Much policy attention has been given to promote fledgling energy technologies that promise to reduce our reliance onfossilfuels. These policies often aim to correct market failures, such as environmental externalities and learning-by-doing (LBD). We examine the implications of the assumption that LBD exists, quantifying the market failure due to LBD. We develop a model of technological advancement based on LBD and environmental market failures to examine the economically efficient level of subsidies in California’s solar photovoltaic market. Under central-case parameter estimates, including nonappropriable LBD, we find that maximizing net social benefits implies a solar subsidy schedule similar in magnitude to the recently implemented California Solar Initiative. This result holds for a wide range of LBD parameters. However, with no LBD, the subsidies cannot be justified by the environmental externality alone.
AlsemaE. (1998) “Energy Requirements and CO2 Mitigation Potential of PV Systems,” Proceedings of Photovoltaics and the Environment, Keystone, CO.
2.
ArrowK. (1962). “The Economic Implications of Learning-by-Doing,” Review of Economic Studies, 29(3): 155-173.
3.
BorensteinS. (2005). “Valuing the Time-Varying Electricity Production of Solar Photovoltaic Cells,” CSEM WP 142, University of California Energy Institute, Berkeley, CA.
4.
CEC (2005). “Emerging Renewables Program Guidebook, Fourth Edition,” CEC-300-2005-001-ED4F, Sacramento, CA.
5.
CEC (2006). “Emerging Renewables Program,” Available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/emerging_renewables/. Accessed April 11.
6.
CEC (2007). “Grid-connected PV Installed in California,” Available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/re-newables/emerging_renewables/GRID-CONNECTED_PV.PDF. Accessed September 31.
7.
CinnamonB. (2005). Personal Communication on solar PV.
8.
ClarkL.WeyantJ. (2002). “Modeling Induced Technological Change: An Overview.” in: GrublerA.NakicenovicN.NordhausW. (eds.) Technological Change and the Environment. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
9.
CPUC (2006). “The California Solar Initiative,” Available at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/energy/solar/aboutsolar.htm. Accessed January 12.
10.
CPUC (2007a). “California Solar Initiative Program Handbook, Revised September 20,” California Public Utilities Commission, Sacramento, CA.
11.
CPUC (2007b). “California Solar Initiative, final text,” Available at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUB-LISHED/COMMENT_DECISION/51992.htm. Accessed January 12.
12.
DukeR. (2002) “Clean Energy Technology Buydowns: Economic Theory, Analytic Tools and the Photovoltaic Case,” PhD Dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.
13.
DukeR.WilliamsR.PayneA. (2005). “Accelerating Residential PV Expansion: Demand Analysis for Competitive Electricity Markets,” Energy Policy, 33(15): 1912-1929.
14.
EdmondsJ.RoopJ.ScottM. (2000). “Technology and the Economics of Climate Change Policy,” Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA.
15.
GillinghamK.NewellR.PalmerK. (2006). “Energy Efficiency Policies: A Retrospective Examination,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31: 193-237.
16.
GoulderL. (1995). “Effects of Carbon Taxes in an Economy with Prior Tax Distortions: An Intertemporal General Equilibrium Analysis,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(3): 271-297.
IEA (2000). “Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy,” International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
19.
IEA (2007). “Extended Energy Balances of OECD Countries,” International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
20.
JamasbT. (2007). “Technical Change Theory and Learning Curves: Patterns of Progress in Electricity Generation Technologies,” Energy Journal, 28(3): 51-71.
21.
JoskowP.RoseN. (1985). “The Effects of Technological Change, Experience, and Environmental Regulation on the Construction Cost of Coal-burning Generating Units,” The RAND Journal of Economics, 16(1): 1-27.
22.
JungingerM.FaaijA.TurkenburgW. C. (2005). “Global Experience Curves for Wind Farms,” Energy Policy, 33(2): 133-150.
23.
KatoK.MurataA.SakutaK. (1997). “Energy Payback Time and Life-Cycle CO2 Emission of Residential PV Power System with Silicon PV Module,” 97072, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
24.
LoschelA. (2002). “Technological Change in Economic Models of Environmental Policy: A Survey,” Ecological Economics, 43(2-3): 105-126.
25.
McDonaldA.SchrattenholzerL. (2001). “Learning Rates for Energy Technologies,” Energy Policy, 29(4): 255-261.
26.
NemetG. (2006). “Beyond the Learning-curve: Factors Influencing Cost Reductions in Photovolta-ics,” Energy Policy, 34(17): 3218-3232.
27.
NYMEX (2006). “NYMEX Futures Prices,” Available at http://futures.tradingcharts.com/market-quotes/NG.html. Accessed August 20.
28.
PalzW.ZibettaH. (1991). “Energy Payback Time of Photovoltaic Modules,” International Journal of Solar Energy, 10(3-4): 211-216.
29.
PapineauM. (2004). “An Economic Perspective on Experience Curves and Dynamic Economics in Renewable Energy Technologies,” Energy Policy, 34(4): 422-432.
30.
van der ZwaanB.'RablA.' (2004). “The Learning Potential of Photovoltaics: Implications for Energy Policy,” Energy Policy, 32(13): 1545-1554.
31.
WadeS. H. (1999). “Price Responsiveness in the NEMS Building Sector Model,” IA/DOE Report 0607, Washington, DC.
32.
WilliamsR. H.TerzianG. (1993). “A Benefit/Cost Analysis of Accelerated Development of Photovoltaic Technology,” Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
