IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v57y2014i3p367-392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Feed-in Tariffs on Renewable Electricity Generation: An Instrumental Variables Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Smith
  • Johannes Urpelainen

Abstract

While carbon taxes and other market-based instruments are widely regarded as optimal for climate mitigation, political constraints have prevented governments from using them. Instead, narrower instruments, including the feed-in tariff (FIT) for renewable electricity generation, have become popular. However, their causal effect on renewable electricity generation remains subject to uncertainty. We use instrumental variables to estimate the causal effect of FITs on renewable electricity generation in 26 industrialized countries, 1979–2005. We find that increasing the FIT by one U.S. cent (2000 constant prices) per kilowatt hour increases the percentage change in renewable electricity’s share of the total by 0.11 % points. All else constant, if a country implemented for a decade the sample mean FIT of three U.S. cents, the national share of renewable electricity would increase by 3.3 % points, which is more than the sample mean. In addition to demonstrating that the FIT is an effective way to increase renewable electricity generation, our approach lays the foundation for future studies of the causal effects of renewable energy policies. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Smith & Johannes Urpelainen, 2014. "The Effect of Feed-in Tariffs on Renewable Electricity Generation: An Instrumental Variables Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(3), pages 367-392, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:57:y:2014:i:3:p:367-392
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-013-9684-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10640-013-9684-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-013-9684-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Burke, Paul J., 2010. "Income, resources, and electricity mix," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 616-626, May.
    2. Kalkuhl, Matthias & Edenhofer, Ottmar & Lessmann, Kai, 2012. "Learning or lock-in: Optimal technology policies to support mitigation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-23.
    3. Nick Johnstone & Ivan Haščič & David Popp, 2010. "Renewable Energy Policies and Technological Innovation: Evidence Based on Patent Counts," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 133-155, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Gene M. Grossman & Alan B. Krueger, 1995. "Economic Growth and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(2), pages 353-377.
    6. Stock, James H & Wright, Jonathan H & Yogo, Motohiro, 2002. "A Survey of Weak Instruments and Weak Identification in Generalized Method of Moments," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(4), pages 518-529, October.
    7. Patrik Söderholm & Ger Klaassen, 2007. "Wind Power in Europe: A Simultaneous Innovation–Diffusion Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(2), pages 163-190, February.
    8. Couture, Toby & Gagnon, Yves, 2010. "An analysis of feed-in tariff remuneration models: Implications for renewable energy investment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 955-965, February.
    9. Robert N. Stavins, 1998. "What Can We Learn from the Grand Policy Experiment? Lessons from SO2 Allowance Trading," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 69-88, Summer.
    10. Söderholm, Patrik & Sundqvist, Thomas, 2007. "Empirical challenges in the use of learning curves for assessing the economic prospects of renewable energy technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(15), pages 2559-2578.
    11. 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.
    12. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. He, Zhengxia & Cao, Changshuai & Kuai, Leyi & Zhou, Yanqing & Wang, Jianming, 2022. "Impact of policies on wind power innovation at different income levels: Regional differences in China based on dynamic panel estimation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    2. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/f6h8764enu2lskk9p544jc8op is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Lancker, Kira & Quaas, Martin F., 2019. "Increasing marginal costs and the efficiency of differentiated feed-in tariffs," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 104-118.
    4. Nicolli, Francesco & Vona, Francesco, 2019. "Energy market liberalization and renewable energy policies in OECD countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 853-867.
    5. Andrew Cheon & Johannes Urpelainen, 2013. "How do Competing Interest Groups Influence Environmental Policy? The Case of Renewable Electricity in Industrialized Democracies, 1989–2007," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(4), pages 874-897, December.
    6. Bongsuk Sung & Cui Wen, 2018. "Causal Dynamic Relationships between Political–Economic Factors and Export Performance in the Renewable Energy Technologies Market," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.
    7. del Río, Pablo & Bleda, Mercedes, 2012. "Comparing the innovation effects of support schemes for renewable electricity technologies: A function of innovation approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 272-282.
    8. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2023. "No evidence of counteracting policy effects on European solar power invention and diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    9. Darmani, Anna & Rickne, Annika & Hidalgo, Antonio & Arvidsson, Niklas, 2016. "When outcomes are the reflection of the analysis criteria: A review of the tradable green certificate assessments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 372-381.
    10. Romano, Antonio A. & Scandurra, Giuseppe & Carfora, Alfonso & Fodor, Mate, 2017. "Renewable investments: The impact of green policies in developing and developed countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P1), pages 738-747.
    11. Choi, Hyundo & Anadón, Laura Díaz, 2014. "The role of the complementary sector and its relationship with network formation and government policies in emerging sectors: The case of solar photovoltaics between 2001 and 2009," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 80-94.
    12. Escoffier, Margaux & Hache, Emmanuel & Mignon, Valérie & Paris, Anthony, 2021. "Determinants of solar photovoltaic deployment in the electricity mix: Do oil prices really matter?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    13. Lehmann, Paul & Gawel, Erik, 2013. "Why should support schemes for renewable electricity complement the EU emissions trading scheme?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 597-607.
    14. García-Álvarez, María Teresa & Cabeza-García, Laura & Soares, Isabel, 2017. "Analysis of the promotion of onshore wind energy in the EU: Feed-in tariff or renewable portfolio standard?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 256-264.
    15. 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.
    16. Sascha Samadi, 2016. "A Review of Factors Influencing the Cost Development of Electricity Generation Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-25, November.
    17. Popp, David & Newell, Richard G. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2010. "Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 873-937, Elsevier.
    18. Paul Lehmann & Patrik Söderholm, 2018. "Can Technology-Specific Deployment Policies Be Cost-Effective? The Case of Renewable Energy Support Schemes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 475-505, October.
    19. Grafström, Jonas & Lindman, Åsa, 2017. "Invention, innovation and diffusion in the European wind power sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 179-191.
    20. Bergek, Anna & Berggren, Christian, 2014. "The impact of environmental policy instruments on innovation: A review of energy and automotive industry studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 112-123.
    21. Gawel, Erik & Lehmann, Paul & Purkus, Alexandra & Söderholm, Patrik & Witte, Katherina, 2016. "The rationales for technology-specific renewable energy support: Conceptual arguments and their relevance for Germany," UFZ Discussion Papers 4/2016, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).

    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:kap:enreec:v:57:y:2014:i:3:p:367-392. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.