AEO2005 provided a summary of 17 State renewable energy programs in existence as of December 31, 2003, in 15 States [9]. They included RPS programs in 9 States, renewable energy mandates in 4 States, and renewable energy goals in 4 States. Since 2003, 7 more States and the District of Columbia have established renewable energy programs (Table 5), including 6 RPS programs and two renewable energy goals. No new mandates have been enacted since 2003, although a renewable goal instituted in Vermont will become mandatory if it has not been met by 2012. In addition, major changes and refinements have been made in a number of the State programs that were in existence before 2004 (Table 6). No Federal renewables requirement currently exists, although a nationwide RPS was again considered in 2005. 

Although generally resembling earlier versions, some of the new programs and changes to existing programs include unique or unusual features: 

• Colorado’s new RPS is the first enacted through a voter initiative. The new RPS allows a covered Colorado utility (40,000 or more customers) to opt out of the RPS, or an exempt utility to opt in, with a majority vote involving a minimum of 25 percent of the utility’s customers. 
• Connecticut’s RPS now includes energy conservation. 
• Delaware’s RPS includes municipal utilities and some rural electric cooperatives, although they may opt out. 
• Qualifying renewables under Hawaii’s RPS now include electricity conservation measures, such as district cooling systems using seawater air conditioning, solar and heat pump water heating, and ice storage, as well as reject heat in some instances. 
• Under 2005 legislation, compliance with Minnesota’s objective (goal) now becomes linked to the application for a certificate of need for new transmission or generation facilities. 
• New York’s goals set in 2004 and the 2005 changes in the Illinois program both resulted from public utility commission orders rather than from legislation. 
• In New York, the development of new generating capacity using renewable fuels is supported through centralized procurement by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, with funds collected through a charge on investor-owned utilities. 
• The Illinois program allows imports of electricity only from directly adjacent jurisdictions designated as serious or severe NAAQS nonattainment areas. 
• Vermont’s goal is to meet 100 percent of additional electricity demand through 2012 with allowed renewable resources (up to 10 percent of total demand), and it broadly defines renewable energy as that which “relies on a resource that is being consumed at a harvest rate at or below its natural regeneration rate” [10]. The Vermont legislation is designed to encourage contracts for new renewables capacity by allowing the new capacity to meet multiple States’ RPS requirements. New renewable capacity in Vermont can be counted toward Vermont’s program, while its renewable energy credits may be marketed separately to renewables credit markets in neighboring States. 
• Pennsylvania’s new Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard includes waste coal and coal gasification, which can contribute as much as 10 percent of the renewable generation requirement (set at 18 percent of total generation in 2020). 

The 23 State renewable energy programs in effect in 2005 generally are concentrated in three broad geographic areas, with 11 jurisdictions along the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic seaboard (Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont), 6 in the Southwest (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas), 4 in the upper Midwest (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin), and Hawaii and Montana each standing alone. No Southern, Southeastern, or Northwestern State (except Montana) currently has a renewable energy program. 

Although efforts to coordinate renewable energy programs among adjacent States have begun, no formal or informal coordination systems have been finalized. An example of efforts to establish such a system include the newly formed Mid-Atlantic Organization of PJM States, Inc. In order to prevent double counting, however, States in most interconnected regions now coordinate identification and tracking of the origins and contracted destinations of renewable energy transactions via power pools or other organizations. The New England States use the Generation Information System of the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL), and the Mid-Atlantic States employ PJM’s Generation Attribute Tracking System (GATS). Although the Midwestern Power Pool does not currently track the region’s renewable generation, a multi-State Midwestern effort is underway to establish the Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System (MRETS). Similarly, the California Energy Commission and the Western Governors’ Association are collaborating to establish a Western Renewable Energy Generation Information Tracking System (WREGIS). 

New Renewable Energy Capacity, 2004-2005 

Table 7 summarizes EIA’s understanding of new renewable energy capacity entering service in 2004 and 2005. However, it is difficult to quantify the specific impacts of State renewable programs. First, neither the individual States nor other sources identify all the new renewable energy capacity that is built, and some new capacity may not be reported. Although large wind projects typically are recognized, smaller projects, such as landfill gas (LFG) or end-user sited PV installations, may go unreported. Further, new capacity is not necessarily added in response to State renewable energy programs. Projects may be constructed for other reasons, and they may or may not qualify for the State programs. Projects located in one State may serve the requirements of another State or different States over time. Projects located in States without renewable programs may be explicitly or implicitly targeted to serve programs in other States and, therefore, may be at least partially “caused” by another State’s renewable program despite not being enumerated as such. 

New renewable energy capacity built today that appears unsupported by a State renewable program may result from an earlier favorable experience with a State program. For example, Table 7 does not include 362 megawatts of wind capacity from new projects in Iowa in the “With Standards” category, because Iowa’s mandate was fully met by 2000; nor does it include 62 megawatts of new wind capacity built in North Dakota, which has no requirement, although the new capacity serves Minnesota’s RPS. Nevertheless, Table 7 provides some indication of the extent to which renewable programs are resulting in the construction of new renewable energy capacity and also suggests the extent to which other key factors (for example, the Federal PTC) may promote growth in renewable capacity. 

Differences among renewable energy capacity additions in different States can result from a range of factors separate from State renewable programs, including differences in natural endowments, electricity consumption levels and rates of demand growth, the availability of alternatives, the presence or absence of renewable energy proponents and champions, and variations in consumer preferences. On the other hand, while States with renewable energy requirements accounted for only 45 percent of total U.S. electricity supply, they accounted for almost 60 percent of all new renewable energy capacity added in 2004 and 2005. 

EIA’s analysis indicates that State-level requirements probably have led to somewhat more biomass, geothermal, LFG, and solar capacity than would otherwise have been built, although the additional amounts are small. Hydroelectric capacity does not appear to have been advanced by State-level renewables requirements. Expansion of wind power capacity appears to be strongly affected by the combination of State requirements and the Federal PTC, as evidenced by the substantial construction of new wind capacity in 2005, particularly in States with RPS programs. 

Among States with requirements and goals, the amount of renewable capacity added in 2004 and 2005 varies significantly. Of the 23 States with renewable requirements in 2004 and 2005, 4 have reported no new renewable energy capacity (although requirements in Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maryland are new, and Connecticut is estimated to have met its program requirements already). In another 7 States (Arizona, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin) 15 megawatts or less has been added over the 2-year period. In 3 States (Maine, Nevada, and Pennsylvania), between 25 and 35 megawatts has been added; in 2 (Colorado and Illinois) between 65 and 75 megawatts has been added; and in 4 (Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, and New York) between 100 and 200 megawatts has been added in each State over the past 2 years. California, with nearly 500 megawatts, and Texas, with more than 700 megawatts, together account for 55 percent of all new U.S. renewable capacity attributed to State-level renewable energy requirements and goals in 2004 and 2005. 

In contrast, Oklahoma and Washington, which have no renewable energy requirements, each installed between 250 and 300 megawatts of new renewable capacity in 2004 and 2005, and other States without programs added smaller amounts. Most of the new capacity in those States is wind power, suggesting that good resources and the Federal PTC may be the primary factors leading to new wind power installations there. 

Despite the expansion of State renewable energy programs, new renewables capacity accounted for a fairly small fraction of new U.S. electricity supply added in 2004 and 2005. Including conventional hydroelectricity, all renewables currently account for 9.3 percent of total U.S. electricity generation, with nonhydroelectric renewables accounting for 2.2 percent. The 3,700 megawatts of new renewables capacity added during 2004 and 2005 accounted for 12 percent of the 32,000 megawatts of new generating capacity that entered service during the period. 

[9] Energy Information Administration, “State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals: Status Through 2003,” Annual Energy Outlook 2005, DOE/EIA-0383(2005) (Washington, DC, February 2005), pp. 20-23, web site www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo05/index.html.

[10]Vermont Senate Bill 52, Sec. 2 (8002)(2) (June 14, 2005).

Contact: Robert Smith
Phone: 202-586-9413
E-mail: robert.smith@eia.doe.gov