Do energy restrictions raise electricity prices?

Do statewide mandates requiring a certain percentage of wind, solar, and other non-carbon resources be used as power sources drive up the cost for consumers?

Beatrice Richardson/AP/Sierra Vista Herald/File
Foreman Mark Hardison, with the Sky Renewable Energy from Phoenix, installs a 30 KW solar system at the Southern Arizona Veterans' Memorial Cemetery in Sierra Vista, Ariz in this file photo. Green energy advocates argue that alternative energy sources like wind and solar help the environment without raising energy costs, but some argue that cost effects remain to be seen.

An interesting debate is playing out.  The Center for American Progress (CAP) has put out a policy brief that argues that green energy purchase mandates do not raise local electricity prices.  The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires that a state's utilities purchase a given percentage of their power from low carbon sources such as wind, solar and hydro.  In California, the RPS is set to rise to 33% by the year 2020.  As of 2009, 12% of California's power comes from renewables. Is the CAP correct that further ramping up of the RPS will offer environmental benefits without imposing costs on electricity consumers?

For the CAP to be correct, it must be the case that the cost of generating renewable power is falling sharply over time.  There is also the issue of "insurance".  Given the variability of wind and sunshine, power producers must have alternative backup generators ready to produce.  Given that good batteries for storing excess power do not exist, there has to be some slack in capacity to be prepared for contingencies such as when its a cloudy day or a day when the wind isn't blowing.  These "backup plans" have costs to maintain them.

It is also the case that renewable power takes a fair bit of land.  Is the opportunity cost of the land that renewables are being located on being incorporated into the cost of providing renewable power?

What the CAP article does not discuss is the incidence of the RPS standards.  Are the public utility commissions by shielding consumers from price hikes simply lowering the profits of the electric utilities?  One way to study this would be to conduct an event study and see if publicly traded electric utilities experience a drop in their stock price when new news about a more aggressive RPS is revealed.  Such a finding would indicate that the stock market believes that their profits will fall because their cost of acquiring electricity has gone up.

If introducing the RPS neither raises consumer prices nor lowers the utility's profits, then such an RPS is a free lunch!  That would puzzle the typical economist!
The relevant energy policy counter-factual here is;   what would the price of electricity and the profits of electric utilities have been under a less aggressive RPS?  As the RPS tightens, who bears the incidence of this regulation?  The CAP has argued that it is not the consumers and they may be right but if utilities earn lower profits will there be unintended consequences such as reduced investment in maintaining the capital stock and can this have long run consequences for safety?

UPDATE:  One energy expert was kind enough to offer a quick answer to this blog post's core question. He argued that renewable power is so far such a small share of a state's total power that its costs are not yet seen.  In addition, he pointed out that the low recent natural gas prices have shielded consumers from price hikes. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Do energy restrictions raise electricity prices?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today