IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v39y2011i7p4105-4114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effectiveness of Renewable Portfolio Standard banding and carve-outs in supporting high-cost types of renewable electricity

Author

Listed:
  • Buckman, Greg

Abstract

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs) are renewable electricity (RES-E) subsidy mechanisms in which governments mandate how much RES-E should be generated and markets determine the cost of the subsidy needed to generate the RES-E. Two modifications of the RPS that can help support high-cost types of RES-E are banding, where governments mandate higher multiples of RPS tradable certificates for high-cost types of RES-E, and carve-outs, where governments prescribe parts of a RPS target that can be met only by a particular type, or types, of RES-E. This paper analyses the design and generation performance of banding, as used in the UK, with some reference to Italy; and carve-outs, as used in the USA. To date, there is insufficient experience of either device to reach firm conclusions about their generation effectiveness. However, there is early, tentative evidence that banding is successful at supporting high-cost types of RES-E in the UK. Carve-outs are not being fully exploited in US states that use a RPS mechanism, and Italy is using banding in a fairly insignificant way. Though both devices have different design strengths and weaknesses, and either could be adapted to specific RPS markets, banding is probably the better device for supporting high-cost RES-E.

Suggested Citation

  • Buckman, Greg, 2011. "The effectiveness of Renewable Portfolio Standard banding and carve-outs in supporting high-cost types of renewable electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4105-4114, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:7:p:4105-4114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511002722
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin L. Weitzman, 1974. "Prices vs. Quantities," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 477-491.
    2. Foxon, T. J. & Gross, R. & Chase, A. & Howes, J. & Arnall, A. & Anderson, D., 2005. "UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(16), pages 2123-2137, November.
    3. Rader, Nancy A. & Norgaard, Richard B., 1996. "Efficiency and sustainability in restructured electricity markets: the renewables portfolio standard," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 37-49, July.
    4. Mitchell, C. & Bauknecht, D. & Connor, P.M., 2006. "Effectiveness through risk reduction: a comparison of the renewable obligation in England and Wales and the feed-in system in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 297-305, February.
    5. Agnolucci, Paolo, 2007. "The effect of financial constraints, technological progress and long-term contracts on tradable green certificates," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 3347-3359, June.
    6. Menanteau, Philippe & Finon, Dominique & Lamy, Marie-Laure, 2003. "Prices versus quantities: choosing policies for promoting the development of renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 799-812, June.
    7. D. Finon, 2006. "The Social Efficiency Of Instruments For The Promotion Of Renewable Energies In The Liberalised Power Industry," Post-Print hal-00716383, HAL.
    8. Johnston, Angus & Kavali, Amalia & Neuhoff, Karsten, 2008. "Take-or-pay contracts for renewables deployment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 2481-2503, July.
    9. Wang, Yan, 2006. "Renewable electricity in Sweden: an analysis of policy and regulations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1209-1220, July.
    10. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
    11. Dave Toke, 2005. "Are green electricity certificates the way forward for renewable energy? An evaluation of the United Kingdom’s Renewables Obligation in the context of international comparisons," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 23(3), pages 361-374, June.
    12. Kildegaard, Arne, 2008. "Green certificate markets, the risk of over-investment, and the role of long-term contracts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 3413-3421, September.
    13. Foxon, T.J. & Pearson, P.J.G., 2007. "Towards improved policy processes for promoting innovation in renewable electricity technologies in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1539-1550, March.
    14. Cameron Hepburn, 2006. "Regulation by Prices, Quantities, or Both: A Review of Instrument Choice," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 226-247, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhang, Wei & Yang, Jun & Sheng, Pengfei & Li, Xuesong & Wang, Xingwu, 2014. "Potential cooperation in renewable energy between China and the United States of America," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 403-409.
    2. Tilmann Rave & Ursula Triebswetter & Johann Wackerbauer, 2013. "Koordination von Innovations-, Energie- und Umweltpolitik," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 61, October.
    3. Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI), Berlin (ed.), 2013. "Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2013," Research, Innovation and Technological Performance in Germany: Report, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin, volume 127, number 2013, April.
    4. Schelly, Chelsea, 2014. "Implementing renewable energy portfolio standards: The good, the bad, and the ugly in a two state comparison," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 543-551.
    5. Abolhosseini, Shahrouz & Heshmati, Almas, 2014. "The main support mechanisms to finance renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 876-885.
    6. Novacheck, Joshua & Johnson, Jeremiah X., 2015. "The environmental and cost implications of solar energy preferences in Renewable Portfolio Standards," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 250-261.
    7. Gaul, Chip & Carley, Sanya, 2012. "Solar set asides and renewable electricity certificates: Early lessons from North Carolina's experience with its renewable portfolio standard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 460-469.
    8. Burns, John Edward & Kang, Jin-Su, 2012. "Comparative economic analysis of supporting policies for residential solar PV in the United States: Solar Renewable Energy Credit (SREC) potential," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 217-225.
    9. Wang, Tan & Gong, Yu & Jiang, Chuanwen, 2014. "A review on promoting share of renewable energy by green-trading mechanisms in power system," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 923-929.
    10. Kwon, Tae-hyeong, 2015. "Is the renewable portfolio standard an effective energy policy?: Early evidence from South Korea," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 46-51.
    11. Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation (EFI), Berlin (ed.), 2013. "Research, innovation and technological performance in Germany - EFI Report 2013," Research, Innovation and Technological Performance in Germany: Report, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin, volume 127, number 2013e, April.
    12. Aotian Song & Lin Lu & Zhizhao Liu & Man Sing Wong, 2016. "A Study of Incentive Policies for Building-Integrated Photovoltaic Technology in Hong Kong," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(8), pages 1-21, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:7:p:4105-4114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.