Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Creating a sustainable U.S. electricity sector: the question of scale

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The U.S. electricity market, like electricity markets in most countries, is heavily dependent on fossil-fuel generation from centralized power applications. This paper reviews the factors that led to the sector’s reliance on fossil fuels and presents a future vision of the U.S. electricity sector based on a varied spectrum of sustainable energy resources ranging in scale from large, centralized facilities to small, localized energy systems. This spectrum includes low-emissions energy and energy efficiency, as well as macro-generation, micro-grids, distributed generation, micro-generation and end-user conservation. We discuss the evidence that each element of this spectrum is a viable and proven technology, the balanced integration of which could shape an electricity sector that adheres to sustainability principles. This paper concludes with a discussion of the institutional barriers that need to be addressed to successfully achieve a transition toward a more future sustainable electricity sector based on the variations in scale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Consider, for example, the amount of research and development support over the past half-century that has gone toward fossil fuels and nuclear energy versus renewable energy or energy efficiency. While estimates of total research support vary, Nayak (2005) found that in the 50 years between 1948 and 1998, the U.S. devoted $66 billion to R&D for the nuclear industry (57% of the total); $26 billion to fossil fuels (23%); $12 billion to renewable energy (11%); and just $8 billion to energy efficiency (9%). A more recent study found that between 2002 and 2008, the U.S. devoted $72 billion in subsidies to fossil fuels, compared to $29 billion to renewables (Environmental Law Institute 2009; for additional estimates, see Sovacool 2007; Kammen and Pacca 2004; Koplow and Dernbach 2001).

  2. For a more thorough discussion of these historical dynamics, see Unruh (2000) and Carley (2010).

  3. It is important to note that these trends could also potentially lead to an increase in the deployment of either nuclear or carbon capture and storage for integrated gasification combined cycle coal plants.

  4. Energy projections, such as those made for the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook and discussed in the introduction, are developed primarily by extrapolating from past trends, based on the assumptions about changes in future conditions that might gradually cause trends to deviate in the future. Such projections tend to be inherently conservative, and often fail to take account of more radical changes that could lead to significantly different outcomes.

  5. Although he does not frame his argument in sustainability terms, Sovacool (2007, 2008) establishes a similar set of criteria—including technical feasibility, cost, negative externalities, reliability, and security—that he argues only three categories of energy resources are able to satisfy: renewable energy, energy efficiency, and distributed generation.

  6. It is important to note that one could raise issues with the sustainability of every energy resource, including all types of renewable energy, since each resource has some adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts.

  7. There are additional benefits to distributed generation that are not directly tied to sustainability as well. See Sovacool (2007), El-Khattam and Salama (2004), and Pepermans et al. (2005) for a more extensive discussion of DG benefits.

  8. For a review of various barriers and problems related to small-scale energy systems, refer to Abu-Sharkh et al. (2004), Budhraja (1999), and Pepermans et al. (2005).

  9. Transition management was first introduced in the Netherlands in 2001 in its Fourth National Environmental and Policy Plan as an approach to address persistent environmental problems rooted in institutional lock-in, including but not limited to energy problems (Kern and Smith 2008). For a more extensive discussion of the transition management literature as it relates to energy markets, see Voss et al. (2009), Meadowcroft (2009); Kern and Howlett (2009), and Rotmans and Kemp (2001).

References

  • Abulfotuh, F. (2007). Energy efficiency and renewable technologies: The way to sustainable energy future. Desalination, 209, 275–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abu-Sharkh, S., et al. (2004). Can microgrids make a major contribution to UK energy supply? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 10, 78–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, T. (2007). Distributed resources and re-regulated electricity markets. Electric Power Systems Research, 77, 1148–1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alanne, K., & Saari, A. (2006). Distributed energy generation and sustainable development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 10, 539–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayod-Rujula, A. A. (2009). Future development of the electricity systems with distributed generation. Energy, 34, 377–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, M. J., et al. (2010). Benchmarking air emissions of the 100 largest electric power producers in the United States. http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/benchmarking-air-emissions-2010/at_download/file.

  • Brown, M. H., & Sedano, R. P. (2004). Electricity transmission: A primer. National council on electric policy. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures. Online at www.raponline.org/docs/NCSL_Brown_ElectricityTransmissionPrimer_2004_06.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2012.

  • Budhraja, V. S. (1999). The future electricity business. The Electricity Journal, 12(9), 54–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley, S. (2009). Distributed generation: An empirical analysis of primary motivators. Energy Policy, 37(5), 1648–1659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley, S. (2010). Historical analysis of U.S. electricity markets: Reassessing carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 39(2), 720–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casten, T. R. (2010). Testimony presented to the North Carolina Legislative Commission on global climate change.

  • Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gillligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce U.S. carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(44), 18452–18456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edison Electric Institute. (2005). How does the energy policy act affect electric companies? http://www.eei.org/whatwedo/PublicPolicyAdvocacy/FedLegislation/Documents/implications_of_policy_act%20%28how%20does%29.pdf. Accessed February 9, 2012.

  • Eisenhauer, J., & Scheer, R. (2009). Opportunities to improve the efficiency of coal-fired powerplants. Workshop report, National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy.

  • Electric Policy Research Institute. (2007). The power to reduce CO 2 emissions: The full portfolio. Paper prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute 2007 Summer Seminar, Energy Technology Assessment Center.

  • El-Khattam, W., & Salama, M. M. A. (2004). Distributed generation technologies, definitions and benefits. Electric Power Systems Research, 71, 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, N. R., & Spurr, M. (1999). Combined heat and power: Capturing wasted energy. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

  • Environmental Law Institute. (2009). Estimating U.S. Government subsidies to energy sources: 2002–2008.

  • Flavin, C., & Lenssen, N. (1994). Reshaping the electric power industry. Energy Policy, 22(12), 1029–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L. S. (2009). The importance of marginal cost electricity pricing to the success of greenhouse gas reduction programs. SSRN working paper series.

  • Gardner, G., & Stern, P. (2002). Choosing the behaviors to change and the points to intervene. In G. Gardner & P. Stern (Eds.), Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, H. (2003). Energy revolution: Policies for a sustainable future. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatziargyriou, N., Asano, H., Iravani, R., & Marnay, C. (2007). Microgrids: And overview of ongoing research, development, and demonstration projects. IEEE Power & Energy Magazine.

  • Ilic, M., Black, J. W., & Prica, M. (2007). Distributed electric power systems of the future: Institutional and technological drivers for near-optimal performance. Electric Power Systems Research, 77(9), 1160–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). IPCC fourth assessment report: Climate change 2007.

  • International Energy Agency. (2011). World energy outlook 2011.

  • Kammen, D., & Pacca, S. (2004). Assessing the costs of electricity. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 29, 301–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. M. (2010). Displacing coal with generation from existing natural gas-fired power plants. Congressional Research Service Report No. R41027, January 19, 2010. http://opencrs.com/document/R41027/2010-01-19/download/1005/.

  • Karger, C. R., & Hennings, W. (2009). Sustainability evaluation of decentralized electricity generation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 583–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R., & Loorbach, D. (2006). Transition management: A reflexive governance approach. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 103–130). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern, F., & Howlett, M. (2009). Implementing transition management as policy reforms: A case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sciences, 42, 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kern, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in The Netherlands. Energy Policy, 36(11), 4093–4103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koplow, D., & Dernbach, D. (2001). Federal fossil fuel subsidies and greenhouse gas emissions: A case study of increasing transparency for fiscal policy. Annual Review of Energy and Environment, 26, 361–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasseter, R. (2004). Microgrid: A conceptual solution. PESC 2004. Online at http://eetd.lbl.gov/certs/pdf/mg-pesc04.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2011.

  • Li, X. (2005). Diversification and localization of energy systems for sustainable development and energy security. Energy Policy, 33, 2237–2243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovins, A. (1989). The Negawatt revolution: Solving the CO 2 problem. Keynote address at the Green Energy Conference, Montreal.

  • Lovins, A. B., Datta, E. K., Feiler, T., Rabago, K. R., Swisher, J. N., Lehmann, A., & Wicker, K. (2002). Small is profitable: The hidden economic benefits of making electric resources the right size. Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute.

  • Lovins, A. (2009). Reinventing fire. Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute. Online at http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Reinventing+Fire+Solutions+Journal+Fall+2009. Accessed July 1, 2011.

  • Lowe, L., & Sanzillo, T. (2011). White paper: Financial risks of investments in coal. http://asyousow.org/publications/2011/Coal_White_Paper_2011_AsYouSow.pdf.

  • Lutsey, N., & Sperling, D. (2008). America’s bottom-up climate change mitigation policy. Energy Policy, 36(2), 673–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madlener, R., & Stagl, S. (2005). Sustainability-guided promotion of renewable electricity generation. Ecological Economics, 53, 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marnay, C., & Bailey, O. C. (2004). The CERTS microgrid and the future of the macrogrid. Proceedings of the ACEEE 2004 summer study on energy efficiency in buildings, Asilomar, CA. LBNL-55281.

  • McKinsey & Company. (2007). Executive summary. Reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions: How much and at what cost? Online at http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Executive_Summary.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2010.

  • Meadowcroft, J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences, 42, 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences. (2008). Understanding and responding to climate change. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences. (2010). America’s climate choices. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayak, N. (2005). Redirecting America’s energy: The economic and consumer benefits of clean energy policy. Washington, DC: Public Interest Research Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pepermans, G., Driesen, J., Haeseldonckx, D., Belmans, R., & D’haeseleer, W. (2005). Distributed generation: definition, benefits, and issues. Energy Policy, 33, 787–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans, J., & Kemp, R. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. London: Blong & Briggs Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. (2010). U.S. Department of energy’s research & development activities on microgrid technologies. Vancouver 2010 symposium on microgrids.

  • Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34, 1491–1510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solar Energy Industries Association. (2010). US solar industry year in review 2009. Washington, DC.

  • Sovacool, B. K. (2007). Coal and nuclear technologies: Creating a false dichotomy for American energy policy. Policy Sciences, 40, 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, B. K. (2008). The problem with the “portfolio approach” in American energy policy. Policy Sciences, 41, 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12), 817–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh, G. C. (2002). Escaping carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 30(4), 317–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbina, I. (June 27, 2011). Behind veneer, doubt on future of natural gas. New York Times.

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration. (1996). The changing structure of the electric power industry—an update. Report No. DOE/EIA-0562(96).

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2010). Electric power annual 2010, Table 1.5. Capacity additions, retirements and changes by energy source, 2010. Online at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/pdf/table1.5.pdf. Accessed December 31, 2011.

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2011). Annual energy review 2010. Online at http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf. Accessed April 26, 2012.

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2012). Annual energy outlook 2012—early release. Online at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/. Accessed April 24, 2011.

  • Voss, J., Smith, A., & Grin, J. (2009). Designing long-term policy: Rethinking transition management. Policy Sciences, 42, 275–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. (2004). Co-provision in sustainable energy systems: The case of micro-generation. Energy Policy, 32(17), 1981–1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J., DeBenedictis, A., Ghanadan, R., Mahone, A., Moore, J., Morrow, W. R., et al. (2012). The technology path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: The pivotal role of electricity. Science, 335, 53–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeager, K., Gehl, S., Barker, B., & Knight, R. (1998). Roadmapping the technological future of energy. The Electricity Journal, 11(10), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, 1315 E. 10th St., Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Sanya Carley

  2. Department of Public Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#3435, Abernethy Hall, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA

    Richard N. Andrews

Authors
  1. Sanya Carley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard N. Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanya Carley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carley, S., Andrews, R.N. Creating a sustainable U.S. electricity sector: the question of scale. Policy Sci 45, 97–121 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9152-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9152-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation