Report: Policies to spur renewable energy can lower energy costs

December 16, 2010

The South could pay less for its electricity in 20 years than is currently projected if strong public policies are enacted to spur renewable energy production and use, according to a report released today by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and Duke University. The 190-page report, "Renewable Energy in the South," builds on a short policy brief released last summer and provides an in-depth assessment of the scope of renewable energy resources in the South and their economic impacts on electricity rates and utility bills in the region.

Skeptics of renewable energy production often cite the South as lacking renewable resources. However, the new report confirms that the right mix of public policies could drive the region to produce as much as 30 percent—up from less than 4 percent—of its from renewable sources by 2030. Wind, biomass, hydro power and customer-owned renewables stand out as cost savers and are detailed for both utility-scale and customer-owned renewable, based on their cost-competitiveness.

"While the South enjoys some of the lowest electricity rates in the country, there is resistance to developing new technologies that seem much more costly than coal based electricity," said Etan Gumerman of Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and a co-lead researcher on the study. "In reality, that's not the case."

With a customized version of the economic modeling system used by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), researchers found that if supportive policies and tax incentives are implemented or extended, total regional energy costs would be 7 percent less by 2030 than they are projected to be if policies do not change. If no new policies are adopted, the EIA predicts the average electricity rates in the South will rise from the current 7.9 cents to 9.7 cents per kilowatt hour in 2030 – a 23 percent increase. The study finds that with a mix of policies designed to promote renewable energy, rates would rise to only 9 cents per kilowatt hour in 2030, saving electricity users in the region $23 billion a year.

The report examines the economic impact of a number of renewable energy policies, including expanded research funding and tax incentives (such as those debated in several recent legislative initiatives) and the enactment of a national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). In addition to considering the potential for large-scale energy producers to generate renewable energy, the report finds that end-users, such as households equipped with solar panels and industry with the ability to recycle waste heat, could generate a significant amount of the South's renewable electricity.

"This study takes a unique approach by considering both traditional, utility-scale renewable power production as well as renewable systems owned by consumers," said Dr. Marilyn Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology and co-lead author of the study. "Our analysis shows that renewable energy could be a real economic boon to the Southern states, but only if elected officials, and consumers, take action to unlock the region's potential."

Explore further: Berkeley Lab examines state-level renewables portfolio standards policies

More information: Read the full report here: … IN%20THE%20SOUTH.pdf

Related Stories

Energy conservation in south could save billions, create jobs

April 12, 2010

Energy-efficiency measures in the southern U.S. could save consumers $41 billion on their energy bills, open 380,000 new jobs, and save 8.6 billion gallons of water by 2020, according to a new study from the Nicholas Institute ...

Schwarzenegger to issue renewable energy order

September 14, 2009

(AP) -- Administration officials say Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is moving ahead with plans to sign an executive order establishing the most aggressive renewable energy standard in the nation.

Recommended for you

New technique spots warning signs of extreme events

September 22, 2017

Many extreme events—from a rogue wave that rises up from calm waters, to an instability inside a gas turbine, to the sudden extinction of a previously hardy wildlife species—seem to occur without warning. It's often impossible ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2010
The southeast US does not have enough wind speed to be viable. The hydro resources are very limited. Solar power is far from being cost-effective. Biomass has not proven to be clean or cost-effective. What are the costs of the government subsidies to make it all happen? Has anyone noticed that we are bankrupt? This is silly. When alternative energy is viable, we will all gladly adopt it on our own. Get off my lawn.
3.2 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2010
"We" are bankrupt? The top 2% of Americans are far from bankrupt since they own upwards of 25% of our financial resources. Silly? Hundreds of thousands of deaths and tens of billions of dollars in health costs caused by fossil fuels might be figured into the equation if we are going to be honest about energy, renewable or not. And to say that because a technology isn't quite ready today we should discount it completely is really silly. Get away from my children's future quality of life!
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2010
Oh, and try to figure in the hundreds of billions of dollars that subsidize the fossil fuel industry and the billions of dollars of environmental damage done ever year by their use and the comparative costs of renewable versus finite become much more competitive, if not necessary to our future economic growth.
not rated yet Dec 18, 2010
The southeast US does not have enough wind speed to be viable. The hydro resources are very limited. Solar power is far from being cost-effective.

You are so right. Solar passed being cost effective long ago. It's now deep in the realm of making mad money.
not rated yet Dec 19, 2010
"The South could pay less for its electricity in 20 years than is currently projected if strong public policies are enacted to spur renewable energy production and use"....I have been hearing this for 25 years. This quote translated really means that only government and bureaucrats can save the world by taking money from productive parts of the economy and transferring it to unproductive sectors of the economy. Energy costs will be lowered when the markets are allowed to work. "Government is not the solution, government is the problem" to quote a great man.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.