, 48(1), 129–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., Palmer, K. (1997). Environmental regulation and innovation: A panel data study. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(4), 610–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiusto, S. (2006). The differences that methods make: Cross-border power flows and accounting for carbon emissions from electricity use. Energy Policy, 34(17), 2915–2928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpoff, J. M., Lott, J. R., & Wherly, E. W. (2005). The reputational penalties for environmental violations: Empirical evidence. Journal of Law and Economics, 48(2), 653–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeler, A. G. (2007). State greenhouse gas reduction polices: A move in the right direction. Policy Sciences, 40:353–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koski, C. (2007). Examining state environmental regulatory policy design. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 50(4), 483–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosloff, L. H., Trexler, M. C., & Nelson, H. (2004). Outcome oriented leadership: How state and local climate change strategies can most effectively contribute to global warming mitigation. Widener Law Journal, 14(1), 173–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krozer, Y., & Nentjes, A. (2008). Environmental policy and innovations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(4), 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J., & Li, W. (2005). Advanced linear statistical models (5th edn). New York: McGraw-Hill International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafrancois, B. (2009). Investment in intermittent renewables: Modeling optimal compliance under a renewable portfolio standard with varying penalty structures. Presented at 1000 islands energy research forum, October 23–25. Alexandria Bay, NY.

  • Langniss, O., & Wiser, R. (2003). The renewables portfolio standard in Texas: An early assessment. Energy Policy, 31(6), 527–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J. O., & Mody, A. (1996). Innovation and the international diffusion of environmentally responsive technology. Research Policy, 25, 549–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lokey, E. (2007). Valuing renewable energy in emerging U.S. carbon markets. The Electricity Journal, 20(6), 46–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majumdar, S. K., Marcus, A. A. (2001). Rules versus discretion: The productivity consequences of flexible regulation. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 170–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Managi, S., Opaluch, J. J., Di, J., & Grigalunas, T. A. (2005). Environmental regulations and technological change in the offshore oil and gas industry. Land Economics, 81(2), 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, A. (1981). Policy uncertainty and technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 443–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matisoff, D. C. (2008). The adoption of state climate change policies and renewable portfolio standards: Regional diffusion or internal determinants? Review of Policy Research, 25(6), 527–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, I., Hekkert, M., & Koppenjan, J. (2007). The influence of perceived uncertainty on entrepreneurial action in emerging renewable energy technology: Biomass gasification projects in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 35(11), 5836–5854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menz, F. C. (2005). Green electricity policies in the United States: Case study. Energy Policy, 33(18), 2398–2410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menz, F. C., & Vachon, S. (2006). The effectiveness of different policy regimes for promoting wind power: Experiences from the states. Energy Policy, 34(14), 1786–1796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, R. J. (2008). A national renewable portfolio standard: Politically correct, economically suspect. Electricity Journal, 21(3), 9–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milliman, S. R., & Prince, R. (1989). Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17(3), 247–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millock, K., & Sterner, T. (2004). No x emissions in France and Sweden. Advanced fee schemes versus regulation. In: W. Harrington, R. D. Morgenstern, & T. Sterner (Eds.) Choosing environmental policy. Comparing instruments and outcomes in the United States and Europe, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., pp. 117–132.

  • Nehrt, C. (1998). Maintainability of first mover advantages when environmental regulations differ between countries. Academy of Management Review, 23, 77–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • North Carolina Solar Center. (2009). Database of state incentives for renewable energy. Raleigh, NC. http://www.dsireusa.org/.

  • Osborne, J. (2002). Notes on the use of data transformations. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(6). (online edition).

  • Palmer, K., & Burtraw, D. (2005). Cost-effectiveness of renewable electricity policies. Energy Economics, 27(6), 873–894. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2005.09.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabe, B. G. (2004). North American federalism and climate change policy: American state and Canadian provincial policy development. Widener Law Journal, 14(1), 121–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratliff, N., & Smith, D. H. (2005). Renewable energy electricity state level policies in the WRAP region: What, why and maybe how. Energy Sources, 27(5), 431–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rechtschaffen, C. (1998). Deterrence vs. cooperation and the evolving theory of environmental enforcement. California Law Review, 71(6), 1181–1273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, K. R. (2000). Framing environmental policy instrument choice. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, 10(20), 221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rico, R. (1995). The U.S. allowance trading system for sulfur dioxide: An update on market experience. Energy and Resource Economics, 5(2), 115–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringquist, E. J. (1993). Does regulation matter? Evaluating the effects of state air pollution control programs. The Journal of Politics, 55(4), 1022–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger-Schluga, T. (2002). The stringency of environmental regulation and the “Porter Hypothesis”. Economy and Environment, 25, 123–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrimali, G., & Kniefel, J. (2011). Are government policies effective in promoting deployment of renewable electricity resources? Energy Policy, 39(9), 4726–4741. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995). Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, S. L. (2002). The effect of punishment on firm compliance with hazardous waste regulations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(2), 290–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockmayer, G., Finch, V., Komor, P., & Mignogna, R. (2011). Limiting the costs of renewable portfolio standards: A review and critique of current methods. Energy Policy, 42, 155–163. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarui, N., & Polasky, S. (2005). Environmental regulation with technology adoption, learning and strategic behavior. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50(3), 447–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M., Rubin, E., & Hounshell, D. (2005). Regulation as the mother of innovation: The case of SO2 control. Law & Policy, 27(2), 348–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, E. W., Mazur, A., & Bretschneider, S. (2000). Voluntary behavior by electric utilities: Levels of adoption and contribution of the climate challenge program to the reduction of carbon dioxide. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(3), 407–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheater, C. P., & Cook, P. A. (2000). Using statistics to understand the environment. London, New York: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, S. M. (2008). State and municipal climate change plans: The first generation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 481–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiser, R., & Barbose, G. (2008). Renewables portfolio standards in the United States—A status report with data through 2007. Report LBNL-154E, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.

  • Wiser, R., Porter, K., Bolinger, M., Raitt, H. (2005). Does it have to be this hard? Implementing the nation’s most complex renewables portfolio standard. Electricity Journal, 18(8), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiser, R., Namovicz, C., Gielecki, M., & Smith, R. (2007). The experience with renewable portfolio standards in the United States. The Electricity Journal, 20(4), 8–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiser, R., Barbose, G., & Holt, E. (2011). Supporting solar power in renewables portfolio standards: Experience from the United States. Energy Policy, 39(7), 3894–3905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong Kup, J., Gittleman, R. M., Hall, C. W., & Vanko, M. N. (2009). California’s renewables portfolio standard: Charting the course towards 33 % by 2020. Electricity Journal, 22(4), 79–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, M., Blyth, W., Bradley, R., Bunn, D., Clarke, C., & Wilson, T. (2008). Evaluating the power investment options with uncertainty in climate policy. Energy Economics, 30(4), 1933–1950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, H., & Powers, N. (2010). Do state renewable portfolio standards promote in-state renewable generation? Energy Policy, 38(2), 1140–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

    Miriam Fischlein

  2. Institute on the Environment/Bioproducts & Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA

    Timothy M. Smith

Authors
  1. Miriam Fischlein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy M. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miriam Fischlein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fischlein, M., Smith, T.M. Revisiting renewable portfolio standard effectiveness: policy design and outcome specification matter. Policy Sci 46, 277–310 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9175-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9175-0

Keywords

  • Renewable energy
  • Policy design
  • Policy evaluation