Feed-in tariff vs. renewable portfolio standard: An empirical test of their relative effectiveness in promoting wind capacity development

This paper examines the relative effectiveness of feed-in tariff (FIT) and Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in promoting wind capacity development using panel data. Conservative estimates suggest that, on average across countries, FIT increases total wind capacity more than RPS by a magnitude of about 1800MW. When using time variant policy indicators, the difference between the two policies increases to nearly 2000MW, roughly 8% of 2009 cumulative capacity in Germany. As for annual wind capacity since 2005, this paper has found no significant difference between FIT and RPS. It is also found that wind energy development responds to high electricity demand and high oil dependence.

[1]  Adam B. Jaffe,et al.  Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulations: The Effects of Alternative Policy Instruments on Te , 1995 .

[2]  K. Porter,et al.  Evaluating Experience with Renewables Portfolio Standards in the United States , 2005 .

[3]  J. Sawin,et al.  National Policy Instruments - Policy Lessons for the Advancement & Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technologies Around the World , 2004 .

[4]  M. Weitzman.  Prices vs. Quantities , 1974 .

[5]  A. Jaffe,et al.  Technological Change and the Environment , 2000 .

[6]  Haitao Yin,et al.  Do State Renewable Portfolio Standards Promote In-State Renewable Generation? , 2010 .

[7]  Philippe Menanteau,et al.  Prices versus quantities: choosing policies for promoting the development of renewable energy , 2003 .

[8]  Martin Drechsler,et al.  The effect of feed-in tariffs on the production cost and the landscape externalities of wind power generation in West Saxony, Germany , 2012 .

[9]  James D. Hamilton.  This is what happened to the oil price-macroeconomy relationship , 1996 .

[10]  Ryan Wiser,et al.  The Experience with Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States , 2007 .

[11]  David Popp,et al.  Induced Innovation and Energy Prices , 2001 .

[12]  Richard G. Newell,et al.  Environmental and Technology Policies for Climate Mitigation , 2008 .

[13]  Sanya Carley.  State Renewable Energy Electricity Policies: An Empirical Evaluation of Effectiveness , 2009 .

[14]  Catherine Mitchell,et al.  Renewable energy policy in the UK 1990-2003 , 2004 .

[15]  Mark Jaccard,et al.  The renewable portfolio standard:: design considerations and an implementation survey , 2001 .

[16]  G. Barbose,et al.  Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States - A Status Report with Data Through 2007 , 2008 .

[17]  Karsten Neuhoff,et al.  Comparison of feed-in tariff, quota and auction mechanisms to support wind power development , 2008 .

[18]  R. Wiser,et al.  The renewables portfolio standard in Texas: an early assessment , 2001 .

[19]  E. Martinot,et al.  Renewable Energy Policies and Barriers , 2004 .

[20]  Catherine Mitchell,et al.  THE ENGLAND AND WALES NON-FOSSIL FUEL OBLIGATION: History and Lessons , 2000 .

[21]  R. Wiser,et al.  Policies and market factors driving wind power development in the United States , 2005 .

[22]  Catherine Mitchell,et al.  Effectiveness through risk reduction: a comparison of the renewable obligation in England and Wales and the feed-in system in Germany , 2006 .

[23]  Kam Ki Tang,et al.  Do renewable electricity policies promote renewable electricity generation? Evidence from panel data , 2013 .

[24]  Steffen Jenner,et al.  Have State Renewable Portfolio Standards Really Worked? Synthesizing Past Policy Assessments to Build an Integrated Econometric Analysis of RPS effectiveness in the U.S. , 2012 .

[25]  Barbara Breitschopf,et al.  Impact of Renewable Energy Policy and Use on Innovation: A Literature Review , 2013 .

[26]  Figen Balo,et al.  Evaluation of wind energy potential and electricity generation at six locations in Turkey , 2009 .