IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v86y2015icp250-261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The environmental and cost implications of solar energy preferences in Renewable Portfolio Standards

Author

Listed:
  • Novacheck, Joshua
  • Johnson, Jeremiah X.

Abstract

Many state-level Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) include preferences for solar generation, with goals of increasing the generation diversity, reducing solar costs, and encouraging local solar industries. Depending on their policy design, these preferences can impact the RPS program costs and emissions reduction. This study evaluates the impact of these policies on costs and emissions, coupling an economic dispatch model with optimized renewable site selection. Three policy designs of an increased RPS in Michigan are investigated: (1) 20% Solar Carve-Out, (2) 5% Distributed Generation Solar Carve-Out, and (3) 3× Solar Multiplier. The 20% Solar Carve-Out scenario was found to increase RPS costs 28%, while the 5% Distributed Generation Solar Carve-Out increased costs by 34%. Both of these solar preferences had minimal impact on total emissions. The 3× Solar Multiplier decreases total RPS program costs by 39%, but adds less than half of the total renewable generation of the other cases, significantly increasing emissions of CO2, NOx, and SO2 relative to an RPS without the solar credit multiplier. Sensitivity analysis of the installed cost of solar and the natural gas price finds small changes in the results of the Carve-Out cases, with a larger impact on the 3× Solar Multiplier.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:86:y:2015:i:c:p:250-261
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.06.039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515300069
    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. Johnson, Erik Paul, 2014. "The cost of carbon dioxide abatement from state renewable portfolio standards," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 332-350.
    2. 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.
    3. Considine, Timothy & Manderson, Edward, 2014. "The role of energy conservation and natural gas prices in the costs of achieving California's renewable energy goals," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 291-301.
    4. Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony & Woerman, Matt & Steinberg, Daniel C., 2011. "Federal policies for renewable electricity: Impacts and interactions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 3975-3991, July.
    5. Thomas P. Lyon & Haitao Yin, 2010. "Why Do States Adopt Renewable Portfolio Standards?: An Empirical Investigation," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 133-158.
    6. 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.
    7. Arbabzadeh, Maryam & Johnson, Jeremiah X. & De Kleine, Robert & Keoleian, Gregory A., 2015. "Vanadium redox flow batteries to reach greenhouse gas emissions targets in an off-grid configuration," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 397-408.
    8. Johnson, Jeremiah X. & De Kleine, Robert & Keoleian, Gregory A., 2014. "Assessment of energy storage for transmission-constrained wind," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 377-388.
    9. Wiser, Ryan & Barbose, Galen & Holt, Edward, 2011. "Supporting solar power in renewables portfolio standards: Experience from the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 3894-3905, July.
    10. Bird, Lori & Chapman, Caroline & Logan, Jeff & Sumner, Jenny & Short, Walter, 2011. "Evaluating renewable portfolio standards and carbon cap scenarios in the U.S. electric sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2573-2585, May.
    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. Mostafaeipour, Ali & Qolipour, Mojtaba & Mohammadi, Kasra, 2016. "Evaluation of installing photovoltaic plants using a hybrid approach for Khuzestan province, Iran," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 60-74.
    2. Novacheck, Joshua & Johnson, Jeremiah X., 2017. "Diversifying wind power in real power systems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 177-185.
    3. Sampaio, Priscila Gonçalves Vasconcelos & González, Mario Orestes Aguirre, 2017. "Photovoltaic solar energy: Conceptual framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 590-601.
    4. Barbose, Galen & Wiser, Ryan & Heeter, Jenny & Mai, Trieu & Bird, Lori & Bolinger, Mark & Carpenter, Alberta & Heath, Garvin & Keyser, David & Macknick, Jordan & Mills, Andrew & Millstein, Dev, 2016. "A retrospective analysis of benefits and impacts of U.S. renewable portfolio standards," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 645-660.
    5. Valdés Lucas, Javier Noel & Escribano Francés, Gonzalo & San Martín González, Enrique, 2016. "Energy security and renewable energy deployment in the EU: Liaisons Dangereuses or Virtuous Circle?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1032-1046.
    6. Shahsavari, Amir & Akbari, Morteza, 2018. "Potential of solar energy in developing countries for reducing energy-related emissions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 275-291.

    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:86:y:2015:i:c:p:250-261. 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.