The effectiveness of Renewable Portfolio Standard banding and carve-outs in supporting high-cost types of renewable electricity
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.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Martin L. Weitzman, 1974.
"Prices vs. Quantities,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 477-491.
- M. L. Weitzman, 1973. "Prices vs. Quantities," Working papers 106, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- 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.
- 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.
- D. Finon, 2006. "The Social Efficiency Of Instruments For The Promotion Of Renewable Energies In The Liberalised Power Industry," Post-Print hal-00716383, HAL.
- Johnston, Angus & Kavali, Amalia & Neuhoff, Karsten, 2008. "Take-or-pay contracts for renewables deployment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 2481-2503, July.
- Johnston, A. & Amalia, A. & Neuhoff, K., 2007. "Take-or-pay contracts for Renewables Deployment," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0723, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2004. "A Tale of Two Market Failures: Technology and Environmental Policy," Discussion Papers dp-04-38, Resources For the Future.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Wang, Yan, 2006. "Renewable electricity in Sweden: an analysis of policy and regulations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1209-1220, July. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)