Air Quality RPS_benefits

Published on January 16th, 2016 | by Guest Contributor


Benefits of Renewable Portfolio Standards Outweigh Costs, Report Finds

January 16th, 2016 by  

Originally published on Sustainnovate.
By Henry Lindon

Report: Renewable Portfolio Standards Result In Significant Benefits, That Far Outweigh The Costs

The economic benefits of state renewable portfolio standards greatly outweigh the costs, according to a new report. There are now 29 US states that have adopted renewable portfolio standards targets, and they are benefiting as a result.

As it stands currently, state renewable portfolio standards are an important driver of renewable energy generation growth in the US — so the new findings are very worth taking note of, especially as the argument used by most critics of the standards is that the raise electricity costs.

The new report — A Retrospective Analysis of the Benefits and Impacts of US Renewable Portfolio Standards — stated that the economic benefits of renewable portfolio standards with regard to reduced greenhouse gas emissions averaged $2.2 billion, and the economic benefits accompanying the reduction of other air pollution averaged $5.2 billion, in 2013.

Greentech Media provides some more info:

These averages are taken from wider-range estimates of the value of mitigating the negative effects of climate change for GHG reductions, as well as reducing mortality from air pollution. These figures are much higher than the roughly $1 billion in annual compliance costs (that is, higher electricity prices) that have come about as a result of state RPS mandates between the years 2010 and 2013.

Those figures come from a previous study from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which also co-authored Wednesday’s report. The two reports use different methodologies, which makes a direct comparison difficult, said Ryan Wiser, LBNL analyst and report co-author, in an interview. Specifically, the previous study relied on state-by-state measures of RPS compliance costs, which vary widely in their sophistication and methods, while the new report used a common methodology across all 29 states (plus the District of Columbia) that have RPS mandates in place. Still, the new report does help provide an important counterweight to arguments that state RPS targets are driving up electricity costs to unacceptable levels, he said.

“Most people and most organizations that have come out in opposition to RPS programs have focused on the cost angle,” continued Wiser. “We did this work previously that compiled all these RPS state cost analyses, while recognizing that the states developed their RPS programs not to deliver short-term savings, but to deliver long-term benefits. This more recent work helps us understand what we are getting for these costs, and (whether) those benefits seem like they’re in excess of those costs.”

Drive an electric car? Complete one of our short surveys for our next electric car report.
Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: , ,

About the Author

is many, many people. We publish a number of guest posts from experts in a large variety of fields. This is our contributor account for those special people. :D

  • JamesWimberley

    The air pollution benefits to health came out at higher than the GHG ones. The former are local, it’s only the latter that benefit non-voting foreigners. So even if you place a value of 0 on the lives and health of foreigners, it’s still a big win to Americans.

    We need a similar study – it would have to be prospective – on the net costs of ev incentives, taking account of the very large air pollution gains.

    • Frank

      I believe that even if the numbers don’t work work out yet, it won’t be long till they do. I belive that if you want a product to get better, you need a market. Just like flat screens had a market with laptop/notebook computers, and eventually they took over from tubes. One more thing. I don’t want to fight for oil. If our economy can’t function without it, we might, but if we don’t need it, we might not.

Back to Top ↑