Renewables Portfolio Standards in the
United States: A Status Update
Galen Barbose
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Renewable Energy Markets 2014
December 4, 2014
This analysis was funded by the National Electricity Delivery Division of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and by the Solar
Energy Technologies Office of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-
AC02-05CH11231.
RPS Policies Exist in 29 States and DC
Apply to 56% of Total U.S. Retail Electricity Sales
2
Source: Berkeley Lab
WI: 10% by 2015
NV: 25% by 2025
TX: 5,880 MW by 2015
PA: 8.5% by 2020
NJ: 22.5% by 2020
CT: 23% by 2020
MA: 11.1% by 2009 +1%/yr
ME: 40% by 2017
NM: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)
10% by 2020 (co-ops)
CA: 33% by 2020
MN: 26.5% by 2025
Xcel: 31.5% by 2020
IA: 105 MW by 1999
MD: 20% by 2022
RI: 16% by 2019
HI: 40% by 2030
AZ: 15% by 2025
NY: 30% by 2015
CO: 30% by 2020 (IOUs)
20% by 2020 (co-ops)
10% by 2020 (munis)
MT: 15% by 2015
DE: 25% by 2025
DC: 20% by 2020
WA: 15% by 2020
NH: 24.8% by 2025
OR: 25% by 2025 (large utilities)
5-10% by 2025 (smaller utilities)
NC: 12.5% by 2021 (IOUs)
10% by 2018 (co-ops and munis)
IL: 25% by 2025
VT: 20 by 2017
MO: 15% by 2021
OH: 12.5% by 2024
MI: 10% by 2015
KS: 20% of peak
demand by 2020
Notes: Compliance years are designated by the calendar year in which they begin. Mandatory standards or non-binding
goals also exist in US territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands)
A Substantial Portion of RE Capacity Additions
Have (At Least Partially) Been Driven by RPS
3
Of the 75 GW of non-hydro renewable capacity additions from 1998-2013,
61% (46 GW) serve entities with RPS obligations
U.S. Non-Hydro Renewable Energy Capacity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Nameplate Capacity (GW)
Cumulative Non-Hydro RE Capacity
Non-RPS
RPS
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Nameplate Capacity (GW)
Annual Non-Hydro RE Capacity Additions
Non-RPS
RPS
State RPS’ Have Largely Supported Wind,
Though Solar Has Become More Prominent
4
RPS-Related* Renewable Energy Capacity Additions
from 1998-2013, by Technology Type
* Renewable additions are counted as “RPS-related” if and only if the entity receiving RECs from the project is subject to RPS
obligations, and the project commenced operation after enactment of the RPS. On an energy (as opposed to capacity) basis,
wind energy represents approximately 76%, biomass 12%, solar 8%, and geothermal 4% of cumulative RPS-related renewable
energy additions, if estimated based on assumed capacity factors.
78%
1%
5%
16%
Cumulative RPS Capacity Additions
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Nameplate Capacity (MW)
Annual RPS Capacity Additions
Geothermal
Biomass
Solar
Wind
More than Half of All RPS Programs Have a Solar
or DG Set-Aside
5
17 states + D.C. have solar or DG set-asides, sometimes combined
with credit multipliers; 3 other states only have credit multipliers
11 states created
solar/ DG set-
asides since 2007:
DE, IL, MA, MD, MO, MN,
NC, NH, NM, OH, OR
Differential support for solar/DG also provided via long-term contracting
programs (CT, DE, NJ, RI) and via up-front incentives/SREC payments
NV: 1.5% solar by 2025
2.4x multiplier for PV until 2015
PA: 0.5% solar PV by 2020
NJ: 4.1% solar electric by 2027
AZ: 4.5% customer-sited DG
by 2025 (half from residential)
NY: 878 GWh retail DG by 2015
CO: 3% DG by 2020 for IOUs
(half from retail DG)
1% DG by 2020 for coops
3x multiplier for munis/coops for
solar installed before July 2015
DC: 2.5% solar by 2023
WA: 2x multiplier for DG
NM: 4% solar electric by 2020
0.6% customer-sited DG by 2020
(2x multiplier for all solar)
DE: 3.5% solar by 2025
3x multiplier for solar installed
before Jan. 2015 (applies only to
solar used for general RPS target)
MD: 2% solar by 2020
Set-aside
Multiplier
NC: 0.2% solar by 2018
NH: 0.3% solar electric by 2014
Set-aside with multiplier
TX: 2x multiplier for all non-wind
OH: 0.5% solar electric by 2024
MA: 456 GWh customer-sited
solar PV (no specified target year)
MO: 0.3% solar electric by 2021
MI: 3x multiplier for solar
OR: 20 MW solar PV by 2020
2x multiplier for PV installed
before 2016
IL: 1.5% solar PV by 2025,
1% DG by 2015 (50% <25 kW)
Note: Compliance years are designated by the calendar year in which they begin
Source: Berkeley Lab
MN: 1.5% solar by 2020 for IOUs
Impact of Solar/DG Set-Asides is Substantial:
60-80% of Non-CA PV Additions Since 2005
6
*PV capacity additions are attributed to the solar/DG set-aside only if installation occurred no more than one year before commencement
of set-aside compliance obligations in the host state and if eligible for the set-aside and not applied towards general RPS obligations.
Dip in set-aside capacity additions in 2013 reflects depressed SREC
pricing and reduced or eliminated incentives in a number of states
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Percent of U.S. Annual
Grid-Connected PV Installations (%)
NH
MO
DC
IL
DE
OH
MD
NY
PA
NM
NV
MA
NC
CO
AZ
NJ
Percent of Total U.S. grid-connected PV
capacity additions [right axis]
Percent of U.S. grid-connected PV capacity
additions, excluding California [right axis]
Annual Grid-Connected PV Installations
for Solar/DG Set-Asides (MW
ac
)
General RPS Obligations Also Driving Significant
Solar Additions in California and Elsewhere
7
Sizable number of large solar projects (9 PV + 2 CSP, 100-300 MW each)
added to meet general RPS obligations in CA & AZ in 2013
Substantial solar capacity in excess of set-aside requirements also built
and applied towards general obligations in NC and NV
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Nameplate Capacity (MW)
Annual Solar Capacity Additions
Non-RPS
RPS Set-Asides
General RPS Obligations
CA
3038 MW
AZ
462 MW
NC
295 MW
NV
227 MW
Others
61 MW
Solar for General RPS Obligations
Future RPS Requirements are Sizable, But Within
Recent RE Growth Rates
8
• 98 GW of RE capacity
required by 2020 (123 GW
by 2035) to meet RPS
requirements
• Depending on availability
of existing RE capacity, will
require incremental build of
3-7 GW/yr. through 2020
and 1-2 GW/yr. thereafter
• By comparison, RPS-
driven additions averaged
6 GW/yr. since 2008
(10 GW/yr. for all RE)
Note: Values shown in figures represent required renewable capacity beyond what was supplied to each state at the time its RPS was
enacted. The values do not represent incremental renewables required relative to current supply.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
IA
ME
RI
MT
NH
DC
DE
HI
NM
CT
NV
WI
KS
MI
NY
AZ
NC
OR
PA
MO
WA
MD
CO
MA
TX
MN
OH
NJ
IL
CA
2020 2035
RPS Demand
(Est. Nameplate GW)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
IA
TX
NC
NY
MI
PA
AZ
ME
WI
MO
MT
OH
WA
KS
NM
RI
DE
IL
MD
DC
CO
OR
NV
CT
NJ
NH
MN
MA
CA
HI
2020 2035
RPS Demand
(Percent of Statewide
Retail Sales)
RE Currently Under Development May Be Enough to
Meet Future RPS Demand in Some Regions
9
Notes: RE under development and under construction refer only to RPS states within each region and therefore do not include additional
new RE from other states in the region or from outside the region. RPS requirements in MW terms reflect regionally specific assumptions
about RPS resource mix and capacity factors. Data source for RE Under Construction and Under Development: SNL Energy.
Future RPS Requirements Compared to Current RPS Supply plus New RE Capacity
Under Construction and Under Development
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
West
RE Capacity Capacity (MW)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Mid-Atlantic
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Midwest
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
New England
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
New York
RE Under Development (RPS States) RE Under Construction (RPS States) RPS Capacity Additions to-Date
RPS Requirement (2020) RPS Requirement (2035)
Compliance with RPS Targets Has Generally
Been Strong
10
Percent of Main Tier RPS Target Met with Renewable Electricity or RECs
(including available credit multipliers and banking, but excluding ACPs)
Note: Percentages less than 100% do not necessarily indicate that “full compliance” was not technically achieved, because of ACP
compliance options, funding limits, or force majeure events.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
HI
IA
IL
KS
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MT
NC
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OR
PA
RI
TX
WA
WI
2010
2011
2012
2013
REC Prices in Compliance Markets Vary with
Supply-Demand Balance
• Rising Class I REC prices in Northeastern states reflect tightening
supply, while pricing in Mid-Atlantic states and TX remain low
• Depressed SREC prices in most states show enduring over-supply
of solar, muting the cost impacts of rising set-aside targets
11
Main Tier/Class I RECs
SRECs
Sources: Spectron, SRECTrade, Flett Exchange, PJM-GATS, and NJ Clean Energy Program. Depending on the source used, plotted values are either the mid-point of monthly average bid and offer prices, the
average monthly closing price, or the weighted average price of all RECs transacted in the month, and generally refer to REC prices for the current or nearest future compliance year traded in each month.
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
CT Class I
DC Tier I
DE Class I
IL Wind
MA Class I MD Tier I ME New NH Class I
NJ Class I OH In-State PA Tier I RI New
TX
Avg Monthly REC Price (2013$/MWh)
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
DC DE MA MD
NH
NJ
OH PA
Avg Monthly REC Price (2013$/MWh)
RPS Compliance Costs Thus Far Low, But Face
Upward Pressure from Rising Targets
12
• Final-year RPS targets (closed circles) constitute, on average, roughly a three-fold
increase in RPS obligations compared to most-recent year targets (open circles)
• Future RPS costs will depends on many factors: RE technology costs, natural gas
prices, federal tax incentives, environmental regulations, and RPS cost caps
• RPS
compliance
costs have
been equal to
less than 3%
of average
retail rates in
most states
• Costs have
risen as
targets ramp
up
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
CT
DC
DE
IL
MA
MD
ME
NH
NJ
NY
OH
PA
RI
TX
AZ
CO
HI
MI
MN
MO
NC
NM
OR
WA
WI
Restructured Regulated
Estimated Incremental RPS Costs (Most-Recent Year)
RPS Target or Procurement (Most-Recent Year)
RPS Target (Final Year)
Estimated Incremental RPS Costs
(% of Average Retail Rates)
RPS Target
(% of Retail Sales)
* For most states shown, the most-recent year RPS cost and target data are for 2012 or 2013. MA does not have single terminal
year for its RPS; the final-year target shown is based on 2020. Excluded from the chart are those states without available data on
historical incremental RPS costs (CA, KS, HI, IA, MT, NV). The values shown for RPS targets and costs exclude any secondary
RPS tiers (e.g., for pre-existing resources). For most regulated states, data for the most-recent historical year reflect actual RPS
procurement percentages in those years .
Most States Have Capped Rate Impacts Below
10% and Many Below 5%
13
• Where ACPs used, they generally cap costs at 6-9% of average retail rates
• Among states with some other form of cost containment, effective cost caps are
more restrictive (1-4%) and have already become binding in several states
The figure
compares
each state’s
“effective”
cost cap
with actual
costs for the
most-recent
year
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
CT
DC
MA
MD
ME
NH
NJ
RI
CO
DE
IL
MI
MT
NM
NC
NY
OH
OR
TX
WA
Cost Containment Based on ACP Other Cost Containment Mechanisms
Historical Compliance Cost Estimate (Most-Recent Year)
Effective Cost Cap (Max Retail Rate Increase)
* For states with multiple cost containment mechanisms, the cap shown here is based on the most-binding mechanism. MA does not
have a single terminal year for its RPS; the calculated cost cap shown is based on RPS targets and ACP rates for 2020. "Other cost
containment mechanisms" include: rate impact/revenue requirement caps (DE, KS, IL, NM, OH, OR, WA), surcharge caps (CO, MI,
NC), renewable energy contract price cap (MT), renewable energy fund cap (NY), and financial penalty (TX). Excluded from the chart
are those states currently without any mechanism to cap total incremental RPS costs (AZ, CA, IA, HI, KS, MN, MO, NV, PA, WI),
though some of those states may have other kinds of mechanisms or regulatory processes to limit RPS costs.
RPS Cost Containment Mechanisms*
(Equivalent Maximum Percentage Increase in Average Retail Rates)
The Future Role and Impact of State RPS
Programs Will Depend On…
The outcome of ongoing and future legislative and legal challenges
Outcome of EPA carbon emissions regulations
Whether cost caps become binding (which in turn depends on RE
costs, gas prices, PTC/ITC, etc.)
How other related issues and barriers affecting RE deployment are
addressed (transmission, integration, siting, net metering, etc.)
How policymakers re-tune RPS’ in response to all of the above and
to changing market conditions more generally
14
Thank You!
For further information:
LBNL RPS publications and resources:
rps.lbl.gov
LBNL renewable energy publications:
emp.lbl.gov/reports/re
Contact information:
Galen Barbose, [email protected], 510-495-2593
15
