Assessing the costs and benefits of US renewable portfolio standards

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) exist in 29 US states and the District of Columbia. This article summarizes the first national-level, integrated assessment of the future costs and benefits of existing RPS policies; the same metrics are evaluated under a second scenario in which widespread expans...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental research letters 2017-09, Vol.12 (9), p.94023
Hauptverfasser: Wiser, Ryan, Mai, Trieu, Millstein, Dev, Barbose, Galen, Bird, Lori, Heeter, Jenny, Keyser, David, Krishnan, Venkat, Macknick, Jordan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 9
container_start_page 94023
container_title Environmental research letters
container_volume 12
creator Wiser, Ryan
Mai, Trieu
Millstein, Dev
Barbose, Galen
Bird, Lori
Heeter, Jenny
Keyser, David
Krishnan, Venkat
Macknick, Jordan
description Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) exist in 29 US states and the District of Columbia. This article summarizes the first national-level, integrated assessment of the future costs and benefits of existing RPS policies; the same metrics are evaluated under a second scenario in which widespread expansion of these policies is assumed to occur. Depending on assumptions about renewable energy technology advancement and natural gas prices, existing RPS policies increase electric system costs by as much as $31 billion, on a present-value basis over 2015−2050. The expanded renewable deployment scenario yields incremental costs that range from $23 billion to $194 billion, depending on the assumptions employed. The monetized value of improved air quality and reduced climate damages exceed these costs. Using central assumptions, existing RPS policies yield $97 billion in air-pollution health benefits and $161 billion in climate damage reductions. Under the expanded RPS case, health benefits total $558 billion and climate benefits equal $599 billion. These scenarios also yield benefits in the form of reduced water use. RPS programs are not likely to represent the most cost effective path towards achieving air quality and climate benefits. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that US RPS programs are, on a national basis, cost effective when considering externalities.
doi_str_mv 10.1088/1748-9326/aa87bd
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2549158335</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_d4ddfb070e6f44899fc434000973ff97</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2549158335</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-8d2f6e4fa4ed0e29e135a1ac28e605e069f1c2503020f8c2c1220607d7e9fefc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kbtPHDEQh62ISIELfcpVKGhyYfzatUsEJCAhpQBqy2ePwafNerGNUP77-NiIUCTNvPTNT_Mg5BOFrxSUOqGDUGvNWX9irRo2_h3Zfy3tvYk_kINStgBSyEHtk_PTUrCUON139QE7l0otnZ18t8EJQ2xJCt3dTZdb-mw3I3ZzyjWkMaau1Aba7MtH8j7YseDhH78id98ubs8u19c_vl-dnV6vnWSqrpVnoUcRrEAPyDRSLi21jinsQSL0OlDHJHBgEJRjjjIGPQx-QB0wOL4iV4uuT3Zr5hx_2vzLJBvNSyHle2NzjW5E44X3YQMDYB-EUFoHJ7gAAD3wEJpZkc-LVts4muJiRffg0jShq4ZyLXrFG3S0QHNOj09Yqtmmpzy1HQ2TQlPZGNkoWCiXUykZw-toFMzuOWZ3fbO7vlme01qOl5aY5r-amEdDmdEGtADGzexDI7_8g_yv8G8KA5xk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2549158335</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessing the costs and benefits of US renewable portfolio standards</title><source>IOP Publishing Free Content</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>IOPscience extra</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Wiser, Ryan ; Mai, Trieu ; Millstein, Dev ; Barbose, Galen ; Bird, Lori ; Heeter, Jenny ; Keyser, David ; Krishnan, Venkat ; Macknick, Jordan</creator><creatorcontrib>Wiser, Ryan ; Mai, Trieu ; Millstein, Dev ; Barbose, Galen ; Bird, Lori ; Heeter, Jenny ; Keyser, David ; Krishnan, Venkat ; Macknick, Jordan ; National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States) ; Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)</creatorcontrib><description>Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) exist in 29 US states and the District of Columbia. This article summarizes the first national-level, integrated assessment of the future costs and benefits of existing RPS policies; the same metrics are evaluated under a second scenario in which widespread expansion of these policies is assumed to occur. Depending on assumptions about renewable energy technology advancement and natural gas prices, existing RPS policies increase electric system costs by as much as $31 billion, on a present-value basis over 2015−2050. The expanded renewable deployment scenario yields incremental costs that range from $23 billion to $194 billion, depending on the assumptions employed. The monetized value of improved air quality and reduced climate damages exceed these costs. Using central assumptions, existing RPS policies yield $97 billion in air-pollution health benefits and $161 billion in climate damage reductions. Under the expanded RPS case, health benefits total $558 billion and climate benefits equal $599 billion. These scenarios also yield benefits in the form of reduced water use. RPS programs are not likely to represent the most cost effective path towards achieving air quality and climate benefits. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that US RPS programs are, on a national basis, cost effective when considering externalities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1748-9326</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1748-9326</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa87bd</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ERLNAL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bristol: IOP Publishing</publisher><subject>Air pollution ; Air quality ; assessment ; Cost assessments ; Costs ; Damage ; ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY ; Energy technology ; Natural gas ; Natural gas prices ; renewable energy ; Renewable energy technologies ; renewable portfolio standards ; solar power ; Water use ; wind power</subject><ispartof>Environmental research letters, 2017-09, Vol.12 (9), p.94023</ispartof><rights>2017 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd</rights><rights>2017. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-8d2f6e4fa4ed0e29e135a1ac28e605e069f1c2503020f8c2c1220607d7e9fefc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-8d2f6e4fa4ed0e29e135a1ac28e605e069f1c2503020f8c2c1220607d7e9fefc3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8091-0535 ; 0000000280910535</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa87bd/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Giop$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,860,881,2096,27901,27902,38845,38867,53815,53842</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/1394683$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wiser, Ryan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mai, Trieu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Millstein, Dev</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbose, Galen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bird, Lori</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heeter, Jenny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keyser, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krishnan, Venkat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macknick, Jordan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)</creatorcontrib><title>Assessing the costs and benefits of US renewable portfolio standards</title><title>Environmental research letters</title><addtitle>ERL</addtitle><addtitle>Environ. Res. Lett</addtitle><description>Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) exist in 29 US states and the District of Columbia. This article summarizes the first national-level, integrated assessment of the future costs and benefits of existing RPS policies; the same metrics are evaluated under a second scenario in which widespread expansion of these policies is assumed to occur. Depending on assumptions about renewable energy technology advancement and natural gas prices, existing RPS policies increase electric system costs by as much as $31 billion, on a present-value basis over 2015−2050. The expanded renewable deployment scenario yields incremental costs that range from $23 billion to $194 billion, depending on the assumptions employed. The monetized value of improved air quality and reduced climate damages exceed these costs. Using central assumptions, existing RPS policies yield $97 billion in air-pollution health benefits and $161 billion in climate damage reductions. Under the expanded RPS case, health benefits total $558 billion and climate benefits equal $599 billion. These scenarios also yield benefits in the form of reduced water use. RPS programs are not likely to represent the most cost effective path towards achieving air quality and climate benefits. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that US RPS programs are, on a national basis, cost effective when considering externalities.</description><subject>Air pollution</subject><subject>Air quality</subject><subject>assessment</subject><subject>Cost assessments</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Damage</subject><subject>ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY</subject><subject>Energy technology</subject><subject>Natural gas</subject><subject>Natural gas prices</subject><subject>renewable energy</subject><subject>Renewable energy technologies</subject><subject>renewable portfolio standards</subject><subject>solar power</subject><subject>Water use</subject><subject>wind power</subject><issn>1748-9326</issn><issn>1748-9326</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>O3W</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kbtPHDEQh62ISIELfcpVKGhyYfzatUsEJCAhpQBqy2ePwafNerGNUP77-NiIUCTNvPTNT_Mg5BOFrxSUOqGDUGvNWX9irRo2_h3Zfy3tvYk_kINStgBSyEHtk_PTUrCUON139QE7l0otnZ18t8EJQ2xJCt3dTZdb-mw3I3ZzyjWkMaau1Aba7MtH8j7YseDhH78id98ubs8u19c_vl-dnV6vnWSqrpVnoUcRrEAPyDRSLi21jinsQSL0OlDHJHBgEJRjjjIGPQx-QB0wOL4iV4uuT3Zr5hx_2vzLJBvNSyHle2NzjW5E44X3YQMDYB-EUFoHJ7gAAD3wEJpZkc-LVts4muJiRffg0jShq4ZyLXrFG3S0QHNOj09Yqtmmpzy1HQ2TQlPZGNkoWCiXUykZw-toFMzuOWZ3fbO7vlme01qOl5aY5r-amEdDmdEGtADGzexDI7_8g_yv8G8KA5xk</recordid><startdate>20170901</startdate><enddate>20170901</enddate><creator>Wiser, Ryan</creator><creator>Mai, Trieu</creator><creator>Millstein, Dev</creator><creator>Barbose, Galen</creator><creator>Bird, Lori</creator><creator>Heeter, Jenny</creator><creator>Keyser, David</creator><creator>Krishnan, Venkat</creator><creator>Macknick, Jordan</creator><general>IOP Publishing</general><scope>O3W</scope><scope>TSCCA</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8091-0535</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000280910535</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170901</creationdate><title>Assessing the costs and benefits of US renewable portfolio standards</title><author>Wiser, Ryan ; Mai, Trieu ; Millstein, Dev ; Barbose, Galen ; Bird, Lori ; Heeter, Jenny ; Keyser, David ; Krishnan, Venkat ; Macknick, Jordan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-8d2f6e4fa4ed0e29e135a1ac28e605e069f1c2503020f8c2c1220607d7e9fefc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Air pollution</topic><topic>Air quality</topic><topic>assessment</topic><topic>Cost assessments</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Damage</topic><topic>ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY</topic><topic>Energy technology</topic><topic>Natural gas</topic><topic>Natural gas prices</topic><topic>renewable energy</topic><topic>Renewable energy technologies</topic><topic>renewable portfolio standards</topic><topic>solar power</topic><topic>Water use</topic><topic>wind power</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wiser, Ryan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mai, Trieu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Millstein, Dev</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbose, Galen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bird, Lori</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heeter, Jenny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keyser, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krishnan, Venkat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macknick, Jordan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)</creatorcontrib><collection>IOP Publishing Free Content</collection><collection>IOPscience (Open Access)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Environmental research letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wiser, Ryan</au><au>Mai, Trieu</au><au>Millstein, Dev</au><au>Barbose, Galen</au><au>Bird, Lori</au><au>Heeter, Jenny</au><au>Keyser, David</au><au>Krishnan, Venkat</au><au>Macknick, Jordan</au><aucorp>National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)</aucorp><aucorp>Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessing the costs and benefits of US renewable portfolio standards</atitle><jtitle>Environmental research letters</jtitle><stitle>ERL</stitle><addtitle>Environ. Res. Lett</addtitle><date>2017-09-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>94023</spage><pages>94023-</pages><issn>1748-9326</issn><eissn>1748-9326</eissn><coden>ERLNAL</coden><abstract>Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) exist in 29 US states and the District of Columbia. This article summarizes the first national-level, integrated assessment of the future costs and benefits of existing RPS policies; the same metrics are evaluated under a second scenario in which widespread expansion of these policies is assumed to occur. Depending on assumptions about renewable energy technology advancement and natural gas prices, existing RPS policies increase electric system costs by as much as $31 billion, on a present-value basis over 2015−2050. The expanded renewable deployment scenario yields incremental costs that range from $23 billion to $194 billion, depending on the assumptions employed. The monetized value of improved air quality and reduced climate damages exceed these costs. Using central assumptions, existing RPS policies yield $97 billion in air-pollution health benefits and $161 billion in climate damage reductions. Under the expanded RPS case, health benefits total $558 billion and climate benefits equal $599 billion. These scenarios also yield benefits in the form of reduced water use. RPS programs are not likely to represent the most cost effective path towards achieving air quality and climate benefits. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that US RPS programs are, on a national basis, cost effective when considering externalities.</abstract><cop>Bristol</cop><pub>IOP Publishing</pub><doi>10.1088/1748-9326/aa87bd</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8091-0535</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000280910535</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1748-9326
ispartof Environmental research letters, 2017-09, Vol.12 (9), p.94023
issn 1748-9326
1748-9326
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2549158335
source IOP Publishing Free Content; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; IOPscience extra; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Air pollution
Air quality
assessment
Cost assessments
Costs
Damage
ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY
Energy technology
Natural gas
Natural gas prices
renewable energy
Renewable energy technologies
renewable portfolio standards
solar power
Water use
wind power
title Assessing the costs and benefits of US renewable portfolio standards
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T08%3A51%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessing%20the%20costs%20and%20benefits%20of%20US%20renewable%20portfolio%20standards&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20research%20letters&rft.au=Wiser,%20Ryan&rft.aucorp=National%20Renewable%20Energy%20Lab.%20(NREL),%20Golden,%20CO%20(United%20States)&rft.date=2017-09-01&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=94023&rft.pages=94023-&rft.issn=1748-9326&rft.eissn=1748-9326&rft.coden=ERLNAL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1088/1748-9326/aa87bd&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2549158335%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2549158335&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_d4ddfb070e6f44899fc434000973ff97&rfr_iscdi=true