IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i3p728-d1332576.html

Adoption Model Choice Affects the Optimal Subsidy for Residential Solar

Author

Listed:
  • Tiruwork B. Tibebu

    (Department of Environmental Science, American University, Washington, DC 20016, USA)

  • Eric Hittinger

    (Department of Public Policy, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA)

  • Qing Miao

    (Department of Public Policy, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA)

  • Eric Williams

    (Golisano Institute for Sustainability, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA)

Abstract

Understanding the adoption patterns of clean energy is crucial for designing government subsidies that promote the use of these technologies. Existing work has examined a variety of adoption models to explain and predict how economic factors and other technology and demographic attributes influence adoption, helping to understand the cost-effectiveness of government policies. This study explores the impact of adoption modeling choices on optimal subsidy design within a single techno–economic framework for residential solar PV technology. We applied identical datasets to multiple adoption models and evaluated which model forms appear feasible and how using different choices affects policy decisions. We consider three existing functional forms for rooftop solar adoption: an error function, a mixed log-linear regression, and a logit demand function. The explanatory variables used are a combination of net present value (NPV), socio-demographic, and prior adoption. We compare how the choice of model form and explanatory variables affect optimal subsidy choices. Among the feasible model forms, there exist justified subsidies for residential solar, though the detailed schedule varies. Optimal subsidy schedules are highly dependent on the social cost of carbon and the learning rate. A learning rate of 10% and a social carbon cost of USD 50/ton suggest an optimal subsidy starting at USD 46/kW, while the initial subsidy is 10× higher (USD 540/kW) with a learning rate of 15% and social carbon cost of USD 70/ton. This work illustrates the importance of understanding the true drivers of adoption when developing clean energy policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Tiruwork B. Tibebu & Eric Hittinger & Qing Miao & Eric Williams, 2024. "Adoption Model Choice Affects the Optimal Subsidy for Residential Solar," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:3:p:728-:d:1332576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/3/728/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/3/728/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeon, Chanwoong & Lee, Jeongjin & Shin, Juneseuk, 2015. "Optimal subsidy estimation method using system dynamics and the real option model: Photovoltaic technology case," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 33-43.
    2. Williams, Eric & Carvalho, Rexon & Hittinger, Eric & Ronnenberg, Matthew, 2020. "Empirical development of parsimonious model for international diffusion of residential solar," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 570-577.
    3. John Bistline & Geoffrey Blanford & Maxwell Brown & Dallas Burtraw & Maya Domeshek & Jamil Farbes & Allen Fawcett & Anne Hamilton & Jesse Jenkins & Ryan Jones & Ben King & Hannah Kolus & John Larsen &, 2023. "Emissions and Energy Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act," Papers 2307.01443, arXiv.org.
    4. Newbery, David, 2018. "Evaluating the case for supporting renewable electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 684-696.
    5. Pizer, William A., 1999. "The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence of uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3-4), pages 255-287, August.
    6. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    7. Frances C. Moore & Delavane B. Diaz, 2015. "Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(2), pages 127-131, February.
    8. David Anthoff & Richard Tol, 2013. "Erratum to: The uncertainty about the social cost of carbon: A decomposition analysis using fund," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 413-413, November.
    9. Sergey Paltsev, 2017. "Energy scenarios: the value and limits of scenario analysis," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(4), July.
    10. Zhai, Pei & Williams, Eric D., 2012. "Analyzing consumer acceptance of photovoltaics (PV) using fuzzy logic model," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 350-357.
    11. Frank M. Bass, 1969. "A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 215-227, January.
    12. repec:aen:journl:2008v29-03-a07 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Maxime C. Cohen & Ruben Lobel & Georgia Perakis, 2016. "The Impact of Demand Uncertainty on Consumer Subsidies for Green Technology Adoption," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1235-1258, May.
    14. Tibebu, Tiruwork B. & Hittinger, Eric & Miao, Qing & Williams, Eric, 2022. "Roles of diffusion patterns, technological progress, and environmental benefits in determining optimal renewable subsidies in the US," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    15. Dong, Changgui & Sigrin, Benjamin & Brinkman, Gregory, 2017. "Forecasting residential solar photovoltaic deployment in California," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 251-265.
    16. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Mathai, Koshy, 2000. "Optimal CO2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced Technological Change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-38, January.
    17. Frances C. Moore & Delavane B. Diaz, 2015. "Erratum: Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(3), pages 280-280, March.
    18. Olaleye, Olaitan & Baker, Erin, 2015. "Large scale scenario analysis of future low carbon energy options," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 203-216.
    19. Hope, Chris W., 2011. "The social cost of CO₂ from the PAGE09 model," Economics Discussion Papers 2011-39, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    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. Kezia Saini & Priyam Nath Bhowmik & Himangshu Deka, 2026. "Predictive modeling of regional economic benefits from solar energy adoption: a multi-model regression and spatial analysis approach," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 1-25, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard S.J. Tol, 2021. "Estimates of the social cost of carbon have not changed over time," Working Paper Series 0821, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. Richard S. J. Tol, 2021. "Estimates of the social cost of carbon have increased over time," Papers 2105.03656, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    3. Richard S J Tol, 2018. "The Economic Impacts of Climate Change," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 4-25.
    4. Tibebu, Tiruwork B. & Hittinger, Eric & Miao, Qing & Williams, Eric, 2022. "Roles of diffusion patterns, technological progress, and environmental benefits in determining optimal renewable subsidies in the US," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    5. Tibebu, Tiruwork B. & Hittinger, Eric & Miao, Qing & Williams, Eric, 2021. "What is the optimal subsidy for residential solar?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    6. Valeria Costantini & Anil Markandya & Elena Paglialunga & Giorgia Sforna, 2018. "Impact and distribution of climatic damages: a methodological proposal with a dynamic CGE model applied to global climate negotiations," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 35(3), pages 809-843, December.
    7. Gillingham, Kenneth & Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2008. "Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2734-2753, November.
    8. J. Farmer & Cameron Hepburn & Penny Mealy & Alexander Teytelboym, 2015. "A Third Wave in the Economics of Climate Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(2), pages 329-357, October.
    9. Rong Wang & Juan Moreno-Cruz & Ken Caldeira, 2017. "Will the use of a carbon tax for revenue generation produce an incentive to continue carbon emissions?," Post-Print hal-03226925, HAL.
    10. Charlie Wilson & Céline Guivarch & Elmar Kriegler & Bas Ruijven & Detlef P. Vuuren & Volker Krey & Valeria Jana Schwanitz & Erica L. Thompson, 2021. "Evaluating process-based integrated assessment models of climate change mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-22, May.
    11. Gilbert Kollenbach, 2019. "Unilateral climate policy and the green paradox: Extraction costs matter," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 1036-1083, August.
    12. Kollenbach, Gilbert, 2017. "On the optimal accumulation of renewable energy generation capacity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 157-179.
    13. Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2004. "Cost-effective environmental policy: implications of induced technological change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 1099-1121, November.
    14. Hongbo Duan & Gupeng Zhang & Shouyang Wang & Ying Fan, 2018. "Balancing China’s climate damage risk against emission control costs," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 387-403, March.
    15. Luca Gerotto & Paolo Pellizzari, 2021. "A replication of Pindyck’s willingness to pay: on the efforts required to obtain results," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(5), pages 1-25, May.
    16. Fremstad, Anders & Paul, Mark, 2022. "Neoliberalism and climate change: How the free-market myth has prevented climate action," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    17. Rongrong Xu & Yongxiang Wu & Ming Chen & Xuan Zhang & Wei Wu & Long Tan & Gaoxu Wang & Yi Xu & Bing Yan & Yuedong Xia, 2019. "Calculation of the contribution rate of China’s hydraulic science and technology based on a feedforward neural network," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-22, September.
    18. Tobias Kranz & Hamza Bennani & Matthias Neuenkirch, 2024. "Monetary Policy and Climate Change: Challenges and the Role of Major Central Banks," Research Papers in Economics 2024-01, University of Trier, Department of Economics.
    19. Gillingham, Kenneth & Nordhaus, William & Anthoff, David & Bosetti, Valentina & McJeon, Haewon & Blanford, Geoffrey & Christensen, Peter & Reilly, John & Sztorc, Paul, "undated". "Modeling Uncertainty in Climate Change: A Multi-Model Comparison," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 232219, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    20. Franziska Piontek & Matthias Kalkuhl & Elmar Kriegler & Anselm Schultes & Marian Leimbach & Ottmar Edenhofer & Nico Bauer, 2019. "Economic Growth Effects of Alternative Climate Change Impact Channels in Economic Modeling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1357-1385, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:3:p:728-:d:1332576. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.