FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W323248081> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W323248081 startingPage "79" @default.
• W323248081 abstract "Synopsis: Concern over emissions and climate change has led over half of the states to enact portfolio (RPS) legislation requiring regulated electric utilities to obtain some fraction of their power requirements from sources defined as Legislation to institute a federal RPS may follow. In reality, RPS is a policy in search of a rationale, at odds with principles of efficient environmental regulation and poorly suited to promote other policies favored by its supporters. The actual record of state implementations has been largely symbolic. Very few states with binding RPS requirements are currently in compliance with their own programs, and a federal RPS will be subject to the same forces that have led to state-level failure. The recent history of renewables leads to a conclusion that existing and proposed mandates are better viewed as special interest legislation than as rational responses to climate change and fossil-fuel power plant emissions. I. INTRODUCTION Electricity from renewable sources is fast becoming a multipurpose remedy that will alleviate energy scarcities, abate air pollution, and mitigate climate change. As of July 2007, over half of the states had enacted portfolio standards (RPS) requiring electric utilities to obtain portions of their power from sources legislatively defined as renewable. ' On August 4, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of a national RPS, but the Senate failed to pass a comparable provision.2 Supporters of a national RPS have long viewed it as an environmental measure that can also slow the accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHG).3 They have more recently argued that it is, among others, an industrial policy to manufacturing jobs and declining regions, a market intervention that could lower energy prices, a stimulus to development of new technologies, an instrument for risk management, a trade policy initiative, and a weapon in the war on terrorism.4 In reality, a national RPS is singularly ill-suited for any of these tasks. It will be an inefficient and inequitable environmental policy that reduces emissions at higher cost than necessary and is largely incompatible with existing air quality regulations. Some of the non-environmental rationales are elementary economic fallacies and others are at best conjectures. Worse yet, the record of state-level RPS compliance and enforcement strongly suggests that the effects of a federal program will be either minimal or perverse. Psychologically and politically satisfying, a national RPS is likely to obstruct the development of efficient policies. The range of public figures and distinguished commissions favoring a national RPS may indicate no more than an expectation that it will provide a new forum for interest-group politics.5 We begin with data on renewables which suggests that a federal RPS will bring little diversity in generation resources and few environmental benefits. The next sections examine advocates' claims for it, finding them inadequate at best. As environmental policy, an RPS is inefficient by every economic standard. It is a costly measure whose effects on emissions are uncertain, difficult to integrate with existing environmental regulation, and needlessly disruptive of generation investments intended to comply with anticipated emissions rules. Other purported consequences are also questionable. As macroeconomic or industrial policy, a national RPS cannot possibly create net increases in employment and rural areas that it will revitalize seldom need the help. Claims that it is necessary to stimulate reductions in production cost lose their force in a global economy, as do expectations that it will position the U.S. to dominate the world renewables market. Rather than facilitating risk management, standard renewables contracts only transfer it from utilities to captive customers. National security is better advanced through direct policies instead of compulsory investment in renewables. …" @default.
• W323248081 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W323248081 creator A5082846019 @default.
• W323248081 date "2008-01-01" @default.
• W323248081 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W323248081 title "National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?" @default.
• W323248081 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W323248081 type Work @default.
• W323248081 sameAs 323248081 @default.
• W323248081 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W323248081 countsByYear W3232480812013 @default.
• W323248081 countsByYear W3232480812016 @default.
• W323248081 countsByYear W3232480812018 @default.
• W323248081 countsByYear W3232480812019 @default.
• W323248081 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W323248081 hasAuthorship W323248081A5082846019 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C105442212 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C119599485 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C131046424 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C134560507 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C175605778 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C188573790 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C206658404 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C2779173739 @default.
• W323248081 hasConcept C2780821815 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C10138342 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C105442212 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C119599485 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C127413603 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C131046424 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C134560507 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C144133560 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C162324750 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C175605778 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C17744445 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C188573790 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C199539241 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C206658404 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C2777351106 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C2779173739 @default.
• W323248081 hasConceptScore W323248081C2780821815 @default.
• W323248081 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W323248081 hasLocation W3232480811 @default.
• W323248081 hasOpenAccess W323248081 @default.
• W323248081 hasPrimaryLocation W3232480811 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W12251735 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W1558667154 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W1749528945 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W1987315611 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W1995693352 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W2090773220 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W2111784341 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W2158142225 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W2229690190 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W2257337785 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W2258258106 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W2609513763 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W3122469647 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W3122788737 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W3123011977 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W3123272217 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W431086 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W595335653 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W193061041 @default.
• W323248081 hasRelatedWork W2596404449 @default.
• W323248081 hasVolume "29" @default.
• W323248081 isParatext "false" @default.
• W323248081 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W323248081 magId "323248081" @default.
• W323248081 workType "article" @default.