Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

The challenge now: To make every day Earth Day.


  • Weekend Video: Bill Maher Talks Trump Havoc, Climate Havoc
  • Weekend Video: What NYC Faces From Climate Change
  • Weekend Video: Kids Design A New Energy City

  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-Climate Change Report – ‘Upheaval’ In ‘Uncharted Territory’
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-Oil Giants Buying In On EU Ocean Wind
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-Japanese Floating Solar Backed by Apple
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-Germany Upped EV Access 27% in 2016


  • TTTA Thursday-No Majority Anywhere Doubts Climate Change
  • TTTA Thursday-Making The Baby Decision As The Climate Changes
  • TTTA Thursday-Wind Delivers 54% Of Power To Midwest 11-State System
  • TTTA Thursday-A System To Better Use New Energy

  • ORIGINAL REPORTING: New Markets Opening Up To Distributed Resources
  • ORIGINAL REPORTING: Utilities Driving Record Solar Growth
  • ORIGINAL REPORTING: Hawaii’s Fight For 100% New Energy Goes On

  • TODAY’S STUDY: Battery Energy Storage Right Now
  • QUICK NEWS, March 21: Eight Things To Do About Climate Change; The Fight For New Energy Wires; The Best New Energy Battery

  • TODAY’S STUDY: Ways To Get To Zero Emissions
  • QUICK NEWS, March 20: $19 Trillion Benefit In Global Climate Fight; U.S. New Energy Now A $200Bil Biz; $10Bil EV Buy Planned By Band Of Cities
  • --------------------------


    Anne B. Butterfield of Daily Camera and Huffington Post, f is an occasional contributor to NewEnergyNews


    Some of Anne's contributions:

  • Another Tipping Point: US Coal Supply Decline So Real Even West Virginia Concurs (REPORT), November 26, 2013
  • SOLAR FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE ~ Xcel's Push to Undermine Rooftop Solar, September 20, 2013
  • NEW BILLS AND NEW BIRDS in Colorado's recent session, May 20, 2013
  • Lies, damned lies and politicians (October 8, 2012)
  • Colorado's Elegant Solution to Fracking (April 23, 2012)
  • Shale Gas: From Geologic Bubble to Economic Bubble (March 15, 2012)
  • Taken for granted no more (February 5, 2012)
  • The Republican clown car circus (January 6, 2012)
  • Twenty-Somethings of Colorado With Skin in the Game (November 22, 2011)
  • Occupy, Xcel, and the Mother of All Cliffs (October 31, 2011)
  • Boulder Can Own Its Power With Distributed Generation (June 7, 2011)
  • The Plunging Cost of Renewables and Boulder's Energy Future (April 19, 2011)
  • Paddling Down the River Denial (January 12, 2011)
  • The Fox (News) That Jumped the Shark (December 16, 2010)
  • Click here for an archive of Butterfield columns


    Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, Agua Dulce, CA., Doctor with my hands, Writer with my head, Student of New Energy and Human Experience with my heart




      A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.


    Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • TODAY AT NewEnergyNews, March 27:

  • TODAY’S STUDY: New Energy Today And Tomorrow
  • QUICK NEWS, March 27: Only PBS Is Covering Climate Change; The Job-Creating Engine That Is Wind Energy; U.S. Solar Should Follow China Solar -- Stanford

    Monday, January 11, 2016


    A Retrospective Analysis of the Benefits and Impacts of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards

    Ryan Wiser, Galen Barbose, et. al., January 2016 (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

    Executive Summary

    State renewable portfolio standards (RPS) currently exist in 29 states and Washington, D.C. Most of these policies, enacted largely during the late 1990s and 2000s, will reach their terminal targets within the next decade. As states consider extending, eliminating, or otherwise revising existing RPS programs, or developing new ones, increasing attention is being paid to the costs, benefits, and other impacts of these policies.

    A prior study (Heeter et al. 2014) and subsequent update (Barbose et al. 2015) in this report series found that RPS compliance costs over the 2010–2013 period were generally equivalent to less than 2% of average statewide retail electricity rates, but varied substantially, with the net cost to utilities and other load-serving entities ranging from -0.4 to 4.8¢ per kilowatt-hour of renewable electricity (kWh-RE). 1 In aggregate, total RPS compliance costs represented approximately $1 billion per year, on average, over the 2010–2013 period. The prior study also summarized RPS benefits studies published by individual state regulatory agencies; however, the small number of such studies, and their widely varying methods and scopes, ultimately limited any comparisons across states or generalization beyond the specific studies performed. This dearth of comparable analyses prompted the need for a broader evaluation of RPS program benefits and impacts, relying on a standardized methodology and scope.

    The present report follows directly from the preceding study, and is intended to provide the first nationallevel assessment of the potential benefits and impacts of state RPS programs, using an established and uniform set of methodologies and robust data sets. The analysis focuses specifically on “new” renewable electricity (RE) resources built after RPS enactment and used to meet RPS compliance obligations in 2013—the most recent year for which the necessary data were available. Based on data compiled from regulatory filings and other sources, 98 terawatt-hours (TWh) of new RE generation was used to meet RPS obligations in 2013, representing 2.4% of total U.S. electricity generation in that year. Over the course of 2013–2014, an average of roughly 5,600 megawatts (MW) per year of new RE capacity was built to service RPS requirements.2

    Using EPA’s Avoided Emissions and geneRation Tool (AVERT) model to estimate displaced fossil generation, we estimate that new RE used for RPS compliance in 2013 resulted in a 3.6% reduction in total fossil fuel generation. Based on outputs estimated with AVERT and several additional analysis tools, we evaluate potential societal benefits associated with reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, air pollution emissions, and water use. We also assess the impacts—describing below the distinction between “impacts” and “benefits”—of state RPS policies on gross jobs and economic development, wholesale electricity prices, and natural gas prices. These benefits and impacts are quantified in both physical and monetary terms where possible. We focus on the aggregate benefits and impacts of all state RPS compliance obligations, presenting results nationally and, where data and methods allow, by region and state; we do not, however, analyze the effects of individual state RPS programs.

    Based on the methods described in the full report, new RE resources used to meet RPS compliance obligations in 2013 yielded the following benefits (summarized also in Figure ES-1):

    • GHG Emissions and Climate Change Damage Reductions: Life-cycle GHG emissions were reduced by 59 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) in 2013, which translates into $2.2 billion of global benefits when applying a “central value” ($37/metric ton of CO2) for the social cost of carbon. These global benefits are equivalent to 2.2¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of new RE (kWh-RE) used to meet 2013 RPS compliance. Benefits estimates span $0.7 billion to $6.3 billion (0.7 to 6.4¢/kWh-RE) across the full range of social cost of carbon estimates considered.

    • Air Pollution Emissions and Human Health and Environmental Benefits: National emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) were reduced by 77,400, 43,900, and 4,800 metric tons in 2013, respectively. We estimate that these reductions—using a range of approaches—produced health and environmental benefits equal to $5.2 billion, on average. These benefits are equivalent to 5.3¢/kWh of new RE used for 2013 RPS compliance. Across the full range of approaches considered, health and environmental benefits span $2.6 billion to $9.9 billion (2.6 to 10.1¢/kWh-RE). The largest health benefits accrue to the eastern half of the country, especially in the Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, Northeast, and Texas.

    • Water Use Reduction: National water withdrawals and consumption in 2013 were reduced by 830 billion gallons and 27 billion gallons, respectively, equivalent to savings of 8,420 gallons of withdrawal and 270 gallons of consumption per megawatt-hour (MWh) of new RE used for 2013 RPS compliance.3 These reductions amount to 2% of both total 2013 power sector water withdrawals and consumption. Water use reductions vary seasonally and come predominantly from freshwater sources, with reductions varying regionally due to geographic differences in power plant fuel types and cooling system configurations. The largest withdrawal and consumption reductions were in California and Texas, respectively, demonstrating the benefits RPS policies can have in water-stressed regions.

    In addition to the set of societal benefits described above, we estimate three other impacts associated with new RE used to meet RPS compliance obligations in 2013. We distinguish these impacts from societal costs and benefits, because the direction of impact (positive or negative) varies by market participant. These impacts might thus best be considered resource transfers, and the present study does not assess their net, economy-wide effects. Given that context, we estimate that new RE resources used to meet RPS compliance obligations in 2013 produced the following impacts:

    • Gross Jobs and Economic Development: Renewable generation used to meet 2013 RPS compliance obligations, along with average annual RPS-related capacity additions in 2013 and 2014, supported nearly 200,000 U.S.-based gross jobs in 2013 and drove over $20 billion in gross domestic product (GDP), primarily based on NREL’s Jobs and Economic Development Impacts (JEDI) suite of models. More than 30,000 of these gross domestic jobs are related to ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M), while 170,000 gross jobs are related to construction activity. Solar photovoltaic (PV) installations account for the majority of construction jobs, while established wind plants account for the majority of O&M jobs. California had the most significant renewable capacity expansion and generation associated with RPS compliance obligations, and thus had more of the associated onsite RE jobs than any other state.

    • Wholesale Electricity Price Reductions: Renewable generation used to meet 2013 RPS compliance obligations potentially shifted the supply curve for electric power, reducing wholesale electricity prices and yielding an estimated $0.0 to $1.2 billion in savings to electricity consumers across the United States. These consumer savings are equivalent to 0.0 to 1.2¢/kWh of new RE used to meet 2013 RPS compliance. The wide range of estimates reflects bounding assumptions about how the effects of renewable generation on wholesale spot market prices decline over time and the extent to which consumers are exposed to those prices.

    • Natural Gas Price Reductions: Renewable generation used to meet 2013 RPS compliance obligations reduced natural gas demand by an estimated 0.42 quads (422 million MMBtu). This reduction lowered average natural gas prices by an estimated 5¢ to 14¢/MMBtu in 2013, resulting in consumer savings ranging from $1.3 billion to $3.7 billion. These consumer savings are equivalent to 1.3¢ to 3.7¢/kWh of new RE used to meet 2013 RPS compliance. The range in estimates reflects bounding assumptions about when RPS-induced reductions in natural gas demand begin to affect prices.

    Our analysis includes a number of limitations and caveats. First, it relies on a common set of standardized methods applied to all states, but individual states may have used or could use more-refined approaches, for example, more advanced modeling tools could be used to more precisely estimate wholesale market price suppression impacts. Second, while we use consistent methods and robust data sets, our assessments rely on models and methodologies that are sensitive to multiple parameters; accordingly, we qualify the study results where appropriate and highlight sources of uncertainty not explicitly quantified. Third, our work distinguishes between the potential benefits and impacts of RPS programs. As noted previously, impacts are best considered resource transfers, benefiting some stakeholders at a cost to others, though such impacts might still be relevant to evaluating state RPS programs. Fourth, our analysis considers an important subset of—but not all—potential benefits and impacts; for example, we do not quantify land use and wildlife impacts. Fifth, this analysis does not formally compare the benefits and impacts of RPS programs to their costs. Although prior analysis (Heeter et al. 2014) focused specifically on RPS compliance costs, additional research is ultimately needed to evaluate the full set of RPS costs on a consistent basis across states, and to appropriately compare costs to benefits. Sixth, we have not evaluated whether RPS policies are the least-cost approach to achieving the benefits and impacts assessed. Lastly, our analysis does not seek to attribute the estimated benefits and impacts solely to RPS policies, given the multiple drivers of RE additions. Despite these limitations, the analysis can help inform decision makers of the value of state RPS programs and the scale of various potential benefits and impacts. In addition, the methodology used in the analysis provides a framework that states and analysts can build upon and refine for their own assessments.


    Post a Comment

    << Home