Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A2-46667

October 2009

State of the States 2009: 

Renewable Energy Development 

and the Role of Policy

Elizabeth Doris, Joyce McLaren, Victoria Healey, 

and Stephen Hockett
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A2-46667

October 2009

State of the States 2009: 

Renewable Energy Development 

and the Role of Policy

Elizabeth Doris, Joyce McLaren, Victoria Healey, 

and Stephen Hockett

Prepared under Task No. IGST.9000
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
i

Acknowledgments

This report was produced with funding from, and in coordination with, the Department of Energy 

(DOE) Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (WIP) in the office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy (EERE). 

NREL staff would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of Joel Bluestein, Megan 

Douglas, Anne Hampson, Jessica Rackley, and Rick Tidball of ICF International toward the 

drafting and editing of the contextual factors chapter of this report.

During the review process, the authors benefited from extensive comments from a variety of 

stakeholders, including: 

Lynn Billman, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

Brian Bush, NREL

Karlynn Cory, NREL

Rusty Haynes, North Carolina State University (NCSU)/Database of State Incentives for 

Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE)

Davion Hill, DNV Consultants

Miles Keogh, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)

Carey King, University of Texas

Charlie Kubert, Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA)

Kevin McCarthy, State of Connecticut

Linda Silverman, DOE

In addition to these reviewers, we appreciate the assistance of Michelle Kubik in NREL’s 

Technical Communications Office for her editing support. Of course, any remaining errors are 

the responsibility of the authors. 
ii

Abstract

As U.S. states increasingly focus on developing renewable energy resources, there is a need to 

track the progress of development, as well as the policies and support mechanisms being 

implemented to encourage this development. Beyond tracking, the evaluation of policy measures 

is necessary to determine their effectiveness, guide future efforts, and efficiently allocate 

resources. 

This report addresses each of these needs. It provides a detailed picture of the status of renewable 

energy development in each of the U.S. states using a variety of metrics and discusses the 

policies being used to encourage this development. 

The report then explores the context in which renewable energy development occurs by 

discussing the factors that can affect the uptake of power generation technologies. The analysis 

offers suggestions on how policies can be used to address these variables, which leads to tailored 

policy support that considers the specific circumstances within each state.

The analysis presents results of several quantitative evaluation methods that have been designed 

to explore the link between policy implementation and actual development. These analyses are 

an attempt to move beyond designed-based policy evaluation and develop performance-based 

evaluation methods instead. 

Finally, the report discusses contextual factors, aside from policy, that affect renewable energy 

development. Understanding contextual factors, which create the framework for renewable 

energy markets, is essential for effective policy design and implementation. The report concludes 

with a summary of the main points from each chapter, discussion of next steps, and a list of 

resources.
iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................ i

Abstract........................................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents...........................................................................................................................iii

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. viii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix

List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................... xii

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... xiv

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background........................................................................................ 1

The context of the report within existing literature .................................................................... 1

New Developments in State of the States (SOS) 2009............................................................... 2

Chapter 2. Quantitative Trends in Renewable Energy Development............................................ 4

Introduction................................................................................................................................. 4

Definitions of Resources for Data Gathering.............................................................................. 4

Biomass................................................................................................................................... 4

Geothermal.............................................................................................................................. 5

Hydroelectric (conventional) .................................................................................................. 5

Solar (utility scale).................................................................................................................. 5

Solar (distributed) ................................................................................................................... 5

Wind........................................................................................................................................ 5

Data Sources ............................................................................................................................... 5

National Renewable Energy Generation Data ............................................................................ 6

National Renewable Energy Growth Data.................................................................................. 7

National Growth Data, 2001 – 2007....................................................................................... 8

Total Renewable Electricity Growth (including hydroelectric).......................................... 8

Total Renewable Electricity Growth (excluding hydroelectric)......................................... 8

Biomass Growth.................................................................................................................. 9

Geothermal Growth ............................................................................................................ 9

Solar Growth....................................................................................................................... 9

Wind Growth ...................................................................................................................... 9

Hydroelectric Growth ......................................................................................................... 9

National Growth Data, 2006 -2007....................................................................................... 10

Total Renewable Electricity Growth (including hydroelectric)........................................ 10

Total Renewable Electricity Growth (excluding hydroelectric)....................................... 10

Biomass Growth................................................................................................................ 11

Geothermal Growth .......................................................................................................... 11

Solar Growth..................................................................................................................... 11

Wind Growth .................................................................................................................... 11

Hydroelectric Growth ....................................................................................................... 11

State-by-State Renewable Energy Generation Data ................................................................. 12

Total Generation ................................................................................................................... 12

Renewable Energy as a Percentage of Total Generation...................................................... 12
iv

Generation per Capita ........................................................................................................... 13

Generation per Gross State Product (GSP)........................................................................... 13

Renewable Energy Growth................................................................................................... 13

State Growth Data..................................................................................................................... 21

State Renewable Electricity Generation Data by Technology.................................................. 25

Biomass Generation.............................................................................................................. 25

Hydroelectric Generation...................................................................................................... 29

Geothermal............................................................................................................................ 33

Distributed Solar................................................................................................................... 35

Wind...................................................................................................................................... 37

Summary of Overall Trends...................................................................................................... 42

National Renewable Resources............................................................................................. 42

Biomass................................................................................................................................. 42

Hydroelectric......................................................................................................................... 42

Geothermal............................................................................................................................ 43

Solar...................................................................................................................................... 43

Wind...................................................................................................................................... 43

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 44

Chapter 3. Policies Supporting Renewable Energy Development and Best Practices................. 45

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 45

Policy: Contractor Licensing .................................................................................................... 46

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 46

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 46

Benefits of Contractor-Licensing Policy .............................................................................. 47

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 47

Policy: Equipment Certification ............................................................................................... 48

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 48

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 48

Benefits of Equipment-Certification Policy.......................................................................... 49

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 49

Policy: Generation Disclosure .................................................................................................. 50

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 50

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 50

Benefits of Generation-Disclosure Policy ............................................................................ 51

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 51

Policy: Grants............................................................................................................................ 52

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 52

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 52

Benefits of Grant Programs .................................................................................................. 53

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 53

Policy: Green Power Purchasing and Aggregation Policies..................................................... 54

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 54

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 54

Benefits of Green Power Purchasing .................................................................................... 54

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 55

Policy: Interconnection ............................................................................................................. 56
v

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 56

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 56

Benefits of Interconnection Standards.................................................................................. 57

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 57

Policy: Line-Extension Analysis............................................................................................... 59

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 59

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 59

Benefits of Line-Extension Analysis.................................................................................... 59

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 60

Policy: Mandatory Utility Green Power Consumer Option...................................................... 61

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 61

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 61

Benefits of Mandatory Utility Green Power......................................................................... 61

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 62

Policy: Net Metering................................................................................................................. 63

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 63

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 63

Benefits of Net Metering ...................................................................................................... 63

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 64

Policy: Public Benefit Fund (PBF) /System Benefit Charge (SBC)......................................... 65

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 65

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 65

Benefits of Public Benefit Funds.......................................................................................... 66

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 67

Policy: Rebate Programs........................................................................................................... 68

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 68

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 68

Benefits of Rebate Programs ................................................................................................ 68

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 69

Policy: Renewable Energy Access Laws.................................................................................. 70

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 70

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 70

Benefits of Renewable Energy Access Laws........................................................................ 71

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 71

Policy: Renewable Energy Production Incentives.................................................................... 72

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 72

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 72

Benefits of Production-Incentive Policies ............................................................................ 72

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 73

Policy: Renewable Portfolio Standards .................................................................................... 74

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 74

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 74

Benefits of Renewable Portfolio Standards.......................................................................... 75

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 75

Policy: Tax Incentives............................................................................................................... 78

Policy Description................................................................................................................. 78
vi

Policy Status.......................................................................................................................... 79

Benefits of Tax Incentives.................................................................................................... 82

Policy Best Practices............................................................................................................. 82

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 84

Chapter 4. Statistical Analyses of State Policy Impact on Renewable Energy Development...... 87

Introduction/Summary .............................................................................................................. 87

Methodology............................................................................................................................. 88

1a) Impact of Individual Policies (No time-lag).................................................................. 90

1b) Impact of Individual Policies (Time-lag Analysis) ....................................................... 92

2) Effectiveness of Policy Portfolios................................................................................... 94

Market-Transformation Portfolio...................................................................................... 95

RPS and Tax Incentive Portfolios..................................................................................... 97

3) Effectiveness of Individual Policy Best Practice Policy Design Elements..................... 99

RPS Best Practices Methodology ..................................................................................... 99

Net-Metering and Interconnection Best Practices Methodology.................................... 101

4) Impact of the Age of and RPS Policy............................................................................ 103

5) Removal of Outlying States........................................................................................... 103

Results..................................................................................................................................... 105

1a) Impact of Individual Policies (No Time Lag).............................................................. 105

1b) Impact of Individual Policies (With Time Lag) .......................................................... 105

2) Impact of Policy Portfolios............................................................................................ 110

Market-Transformation Portfolio.................................................................................... 110

RPS and Tax Incentive Portfolios................................................................................... 112

3) Effectiveness of Individual Policy Best Practice Design Elements .............................. 114

RPS Best Practices.......................................................................................................... 114

Net-Metering and Interconnection Best Practices .......................................................... 116

4) Impact of the Age of an RPS Policy.............................................................................. 116

5) Removal of Outlying States........................................................................................... 117

Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................................... 118

Chapter 5. Contextual Factors Affecting Renewable Energy Development ............................. 121

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 121

Contextual Factors.................................................................................................................. 122

Resource Availability.......................................................................................................... 122

Technology Availability ..................................................................................................... 123

Technology Cost ................................................................................................................. 124

Energy Costs....................................................................................................................... 125

Economic Factors................................................................................................................ 126

Project-Financing Options.................................................................................................. 127

Ownership Options............................................................................................................. 128

Transmission Issues............................................................................................................ 128

Environmental Considerations............................................................................................ 130

Institutional Structures........................................................................................................ 130

Land-Use Issues and Constraints........................................................................................ 131

Information Dissemination ................................................................................................. 132

Social Acceptance............................................................................................................... 133

Larger Policy Context......................................................................................................... 134
vii

Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 134

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Future Efforts................................................................................ 135

Main Conclusions of the Chapters.......................................................................................... 135

Future efforts........................................................................................................................... 137

Resource List .............................................................................................................................. 139

FUNDING SOURCES............................................................................................................ 139

CROSSCUTTING RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 140

CASE STUDIES..................................................................................................................... 141

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES.............................................................................................. 142

ELECTRIC POWER .............................................................................................................. 142

INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES ......................................................................................... 143

COMBINED HEAT AND POWER TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................... 143

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES................................................................................................ 144

SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES.................................................................................................... 145

WIND TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................................................... 145

HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELLS TECHNOLOGIES......................................................... 145

References................................................................................................................................... 146

Chapter 1................................................................................................................................. 146

Chapter 2................................................................................................................................. 146

Chapter 3................................................................................................................................. 147

Chapter 4................................................................................................................................. 149

Chapter 5................................................................................................................................. 150

Chapter 6................................................................................................................................. 152

Appendix..................................................................................................................................... 153

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... 153

Total Renewable Resources.................................................................................................... 154

Total Renewable Resources Growth, 2001-2007 ................................................................... 158

Total Renewable Resources Growth, 2006-2007 ................................................................... 162

Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Resources.............................................................................. 166

Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Resources Growth, 2006-2007.............................................. 174

Biomass Resources................................................................................................................. 178

Biomass Resources Growth, 2001-2007................................................................................. 182

Biomass Resources Growth, 2006-2007................................................................................. 186

Hydroelectric Resources......................................................................................................... 190

Hydroelectric Resources Growth, 2001-2007......................................................................... 194

Hydroelectric Resources Growth, 2006-2007......................................................................... 198

Geothermal Resources............................................................................................................ 202

Distributed Solar..................................................................................................................... 204

Wind Resources...................................................................................................................... 205

Wind Resource Growth, 2001-2007 ....................................................................................... 207

Wind Resource Growth, 2006-2007 ....................................................................................... 210

Wind Capacity ........................................................................................................................ 212
viii

List of Figures 

Figure ES-1. U.S. Electricity Generation by Source, 2007 ......................................................... xiv

Figure 2.1. Renewable Generation as a Percent of Total U.S. Electricity Generation, 2007 .........6

Figure 2.2. Total Renewable and Non-Hydroelectric Renewable U.S. Electricity Generation, 

2001 and 2007 ........................................................................................................................8

Figure 2.3. Renewable and Non-Hydroelectric Renewable U.S. Electricity Generation, 

2006 and 2007..........................................................................................................................10

Figure 2.4. Total Renewable Energy Generation (TWh)...............................................................17

Figure 2.5. Total Renewable Energy Generation (MWh/Capita)..................................................17

Figure 2.6. Percentage of Total State Electricity Generation: All Renewable Resources ............18

Figure 2.7. Total Renewable Energy Generation (MWh/M$ 2007 GSP) ....................................18

Figure 2.8. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation (TWh) ...................................19

Figure 2.9. Percentage of Total Electricity Generation: Non-Hydroelectric Renewable 

Resources ................................................................................................................................19

Figure 2.10. Total Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Energy Generation (MWh/Capita) ................20

Figure 2.11. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Energy Generation (MWh/M$ 2007 GSP)..............20

Figure 2.12. Biomass Generation – TWh (2007) ..........................................................................26

Figure 2.13. Conventional Hydroelectric Generation – TWh (2007) ...........................................30

Figure 2.14. Geothermal Generation – TWh (2007) .....................................................................33

Figure 2.15. Grid-Connect Cumulative Installed Solar Capacity – MWdc (2008) .......................36

Figure 2.16. Wind Generation – TWh (2007) ...............................................................................38

Figure 2.17. Wind Cumulative Installed Capacity – GW (2008) .................................................41

Figure 2.18. U.S. Hydroelectric Generation as a Percent of Total Renewable Energy 

Generation................................................................................................................................43

Figure 2.19. U.S. Wind Energy Generation (GWh) ......................................................................43

Figure 3.1. States with Contractor-Licensing Policies...................................................................46

Figure 3.2. States with Equipment-Certification Policies..............................................................48

Figure 3.3. States with Generation-Disclosure Policies.................................................................50

Figure 3.4. States with Grant Programs.........................................................................................52

Figure 3.5. States with Green Power Purchasing...........................................................................54

Figure 3.6. States with Interconnection Standards.........................................................................56

Figure 3.7. States with Line-Extension Analysis...........................................................................59

Figure 3.8. States with Mandatory Utility Green Power Consumer Option..................................61

Figure 3.9. States with Net Metering.............................................................................................63

Figure 3.10. States with Public Benefit Funds...............................................................................66

Figure 3.11. States with Rebate Programs.....................................................................................68

Figure 3.12. States with Renewable Energy Access Laws............................................................70

Figure 3.13. States with Production-Incentive Policies.................................................................72

Figure 3.14. States with Renewable Portfolio Standards and Goals..............................................74

Figure 3.15. States with Corporate Tax Incentives........................................................................80

Figure 3.16. States with Industry Recruitment and Support Incentives ........................................80

Figure 3.17. States with Personal Tax Incentives..........................................................................81

Figure 3.18. States with Property Tax Incentives..........................................................................81

Figure 3.19. States with Sales Tax Incentives ...............................................................................82
ix

Figure 4.1. Biomass Generation (2007) and the Presence of a Construction and Design Policy 

(2005) – with notes on interpreting the box-plots....................................................................94

Figure 4.2. Distribution of Total Renewable Energy Generation by State, 2007.......................104

Figure 4.3. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Generation as a Percent of Total State Generation 

(2007) and the Presence of a Net-Metering Policy (2005) ....................................................107

Figure 4.4. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Generation per Capita (2007) and the Presence of a 

Net- Metering Policy (2005)..................................................................................................108

Figure 4.5. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Generation per GSP (2007) and the Presence of a 

Net- Metering Policy (2005)..................................................................................................109

List of Tables 

Table ES-1. U.S. National Renewable Energy Generation by Resource..................................... xiv

Table 2.1. Total Renewable Electricity Generation.......................................................................15

Table 2.2. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation ................................................16

Table 2.3. Growth in Total Renewable Electricity Generation, 2001-2007 ..................................21

Table 2.4. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation, 2001-2007 ............22

Table 2.5. Growth in Total Renewable Electricity Generation, 2006-2007 ..................................23

Table 2.6. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation, 2006-2007 ............24

Table 2.7. Biomass Electricity Generation ...................................................................................25

Table 2.8. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation, 2001-2007................................................27

Table 2.9. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation, 2006-2007................................................28

Table 2.10. Hydroelectric Generation ...........................................................................................29

Table 2.11. Growth in Hydroelectric Generation, 2001-2007.......................................................31

Table 2.12. Growth in Hydroelectric Generation, 2006-2007.......................................................32

Table 2.13. Geothermal Electricity Generation ............................................................................33

Table 2.14. Growth in Geothermal Electricity Generation, 2001-2007 ........................................34

Table 2.15. Growth in Geothermal Electricity Generation, 2006-2007 ........................................34

Table 2.16. Grid-Connected Cumulative Installed Capacity, 2008 (kWdc)..................................35

Table 2.17. Wind Electricity Generation ......................................................................................37

Table 2.18 Growth in Wind Electricity Generation, 2001-2007 ...................................................39

Table 2.19. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation, 2006-2007 ..................................................40

Table 2.20. Wind Capacity, 2008 ..................................................................................................41

Table 3.1. Summary of State Policies to Encourage Renewable Energy Development................85

Table 4.1. Type of Statistical Analysis Used in Each Methodology .............................................90

Table 4.2. Renewable Energy Development Indicators (Dependent Variables) ...........................91

Table 4.3. Market-Transformation Policy Division in Analyses...................................................95

Table 4.4. RPS Best Practices Criteria and State Status, as of 2007 (1=yes, 0=no)....................100

Table 4.5. Relationships between Policy and Performance.........................................................105

Table 4.6. Relationships between Policy and Performance: Time-Lag Analysis........................106

Table 4.7. Policy Correlation Table: Market-Transformation Portfolio (No Time Lag).............111

Table 4.8. Policy Correlation Table: Market-Transformation Portfolio (Time Lag) ..................111

Table 4.9. Portfolio t-test Results Summary Table (No Time Lag).............................................113

Table 4.10. Portfolio t-test Results Summary Table (Time Lag) ................................................114

Table 4.11. RPS Best Practices T-test Results: Significant Policy Features...............................114
x

Table 4.12. Removal of Outlying States: T-test and Correlation Results....................................117

Table 4.13. Summary of Conclusions..........................................................................................119

Table 5.1. Renewable Energy Contextual Factors.......................................................................122

Table 7.1. Total Renewable Electricity Generation (2007).........................................................154

Table 7.2. Renewable Electricity Generation as a Percentage of Total State Electricity 

Generation (2007)..................................................................................................................155

Table 7.3. Renewable Electricity Generation per Capita (2007).................................................156

Table 7.4. Renewable Electricity Generation per Gross State Product (2007)............................157

Table 7.5. Growth in Total Renewable Electricity Generation, 2001-2007 ................................158

Table 7.6. Growth in Renewable Electricity Generation as a Percent of Total State 

Generation, 2001-2007 ..........................................................................................................159

Table 7.7. Growth in Renewable Electricity Generation per Capita, 2001-2007........................160

Table 7.8. Growth in Renewable Electricity Generation per GSP, 2001-2007 ...........................161

Table 7.9. Growth in Total Renewable Electricity Generation, 2006-2007 ................................162

Table 7.10. Growth in Renewable Electricity Generation as a Percentage of Total State 

Electricity, 2006-2007............................................................................................................163

Table 7.11. Growth in Renewable Electricity Generation per Capita, 2006-2007......................164

Table 7.12. Growth in Renewable Electricity Generation per GSP, 2006-2007 .........................165

Table 7.13. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation (2007) .................................166

Table 7.14. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation as a Percentage of Total 

State Electricity Generation (2007) .......................................................................................167

Table 7.15. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation per Capita (2007)................168

Table 7.16. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation per Gross State Product 

(2007).....................................................................................................................................169

Table 7.17. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation, 

2001-2007 ..............................................................................................................................170

Table 7.18. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation as a Percent of Total 

State Electricity Generation, 2001-2007................................................................................171

Table 7.19. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation per Capita, 2001-

2007........................................................................................................................................172

Table 7.20. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation 

per GSP, 2001–2007 ..............................................................................................................173

Table 7.21. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation, 

2006-2007 ..............................................................................................................................174

Table 7.22. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation as a Percentage of 

Total State Electricity Generation, 2006-2007 ......................................................................175

Table 7.23. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation per Capita, 2006-

2007........................................................................................................................................176

Table 7.24. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation per GSP, 

2006-2007 ..............................................................................................................................177

Table 7.25. Biomass Generation (2007) .....................................................................................178

Table 7.26. Biomass Electricity Generation as a Percentage of Total State Electricity 

Generation (2007)..................................................................................................................179

Table 7.27. Biomass Electricity Generation per Capita (2007)..................................................180

Table 7.28. Biomass Electricity Generation per Gross State Product (2007)..............................181

Table 7.29. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation, 2001-2007............................................182
xi

Table 7.30. Growth in Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generated from Biomass, 

2001-2007 ..............................................................................................................................183

Table 7.31. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation Per Capita, 2001-2007..........................184

Table 7.32. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation per GSP, 2001-2007 ............................185

Table 7.33. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation, 2006-2007...........................................186

Table 7.34. Growth in Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generated from Biomass, 

2006-2007 ..............................................................................................................................187

Table 7.35. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation per Capita, 2006-2007 .........................188

Table 7.36. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation per GSP, 2006-2007 ............................189

Table 7.37. Hydroelectric Generation (2007).............................................................................190

Table 7.38. Hydroelectric Generation as a Percent of Total In-State Generation (2007)...........191

Table 7.39. Hydroelectric Generation per Capita (2007) ...........................................................192

Table 7.40. Hydroelectric Generation per GSP (2007)...............................................................193

Table 7.41. Growth in Hydroelectric Electricity Generation, 2001-2007 ..................................194

Table 7.42. Growth in Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generation from Hydroelectric, 

2001-2007 ..............................................................................................................................195

Table 7.43. Growth in Hydroelectric Electricity Generation per Capita, 2001-2007.................196

Table 7.44. Growth in Hydroelectric Electricity Generation per GSP, 2001-2007....................197

Table 7.45. Growth in Hydroelectric Electricity Generation, 2006-2007 ..................................198

Table 7.46. Growth in Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generation from Hydroelectric, 

2006-2007 ..............................................................................................................................199

Table 7.47. Growth in Hydroelectric Generation per Capita, 2006-2007 ..................................200

Table 7.48. Growth in Hydroelectric Generation per GSP, 2006-2007......................................201

Table 7.49. Geothermal Electricity Generation ..........................................................................202

Table 7.50. Growth in Geothermal Electricity Generation: 2001-2007 .....................................202

Table 7.51. Growth in Geothermal Electricity Generation, 2006-2007 .....................................203

Table 7.52. Grid-Connected Cumulative Installed Capacity, 2008 (kWdc)...............................204

Table 7.53. Wind Generation Reported to EIA by State, 2007 ..................................................205

Table 7.54. Wind Generation as a Percent of Total In-state Generation, 2007 ..........................205

Table 7.55. Wind Generation per Capita, 2007 ..........................................................................206

Table 7.56. Wind Generation per GSP, 2007 .............................................................................206

Table 7.57. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation, 2001–2007...............................................207

Table 7.58. Growth in Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generation from Wind, 

2001-2007 ..............................................................................................................................208

Table 7.59. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation per Capita, 2001-2007..............................209

Table 7.60. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation per GSP, 2001-2007.................................209

Table 7.61. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation, 2006-2007 ...............................................210

Table 7.62. Growth in Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generation from Wind, 

2006-2007 ..............................................................................................................................210

Table 7.63. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation per Capita, 2006-2007..............................211

Table 7.64. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation per GSP, 2006-2007.................................211

Table 7.65. Wind Capacity, 2008 ...............................................................................................212
xii

List of Acronyms 

ACEEE American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

ACP alternative compliance payment

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

AWEA American Wind Energy Association

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CESA Clean Energy States Alliance

CHP combined heat and power

DOE Department of Energy (U.S.)

DSIRE Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency

EERE DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

EIA Energy Information Administration

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)

EPAct Energy Policy Act

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GHG greenhouse gas

GSP gross state product

GDP gross domestic product

IAC Industrial Assessment Centers

ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IREC Interstate Renewable Energy Council

ITP Industrial Technologies Program

kWh kilowatt-hour

LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

MT market transformation

MWh megawatt-hour

NEPOOL New England Power Pool

NARUC National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners

NNEC Network for New Energy Choices

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

PBF public benefit fund

PBFRE public benefit fund with renewable energy

PPA power purchase agreement

PSC public service commission

PTC production tax credit

PUC public utility commission

PV photovoltaics 

R&D research and development

RE renewable energy

REC renewable energy certificate

RPS renewable portfolio standard

SBC systems benefit charge

SCEPA State Clean Energy Policies Analysis
xiii

SOS08 State of the States 2008 (last year’s edition of this report)

TAP Technical Assistance Project

TOU time of use

TWh terawatt-hour

UCS Union of Concerned Scientists

UL Underwriters Laboratories

WGA Western Governors’ Association

WIP Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program

WPA Wind Powering America

WREGIS Western Region Electricity Generation Information System 
xiv

Executive Summary

Increasing numbers of U.S. states and territories are implementing policy measures and 

dedicating funding to encourage the deployment of renewable energy technologies. The design 

and implementation of these incentives is varied – and so are the development trends. 

This report tracks the progress of renewable energy development within the states, as well as the 

policies and support mechanisms implemented to encourage this development. Renewable 

resources supplied 8.5% of the total electricity generation in 2007, and hydroelectric generation 

continues to represent the largest portion at 70% (Table ES-1, Figure ES-1). 

Table ES-1. U.S. National Renewable Energy Generation by Resource

Resource

Percent of Total 

U.S. Electricity 

Generation

Percent of Total 

Renewable 

Generation

MWh 

Generated

Biomass 1.34% 15.74% 55,538,579

Geothermal 0.35% 4.15% 14,637,213

Large-scale solar 0.01% 0.17% 611,793

Wind 0.83% 9.77% 34,449,927

Non-hydro renewable resources 2.53% 29.83% 105,237,512

Hydroelectric 5.95% 70.17% 247,509,975

Total renewable resources 8.49% 100% 352,747,487

Source: EIA 2009

 Source: EIA 2009c

Figure ES-1. U.S. Electricity Generation by Source, 2007

Wind resources experienced the largest growth of the renewable energy technologies in recent 

years, increasing 30% from 2006 to 2007. Biomass and solar electricity generation has increased 

at a slower rate, with gains of 11.6% and 12.72% between 2001 and 2007, respectively. Net 

metering, interconnection standards, renewable portfolio standards, tax incentives, renewable 
xv

energy access laws, and generation disclosure laws are the most prevalent renewable energy state 

policies.

Beyond tracking policy implementation and development, this report presents new approaches to 

policy evaluation. This analysis aims to augment traditional case-study and qualitative analyses 

to develop a quantitative understanding of policy impacts using statistical and empirical 

methods, as well as to open the door for more thorough analyses of policy options, inform future 

policy development, and ultimately optimize the market share of renewable energy resources.

Statistical analyses reveal several interesting results. States that implemented net-metering 

legislation in 2005 had significantly more renewable energy generation in 2007 than states 

without such a policy. Combining generation disclosure requirements with required green power 

programs is also connected with significantly higher levels of development. The analysis 

identifies several features (design elements) of renewable portfolio standard policies that 

significantly contribute to increased renewable energy development when looked at individually. 

However, this analysis does not find any single model for a renewable portfolio standard that is 

correlated with significant increases in development. Further research on each of these 

observations is warranted, along with developing more robust methodologies for exploring the 

effectiveness of policy portfolios and best practice designs.

The report shows positive correlations between the total number of market transformation 

policies within a given state (including both barrier reduction and technology accessibility 

policies) and the total megawatt-hours (MWh) of renewable energy generated within that state. 

This relationship is particularly true when considering individual renewable energy resources 

(e.g., wind, solar, biomass). 

There are many contextual factors, other than policies, that affect renewable energy 

development. These include, but are not limited to, resource and technology availability, the 

economic context, land use and public perception issues, transmission availability, institutional 

structures, and financing. Understanding the contextual factors within which policies are placed

is essential to defining the most appropriate policy features.
1

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

As concerns about energy security, climate change, and the depletion of fossil fuel resources 

heighten, the development of renewable energy resources has become the subject of much 

discussion. Renewable energy (RE) not only provides a clean, sustainable source of energy 

production, but these technologies also benefit job creation, economic stimulation, increased 

rural development, health-related impacts, and positive spill-over effects to other sectors.

Despite the many benefits of renewable energy, development remains slow. Policies to stimulate 

the deployment of clean energy technologies are necessary for creating a level playing field by 

addressing market barriers, internalizing externalities, and creating levelized price structures and 

access to infrastructure.

Increasing numbers of U.S. states and territories are implementing policy measures and 

dedicating funding to encourage the deployment of renewable energy technologies. The design 

and implementation of these incentives is varied – and so are the development trends.

This report summarizes the current status of renewable energy development in the U.S. states, 

identifying trends and high-performing states based on a variety of measures (Chapter 2). It 

identifies the policies that are being used to encourage this development, and presents the current 

understandings of design-based best practices (Chapter 3). The analysis draws a connection 

between the policies and development, using a quantitative investigation of the relationship 

between policy implementation and actual generation, and a variety of statistical analyses 

(Chapter 4). The report explores other factors that affect renewable energy development to place 

the policy discussion within the broader context (Chapter 5). And, finally, the report provides 

overall conclusions, next steps, and a list of resources (Chapter 6).

The context of the report within existing literature

Significant efforts have been made to document success stories and lessons learned from past 

and recent policy implementations. These case studies provide important insights and inform the 

growing field of literature on policy design practices (e.g., Couture and Cory 2009, Hurlbut 

2008, Lantz and Doris 2009, Wiser et al. 2007 and 2002). The general understanding regarding 

effective policy actions have been compiled into best practices and step-by-step guides that assist 

policymakers in their efforts to develop policies and programs tailored to their state clean energy 

goals. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published a “State and Local Guide to 

Action” that outlines a strategy for developing energy efficiency and renewable energy through 

planning and policy implementation and provides lessons learned for 16 commonly used policies 

(EPA 2008). Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) has an extensive list of 

downloadable case studies on renewable energy project and policy implementation (LBNL 

2009). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) also provides case studies and examples of energy 

efficiency and renewable energy projects (DOE 2009). These, and other resources, are listed at 

the end of this report.

What has been missing from the literature, however, is a quantitative link between the 

implementation of particular policies and the development that is spurred by those policies. A 
2

group of partner reports, which complement this State of the States report and are products of the 

State Clean Energy Policies Analysis (SCEPA) project, begin a quantitative exploration of the 

effects of individual policies on economic development, environmental, and energy security 

benefits (www.nrel.gov/applying_technologies/scepa.html). This report addresses remaining 

questions, targeting policy impact on renewable energy development, specifically: 

• Which policies or combinations of policies are working, and to what degree are they 

increasing development? 

• Can a quantitative approach to policy evaluation provide more insight into effective 

policy approaches? 

• What methods are most applicable to a results-based policy evaluation? 

The report takes an enhanced approach to the traditional case studies and qualitative policy 

analyses, moving toward a quantitative understanding of policy impact. This analysis opens the 

door for more thorough analyses of policy options; informs future policy development; and,

ultimately, optimizes the market share of renewable energy resource use. 

New Developments in State of the States (SOS) 2009

This second annual State of the States report updates and expands on the efforts initiated in last 

year’s report. An overarching goal in this year’s edition is to improve the accessibility of the 

information. The authors accomplish, through a reorganization of the sections, a streamlined

format, and increased use of graphics.

The metrics used in the presentation of the generation trends and growth in development is 

updated to most recently available information, but otherwise unchanged from State of the States

(SOS) 2008, which allows for easy comparison with the previous year’s results. The authors 

restructured and expanded the policy discussion, and provide new understandings of best 

practices and policy developments within the states. 

The authors also significantly expanded the quantitative analyses linking policy implementation 

with development trends has been built on. They revisited the statistical methodology, and took a 

different, more robust, approach to the analysis. In addition, the analysts explored linkages from 

several new angles, both for individual policies and for combinations of policies. This 

presentation does not represent an ideal method, but it represents progress in an ongoing effort to 

develop a robust methodology for quantitative policy evaluation. 

The results of both qualitative and quantitative investigations of policy impact point to the 

extensive role that other contextual factors play in renewable energy development. Policies do 

not work in a vacuum; they are influenced by and also influence many other elements within the 

larger market and society. In the previous edition of this report (Brown and Busche 2008), these 

contextual factors were presented in an overview fashion. This year’s report provides a more indepth treatment of these factors, the way they interplay with each other, and the way they 

influence and are influenced by policy. Similar to the quantitative policy evaluation, this 

exploration of the contextual elements does not represent a complete work, but a stage in an 

ongoing effort. 
3

The analysts conducted this work in the context of a volatile market, both generally and for 

renewable energy specifically. Major federal level changes in the strategy for promoting clean 

energy development are resulting in increased state-level interest and changes to existing policy. 

This report serves as a source of additional knowledge to inform decisions, spur creative 

solutions, and lead to an efficient allocation of resources, moving toward the goal of a 

sustainable energy system. 
4

Chapter 2. Quantitative Trends in Renewable Energy 

Development

Introduction

This chapter discusses trends in renewable energy development based on the most recent 

renewable electricity generation and capacity data available (2007). A variety of metrics are used 

to explore the trends in development at the national and state levels. National renewable 

electricity generation is presented with and without large hydroelectric generation.1 Generation 

for individual technologies is provided to reflect resource differences among states and 

emphasize the need to take advantage of available local resources.

To help compare data among states and to begin to account for the contextual differences among 

states, the state-by-state data is normalized for three parameters: percentage of total electricity 

generation, state population, and gross state product (GSP). Definitions of these metrics are 

given in the following sections. The analysis is presented in tables that rank the states as well as 

maps highlighting the top producers according to each metric.

In addition to annual data, the chapter provides renewable electricity generation growth figures, 

presented as percentage increases over time. The strength of this metric is that it lends more 

weight to growth in states reporting little or no renewable energy in the beginning year. While 

the actual improvements may be small in terms of actual capacity development, they are 

sometimes large in terms of resource development and, therefore, may represent significant steps 

in the transition to a clean energy economy. 

Definitions of Resources for Data Gathering

The definition of renewable energy for this report includes biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, 

solar (utility scale), and wind, as defined and tracked by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy 

Information Administration (EIA). Also included in some tables, as noted, are distributed solar 

capacity data as tracked by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (Sherwood 2008 and 

personal communication, June 8, 2009) and wind capacity data as tracked by the American Wind 

Energy Association (AWEA 2009a). The resource definitions used in this report are given 

below. It should be noted that some states may use different resource definitions.

Biomass

Agricultural crops and residues; dedicated energy crops (herbaceous and tree species); forestry 

products and residues; residues and byproducts from food, feed, fiber, wood, and materials 

processing plants [sawdust from sawmills, black liquor (a byproduct of paper making), cheese 

whey (a byproduct of cheese-making processes), and animal manures]; post-consumer residues 

and wastes, such as fats, greases, oils, construction and demolition wood debris and other urban 

wood waste, municipal solid wastes and wastewater, and landfill gases (Milbrandt 2008). The 

specific EIA definition includes landfill gas/MSW biogenic, wood, and wood derived fuels (EIA 

2009a, 2008). 

 1 Large-scale hydroelectric generation can be considered an established technology and may or may not be affected 

by current policy innovations. To accommodate this argument, the technology is presented both ways in this report. 
5

Geothermal

Electricity produced centrally from heat in the earth.

Hydroelectric (conventional)

Electricity derived from the movement of water. The EIA defines a conventional plant as one in 

that “all of the power is produced from natural streamflow as regulated by available storage.” 

(EIA 2009a) Pumped storage is not collected and reported under this definition, because the EIA 

considers it to use nonrenewable resources for operation (EIA 2009b). Hydroelectric generation,

in particular, is considerably influenced by non-policy issues such as rainfall patterns and climate 

change. Consequently, in future issues of the report, hydroelectric capacity data will be included 

to account for variations in annual rainfall. 

Solar (utility scale)

The radiant heat from the sun, 

which can be converted into 

electricity on a large scale, such 

as through concentrated solar 

power, concentrated 

photovoltaics (PV), or similar 

technologies.

Solar (distributed)

On-grid distributed solar electric 

noncentral electricity generation 

resources, including residential, 

commercial, and industrial 

applications. Primary technology 

is photovoltaics.

Wind

The extraction of kinetic energy 

from the wind for conversion 

into electricity.

Data Sources

The EIA dataset is considered 

the most comprehensive source 

for electricity generation 

information in the United States, 

and it is the primary source for 

trends information in this report 

(with noted exceptions). Other 

datasets were considered for inclusion in this report, including the International Energy Agency, 

but these did not include sub-national-level data, so were inadequate for use in this evaluation of 

state policies. There are a number of challenges in collecting renewable electricity generation 

information for the state level, and improving the dataset is an ongoing effort. The strength of the 

Challenges with EIA Renewable Energy Data

EIA data is not entirely comprehensive, especially when it 

comes to renewable energy development. Although the 

agency is constantly working to improve data collection, 

there are limitations to the dataset used in this report: 

• Lack of Comprehensive Reporting from D.C. and 

U.S. Territories. Initial analysis for this report included 

assembling data for the District of Columbia (D.C.) and 

five primary U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, 

Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands). Preliminary energy data for the territories, taken 

from EIA sources, were insufficient for this analysis in 

terms of specificity of generation and measurement. In 

an attempt to supplement these data, personal 

interviews were conducted with energy contacts from 

these locations; however, the data remain insufficient to 

include territories in this analysis. Refined reporting of 

territory data in the future could allow for the territories to 

be included within a state comparison. 

• Lack of Comprehensive Distributed Resource Data.

The EIA does not collect comprehensive data on 

distributed solar PV. As a result, only four states report 

solar resource development, when it is widely known 

that there is extensive smaller-scale solar development. 

While the agency improves data collection techniques, 

this report augmented the dataset with capacity for 

distributed PV collected by the Interstate Renewable 

Energy Council (IREC) with funding from the DOE Solar 

Energy Technologies Program (Sherwood 2008). It is 

anticipated that there are other distributed energyrelated limitations of the data that are discussed for each 

technology and will be further explored in a later version 

of this report.
6

EIA dataset, and the reason it is employed here, is its standardization of definitions and data 

collection techniques, which allow for nationwide comparisons. 

The EIA does not collect data on distributed solar electricity generation. Solar PV data presented 

in this report represent installed capacity for 2008 (Table 2.16), collected by the Interstate 

Renewable Energy Council using established methodologies described in Sherwood (2008).

Data for installed wind capacity are taken from the American Wind Energy Association’s 

(AWEA 2009b) projects database (Table 2.20). This represents the most recent state-level data 

concerning wind capacity installments and projects.

Sources of data for renewable-based electricity generation in the U.S. territories are limited. The 

data presented here are taken from the available information from EIA. 

The data provided in this report represent the most recent publicly available information. 

Significant market changes between 2007 and 2009 are expected to have an impact on renewable 

energy generation, and these changes will be reported in later versions of this report as the data 

becomes available.

National Renewable Energy Generation Data 

In 2007, generation from renewable resources in the United States constituted 8.49% 

(352,747,487 MWh) of total US electricity generation (4,156,669,475 MWh). This represents a 

decline from 2006 (Figure 2.1). This decline may be accounted for by the rapid rise in 

electricity demand, as well as a decline in hydroelectric generation as a result of retirements and 

reduced water resources for power generation due to drought.

 Source: EIA 2009

Figure 2.1. Renewable Generation as a Percent of Total U.S. Electricity Generation, 2007
7

National Renewable Energy Growth Data

Renewable energy growth figures are presented below as percentage increase over time. The 

strength of this metric is that it lends more weight to growth in states reporting little or no 

renewable energy in the initial year. While the actual improvements may be small in terms of 

actual capacity development, they represent large strides in the growth of individual resource 

development. 

Percent changes in generation are given for the six-year period from 2001 to 2007 (Figure 2.2), 

as well as during the one-year period from 2006 to 2007 (Figure 2.3). The 2006-2007 percent 

changes represent the improvements made since last year’s version of this report.

 

These percent-change figures are considered valuable because single-year data do not 

sufficiently describe changing trends. The time-series data shows changes for specific 

technologies or within certain geographic regions. Highlighting these changes assists in 

analyzing the effects of technological development, policy implementation, or other variables at 

play in renewable energy deployment. The growth metrics also demonstrate how states are 

taking advantage of their available renewable resources and identify areas of opportunity. 

The results show that overall renewable energy generation increased between 2001-2007, and the 

percentage of that generation being provided by hydroelectricity is declining. Non-hydroelectric 

renewable electricity generation as a percentage of GDP also increased during this time period, 

although this is not the case when hydroelectric generation is included in the mix. Wind energy 

experienced the largest growth in terms of its percentage of total renewable generation, while the 

proportions of hydroelectricity and biomass declined.

Data since last year’s report indicate that overall renewable energy generation declined between 

2006-2007, primarily due to a decrease in hydroelectric generation. Non-hydroelectric renewable 

energy experienced an increase in all the metrics (total generation, percent of total electricity, per 

capita, and per GDP). Wind energy made up the largest proportion of the growth; however, all 

technologies saw an increase in capacity development.
8

National Growth Data, 2001 – 2007

Source: EIA 2009

Figure 2.2. Total Renewable and Non-Hydroelectric Renewable U.S. Electricity Generation, 

2001 and 2007

Total Renewable Electricity Growth (including hydroelectric)

o Thirty-six states have increased generation from total renewable resources between 2001-

2007.

o Total renewable electricity generation increased 22.6%, to reach 352,747,487 MWh 

between 2001-2007.

o Total renewable electricity generation as a percent of total electricity increased 10.2% 

between 2001-2007.

o Total renewable electricity generation per capita increased 16% between 2001-2007.

o Total renewable electricity generation per GDP decreased 10.23% between 2001-2007.

Total Renewable Electricity Growth (excluding hydroelectric)

o Forty-five states increased electricity generation from non-hydroelectric renewable 

resources between 2001-2007.

o Non-hydro renewable electricity generation as a percent of total electricity generation 

increased 33.7% between 2001-2007.

o Non-hydro renewable electricity generation per capita increased 40.7% between 2001-

2007.

o Non-hydro renewable electricity generation per GDP increased 8.9% between 2001-

2007.

o Non-hydro renewable electricity generation increased 48.71%, from 70,768,659 MWh to 

105,237,512 MWh between 2001-2007.

o Non-hydro renewable electricity generation as a percent of total renewable generation 

increased from 24.6% to 29.83% between 2001-2007.
9

Biomass Growth

o Thirty-two states increased electricity generation from biomass resources between 2001-

2007.

o Total biomass electricity generation increased 11.6%, from 48,748,059 MWh to 

55,538,579 MWh between 2001-2007.

o Total biomass generation as a percent of total renewable electricity generation decreased 

from 17.29% to 15.74% between 2001-2007.

Geothermal Growth

o Four states increased electricity generation from geothermal resources between 2001-

2007.

o Geothermal electricity generation increased 6.53%, from 13,740,503 MWh to 14,637,213 

MWh between 2001-2007.

Solar Growth

o Four states increased electricity generation from large-scale solar technologies between 

2001-2007.

o Solar electricity generation increased 12.72%, from 542,760 MWh to 611,793 MWh 

between 2001-2007.

Wind Growth

o Twenty-eight states increased electricity generation from wind resources between 2001-

2007.

o Wind electricity generation increased 411%, from 6,737,337 MWh to 34,449,927 MWh 

between 2001-2007.

o Wind electricity generation as a percent of total renewable generation increased from 

2.34% to 9.77% between 2001-2007.

o Eleven states began producing electricity from wind for the first time between 2002 and 

2006. One state (Maine) began producing electricity from wind for the first time in 2007.

Hydroelectric Growth

o Twenty-nine states increased electricity generation from hydroelectric resources.

o Hydroelectric generation increased 14.08%, from 216,961,046 MWh to 247,509,975 

MWh between 2001-2007.

o Hydroelectric generation as a percent of total renewable generation decreased from 

75.4% to 70.17% between 2001-2007.
10

National Growth Data, 2006 -2007

 Source: EIA 2009

Figure 2.3. Renewable and Non-Hydroelectric Renewable U.S. Electricity Generation, 

2006 and 2007

Total Renewable Electricity Growth (including hydroelectric)

o Eighteen states increased electricity generation from renewable resources from 2006-

2007.

o Total renewable electricity generation decreased 8.56%, from 385,771,907 MWh to 

352,747,487 MWh from 2006-2007.

o Total renewable electricity generation as a percent of total electricity decreased 10.6% 

(from 9.49% to 8.49%) from 2006-2007.

o Total renewable electricity generation per capita decreased 9.33% from 2006-2007.

o Total renewable electricity generation per GDP decreased 12.5% from 2006-2007.

Total Renewable Electricity Growth (excluding hydroelectric)

o Thirty-one states increased electricity generation from non-hydroelectric renewable 

resources from 2006-2007.

o Non-hydro renewable electricity generation increased 9.03%, from 96,525,492 MWh to 

105,237,512 MWh from 2006-2007.

o Non-hydro renewable electricity generation as a percent of total electricity increased 

6.6% (from 2.37% to 2.53%) from 2006-2007.

o Non-hydro renewable electricity generation as a percent of total renewable generation 

increased from 25% to 30% from 2006-2007.

o Non-hydro renewable electricity generation per capita increased 8.1% from 2006-2007.

o Non-hydro renewable electricity generation per GSP increased 4.33% from 2006-2007.
11

Biomass Growth

o Twenty-five states increased electricity generation from biomass resources from 2006-

2007.

o Biomass electricity generation increased 1.24%, from 54,860,620 MWh to 55,538,579 

MWh from 2006-2007.

o Biomass electricity generation as a percent of total renewable electricity generation 

increased from 14.22% to 15.74% from 2006-2007.

Geothermal Growth

o Two states increased electricity generation from geothermal resources from 2006-2007.

o Geothermal electricity generation increased 0.47%, from 14,568,029 MWh to 14,637,213 

MWh from 2006-2007.

Solar Growth

o Three states increased generation from large-scale solar technologies from 2006-2007.

o Solar electricity generation increased 20.5%, from 507,706 MWh to 611,793 MWh from 

2006-2007.

Wind Growth

o Twenty-four states increased electricity generation from wind resources from 2006-2007.

o Wind electricity generation increased 29.56%, from 26,589,137 MWh to 34,449,927 

MWh from 2006-2007.

o Wind electricity generation as a percent of total renewable generation increased from 

6.89% to 9.77% from 2006-2007.

Hydroelectric Growth

o Ten states have increased electricity generation from hydroelectric resources from 2006-

2007.

o Hydroelectric generation decreased 14.43%, from 289,246,415 MWh to 247,509,975 

MWh from 2006-2007.

o Hydroelectric generation as a percent of renewable generation decreased from 75% to 

70% from 2006-2007.
12

State-by-State Renewable Energy Generation Data

This section shows state-by-state data for renewable energy generation. 

In addition to total generation figures, the state-by-state data are normalized for three parameters: 

• percentage of total state electricity generation, 

• state population, and 

• gross state product (GSP). 

These metrics begin to account for the unique contexts within each state. Population data for the 

states are from the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau (Census Bureau 2008). State 

GSP data are compiled from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2009). And, unless 

otherwise noted, generation data are from the EIA (2009c).

Total Generation

The total state renewable electricity generation numbers are presented:

Table 2.1 – Total generation, including hydroelectric

Table 2.2 – Total generation, excluding hydroelectric

Total generation for each individual technology is presented:

Table 2.7 – Biomass

Table 2.10 – Hydroelectric 

Table 2.13 – Geothermal

Table 2.17 – Wind

Renewable Energy as a Percentage of Total Generation

Relating renewable energy generation to the total in-state generation is a normalizing metric, 

which adds context to the state progress toward renewable-based electricity development: 

Table 2.3 – Renewable energy percentages, including hydroelectric 

Table 2.4 – Renewable energy percentages, excluding hydroelectric 

When hydroelectric is included, northwestern states generate more than three-quarters of in-state 

generation from renewable resources. Large-scale hydroelectric developments are the primary 

contributors to this generation. When considering non large-scale hydroelectric –to focus on 

developing renewable energy markets – no state produces more than 26% of electricity from 

renewable resources, and most states generate less than 5%.

Renewable energy generation, as a percent of total generation, for each individual technology is 

presented:
13

Table 2.7 – Biomass percentage of total

Table 2.10 – Hydroelectric percentage of total

Table 2.13 – Geothermal percentage of total

Table 2.17 – Wind percentage of total

Generation per Capita

Generation per capita is another normalizing metric to gain insight into trends. States that 

generate a large amount of electricity from renewable sources relative to the size of their 

population top this list. 

Generation per capita is presented for each individual technology:

Table 2.7 – Biomass generation per capita

Table 2.10 – Hydroelectric generation per capita

Table 2.13 – Geothermal generation per capita

Table 2.17 – Wind generation per capita

When all renewable resources are considered, hydroelectric resource use in the northwestern 

states launches Washington and Montana to more than 10 MWh of generation per person 

(Table 2.1). When those resources are removed, Maine has the highest generation per capita at 

3.2 MWh per capita, with the vast majority of states generating less than one MWh per capita 

(Table 2.2). 

Generation per Gross State Product (GSP)

Normalizing for economic context provides further insights into renewable electricity generation. 

Table 2.1 also presents a metric that normalizes generation using GSP, a traditional measure of 

state economic output. Similar to population analysis, states that generate a large amount of 

electricity from renewable sources relative to their GSP will top this list. To rank higher, more 

economically productive states would need to generate a larger amount of renewable-based 

electricity. 

Generation per GSP is presented for each individual technology:

Table 2.7 –Biomass generation per GSP

Table 2.10 – Hydroelectric generation per GSP

Table 2.13 – Geothermal generation per GSP

Table 2.17 – Wind generation per GSP

Renewable Energy Growth

“Growth” rankings provide information on the largest growth rates from 2001 to 2007, and 2006 

to 2007. The former is designed to report champions in renewable growth during a six-year 

period. The latter is designed to highlight the states that have shown the most growth in the most 
14

recent single year period for which data is obtained. The data is separated into technology and 

then normalized for comparisons between technology and states. 

To show the growth of each of the renewable energy technologies in the states, growth from 

2001 to 2007, and from 2006 to 2007 is presented:

Tables 2.3 – 2.6 - Total renewable energy growth, including and excluding hydroelectric

Tables 2.8 – 2.9 – Biomass growth

Tables 2.11 – 2.12 - Hydroelectric growth 

Tables 2.14 – 2.15 - Geothermal growth

Tables 2.18 – 2.19 - Wind growth
15

Table 2.1. Total Renewable Electricity Generation 

MWh Generated (2007) As a Percentage of Total State 

Electricity Generation (2007)

Rank State MWh Rank State % of Total 

1 Washington 82,559,749 1 Idaho 84.2%

2 California 52,173,008 2 Washington 77.2%

3 Oregon 35,815,731 3 Oregon 65.0%

4 New York 28,027,638 4 South Dakota 50.0%

5 Texas 11,932,049 5 Maine 49.3%

6 Montana 9,971,057 6 Montana 34.5%

7 Idaho 9,674,539 7 California 24.7%

8 Maine 7,945,148 8 New York 19.2%

9 Alabama 7,936,734 9 Alaska 19.1%

10 Arizona 6,639,310 10 Vermont 19.1%

Per Capita (2007) Per GSP (MWh/M$) (2007)

Rank State MWh/Capita Rank State MWh/$M

1 Washington 12.8 1 Montana 291.1

2 Montana 10.4 2 Washington 265.2

3 Oregon 9.6 3 Oregon 226.4

4 Idaho 6.5 4 Idaho 189.1

5 Maine 6.0 5 Maine 165.2

6 South Dakota 3.9 6 South Dakota 90.4

7 North Dakota 3.0 7 North Dakota 70.0

8 Wyoming 2.8 8 Arkansas 51.0

9 Alaska 1.9 9 Alabama 47.9

10 New Hampshire 1.8 10 Wyoming 47.1

Source: EIA 2009
16

Table 2.2. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation

MWh Generated (2007) As a Percentage of Total State Electricity 

Generation (2007)

Rank State MWh Rank State % of Total 

1 California 24,845,257 1 Maine 26.1%

2 Texas 10,287,612 2 California 11.8%

3 Florida 4,302,817 3 Vermont 8.0%

4 Maine 4,206,980 4 Minnesota 7.2%

5 Minnesota 3,932,638 5 Hawaii 6.5%

6 Alabama 3,800,620 6 Iowa 5.8%

7 Washington 3,730,554 7 Idaho 5.7%

8 Georgia 3,415,421 8 New Hampshire 4.8%

9 Louisiana 2,979,883 9 Oregon 4.1%

10 Iowa 2,907,776 10 Nevada 4.0%

Per Capita (2007) Per GSP (MWh/M$) (2007)

Rank State MWh/Capita Rank State MWh/$M

1 Maine 3.2 1 Maine 87.5

2 Wyoming 1.4 2 Wyoming 24.0

3 North Dakota 1.0 3 Alabama 22.9

4 Iowa 1.0 4 North Dakota 22.9

5 New Hampshire 0.9 5 Iowa 22.5

6 Alabama 0.8 6 New Hampshire 19.6

7 Minnesota 0.8 7 Vermont 18.9

8 Vermont 0.7 8 New Mexico 18.5

9 New Mexico 0.7 9 Montana 17.7

10 California 0.7 10 Arkansas 17.0

Source: EIA 2009
17

Figure 2.4. Total Renewable Energy Generation (TWh) 

Figure 2.5. Total Renewable Energy Generation (MWh/Capita)
18

Figure 2.6. Percentage of Total State Electricity Generation: All Renewable Resources 

Figure 2.7. Total Renewable Energy Generation (MWh/M$ 2007 GSP) 
19

Figure 2.8. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation (TWh)

Figure 2.9. Percentage of Total Electricity Generation: Non-Hydroelectric Renewable 

Resources 
20

Figure 2.10. Total Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Energy Generation (MWh/Capita) 

Figure 2.11. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Energy Generation (MWh/M$ 2007 GSP) 
21

State Growth Data

Table 2.3. Growth in Total Renewable Electricity Generation, 2001-2007*

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Kansas 1,678.5% 1 Kansas 1,487.9%

2 New Mexico 555.2% 2 New Mexico 512.0%

3 Texas 252.9% 3 Texas 224.2%

4 Iowa 169.4% 4 Iowa 120.0%

5 Oklahoma 101.7% 5 Colorado 65.2%

6 Colorado 90.0% 6 Rhode Island 58.6%

7 Illinois 74.9% 7 Illinois 56.5%

8 South Carolina 67.6% 8 Oklahoma 53.0%

9 Minnesota 63.3% 9 Maine 48.9%

10 Montana 49.3% 10 Minnesota 45.4%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Kansas 1,629.6% 1 Kansas 1,210.4%

2 New Mexico 510.1% 2 New Mexico 341.8%

3 Texas 215.8% 3 Texas 135.5%

4 Iowa 164.5% 4 Iowa 91.9%

5 Oklahoma 93.7% 5 Colorado 43.2%

6 Colorado 74.0% 6 Illinois 36.7%

7 Illinois 70.7% 7 Oklahoma 36.6%

8 Minnesota 57.0% 8 South Carolina 28.6%

9 South Carolina 54.6% 9 Minnesota 21.8%

10 Rhode Island 49.8% 10 Rhode Island 11.7%

*Delaware is not included because they did not produce renewable energy as recorded by the EIA in 2001; 

therefore, 2001-2007 growth numbers cannot be calculated. 
22

Table 2.4. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation, 2001-2007*

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 South Dakota 17,123.7% 1 South Dakota 20,671.7%

2 North Dakota 8,175.0% 2 North Dakota 7,938.6%

3 New Mexico 7,455.4% 3 New Mexico 6,957.0%

4 Kentucky 4,774.6% 4 Kentucky 4,684.0%

5 Kansas 2,793.5% 5 Kansas 2,483.3%

6 Nebraska 1,341.1% 6 Nebraska 1,254.1%

7 Alaska 1,082.1% 7 Alaska 1,068.7%

8 Colorado 1,074.0% 8 Colorado 920.9%

9 West Virginia 979.3% 9 West Virginia 840.3%

10 Montana 827.4% 10 Montana 676.7%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 South Dakota 16,326.3% 1 South Dakota 12,035.8%

2 North Dakota 8,155.3% 2 North Dakota 5,429.7%

3 New Mexico 6,934.7% 3 New Mexico 4,993.8%

4 Kentucky 4,580.3% 4 Kentucky 3,539.4%

5 Kansas 2,713.9% 5 Kansas 2,031.9%

6 Nebraska 1,299.4% 6 Nebraska 933.4%

7 Alaska 999.1% 7 Colorado 784.7%

8 Colorado 974.9% 8 West Virginia 711.0%

9 West Virginia 972.8% 9 Alaska 606.6%

10 Oklahoma 786.2% 10 Oklahoma 524.8%

*Delaware is not included because they did not produce renewable energy as recorded by the EIA in 2001; 

therefore, 2001-2007 growth numbers cannot be calculated.
23

Table 2.5. Growth in Total Renewable Electricity Generation, 2006-2007

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,438.6% 1 Delaware 9,610.7%

2 Missouri 452.7% 2 Missouri 456.0%

3 Oklahoma 97.3% 3 Oklahoma 91.3%

4 Arkansas 48.5% 4 Arkansas 41.9%

5 Illinois 40.7% 5 Texas 39.0%

6 Texas 40.7% 6 Illinois 35.2%

7 Minnesota 26.3% 7 Minnesota 23.5%

8 Kansas 16.1% 8 New Mexico 17.7%

9 Iowa 15.0% 9 Hawaii 14.9%

10 Hawaii 14.6% 10 Colorado 6.9%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,315.4% 1 Delaware 11,485.3%

2 Missouri 448.9% 2 Missouri 444.1%

3 Oklahoma 95.6% 3 Oklahoma 90.7%

4 Arkansas 47.4% 4 Arkansas 43.0%

5 Illinois 40.2% 5 Illinois 36.1%

6 Texas 38.1% 6 Texas 31.3%

7 Minnesota 25.7% 7 Minnesota 21.2%

8 Kansas 15.2% 8 New Mexico 13.3%

9 Hawaii 14.8% 9 Colorado 10.8%

10 Iowa 14.6% 10 Kansas 10.6%
24

Table 2.6. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation, 2006-2007

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,438.6% 1 Delaware 9,610.7%

2 North Dakota 70.0% 2 North Dakota 68.2%

3 Illinois 51.4% 3 Washington 50.7%

4 Alaska 50.7% 4 Alaska 47.4%

5 New Hampshire 50.5% 5 Illinois 45.4%

6 Washington 49.1% 6 New Hampshire 42.7%

7 Colorado 47.8% 7 Colorado 39.0%

8 Texas 31.6% 8 Texas 30.0%

9 Minnesota 28.6% 9 Minnesota 25.6%

10 Missouri 22.3% 10 Vermont 25.3%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,315.4% 1 Delaware 11,485.3%

2 North Dakota 69.9% 2 North Dakota 61.8%

3 Illinois 50.8% 3 New Hampshire 47.7%

4 New Hampshire 50.5% 4 Illinois 46.4%

5 Alaska 49.9% 5 Colorado 44.2%

6 Washington 47.3% 6 Washington 40.6%

7 Colorado 45.5% 7 Alaska 39.1%

8 Texas 29.2% 8 Minnesota 23.3%

9 Minnesota 27.9% 9 Texas 22.8%

10 Hawaii 22.1% 10 Missouri 20.4%
25

State Renewable Electricity Generation Data by Technology

Biomass Generation

Table 2.7. Biomass Electricity Generation

MWh Generated (2007) As a Percentage of Total State Electricity 

Generation (2007)

Rank State MWh Rank State % of Total 

1 California 5,712,644 1 Maine 25.5%

2 Florida 4,302,817 2 Vermont 7.8%

3 Maine 4,107,909 3 New Hampshire 4.8%

4 Alabama 3,800,620 4 Idaho 4.2%

5 Georgia 3,415,421 5 Virginia 3.3%

6 Louisiana 2,979,883 6 Louisiana 3.2%

7 Virginia 2,565,571 7 Mississippi 3.0%

8 Michigan 2,414,024 8 Arkansas 3.0%

9 Pennsylvania 2,076,178 9 California 2.7%

10 South Carolina 1,996,034 10 Alabama 2.6%

Per Capita (2007) Per GSP (MWh/M$) (2007)

Rank State MWh/Capita Rank State MWh/$M

1 Maine 3.1 1 Maine 85.4

2 New Hampshire 0.9 2 Alabama 22.9

3 Alabama 0.8 3 New Hampshire 19.6

4 Vermont 0.7 4 Vermont 18.5

5 Louisiana 0.7 5 Arkansas 17.0

6 Arkansas 0.6 6 Mississippi 16.9

7 Mississippi 0.5 7 Louisiana 13.8

8 South Carolina 0.5 8 South Carolina 13.1

9 Georgia 0.4 9 Idaho 9.4

10 Virginia 0.3 10 Georgia 8.6

Source: EIA 2009
26

Figure 2.12. Biomass Generation – TWh (2007) 
27

Table 2.8. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation, 2001-2007*

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Kentucky 4,774.6% 1 Kentucky 4,684.0%

2 Utah 464.6% 2 Utah 346.1%

3 Nebraska 267.6% 3 Nebraska 245.5%

4 Missouri 233.2% 4 Missouri 190.7%

5 South Carolina 123.2% 5 South Carolina 92.5%

6 Indiana 101.8% 6 Indiana 89.4%

7 North Dakota 76.2% 7 North Dakota 71.2%

8 Montana 69.6% 8 Rhode Island 58.9%

9 Maryland 61.8% 9 Maryland 58.1%

10 Rhode Island 49.4% 10 Montana 42.0%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Kentucky 4,580.3% 1 Kentucky 3,539.4%

2 Utah 384.9% 2 Utah 274.6%

3 Nebraska 257.0% 3 Missouri 164.8%

4 Missouri 219.7% 4 Nebraska 163.6%

5 South Carolina 105.9% 5 South Carolina 71.3%

6 Indiana 95.1% 6 Indiana 59.9%

7 North Dakota 75.8% 7 North Dakota 17.8%

8 Montana 60.6% 8 Maryland 16.0%

9 Maryland 54.8% 9 Rhode Island 11.9%

10 Rhode Island 50.1% 10 Montana 11.2%

*Alaska and Delaware each began producing electricity from biomass for the first time after 2001. Therefore, 

growth numbers from 2001-2007 could not be calculated for these two states.
28

Table 2.9. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation, 2006-2007

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,438.6% 1 Delaware 9,610.7%

2 North Dakota 281.1% 2 North Dakota 276.9%

3 Utah 108.7% 3 Utah 89.8%

4 Alaska 53.3% 4 Alaska 50.0%

5 New Hampshire 50.5% 5 New Hampshire 42.7%

6 Minnesota 28.9% 6 Minnesota 25.9%

7 Missouri 22.3% 7 Vermont 25.5%

8 Tennessee 21.8% 8 Missouri 23.0%

9 Nebraska 17.8% 9 Tennessee 20.2%

10 Montana 17.5% 10 Nebraska 15.0%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,315.4% 1 Delaware 11,485.2%

2 North Dakota 280.9% 2 North Dakota 262.7%

3 Utah 101.7% 3 Utah 93.1%

4 Alaska 52.5% 4 New Hampshire 47.7%

5 New Hampshire 50.4% 5 Alaska 41.6%

6 Minnesota 28.2% 6 Minnesota 23.6%

7 Missouri 21.4% 7 Missouri 20.4%

8 Tennessee 20.3% 8 Tennessee 18.9%

9 Nebraska 17.4% 9 Nebraska 11.3%

10 Montana 16.3% 10 Montana 10.9%
29

Hydroelectric Generation

Table 2.10. Hydroelectric Generation

MWh Generated (2007) As a Percentage of Total State Electricity 

Generation (2007)

Rank State MWh Rank State % of Total 

1 Washington 78,829,195 1 Idaho 78.6%

2 Oregon 33,587,439 2 Washington 73.7%

3 California 27,327,751 3 Oregon 61.0%

4 New York 25,252,555 4 South Dakota 47.5%

5 Montana 9,364,336 5 Montana 32.4%

6 Idaho 9,021,690 6 Maine 23.2%

7 Arizona 6,597,671 7 Alaska 18.9%

8 Tennessee 4,939,601 8 New York 17.3%

9 Alabama 4,136,114 9 California 13.0%

10 Maine 3,738,168 10 Vermont 11.1%

Per Capita (2007) Per GSP (MWh/M$) (2007)

Rank State MWh/Capita Rank State MWh/$M

1 Washington 12.2 1 Montana 273.4

2 Montana 9.8 2 Washington 253.3

3 Oregon 9.0 3 Oregon 212.3

4 Idaho 6.0 4 Idaho 176.4

5 South Dakota 3.7 5 South Dakota 86.0

6 Maine 2.8 6 Maine 77.7

7 North Dakota 2.0 7 North Dakota 47.1

8 Alaska 1.9 8 Arkansas 33.9

9 Wyoming 1.4 9 Alaska 29.0

10 New York 1.3 10 Arizona 26.7

Source: EIA 2009
30

Figure 2.13. Conventional Hydroelectric Generation – TWh (2007)
31

Table 2.11. Growth in Hydroelectric Generation, 2001-2007

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Washington 44.0% 1 Maine 71.4%

2 Montana 41.6% 2 Rhode Island 47.8%

3 Maine 41.3% 3 Maryland 36.4%

4 Maryland 39.6% 4 Texas 25.9%

5 Rhode Island 38.8% 5 Montana 18.6%

6 Texas 37.0% 6 Pennsylvania 17.8%

7 Pennsylvania 35.5% 7 Connecticut 16.6%

8 West Virginia 31.8% 8 Virginia 16.4%

9 Oklahoma 30.8% 9 West Virginia 14.8%

10 New Hampshire 27.7% 10 Washington 11.8%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Rhode Island 39.6% 1 Maine 9.1%

2 Maine 38.0% 2 Washington 4.5%

3 Montana 34.1% 3 Rhode Island 4.1%

4 Pennsylvania 34.1% 4 Pennsylvania 3.8%

5 Washington 33.8% 5 Maryland 0.1%

6 Maryland 33.5% 6 West Virginia -1.0%

7 West Virginia 31.0% 7 New Hampshire -1.4%

8 Oklahoma 25.6% 8 South Carolina -2.6%

9 Connecticut 24.7% 9 Connecticut -3.2%

10 Texas 22.6% 10 Montana -7.1%
32

Table 2.12. Growth in Hydroelectric Generation, 2006-2007

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Missouri 504.5% 1 Missouri 508.1%

2 Oklahoma 391.7% 2 Oklahoma 376.8%

3 Texas 148.4% 3 Texas 145.4%

4 Arkansas 108.7% 4 Arkansas 99.5%

5 New Mexico 35.2% 5 New Mexico 40.0%

6 Louisiana 15.9% 6 Louisiana 13.8%

7 Minnesota 14.4% 7 Minnesota 11.8%

8 Kansas 8.8% 8 Alaska 3.2%

9 Iowa 5.8% 9 South Dakota -0.2%

10 Alaska 5.5% 10 Kansas -1.2%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Missouri 500.3% 1 Missouri 495.1%

2 Oklahoma 387.5% 2 Oklahoma 375.2%

3 Texas 143.9% 3 Texas 131.9%

4 Arkansas 107.2% 4 Arkansas 101.0%

5 New Mexico 33.7% 5 New Mexico 34.7%

6 Minnesota 13.7% 6 Minnesota 9.7%

7 Louisiana 12.5% 7 Kansas 3.6%

8 Kansas 8.0% 8 Louisiana 3.6%

9 Iowa 5.4% 9 Iowa 1.7%

10 Alaska 5.0% 10 Alaska -2.6%
33

Geothermal

Table 2.13. Geothermal Electricity Generation

MWh Generated (2007) As a Percentage of Total State 

Electricity Generation (2007)

Rank State MWh Rank State % of Total 

1 California 12,990,711 1 California 6.2%

2 Nevada 1,252,691 2 Nevada 3.8%

3 Hawaii 229,886 3 Hawaii 2.0%

4 Utah 163,925 4 Utah 0.4%

Per Capita (2007) Per GSP (MWh/M$) (2007)

Rank State MWh/Capita Rank State MWh/$M

1 Nevada 0.5 1 Nevada 9.8

2 California 0.4 2 California 7.2

3 Hawaii 0.2 3 Hawaii 3.7

4 Utah 0.1 4 Utah 1.6

Source: EIA 2009

Figure 2.14. Geothermal Generation – TWh (2007) 
34

Table 2.14. Growth in Geothermal Electricity Generation, 2001-2007

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Hawaii 11.3% 1 Nevada 8.3%

2 Utah 7.3% 2 Hawaii 2.6%

3 California 6.6% 3 California 0.4%

4 Nevada 4.4% 4 Utah -15.2%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Hawaii 6.2% 1 California -23.5%

2 California 1.2% 2 Hawaii -24.4%

3 Utah -7.8% 3 Utah -28.8%

4 Nevada -14.4% 4 Nevada -36.6%

Table 2.15. Growth in Geothermal Electricity Generation, 2006-2007

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Hawaii 8.3% 1 Hawaii 8.6%

2 California 1.3% 2 California 4.2%

3 Nevada -6.8% 3 Nevada -9.1%

4 Utah -14.0% 4 Utah -21.8%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Hawaii 8.4% 1 Hawaii 2.6%

2 California 1.0% 2 California -3.5%

3 Nevada -9.0% 3 Nevada -13.2%

4 Utah -16.9% 4 Utah -20.4%
35

Distributed Solar

Table 2.16. Grid-Connected Cumulative Installed Capacity, 2008 (kWdc)

Rank State kWdc Rank State kWdc

1 California 528,262 23

District of 

Columbia 661

2 New Jersey 70,236 24 Montana 651

3 Colorado 35,730 25 Minnesota 635

4 Nevada 34,214 26 Rhode Island 574

5 Arizona 25,301 27 Tennessee 388

6 New York 21,882 28 Michigan 358

7 Hawaii 13,525 29 Maine 326

8 Connecticut 8,760 30 Virginia 212

9 Oregon 7,651 31 Utah 202

10 Massachusetts 7,527 32 New Hampshire 96

11 North Carolina 4,697 33 Wyoming 88

12 Texas 4,428 34 Mississippi 76

13 Pennsylvania 3,938 35 Missouri 65

14 Washington 3,673 36 Alabama 58

15 Maryland 3,129 37 Iowa 51

16 Wisconsin 3,078 38 Georgia 47

17 Florida 2,992 39 Idaho 41

18 Illinois 2,758 40 Arkansas 38

19 Delaware 1,824 41 Kentucky 37

20 Ohio 1,356 42 Indiana 19

21 Vermont 1,110 43 Oklahoma 6

22 New Mexico 1,040 44 South Carolina 1

Source: Sherwood 2008
36

Figure 2.15. Grid-Connect Cumulative Installed Solar Capacity – MWdc (2008)
37

Wind

Table 2.17. Wind Electricity Generation 

MWh Generated (2007) As a Percentage of Total State Electricity 

Generation (2007)

Rank State MWh Rank State % of Total 

1 Texas 9,006,383 1 Iowa 5.5%

2 California 5,584,933 2 Minnesota 4.8%

3 Iowa 2,756,676 3 New Mexico 3.9%

4 Minnesota 2,638,812 4 California 2.6%

5 Washington 2,437,823 5 Oklahoma 2.5%

6 Oklahoma 1,849,144 6 South Dakota 2.4%

7 New Mexico 1,393,239 7 Colorado 2.4%

8 Colorado 1,291,516 8 Kansas 2.3%

9 Oregon 1,246,994 9 Washington 2.3%

10 Kansas 1,152,538 10 Oregon 2.3%

Per Capita (2007) Per GSP (MWh/M$) (2007)

Rank State MWh/Capita Rank State MWh/$M

1 Wyoming 1.4 1 Wyoming 24.0

2 North Dakota 1.0 2 North Dakota 22.4

3 Iowa 0.9 3 Iowa 21.4

4 New Mexico 0.7 4 New Mexico 18.3

5 Montana 0.5 5 Montana 14.5

6 Oklahoma 0.5 6 Oklahoma 13.3

7 Minnesota 0.5 7 Minnesota 10.3

8 Kansas 0.4 8 Kansas 9.8

9 Washington 0.4 9 Texas 7.9

10 Texas 0.4 10 Oregon 7.9

Source: EIA 2009
38

Figure 2.16. Wind Generation – TWh (2007) 
39

Table 2.18. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation, 2001-2007*

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 South Dakota 17,123.7% 1 South Dakota 20,671.7%

2 Hawaii 11,108.7% 2 Hawaii 10,233.7%

3 Nebraska 8,142.0% 3 Nebraska 7,644.7%

4 Pennsylvania 4,106.4% 4 New York 3,903.2%

5 New York 3,957.8% 5 Pennsylvania 3,557.3%

6 Illinois 3,591.3% 6 Illinois 3,384.7%

7 Oklahoma 3,324.3% 7 Oklahoma 2,751.5%

8 Kansas 2,793.5% 8 Kansas 2,483.3%

9 Colorado 2,555.3% 9 Colorado 2,208.9%

10 West Virginia 1,762.1% 10 West Virginia 1,778.5%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 South Dakota 16,326.3% 1 South Dakota 12,035.8%

2 Hawaii 10,592.7% 2 Hawaii 7,518.3%

3 Nebraska 7,903.6% 3 Nebraska 5,810.7%

4 Pennsylvania 4,061.5% 4 Pennsylvania 3,121.1%

5 New York 3,884.2% 5 Illinois 2,990.1%

6 Illinois 3,533.5% 6 New York 2,874.5%

7 Oklahoma 3,221.7% 7 Oklahoma 2,442.7%

8 Kansas 2,713.9% 8 Kansas 2,031.9%

9 Colorado 2,331.1% 9 Colorado 1,900.8%

10 West Virginia 1,752.1% 10 West Virginia 1,353.0%

* For states in which wind generation began after 2001, this report uses the first year that EIA reports wind 

generation in that state to create the baseline for determining the growth rankings. Baseline year 2002 - TN, 

WA, WV; baseline year 2003 - IL, NM, ND, OK; baseline year 2005 - OH; baseline year 2006 - ID, MT, NJ. 

Maine, which began generating wind in 2007, is not included in the growth rankings because its baseline year is 

the same as the year in which the most recent data for wind generation is available and, as a result, its rate of 

change could not be measured.
40

Table 2.19. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation, 2006-2007*

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Hawaii 198.9% 1 Hawaii 199.6%

2 Illinois 161.0% 2 Illinois 150.8%

3 Washington 134.9% 3 Washington 137.6%

4 North Dakota 68.0% 4 North Dakota 66.2%

5 Colorado 49.2% 5 Colorado 40.3%

6 Texas 35.0% 6 Texas 33.4%

7 Oregon 33.9% 7 Oregon 29.7%

8 Pennsylvania 30.2% 8 Pennsylvania 26.0%

9 Alaska 28.4% 9 Alaska 25.7%

10 Minnesota 28.4% 10 Minnesota 25.5%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Hawaii 199.2% 1 Hawaii 183.3%

2 Illinois 160.0% 2 Illinois 152.4%

3 Washington 132.2% 3 Washington 121.5%

4 North Dakota 67.9% 4 North Dakota 59.9%

5 Colorado 46.9% 5 Colorado 45.5%

6 Texas 32.5% 6 Oregon 28.0%

7 Oregon 32.3% 7 Texas 26.0%

8 Pennsylvania 30.0% 8 Pennsylvania 25.1%

9 New Jersey 27.8% 9 New Jersey 24.3%

10 Alaska 27.7% 10 Minnesota 23.2%

*Maine not included because 2007 is its first year of wind generation
41

Table 2.20. Wind Capacity, 2008

Rank State MW Rank State MW

1 Texas 7,117.7 19 South Dakota 186.8

2 Iowa 2,791.3 20 Missouri 162.5

3 California 2,503.0 21 Indiana 130.5

4 Minnesota 1,753.4 22 Michigan 129.4

5 Washington 1,446.8 23 Idaho 75.3

6 Colorado 1,067.7 24 Nebraska 71.9

7 Oregon 1,067.2 25 Hawaii 63.1

8 Illinois 915.1 26 Maine 46.6

9 New York 831.8 27 Tennessee 29.0

10 Oklahoma 830.9 28 New Hampshire 25.4

11 Kansas 814.5 29 Utah 19.8

12 North Dakota 714.4 30 New Jersey 7.5

13 Wyoming 676.1 31 Ohio 7.4

14 New Mexico 497.5 32 Vermont 6.1

15 Wisconsin 394.9 33 Massachusetts 5.4

16 Pennsylvania 360.7 34 Alaska 3.3

17 West Virginia 330.0 35 Rhode Island 0.7

18 Montana 271.5 36 Arkansas 0.1

Source: AWEA 2009b

Source: AWEA 2009b

Figure 2.17. Wind Cumulative Installed Capacity – GW (2008) 
42

Summary of Overall Trends

National Renewable Resources

In 2007, generation from renewable resources constituted 8.49% of total national 

electricity generation, 1% less than in 2006, and 0.79% higher than in 2001. This can be 

explained by the 14% decline in hydroelectric generation from 2006 to 2007. Although 

generation from renewable resources as a percent of total national generation declined 

from 2006 to 2007, generation from non-hydroelectric renewable resources increased its 

share of total national generation from 2.37% to 2.53% (up from 1.89% in 2001). 

Total renewable generation per capita declined 9.33% from 2006-2007 (from 1.29 

MWh/person to 1.27 MWh/person), while non-hydroelectric renewable generation per 

capita increased by 8.11% (from 0.32 MWh/person to 0.35 MWh/person). Notably, nonhydroelectric renewable generation per capita has increased more than 40% from 2001 to 

2007 (from 0.25 MWh/person to 0.35 MWh/person).

Renewable energy growth continues to be largely outstripped by economic growth as 

measured by gross state product and population growth. From 2006 to 2007, only 14 

states had a positive percent change in generation from total renewable resources per 

GSP, and only 17 had a positive percent change in total renewable generation per capita.

Biomass

Forty-five states now use biomass resources for electricity production, and 25 states 

increased biomass generation between 2006-2007. Biomass development continues to 

grow across most regions of the United States, indicating the widespread nature of 

biomass resource as compared to wind, for example. The leading states in biomass 

generation growth from 2006-2007 are spread across the United States, from Delaware to 

Utah, Minnesota, and Alaska. 

Hydroelectric

Hydroelectric resources continue to provide the largest portion of renewable energy 

generation in the United States in 2007, although it is down 14% from 2006 (Figure 

2.18). In addition to many of the larger-scale hydroelectric resources that have already 

been developed, this decline could be the result of increased development of other 

renewable energy resources and drought conditions across the country. The decline of 

hydroelectric generation in 2007 was pronounced in: New England, Middle Atlantic, East 

North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, Mountain, and the Pacific regions. 

Several of these regions typically produce a significant portion of the hydropower in the 

United States (Gielecki 2009).
43

Figure 2.18. U.S. Hydroelectric Generation as a Percent of 

Total Renewable Energy Generation

Geothermal

Four states have developed geothermal resources: California, Nevada, Hawaii, and Utah. 

It should be noted that only large-scale geothermal resource development, as reported by 

the EIA, is considered in this report (see Challenges with EIA Data for details on Page 5).

Solar

Solar energy still represents a small but growing fraction of total renewable energy 

generation. Increasing numbers of concentrating solar power projects are being proposed, 

particularly in the Southwestern states; and increasing resources are being directed 

toward the development of large-scale solar projects (BLM 2009). 

Wind

Wind energy accounted for the largest percentage of nationwide growth in renewable 

generation between 2001-2007, as well as between 2006-2007. Generation from wind 

resources grew by 411% from 2001 to 2007, and by 30% from 2006 to 2007 

(Figure 2.19).

 

Figure 2.19. U.S. Wind Energy Generation (GWh)
44

Conclusion

This data provides state policymakers and other interested parties with a variety of 

metrics to inform understanding of clean energy market penetration relative to other 

states. It also presents the recent historical changes in renewable energy development to 

inform decisions and evaluate progress.

Multiple factors influence the development of renewable energy at the state level. As the 

data presented here show, the size and economic context of the state can be a large 

determinate of development. These possible drivers are discussed in more detail in 

Chapter 5. The driver that is the main focus of this report – policy – is the focus of the 

next chapter, Chapter 3. 
45

Chapter 3. Policies Supporting Renewable Energy 

Development and Best Practices

Introduction

This chapter: 

• Provides definitions of the various state policies used to encourage renewable 

energy development, 

• Summarizes and synthesizes the current understandings of best practices and 

benefits of these policies, and 

• Reports on the current status of implementation in each of the U.S. states. 

Due to the limited time period and extent to which these policies have been in use – and 

the limited evaluation that has taken place – the most effective policy designs and their 

direct impacts on renewable energy development is not well understood. In addition to 

this lack of experience, policy is not the exclusive factor contributing to renewable 

energy development, as discussed in detail in the contextual factors chapter (Chapter 5) 

of this report. As a result, current best practices are largely based on the policy design 

that is expected or theorized to result in further renewable energy development, rather 

than on extensive experience.

Best practices are identified for equipment certification, interconnection standards, net 

metering, public benefit funds, renewable portfolio standards (RPS), and tax incentive 

policies. NREL researchers and analysts do not work in the realm of determining best 

practices related to policy. Therefore, in cases where best practices from the literature are 

lacking, analysts sought the expertise of program administrators to identify particular 

aspects of effective policies. This methodology builds off the previous report and is not 

meant to be a comprehensive and complete effort, but a further step toward understanding 

the best design practices for policies.

The remainder of this chapter provides, in alphabetical order, information on 15 policies. 

Each section sets out the policy definition, the status of implementation within the states, 

a discussion of the benefits, and the identified best practices.2

 2 For the purposes of this report, state policies are evaluated. Federal and utility programs are not included.
46

Policy: Contractor Licensing

Policy Description

Specific licensing for contractors who want to install renewable energy systems is 

available, guaranteeing that the contractors have the experience and knowledge necessary 

to ensure proper installation and maintenance (DSIRE 2009). Requirements for 

certification vary by state, but generally include defined minimum experience and an 

examination.

Policy Status

As of May 2009, nine states and Puerto Rico have implemented specific contractorlicensing requirements for renewable energy, reflecting the addition of one state/territory 

(Puerto Rico) subsequent to the research date for State of the States 2008. Contractorlicensing policies are focused on solar thermal and electric systems, including water 

heating, space heating, pool heating, daylighting, PV, solar thermal electric, radiant heat, 

and solar thermal process heat. In two states, Connecticut and Oregon, the solar licenses 

include wind. Oregon also includes fuel cells and small hydroelectric. States that have 

implemented this policy are illustrated in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1. States with Contractor-Licensing Policies
47

Benefits of Contractor-Licensing Policy

Certification requirements are important for renewable energy development because they

ensure proper installation and maintenance of systems, which leads to maximum possible 

returns on investment (Beck and Martinot 2004). These policies can play an important 

role in increasing the efficiency of renewable energy systems. Properly installed systems 

and optimal system performance will improve the experience that consumers have with 

renewable energy technologies. 

Policy Best Practices

The data available is insufficient to determine the impacts that a contractor-licensing 

policy has on renewable energy development, and there has been little to no analysis of 

best practices. Further analysis of this policy would create a better understanding of the 

impacts and importance that it might have on renewable energy development in the 

states. As renewable energy generation goals in states’ RPS policies increase, and 

development of renewable energy sources grow to meet the demand, this policy may 

become important to have in every state.
48

Policy: Equipment Certification

Policy Description

Equipment-certification policy requires that renewable energy equipment meets set 

standards, which ensures that quality equipment is sold to consumers and reduces the 

problems associated with inferior equipment – issues that can result in a negative view of

renewable energy technologies. Equipment requirements can be regulator-designed or 

modeled off nationally recognized standards (DSIRE 2009).

Policy Status

As of May 2009, three states and Puerto Rico have implemented equipment-certification 

policy. While this is a small number of states, this policy has the potential to spur

technology development by making minimum standards for products more uniform. In 

other markets, such as that of energy-efficient appliances, minimum standards have been 

found to have profound effects on consumer energy use and market development 

(Appliance Standards Awareness Project 2009). States that have implemented this policy 

are illustrated in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2. States with Equipment-Certification Policies
49

Benefits of Equipment-Certification Policy

Although this policy is used in only a few states and one territory, it can be implemented 

to partner with incentive policies and other mandates to ensure that the market for 

renewable energy technologies maximizes efficiency and protects consumers from 

fraudulent installations.

Policy Best Practices

A literature review resulted in no published works defining best practices, so policy 

implementers and certification experts were asked to identify success metrics within the 

effective policies. Implementers who were interviewed to determine best practices for 

this policy agreed that certification systems for renewable energy products protect 

consumers from fraudulent installations and create a market for quality renewable energy 

products. Implementers provided the following list of design aspects that are necessary to 

ensure effective equipment-certification polices:

• Use pre-established national standards for equipment. The strategy reduces 

implementation costs and creates a standard market across the states.

• Allow the same certification to apply to all equipment. Because federal incentives 

typically require certification, allowing the same certification to apply to all 

equipment, rather than just those that qualify for tax credits, will reduce 

transaction costs to the installer/consumer in the credit-retrieval process.

• Establish technology coverage that blankets the full range of renewable energy 

technologies. This should occur as more states implement equipment certification 

policies.

• Ensure policy enforcement.

• Evaluate impacts of equipment-certification policy on renewable energy 

development. This can be done through data collection and tracking systems that 

quantify policy success.
50

Policy: Generation Disclosure

Policy Description

Disclosure policies require utilities to provide customers with information about their 

electricity supply. This information, which is often included on the monthly bill, can 

include an explanation of fuel mix percentages and information on the related emissions. 

In states where the electricity market has been restructured, generation disclosure 

provides customers with valuable information that allows them to make informed choices 

on the electricity and provider they choose. Additionally, there may be a requirement that 

the utility provide certification that any renewable energy sources that they use are 

certified as renewable. The Green-e certification, offered by the Center for Resource 

Solutions, is one example of a verifiable certification that can be used by utility 

companies (DSIRE 2009).

Policy Status

As of May 2009, 22 states and the District of Columbia have policies requiring 

generation disclosure in some form. The policies include reporting to end-use consumers 

frequently and making the information available on request. Figure 3.3 illustrates states 

implementing generation-disclosure policies.

Figure 3.3. States with Generation-Disclosure Policies
51

Benefits of Generation-Disclosure Policy

Although it is difficult to determine the full impact that consumer education has on 

energy use and behavioral change, there are studies indicating that consumers will change 

behavior if they have information on the amount and kind of energy they use (Darby 

2006). It is possible that well-designed and implemented versions of generationdisclosure policy would facilitate renewable energy development.

Policy Best Practices

There are no specific best practices defined for generation-disclosure policy. However, 

using best practices in information dissemination and labeling can apply to the 

implementation of generation-disclosure policy and improve the way information is 

translated to the consumer (McNeill and Wilke 1979). Two primary elements of this best 

practice are accessibility to the information and a standard format for information 

illustration. 
52

Policy: Grants

Policy Description

States offer an assortment of grant programs designed to foster the development of 

renewable energy technologies. Most grants are purposed to pay down the cost of 

equipment or systems. A few others are offered to encourage either research or 

development of renewable technologies, or to aid a project in achieving 

commercialization. Most grant programs are available for a range of renewable resources, 

while a few are designated to support an individual technology, such as wind or PV. 

Amounts are variant and dependent on structure of the grant. Grants are primarily

available only to commercial, industrial, utility, education, and government sectors 

(DSIRE 2009).

3

Policy Status

As of May 2009, 22 states and the Virgin Islands provide some type of renewable energy 

grant. This reflects a net addition of four states subsequent to the research date for the 

State of the States 2008 report. The newly added states are: Alaska, California, 

Minnesota, New York, and North Carolina. Since the 2008 report, South Carolina 

suspended its Renewable Energy Revolving Loan Program with the intent to update and 

re-establish the program in spring 2009. The District of Columbia supplanted its grant 

program with a renewable energy incentive program. States that have implemented this 

policy are shown in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4. States with Grant Programs

 3 One-time requests for proposals (RFPs) are not included in the definition of grants for this study.
53

Benefits of Grant Programs

Grants act as a financial incentive mechanism for boosting renewable energy 

development – especially small, customer-sited projects – by effectively reducing high 

up-front capital costs frequently associated with renewable energy installations. Unlike 

production incentives, grants do not require a long-term policy and financial commitment 

to a specific project, which allows for flexible support based on changes in the market 

(Wiser and Pickle 1997).

Policy Best Practices

A review of the literature provided insufficient information to develop best practices for 

grant policies or to determine the impact that grant policies have on renewable energy 

development. To maximize the effectiveness of grant program policies, it is essential that 

the grants are designed to complement and work with other policies to address different 

market barriers. Continued research and analysis are needed for development of best 

practices.
54

Policy: Green Power Purchasing and Aggregation Policies 

Policy Description

Governments at all levels can play a significant role in supporting renewable energy by 

buying electricity from renewable resources, or by buying renewable energy credits 

(RECs). Many state and local governments, as well as the federal government, have 

committed to buying green power to account for a certain percentage of their electricity 

consumption. A few states allow local governments to aggregate the electricity loads of 

an entire community to buy green power and, potentially, to join with other communities 

to form an even larger purchaser of green power – a concept known as “community 

choice.” Green power purchases are typically executed by contracts with green power 

marketers or project developers, with utility green power programs, or through 

community aggregation (DSIRE 2009).

Policy Status

As of May 2009, nine states have implemented this policy. States with green power 

purchasing policies are shown in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5. States with Green Power Purchasing

Benefits of Green Power Purchasing

Green power purchasing provides benefits to both the generator and the consumer. Green 

power can help organizations meet environmental, financial, stakeholder relations, 

economic development, and national security objectives. By purchasing green power, 
55

organizations can reduce long-term production costs and transform markets for renewable 

energy technologies (DOE 2004). The voluntary green power market is exhibiting strong 

growth. Utility programs that offer fuel price stability benefits to consumers, and 

community challenges that encourage consumers to buy green power, are significant 

factors in continued growth of the industry (Bird et al. 2008a) (Bird et al. 2008b).

Policy Best Practices

There is extensive information on practices for developing, implementing, and evaluating 

successes of green power programs on EERE’s Green Power Web site 

(http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/). The wide range of benefits and goals of green 

power purchasing programs makes it difficult to identify a single metric for best practices 

because at least a portion of the benefit is increased consumer knowledge and awareness 

about renewable energy options.
56

Policy: Interconnection

Policy Description

Interconnection standards govern the technical and procedural process by which an 

electric customer connects an electric-generating system to the grid (NNEC 2008).4

Interconnection standards specify the technical, contractual, metering, and rate rules with 

which system owners and utilities must comply. Standards for systems interconnected at 

the distribution level are typically adopted by state public utility commissions, while the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has adopted standards for systems 

interconnected at the transmission level (DSIRE 2009).

Policy Status

As of May 2009, 39 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have implemented 

interconnection standards. Subsequent to the research date for State of the States 2008, 

Nebraska and Kentucky implemented interconnection standards, as did the 

commonwealth of Puerto Rico. States that have implemented interconnection standards 

are shown in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6. States with Interconnection Standards

 4 Subsequent to the research conducted for this report, updated best practices were published in NNEC 

2009.
57

Benefits of Interconnection Standards

Policies incorporating interconnection standards play an important role in effectively 

removing market barriers to renewable energy development. Well-designed 

interconnection standards ensure a safe, stable, and economical connection to the grid for 

distributed generation systems. Sufficient grid connection decreases uncertainties 

associated with the reliability of renewable energy systems, which makes investment and 

development more economical. Streamlined interconnection standards allow customers 

who want to connect their personal electric-generation system to the grid to do so through 

a transparent and equitable process.

Policy Best Practices

Best practices for interconnection standards are summarized in the Network for New 

Energy Choices’ Freeing the Grid: Best and Worst Practices in State Net-Metering 

Policies and Interconnection Standards 2008 (NNEC 2008). While many states have an 

interconnection policy, not all align their policy implementation with best practices. In 

their report, NNEC provides a comprehensive review and ranking of states with 

interconnection policy, and how implementation of best practices can have a positive 

impact on renewable energy development within a state. Best practices are defined as 

follows:

Eligible Technology: Although public policy typically focuses on renewable energy, 

the system and engineering impacts of a system should be assessed solely on their 

own merits. To do otherwise introduces complexity and may limit innovation. If a 

generator complies fully with the relevant technical standards, there is no operational 

or safety justification to deny it interconnection.

Individual System Capacity: Interconnection standards should be less rigid for small, 

simple systems and more rigid as systems increase in size and complexity. However, 

standards should also permit systems that are sized to meet even large on-site loads

for such applications as hospitals, office parks, and college campuses.

“Breakpoints” for Interconnection Process: It is most efficient to break a single 

overall interconnection process into separate “tracks” based on generator capacity, 

which relieves complexity for the smallest systems while preserving conservative and 

thorough studies for larger installations. The emerging consensus is to fragment 

applicants at four breakpoints: 10 kW, 2 MW, 10 MW (non-exporting systems), and 

20 MW.

Timelines: Paperwork and permit approvals are time-consuming and present a 

significant barrier to quick and easy system installation. FERC standards establish a 

timeline for each step of the application process, for each type of generator. States can 

elect to reduce the amount of time allowed for the different steps, such as establishing 

a shorter time allotment for the read-through of an application with small generators 

using Underwriters Laboratories (UL)-listed equipment.
58

Interconnection Charges: Interconnection processing and study fees can add up to a 

prohibitive expense, especially for small systems. Additionally, uncapped or 

unknown fees can make it impossible to obtain financing for larger projects. The 

FERC standards that establish reasonable fee levels are recommended guidelines for 

setting fee structure.

Engineering Charges: An interconnection standard may require an engineering 

review for certain systems. When it does, it is important to provide full disclosure of 

the applicable fees to all involved parties beforehand.

External Disconnect Switch: In the event of grid failure, all modern inverters that 

meet Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standards shut down 

interconnected systems automatically. Therefore, external disconnect switches are 

nonessential.

Certification: It is important for state decision makers to be cautious when developing 

policies with certification requirements and ensure that additional technical 

requirements do not conflict with nationally accepted standards (Underwriters 

Laboratories, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). Departure from these 

standards could affect safety and security of the grid.

Technical Screens: The FERC standards provide a thorough set of technical screens 

that has been copied by many jurisdictions. Any significant revision of these 

guidelines introduces difficulties to the process, and may increase system costs, 

because configurations or programming must be changed to differ from these widely 

used benchmarks.

Spot Network Interconnection/Area Network Interconnection: A spot network is 

designed to serve a large single location, while an area network describes the power 

distribution system in an area dense with users. These types of networks are designed 

to increase reliability by creating more potential paths from generation to load.

Standard-Form Agreement: It is important to have a standard-form agreement that 

simplifies the interconnection process. If the standard is too complex or inimical 

toward the customer, the standard will lose merit.

Insurance Requirements: Excessive insurance requirements imposed on customersited generators tend to discourage customers from investing in renewable energy 

systems. Exorbitant premiums could potentially exceed economic benefits derived 

from having the system.

Dispute Resolution: Best standards provide a low-cost means of expert resolution to

resolve disputes that evolve in the interconnection process.

Rule Coverage: Interconnection standards that apply to all utilities in the state are 

ideal.
59

Policy: Line-Extension Analysis

Policy Description

When an electric customer requests service for a home or facility that is not currently 

serviced by the electric grid, the customer typically is required to pay a distance-based 

fee for the cost of extending power lines to the home or facility. Frequently, it is more 

economical to use an on-site renewable energy system to supply a prospective customer’s 

electricity needs. Certain states require utilities to provide information about renewable 

energy options when the customer requests a line extension (DSIRE 2009).

Policy Status

As of May 2009, three states have line-extension analysis policies in place. States with a 

line-extension analysis policy are shown in Figure 3.7.

Figure 3.7. States with Line-Extension Analysis

Benefits of Line-Extension Analysis

Distributed renewable energy options may be less expensive for rural customers than 

extending the central distributed lines. Line-extension policies provide customers with 

information on this option. Installing renewable energy systems can provide a more 

energy-efficient choice for consumers in rural areas with a relatively low electricity 

demand. Also, line-extension policy analysis could lead to increased development of 

distributed renewable energy generation, which alleviates stress on the nation’s aging 

grid infrastructure. 
60

Policy Best Practices

A review of the literature and interviews with policy implementers (Williamson 2008) 

did not reveal best practices for this policy. The policy is not implemented on a broad 

enough scale to determine a correlation in policy effectiveness with renewable energy 

development.
61

Policy: Mandatory Utility Green Power Consumer Option

Policy Description

Several states require that specific classes of electric utilities offer customers the option 

of buying electricity generated from renewable resources. Typically, utilities offer green 

power generated from renewable resources owned by the utility or purchased under 

contract. They may also buy renewable energy credits (RECs) from a renewable energy 

provider certified by a state public utilities commission (DSIRE 2009).

Policy Status

As of May 2009, eight states have implemented mandatory utility green power policy.5

States with this policy are shown in Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.8. States with Mandatory Utility Green Power Consumer Option

Benefits of Mandatory Utility Green Power

The utility green power option can help organizations meet environmental, financial, 

stakeholder relations, economic development, and national security objectives. By buying 

green power, organizations can reduce long-term production costs and transform markets 

for renewable energy technologies (DOE 2004). Indicators show that customer powerchoice programs are an effective stimulus for growth in renewable energy supply and 

demand. In 2008, total utility green power sales exceeded 5 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), 

 5 Data are from DSIRE in May 2009. Other data sources providing summaries on this policy may differ 

slightly.
62

about a 20% increase over 2007. Participating in green power programs is one way that 

consumers can reduce their environmental footprint (Bird et al. 2008a, Bird et al. 2008b).

Policy Best Practices

While specific best practices have not been defined, trends indicate that persistent and 

creative marketing strategies – including utility partnerships with independent green 

power marketers – have contributed to the success of utility green power programs. 

Additionally, utility programs that offer fuel price stability benefits to consumers, and 

community challenges that encourage consumers to purchase green power, are significant 

factors in continued growth of the industry. Ongoing declines in the rate premium that 

customers pay for green power is a proven incentive (Bird et al. 2008a, Bird et al. 2008b).
63

Policy: Net Metering

Policy Description

For electric customers who generate their own electricity, net metering allows for the 

flow of electricity both to and from the customer. Typically, this process is accomplished 

through a single, bidirectional meter. During times when a customer’s generation exceeds 

the customer’s use, net metering allows for electricity to flow from the customer back to 

the grid, offsetting electricity consumed by the customer at a different time. In effect, the 

customer uses excess generation to offset electricity that the customer otherwise would 

have to buy at the utility’s full retail rate (DSIRE 2009).

Policy Status

As of May 2009, 42 states, four territories, and the District of Columbia have netmetering policies. Subsequent to the research date for State of the States 2008, three 

additional states have implemented this policy. The states are Arizona, Kansas, and 

Nebraska. States with this policy are shown in Figure 3.9.

Figure 3.9. States with Net Metering

Benefits of Net Metering

Net-metering policies can play an important role in effectively removing market barriers 

to renewable energy development. Net metering can provide benefit to the customer and 

the utility, if there are enough systems to impact electricity supply. However, net 

metering can potentially impose negative impacts on utilities. If a large number of 

customer energy-generating systems are installed, the utility could sustain significant 

revenue losses. Net-metering policies that follow best practices improve the financial 
64

environment by increasing the return on investment for distributed-generation systems. 

Because the supply of renewable energy may not coincide with the demand placed on the 

system, net-metering policies smooth out this irregularity in the most cost effective way 

for the individual generator.

Policy Best Practices

The best practices for net metering are taken from methods described in NNEC 2008. 

While most states have a net-metering policy, not all align their policy implementation 

with best practices. In its report, NNEC provides a comprehensive review and ranking of 

states with net-metering policies, and how implementation of best practices can have a 

positive impact on renewable energy development within a state.

Individual System Capacity: Uniform limits in size reduce regulatory confusion, 

while promoting the widespread population of renewable energy systems. Increasing 

the eligible facility size for nonresidential systems also could encourage participation 

in net-metering programs by large investors

Program Capacity Limits: Capacity limits artificially restrict the expansion of on-site 

renewable generation and curtail the market for new renewable energy systems. Best 

practice is to not limit the total aggregate capacity eligible for net metering, either 

statewide or for individual given utilities.

Rollover Restrictions: The most effective state programs allow for customers to “roll

over” excess generation when they generate more electricity during a monthly billing 

period than they consume. The utility carries forward any excess generation until it is 

consumed.

Metering Issues: As a best practice, customer-sited generators may use their existing 

meters. When this is not possible, the utility should provide a new meter free of 

charge. Time-of-use (TOU) meters with time bin carryovers can create situations that 

reward generators who produce during peak demand periods when electricity is most 

expensive

Renewable Energy Credit (REC) Ownership: The best practice for REC ownership 

allows the owner of the distributed-generation system to maintain ownership of the 

REC. Ownership provides a potential stream of revenue for owners of systems that 

generate electricity with renewable resources

Eligible Technology: All renewable energy technologies and other zero-emissions 

technologies should be eligible.

Eligible Customers: There should be no restrictions on eligible classes. Allowing 

nonresidential customers to net meter is essential to jump-starting new renewable 

energy markets.
65

Policy: Public Benefit Fund (PBF) /System Benefit Charge (SBC)

Policy Description

Public benefit funds (PBFs), or system benefit charges (SBCs), are state-level programs 

that were typically developed during electric utility restructuring in the late 1990s. Some 

states used these programs to ensure continued support for renewable energy resources, 

energy efficiency initiatives, and low-income energy programs.

6

1. The investment model uses state loans and equity to provide initial investment in 

clean energy companies and projects. 

These funds are most 

commonly supported through a small surcharge on electricity consumption. PBFs 

commonly support rebate programs for renewable energy systems, loan programs, 

research and development, and energy education programs (DSIRE 2009). PBFs are 

sometimes used to fund grants and investment policies. Key elements of a clean energy 

fund include the funding source, the entity that administers the fund, and the model for 

allocating the funds. Three basics funding models are used to allocate funding (EPA 

2007):

2. The project development model directly promotes clean energy project 

installation by providing production incentives and grants or rebates. 

3. The industry development model uses business development grants, marketing 

support programs, research and development grants, resource assessments, 

technical assistance, consumer education, and demonstration projects to facilitate 

market transformation.

Policy Status

As of May 2009, 17 states and the District of Columbia have implemented public benefit 

funds programs. Maine’s PBF program is based on voluntary funding, and 

Pennsylvania’s PBF is self-sustaining through loan repayments and other returns on 

investment. States with this policy are shown in Figure 3.10.

 6 For this report, only the PBFs specific to renewable energy are examined. PBFs are also designed to 

support energy efficiency.
66

Figure 3.10. States with Public Benefit Funds

Benefits of Public Benefit Funds 

Clean energy funds can be used to provide funding to narrow any gaps between the 

market price of electricity and the generating costs of clean energy technologies; address 

technical, regulatory, and market barriers for emerging technologies; stimulate the 

development of companion industries and infrastructure that are crucial to the success of 

clean energy; and promote consumers' awareness of clean energy. Additionally, welldesigned clean energy funds provide a state with strategic opportunities. By combining a 

range of clean energy support programs and funding mechanisms “under one roof,” states 

can develop a cohesive strategy to address a range of clean energy market issues. While 

many clean energy policies are aimed at jump-starting markets for commercially ready 

technologies, clean energy funds can be designed to fund initiatives with longer-term 

benefits, such as research and development and technology demonstration. Because of 

their flexibility, clean energy funds can be used to complement and leverage other state 

and federal policies. For example, clean energy funds can be used to increase the 

effectiveness of other policies, such as federal tax incentives, a renewable portfolio 

standard (RPS), and net-metering standards by reducing equipment costs, addressing 

market barriers, and providing consumer education and outreach (EPA 2007).
67

Policy Best Practices

Based on the experiences of states that have developed public benefit funds, a number of 

best practices have emerged for designing effective funds (EPA 2007). The best practices 

identified are:

Establish a working group of interested stakeholders, such as electric utilities, the 

state public utility commission (PUC), clean energy advocates, project developers, 

state energy offices, and state environmental agencies, to develop recommendations 

for design and administration of the funding mechanism.

Develop draft legislation for consideration by the state legislature, if legislation is 

required to implement a systems benefit charge (SBC).

Based on the state’s specific clean energy goals, determine both the stage of 

technology development and the type of incentives needed to support each 

technology. State clean energy funds often include a portfolio of program options to 

support both emerging and technically proven technologies.

Design funding sources to promote consistency in funding from year to year. The 

ability to carry forward excess annual contributions can be an important feature, 

especially during early years when activities are ramping up. Employ mechanisms, 

such as set percentage tariffs, that help ensure consistent funding levels and protect 

against the diversion of funding to other state needs.

Develop programs that will complement other state and federal clean energy 

initiatives, such as RPS, tax credits, and loan programs. This coordination can include 

policies that allow developers to leverage other funding sources without activating 

"double-dipping" clauses, which prevent developers from taking advantage of 

multiple federal or state incentives simultaneously.

Develop measurable targets, such as green power participation rates, infrastructure 

development measured in megawatts of new capacity, peak load reduction from clean 

DG, and monitor progress toward reaching these targets.

Be willing and able to shift funding priorities and develop new or modified 

programs in response to changes in markets or technologies as they develop.

Publicize success stories and goals that have been achieved. Make sure that state 

officials, office holders, and the public remain aware of the clean energy fund and 

know that it is achieving the desired results.
68

Policy: Rebate Programs

Policy Description

Rebates are offered to promote the installation of renewable energy systems. The 

majority of rebate programs that support renewable energy are administered by states, 

municipal utilities, and electric cooperatives. These programs commonly provide funding 

for solar water heating and/or photovoltaic (PV) systems. Rebate amounts vary widely 

based on the technology and program administrator (DSIRE 2009).

Policy Status

As of May 2009, 18 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have 

state rebate programs. Subsequent to the research date for State of the States 2008, New 

Hampshire and Pennsylvania implemented this policy. South Carolina also discontinued 

the residential solar initiative for EarthCraft homes rebate, and Indiana discontinued the 

residential geothermal heat pump rebate. States that have rebate programs are shown in

Figure 3.11.

Figure 3.11. States with Rebate Programs

Benefits of Rebate Programs

Rebates act as a financial incentive mechanism for boosting renewable energy 

development – especially small, customer-sited projects – by effectively reducing high 

capital costs frequently associated with renewable energy installations. Unlike production 

incentives, rebates do not require a long-term policy and financial commitment to a
69

specific project, which allows for flexible support based on changes in the market (Wiser 

and Pickle 1997).

Policy Best Practices

Rebates have been a widely used public-financing mechanism for distributed renewable 

energy. State experiences in administering these programs have resulted in the creation of 

established best practices. The following is a list of best practices compiled by the Clean 

Energy Group of the Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA 2009). 

Ensure Program Continuity: It’s important that rebate programs run for several 

years (with few changes) to build market awareness and dealer support. 

Renewable energy systems have high up-front costs and long purchase-decision 

cycles.

Partner with Dealers and Installers: These partnerships work to both the 

program and market’s advantage by building consumer confidence, increasing 

competition, and lowering the costs of installation (eventually allowing for 

reduced rebate levels).

Promote Technology-Friendly Policies: Rebates by themselves will not help 

build a market if potential customers are thwarted by policy barriers ranging from 

unfriendly local building code and zoning restrictions to restrictive net-metering 

and interconnection rules.

Provide Clear, Consistent Eligibility Rules: Rebates can offer differential 

support based on project location, ownership type, and system size; but these 

distinctions should be clear, equitable and simple.

Ensure System Performance: Rebates should be provided only for approved 

equipment and/or installers. Hold back a portion of the rebate amount until local 

building officials or other designated agencies verify systems are operating 

properly.
70

Policy: Renewable Energy Access Laws

Policy Description

Renewable energy access laws typically apply to solar and wind resources. Solar and 

wind access laws are designed to protect a consumer’s right to install and operate a solar 

or wind energy system at a home or business. Some solar access laws also ensure a 

system owner’s access to sunlight. In some states, access rights prohibit homeowners 

associations, neighborhood covenants, or local ordinances from restricting a 

homeowner’s right to use solar energy. Easements, the most common form of solar 

access law, allow for the rights to existing access to a renewable resource on the part of 

one property owner to be secured from an owner whose property could be developed in 

such a way as to restrict that resource. An easement is usually transferred with the 

property title (DSIRE 2009).

Policy Status

As of May 2009, 35 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands have renewable access laws. 

Subsequent to the research date for State of the States 2008, Vermont has implemented 

this policy. States with public access laws are shown in Figure 3.12.

Figure 3.12. States with Renewable Energy Access Laws
71

Benefits of Renewable Energy Access Laws

Because this policy is difficult to enforce and is often based on voluntary agreements 

between parties, there is insufficient data regarding its effect on renewable energy 

development and the best practices for policy implementation. However, this policy has 

potential to have significant impact if enforcement issues are addressed.

Policy Best Practices

The best practices for policies on access law are taken from suggested standards 

developed by the Solar America Board for Codes and Standards. Best practices were 

identified based on effective laws implemented in various states (Kettles 2008).

Clearly Define Solar Equipment: Policy should clearly and thoroughly define a solar 

energy device. It would specify the equipment and requisite hardware that provide 

and are used for collecting, transferring, converting, storing, or using incident solar 

energy for water heating, space heating, cooling, generating electricity, or other 

applications that would otherwise require the use of a conventional source of energy.

Solar Site Planning: Solar-access policies should be adopted within the framework 

of comprehensive land-use plans. Solar easements are the prevalent method for 

ensuring solar access. Where solar easements are voluntary rather than mandated, a 

solar registration process for system owners can effectively work as a solar access 

tool. By recording or registering ownership of a solar energy system, the owner is 

allowed to establish a solar easement.

Solar Rights: Policies designed to protect the right of homeowners to install solar 

energy systems will address restrictive local government ordinances, as well as 

private land-use restrictions, such as covenants, conditions, and restrictions in deeds;

and declarations in condominium documents. Restrictive covenants and conditions 

that prohibit the use of solar will not be upheld where state or local law provides 

otherwise through a solar rights statute.

Zoning: Policies should include zoning provisions that encourage the use of solar 

systems and protect solar access by regulating the orientation of streets, lots, and 

buildings; maximum building heights; minimum building set-back requirements;

limitations on the height and placement of vegetation; and other provisions. Solar 

systems would be exempt from these restrictions.
72

Policy: Renewable Energy Production Incentives

Policy Description

Production incentives provide cash payments based on the number of kilowatt-hours 

(kWh) a renewable energy system generates. To ensure project quality, payments based 

on a system’s actual performance are generally more effective than payments based on a 

system’s rated capacity. Production incentives are also known as performance-based 

incentives (DSIRE 2009).

Policy Status

As of May 2009, six states have implemented production incentives. Additionally, on 

May 27, 2009, Vermont enacted a production incentive policy that effective September 

30, 2009. While Minnesota’s program was closed to new applicants on January 1, 2005, 

generators who are already enrolled in the program continue to receive production 

incentives. States with this policy are shown in Figure 3.13.

Figure 3.13. States with Production-Incentive Policies

Benefits of Production-Incentive Policies

Production incentives are included as a potentially effective policy in a state renewable 

energy portfolio. Utility-scale renewable energy development requires long-term revenue 

certainty for developers to obtain appropriate financing (Wiser et al. 2002). Production 

incentives can provide a portion of this necessary revenue in coordination with other 

revenue certainty, generally derived from a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA). 
73

To this end, production incentives promote renewable energy development because they 

encourage efficient, maximum generation from renewable energy facilities. 

Policy Best Practices

A literature review returned insufficient information to develop a list of best practices for 

state production incentives that are directed toward the promotion of renewable energy 

development.
74

Policy: Renewable Portfolio Standards

Policy Description

Renewable portfolio standard (RPS) policies require utilities to own or acquire renewable 

energy or renewable energy certificates to account for a certain percentage of their retail 

electricity sales, or a certain amount of generating capacity, within a specified timeframe. 

Renewable portfolio goals are similar to RPS policies, but renewable portfolio goals are 

not legally binding. The term “set-aside” or “carve-out” refers to a provision within an 

RPS that requires utilities to use a specific renewable resource – typically, solar energy –

to account for a certain percentage of retail electricity sales, or a certain amount of 

generating capacity, within a specified timeframe (DSIRE 2009).

Policy Status

As of May 2009, 29 states and the District of Columbia have renewable portfolio 

standards, while five additional states and Guam have renewable portfolio goals. 

Subsequent to the research date for State of the States 2008, Michigan, Missouri, and 

Kansas enacted RPS policy. States with this policy are shown in Figure 3.14.

Figure 3.14. States with Renewable Portfolio Standards and Goals
75

Benefits of Renewable Portfolio Standards

Renewable portfolio standards, one of the most popular policies used to promote 

renewable energy development at the state level, provide state policymakers with the 

flexibility to design a policy that reflects individual state goals. This policy is widely 

considered to be included among the most important policies leading to increased 

renewable energy capacity (Wiser and Barbose 2008).

Policy Best Practices

The best policy practices for renewable portfolio standards are taken from 

recommendations provided by a State/Federal RPS Collaborative supported by the 

Energy Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy through the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory. The following list provides the most current collaborative best 

practices available. The collaborative identified best practices based on state experiences 

with RPS policy (State and Federal RPS Collaborative 2009).

RPS Targets:

RPS targets should be stable, ramp up steadily over time, and not be subject to sudden 

or uncertain shifts.

RPS targets should be achievable and encourage renewable resource development 

beyond existing available resources, given developable resource potential, 

transmission constraints, interconnection barriers, availability of complementary 

mechanisms that support project development, and potential siting challenges.

Compliance periods should be at least one year to allow all renewable energy 

technologies to participate and be counted, including those resources that are seasonal 

by nature.

Program Duration:

An RPS program should be of sufficient duration to allow for long-term contracting 

and financing.

RPS rules should be stable, with any changes to policy occurring only after ample 

notice and lead-time.

Covered Entities:

An RPS program should apply to all load-serving entities: investor owned, municipal, 

and electric cooperatives, including suppliers of last resort.

In restructured markets, all suppliers to retail loads should be obligated to participate.
76

Resource and Geographic Eligibility:

The eligibility of specific renewable energy technologies under an RPS should be 

well-defined.

Fuel technology and vintage eligibility decisions should be guided by an assessment 

of the social benefits of the particular resources and technologies. They should also be 

evaluated by the need of those projects to generate additional revenue from selling 

into an RPS market.

Customer-sited renewable generation should be eligible for RPS programs if all other 

RPS requirements are met.

Eligibility of existing renewable generation should be limited to support new 

renewable project development.

RPS rules on the treatment of out-of-state resources should be well-defined and 

legally defensible.

Tradable Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)

Use of tradable renewable energy credits for RPS compliance should be considered as 

a mechanism to provide for contracting flexibility, to lower compliance costs, and to 

simplify verification.

RPS rules and tracking systems should ensure that there is no double counting of 

RECs in compliance and voluntary markets.

An RPS program should, whenever possible, require the use of a robust tracking 

system for registering and tracking RECs.

An RPS program should explicitly define the environmental attributes that must be 

included in a REC used to comply with the state’s RPS.

Cost Recovery and Allocation of Costs

An RPS program should ensure that prudently incurred RPS compliance costs can be 

recovered in electricity rates.

Long-term contracting standards for regulated utilities should be established, 

supported, and encouraged.

The cost of RPS compliance should be allocated fairly across all utility customers.
77

Program Administration and Enforcement

Success of RPS implementation is dependent on strong political and regulatory 

support.

An RPS program should be mandatory and impose repercussions on those entities 

that fail to meet requirements.

Measures to control compliance costs, such as alternative compliance payments, 

should be considered.

RPS rules should authorize the program administrator to accommodate the possible 

creation of a federal RPS program in the future.
78

Policy: Tax Incentives

Note: Due to the similarity of the mechanisms, the various types of tax incentives – 

including corporate, industry, personal, property and sales tax – have been consolidated 

and presented under this heading.

Policy Description

Renewable energy systems may be eligible for multiple types of tax incentives. The five

primary categories that apply to renewable energy development are corporate, industry 

recruitment and support, personal, property, and sales tax incentives. The income tax 

incentives are divided into two categories (personal and corporate) because the size of 

technology and incentive size depend on the end user. Property and sales tax incentives 

are included because they are fundamentally different mechanisms from income tax 

incentives. The tax incentives are not separated by resource because, ideally, state 

policies reflect best practice design within the context of the state. Each type of tax 

incentive is described below.

Corporate Tax Incentives. Corporate tax incentives include corporate tax credits, 

deductions, and exemptions. These incentives are available in some states to corporations 

that purchase and install eligible renewable energy or energy efficiency equipment, or 

construct green buildings. In a few cases, the incentive is based on the amount of energy 

produced by an eligible facility. Some states allow the tax credit only if a corporation has 

invested a minimum amount in an eligible project. Typically, there is a maximum limit 

on the dollar amount of the credit or deduction (DSIRE 2009).

Industry Recruitment and Support Incentives. To promote economic development and the 

creation of jobs, some states offer financial incentives to recruit or cultivate the 

manufacturing and development of renewable energy systems and equipment. These 

incentives commonly take the form of tax credits, tax exemptions, and grants. In some 

cases, the amount of the incentive depends on the amount of eligible equipment that a 

company manufactures. Most of these incentives apply to several renewable energy 

technologies, but a few states target specific technologies, such as wind or solar. These 

incentives are usually designed as temporary measures to support industries in their early 

years, and they commonly include a sunset (or termination) provision to encourage the 

industries to become self-sufficient (DSIRE 2009).

Personal Tax Incentives. Personal tax incentives include personal income tax credits and 

deductions. Many states offer these incentives to reduce the expense of buying and 

installing renewable energy systems and equipment. The percentage of the credit or 

deduction varies by state; and, in most cases, there is a maximum limit on the dollar 

amount of the credit or deduction. An allowable credit may include carryover provisions, 

or it may be structured so that the credit is divided over a certain number of years

(DSIRE 2009).

Property Tax Incentives. Property tax incentives include exemptions, exclusions, and 

credits. The majority of property tax incentives require excluding the added value of a 
79

renewable energy system from the valuation of the property for taxation purposes.

Because property taxes are collected locally, some states grant local taxing authorities the 

option of allowing a property tax incentive for renewable energy systems (DSIRE 2009).

Sales Tax Incentives. Sales tax incentives typically provide an exemption from the state 

sales tax, or sales and use tax, for the purchase of a renewable energy system. Several 

states have established an annual “sales tax holiday” for energy efficiency measures by 

allowing a temporary exemption, typically for one or two days, from the state sales tax

(DSIRE 2009).

Policy Status

States can provide many variations of tax incentives as well as a combination of multiple

types and sectors. The design of the individual incentives and the portfolio of incentives 

are integral in determining the effectiveness of these policies for promoting renewable 

energy. As of May 2009:

• Twenty-four states and Puerto Rico provide a corporate tax incentive to promote 

renewable energy. Puerto Rico enacted this policy subsequent to the research date 

for State of the States 2008. States with this policy are shown in Figure 3.15.

• Fifteen states and Puerto Rico have industry recruitment and support incentives. 

States with this policy are shown in Figure 3.16.

• Twenty states and Puerto Rico provide a personal tax incentive. Subsequent to the 

research date for State of the States 2008, Vermont and Puerto Rico implemented 

this policy. On June 5, 2009, West Virginia enacted a personal tax credit for 

residential solar energy, effective July 1, 2009. These tax incentives are not 

applicable to the nine states that do not have a personal income tax: Alaska, 

Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, 

and Wyoming. States with this policy are shown in Figure 3.17.

• Thirty-two states and Puerto Rico provide a property tax incentive to promote 

renewable energy development. Subsequent to the State of the States 2008 report, 

Colorado, Florida, and New Jersey implemented this policy. States with this 

policy are shown in Figure 3.18.

• Twenty-six states and Puerto Rico provide a sales tax incentive to promote 

renewable energy development. Subsequent to the research date for State of the

States 2008, Colorado, Nevada, and North Carolina have implemented this policy. 

The states of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon do not 

have a state sales tax. States with this policy are shown in Figure 3.19.
80

Figure 3.15. States with Corporate Tax Incentives

Figure 3.16. States with Industry Recruitment and Support Incentives
81

Figure 3.17. States with Personal Tax Incentives

Figure 3.18. States with Property Tax Incentives
82

Figure 3.19. States with Sales Tax Incentives

Benefits of Tax Incentives

Tax incentives can be integral in renewable energy development because they offer 

policymakers flexible mechanisms for promoting increases in both the supply and 

demand sides of the market (Clemmer et al. 2001). Because they are rarely the sole 

motive for consumers to invest and, therefore, are insufficient if they are the only policy 

in place, tax incentives, if designed properly, can complement other policies. The design 

flexibility allows policymakers to direct financial support to a specific technology or 

sector that best fits the state’s goals as well as fiscal and resource needs. Due to the 

relatively high capital cost associated with many renewable energy technologies, tax 

incentives are a good policy choice to reduce the capital cost by a sufficient increment to 

increase the development in projects. Tax incentives also are effective because they 

generally are easy for consumers to understand and use. These incentives, if designed 

properly and phased out at the appropriate rate, can aid in creating a sustainable market 

for renewable energy.

Policy Best Practices

Well-designed tax incentives can play an important role in increasing market penetration 

of renewable energy if implemented as a piece of a policy portfolio. A literature review 

resulted in sparse information regarding the best practices for tax incentives for 

renewable energy development. Because the design of these policies is integral in their 

effectiveness, further, more refined analysis of the design components will lead to more 

detailed information for policymakers to use when developing renewable energy taxincentive programs. For this report, the best practices for tax incentives for the promotion 
83

of energy efficiency were identified and are used in an attempt to supplement the gap 

(Brown et al. 2004).

Resources: This may be especially important for sales tax incentives, because they 

are more effective if they are designed to support technologies for which the state has 

excellent resources (Bird et al. 2005).

Complements Other Policies: Tax incentives are not generally considered in the 

literature to be effective when they are used as the sole policy to support renewable 

energy development. Further, to maximize effectiveness of tax incentives, it is 

imperative that the incentives are designed to coordinate with other policies to 

address market barriers.

Sized Appropriately: The appropriate incentive size will depend on the context of the 

respective market, which will make it unique to each state. It is not sufficient to 

merely have a tax incentive; it must be large enough to increase investment without 

being so large as to overdraw the state’s resources. Also, the policy should be 

designed so that the incentives are not larger than the amount that a consumer owes. 

This could create an insufficient tax liability, which prevents the consumer from

taking full advantage of the incentive (Clement et al. 2005).

Adequate Cap: The financial incentive is adequately capped to reflect the fiscal 

realities in the state. This also reduces market risk to consumers of not receiving the 

incentive if the demand is greater than expected (Brown et al. 2004).

Appropriate Time Span: Tax incentives should be designed with a time horizon long 

enough to provide consistency to the market without becoming a crutch for the 

industry. Policies that are designed to last for too long are unlikely to provide the 

initial jump-start in investment that is often a desired goal of these types of programs. 

However, policies that offer incentives for too brief of a period, or have uncertainty 

surrounding short-term extensions, can be ineffective in providing the market stability 

that is desired. This scenario has been well-documented with the uncertainty of the 

extensions of the federal production tax credit (PTC) and the resultant boom-bust 

cycle in wind development (Wiser et al. 2007).

Program Evaluation: Proper evaluation allows better understanding of the impacts of 

incentive programs and provides guidance to implementers on necessary 

programmatic changes – this will optimize the incentive. It is impossible to measure 

the effectiveness without a well-designed process for program evaluation (Mann and 

Hymel 2006).

Appropriate Technology: Meeting relevant national certification standards should be 

a requirement of benefiting from a state tax incentive. This ensures market certainty 

for manufacturers developing and marketing technologies and provides consumer 

protection for buyers of renewable systems.
84

Appropriate within State Context: The policy should fit the state context. For 

example, a sales tax incentive may be an ineffective policy in states with low sales 

tax.

Administration Cost: The policy should be designed to include adequate budget for 

administration, marketing, and educating the public about both the incentive and 

eligible technology options (Gouchoe et al. 2003).

Non-taxed Sector Eligibility: Incentives are designed so that non-taxed sectors (i.e., 

schools, nonprofits, etc.) are eligible to participate (Clement et al. 2005).

Conclusion

This chapter provides an overview of the state policies used to encourage renewable 

energy development, summarizes the current knowledge regarding best practices, and 

gives a status update of their implementation within U.S. states. Although some of the 

policies are fairly mature and have been implemented across a broad range of states, 

others are relatively untested. There is still a lot of work to be done to define best 

practices and formulate an understanding of their impacts and interactions within the U.S. 

context. The following table (Table 3.1) provides a summary of the status of renewable 

energy policy implementation as of May 2009, which is divided by individual states and 

U.S. territories.
85

Table 3.1. Summary of State Policies to Encourage Renewable Energy Development

Summary of State Renewable Energy Development Policies

StateBondsContractor LicensingCorporate Tax IncentivesEquipment CertificationGeneration DisclosureGrantsGreen Power PurchasingIndustry SupportInterconnection StandardsLine Extension AnalysisLoansNet-MeteringPublic 

Benefit Funds

Personal Tax IncentivesProperty Tax IncentivesRE Access LawsRE Production IncentivesRebatesRequired Green PowerRPSSales Tax Incentives

AL • • •

AK • • NA • NA

Am. 

Sam. •

AZ • • • • • • • • • • •

AR • •

CA • • • • • • • • • • • •

CO • • • • • • • • • •

CT • • • • • • • • • • • • •

D.C. • • • • • • •

DE • • • • • • • NA

FL • • • • • • • NA • • • •

GA • • • • • •

GU • •

HI • • • • • • • • •

ID • • • • •

IL • • • • • • • • •

IN • • • • • •

IA • • • • • • • • • • • •

KS • • • • •

KY • • • • • •

LA • • • • • •

ME • • • • • • • • • •

MD • • • • • • • • • • • •

MA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

MI • • • • • • • • •

MN • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

MS •

MO • • • • • •

MT • • • • • • • • • • • NA

NE • • • • •
86

Summary of State Renewable Energy Development Policies

StateBondsContractor LicensingCorporate Tax IncentivesEquipment CertificationGeneration DisclosureGrantsGreen Power PurchasingIndustry SupportInterconnection StandardsLine Extension AnalysisLoansNet-MeteringPublic 

Benefit Funds

Personal Tax IncentivesProperty Tax IncentivesRE Access LawsRE Production IncentivesRebatesRequired Green PowerRPSSales Tax Incentives

NV • • • • NA • • • • •

NH • • • NA • • • • NA

NJ • • • • • • • • • • •

NM • • • • • • • • • •

NY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

NC • • • • • • • • • •

ND • • • • • •

N. Mar.

OH • • • • • • • • • •

OK • • • •

OR • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • NA

PA • • • • • • • • • • • •

PR • • • • • • • •

RI • • • • • • • • • • •

SC • • • • •

SD NA • •

TN • • NA • •

TX • • • • • • NA • •

UT • • • • • • • •

VT • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

VI • • • • •

VA • • • • • • •

WA • • • • NA • • • • •

WV • • • •

WI • • • • • • • • • • •

WY • NA • •

COUNT 2 10 25 4 23 23 9 16 40 3 27 47 18 22 34 36 7 20 8 36 27
87

Chapter 4. Statistical Analyses of State Policy Impact on 

Renewable Energy Development

Introduction/Summary

This chapter outlines the methodologies and results of a variety of statistical analyses, 

which are designed to identify significant relationships between policy implementation 

and increased renewable energy development at the state level. The analyses presented in 

this chapter build on those presented last year and represent a more advanced and indepth methodology.

In the State of the States 2008 report, analysts used correlation analysis to investigate 

relationships between policies and renewable energy generation. In this report, a more 

appropriate “t-test methodology” is used for most of the analyses. This method gives a 

more accurate representation of relationships when evaluating nominal-type independent 

variables (e.g., present or not present, categorical, or non-quantitative) with ratio-type 

dependent variables (quantitative variables on a meaningful scale with a nonarbitrary 

absolute zero). 

The selection of the alternative statistical method is partially responsible for considerable 

difference between this year’s results and those presented in last year’s report. For 

example, last year’s report found a correlation between energy production incentive and 

increased renewable energy generation and capacity. This year’s t-test methodology 

found no relationship between the same data. The analysts think that this year’s 

methodology provides more valid insights into the connections between energy policy 

and generation. 

As more data becomes available each year, the analysts expect that the methodologies 

will be refined, and more thorough understandings of the results will be developed; and, 

ultimately, they will be able for make clearer connections between renewable energy 

policy and renewable energy development. As it stands now, the current dataset is too 

sparse and dependent on too much unrepresented contextual information to create a high 

confidence in the statistical inference. As the dataset grows over the years and 

incorporates more quantified contextual information, the results will be less provisional. 

It may be most appropriate to consider these current analyses as exploratory “data 

mining” aimed at producing insights into potential relationships in the data, rather than 

rigorous statistical hypothesis testing.

The analyses in this report produced insightful results concerning the relationship 

between policy and renewable energy development:

• The time-lag analysis offers insight into the amount of time between when a 

policy is implemented and when renewable energy development may be 

observed.

• The time-lag analysis also identifies a connection between the implementation of 

net-metering policy and subsequent increase in non-hydroelectric renewable 

generation, according to a variety of metrics that control different variables.
88

• The policy portfolio analysis uses both theoretical insight and empirical research 

regarding effective policy combinations. It also takes important steps toward 

identifying the most effective set of policies for addressing contextual issues and 

reducing the barriers to renewable energy development.

• The best-practice policy design analysis indicates that several components of an 

RPS policy may be particularly effective at increasing development.

• Removing outlying states from certain distributions highlights the importance of 

contextual factors that often overshadow the role of policy in influencing 

renewable energy development.

• Additional data and research is needed to reach more valid conclusions 

concerning policy and its influence on renewable energy development. Future 

versions of this report will be improved not only by expanded and additional 

methodologies, but also by allowing adequate time for states to develop policy 

portfolios and for the policies to mature and impact renewable energy 

development. As the renewable energy field continues to develop, connections 

between policy and the ensuing development will only become more evident.

Methodology

In this year’s report, time-lag analysis is added to most of the statistical analyses to 

account for the time taken for policies to impact development. Last year, policies that 

were implemented in 2007 were compared to the generation data from the previous year. 

This means that some of the policies may not have been in place – or had not been in 

place for very long – when the generation was measured. 

This year, the method is improved by adding a time lag to most of the analyses (i.e.,

policies that were implemented in 2005 were run against generation data for 2007). The 

theory behind this is that, because of the time needed to plan and build energy projects, 

there may be several years of lag time between the implementation of a policy and any 

new generation that would occur as a result of that policy. 

In addition to the incorporation of a time lag into most of the analyses, the types of 

analyses have been expanded from last year’s report. Five different in-depth 

methodologies to identify connections between policy and development are employed in 

this report (see Table 4.1 to see which statistical analysis is conducted within each 

methodology). No single approach is touted as better or more complete than another; they 

simply represent different methods by which the relationships can be explored. The five 

analyses are:

1) Impact of Individual Policies (without and with a time lag). This analysis 

was conducted without and with a time-lag element. For this analysis, t-tests 

are conducted between individual policies and various renewable energy 

development indicators. For the analysis without a time lag, policies under 

implementation in 2008 are run against renewable energy generation and 

development indicators for 2007. For the analysis with a time lag, policies 

under implementation in 2005 are run against renewable energy generation 

and development indicators for 2007. Graphical illustrations of each of the 
89

relationships that emerge as significant through the t-tests are then interpreted 

to lend further understanding of the relationships. 

2) Impact of Policy Portfolios. This analysis explores the effectiveness of 

various policy combinations, e.g., policy portfolios. With this aim, t-tests and 

correlation tests are conducted to identify portfolio combinations that are 

related to high levels of renewable energy development. This analysis was 

conducted both with and without a time-lag component (i.e., relationships 

between 2008 policy combinations and 2007 renewable energy generation 

data, as well as 2005 policy combinations against 2007 renewable energy 

generation data). Several policy portfolio combinations were explored, 

specifically:

• Market Transformation Portfolio – this portfolio categorizes policies 

as either barrier-reduction policies or policies that increase technology 

accessibility.

• RPS Centered Portfolio – this portfolio consists of an RPS as a center 

policy accompanied by other policies theorized to complement an 

RPS.

• Tax Incentive Centered Portfolio – this portfolio consists of 

combinations of tax incentives accompanied by other complementary 

policies.

3) Effectiveness of Individual Policy Best Practice Design Elements. This 

analysis explores the effectiveness of policy best practices, exploring whether 

a policy that meets best practice guidelines results in more renewable energy 

development. T-tests are performed to examine whether policies that follow a 

majority of the best practice guidelines result in significantly higher levels of 

development. This method is also used to investigate individual best practice 

components of policies. Correlation tests are also conducted to identify 

relationships between the “grades” assigned to the policies and the level of 

development achieved.

4) Impact of the Age of an RPS. This analysis examines the impact of the age 

of an RPS on renewable energy development. Correlation tests are used to 

identify relationships between how long an RPS policy has been in place and 

the renewable energy development indicators.

5) Removal of Outlying States. Because renewable energy development may be 

greatly influenced by various contextual factors (see Chapter 5) that vary 

significantly across the states, this analysis explores the impact of removing 

outlying states (e.g., states with significantly more or less generation than the 

rest). The analysts remove the top 10% and bottom 10% renewable energyproducing states and then look for significant relationships between policy and 

renewable energy development within the remainder of the states. The theory 

is that removing the outliers eliminates the states that most benefitted or 

suffered from relevant contextual factors, such as environmental conditions or 
90

political landscapes. The remaining states, it is hypothesized, are less affected 

by contextual factors. 

The rest of this section describes, in detail, the methodologies used for each of the 

analyses. 

Table 4.1. Type of Statistical Analysis Used in Each Methodology

Methodology

Statistical Analysis

Individual 

Policies

Policy 

Portfolios

Policy Best 

Practice 

Design 

Elements

RPS Age 

Analysis

Removal of 

Outlying States

T-test Analysis √ √ √ √

Time-lag t-test 

Analysis √ √

Correlation Analysis √ √ √

Graphical Validation 

(box plots) √*

*graphical validation is only performed on the time-lag individual policies

1a) Impact of Individual Policies (No time-lag)

In State of the States 2008, analysts used the most recently available data to establish 

correlations. The analysis described here is the closest in methodology to the 2008 

analysis; however, in this analysis, t-tests are used instead of correlation analysis, for 

reasons explained above. Here, relationships are explored between individual policies 

implemented by 2008 and renewable energy development indicators based on 2007 data. 

In each t-test, an independent variable (policy existence) is tested against a dependent 

variable (renewable energy generation). The independent variables include each of the 

state policies.7

 7 The independent variables include the implementation of the following policies (as defined by DSIRE): 

construction and design, contractor licensing, equipment certification, generation disclosure, green power 

purchasing, interconnection, land access, line-extension analysis, net metering, public benefits fund (PBF) 

for renewable energy, required green power, renewable portfolio standard (RPS), bonds, corporate tax 

incentive, grants, industry support, loans, personal tax incentive, property tax incentive, rebates, and RE 

production incentive.

The dependent variables include 2007 renewable energy generation 

numbers by source, various growth numbers by source, and an assortment of other 

metrics designed to measure development from a variety of angles (see Table 4.2 for a 

list of the dependent variables and their respective abbreviations that are used throughout 

the results section). The independent variables are classified as nominal-level variables, 

while the dependent variables are classified as ratio-level variables. 
91

Table 4.2. Renewable Energy Development Indicators (Dependent Variables)

Renewable Energy Development Indicators

(Dependent Variables) Abbreviation

biomass generation 2007 biomass generation

geothermal generation 2007 geothermal generation

grid-connected solar capacity 2008 solar capacity

wind generation 2007 wind generation

hydroelectric generation 2007 hydro generation

non-hydro renewable generation 2007 non-hydro generation

total renewable generation 2007 total RE generation

biomass generation 

percent change from 2001 to 2007 biomass % chg 01-07

geothermal generation 

percent change from 2001 to 2007 geothermal % chg 01-07

grid-connected solar capacity 

percent change from 2005 to 2008 solar % chg 05-08

wind generation 

percent change from 2001 to 2007 wind % chg 01-07

hydroelectric generation 

percent change from 2001 to 2007 hydro % chg 01-07

non-hydro renewable generation 

percent change from 2001 to 2007 non-hydro % chg 01-07

total renewable generation 

percent change from 2001 to 2007 total RE % chg 01-07

biomass generation 

percent change from 2006 to 2007 biomass % chg 06-07

geothermal generation 

percent change from 2006 to 2007 geothermal % chg 06-07

grid-connected solar capacity 

percent change from 2006 to 2008 solar % chg 06-08

wind generation 

percent change from 2006 to 2007 wind % chg 06-07

hydroelectric generation 

percent change from 2006 to 2007 hydro % chg 06-07

non-hydro renewable generation 

percent change from 2006 to 2007 non-hydro % chg 06-07

total renewable generation 

percent change from 2006 to 2007 total RE % chg 06-07

biomass generation 

as a percent of total state generation 2007 biomass as % of generation

wind generation 

as a percent of total state generation 2007 wind as % of generation

hydroelectric generation 

as a percent of total state generation 2007 hydro as % of generation

non-hydro renewable generation 

as a percent of total generation 2007 non-hydro as % of generation

total renewable generation 

as a percent of total generation 2007 total RE as % of generation

biomass generation per capita 2007 biomass per capita
92

Renewable Energy Development Indicators

(Dependent Variables) 

(continued)

Abbreviation

(continued)

wind generation per capita 2007 wind per capita

hydroelectric generation per capita 2007 hydro per capita

non-hydro renewable generation per capita 2007 non-hydro per capita

total renewable generation per capita 2007 total RE per capita

biomass generation per GSP 2007 biomass per GSP

wind generation per GSP 2007 wind per GSP

hydroelectric generation per GSP 2007 hydro per GSP

non-hydro renewable generation per GSP 2007 non-hydro per GSP

total renewable generation per GSP 2007 total RE per GSP

wind capacity (March) 2009 wind capacity

The analyst tests all of the independent variables against all of the dependent variables, 

using SAS Enterprise Guide 4 software. This approach determines whether the presence 

of a policy has contributed to stronger performance in terms of renewable energy 

development. A two-sample t-test compares the mean values of the dependent variable 

(e.g., renewable energy generation 2007) for states with and without the independent 

variable (e.g., a particular policy in place). The output provides a p-value, which shows 

whether the difference in the means is statistically significant at a specified level (0.05 or 

0.1 level) of analysis. A t-test is considered significant at the 0.1 level if the resulting pvalue is less than or equal to 0.1. Similarly, a t-test is considered significant at the 0.05 

level if the resulting p-value is less than or equal to 0.05. 

The p-value is the probability of the sample result, assuming that the null hypothesis (that 

there is no relationship between the variables) is true. In other words, when examining 

the relationship between a policy and a dependent variable (e.g., renewable energy 

generation), a p-value of 0.05 indicates that there is a 5% probability that the observed 

relationship occurred due to chance (Doane and Seward 2006). Accordingly, a smaller pvalue is associated with a stronger relationship. If the means are significantly different, 

then the t-value, or test statistic, is examined to see how confidently the null hypothesis 

can be rejected.8

1b) Impact of Individual Policies (Time-lag Analysis)

Time-lag analysis accounts for the time taken between when a policy is implemented and 

when resulting new generation occurs. This time-lag analysis conducts t-tests between 

policies implemented by 2005 and the 2007 renewable energy development indicators. 

Thus, there is an incorporated assumption that policy effectiveness is better analyzed by 

observing generation data in the years subsequent to the policy implementation. 

 8 At the 0.1 level of significance, +/-1.645 is the t-value threshold for rejecting the null hypothesis. The 

null hypothesis can be rejected more confidently as the resulting t-value deviates further from that 

threshold. At the 0.05 level of significance, +/-1.96 becomes the threshold.
93

To form the dataset for this analysis, a “snapshot” was taken of policies that had been 

implemented in each state as of May 5, 2005. The independent variables are the same as 

in the previous methodology; however, many states have either implemented, changed, or 

discontinued various policies since 2005, which is not reflected in this methodology (see 

Future Efforts in Chapter 6). 

Every t-test conducted in the time-lag analysis is graphically reproduced in the form of a 

box-plot graph. The box-plot graph provides a visual representation of the distribution of 

observations, thus allowing for further analysis of the connection between the policy and 

the respective renewable energy development indicator. 

Figure 4.1 provides an example of the graphical representation of the t-test performed 

between the construction and design policy and biomass generation 2007. The t-test pvalue is given above the graph. The p-value of 0.685 indicates that the relationship is not 

significant. The y-axis represents electricity generated from biomass sources in 2007, in 

terms of megawatt-hours. The x-axis has two values: zero and one. Zero indicates states 

that did not have a construction and design policy in 2005. One indicates states that had 

implemented a construction and design policy by 2005. Each red dot represents one 

observation (one state). The location of the dot indicates whether that state had a 

construction and design policy in 2005, and the amount of electricity that was generated

from biomass sources in 2007. The graph also includes maximum and minimum lines 

that indicate outlying observations, a median, and a lower and upper quartile line. Each 

graph is analyzed to provide a validation check for the significant relationships that 

emerge from time-lag t-test analysis.
94

Figure 4.1. Biomass Generation (2007) and the Presence of a Construction and Design 

Policy (2005) – with notes on interpreting the box-plots

2) Effectiveness of Policy Portfolios

Experience indicates that, just as a policy alters market conditions to address a particular 

barrier to technological development, policies also act to change the conditions in which 

other policies function. In other words, policies do not act in a vacuum; instead, they 

interact with both the market and with each other. While some policy combinations may 

support each other to produce better results, other policies may be counteractive. 

Understanding these policy interactions is key to selecting, designing, and implementing 

effective policies that alter market conditions in predictable and desirable ways.

Most knowledge of effective policy design has been derived from experience in 

individual cases or is based on theoretical understandings. This analysis combines

theoretical knowledge, prior experience, and statistical analyses of actual policy results. 

This information helps identify portfolios that can serve as guides to stakeholders and 

decision makers when evaluating current policies and making future policy decisions.

This analysis is based on the theory that states with a specific suite of policies will 

optimize renewable energy development by addressing barriers to development at various 

stages in the process and by avoiding counteractive policy interactions. This year’s work 

expands on the market transformation analysis presented in the 2008 report, which 

grouped policies into barrier-reduction policies (e.g., interconnection, RPS) and 
95

technology accessibility policies (e.g., grants, loans, incentives) and then tested for 

effectiveness using a correlation analysis. This year, the analysis explores the 

effectiveness of more combinations of policy portfolios, which will help identify 

meaningful connections between groups of policies and increased renewable energy 

development. In particular, it investigates market transformation, RPS, and tax incentive 

portfolios.

Market-Transformation Portfolio

This analysis is designed to determine whether the quantity of barrier reduction or 

technology accessibility policies is correlated with increased renewable energy 

generation. Just as in 2008, the policies are categorized into the two types. The interactive 

and multipurpose aspects of renewable energy policies create challenges for a hard-line 

separation; this analysis uses the division in Table 4.3 as an introduction to how policies 

can be categorized through the market-transformation (MT) framework. The following 

discussion justifies this categorization.

Table 4.3. Market-Transformation Policy Division in Analyses

Market Preparation Technology Accessibility

Contractor Licensing

Equipment Certification

Generation Disclosure

Interconnection

Land Access

Line Extension Analysis

Net Metering

Public Benefit Fund with RE

Renewable Portfolio Standard

Voluntary and Mandatory Green Power

Corporate Tax Incentives

Grants

Loans

Personal Tax Incentives

Property Tax Incentives

Rebates

Renewable Energy Production Incentives

Sales Tax Incentives

Market Preparation

Although the contextual situation of a state necessitates that policies are custom-tailored 

and that their impacts will vary somewhat in each case, there are certain commonalities 

and barriers to development that exist in all states (e.g., transmission grid issues, 

challenges due to institutional structures). Ideally, the market preparation policies are 

“foundation policies” that are applicable across all states. Their goal is to lead to market 

transformation by preparing the market for renewable energy technologies.

These policies are defined by reducing one or more of these general barriers. The policies 

are listed here according to the primary market-preparation barrier that is targeted by the 

policy:
96

Access

• Interconnection. These policies remove grid-access barriers by creating and 

streamlining access for power producers. 

• Land access. These policies – which generally focus on wind and solar resources 

but are potentially applicable to all resources – ensure that potential producers 

have access to the land or energy resource.

• Voluntary and mandatory green power programs. These policies and programs 

provide an opportunity for early-adopting consumers to buy electricity generated 

by renewable resources. Generally, this is granted at a premium price through the 

utility companies. More innovative programs protect consumers against volatile 

fuel costs, which gives them the added benefit of more predictable – and 

sometimes lower – electricity bills.

• Line-extension analysis. This policy requires utilities to provide cost estimates of 

alternative electrification strategies for rural areas, which ensures that these areas 

can consider renewable energy as an alternative. 

Education and Information Barriers 

• Generation disclosure. Generation-disclosure policies provide information to 

consumers about the origin of the electricity they are consuming. 

• Public benefit funds with renewable energy (PBFRE). These policies are 

technically funding mechanisms for a variety of programs. The policies are listed 

here to account for the education component of many PBFRE implementation 

plans (the financial incentive portions are also considered under that category). 

• Contractor licensing. This policy ensures that contractors working with renewable 

energy technologies are well-trained and informed regarding the issues specific to 

the technologies, which reduces the risk to consumers and increases the 

accessibility of the technologies. 

• Equipment certification. Similar to contractor certification, equipment 

certification reduces consumer risk and provides standardization of technical 

equipment, which reduces uncertainty and risk and makes technology choice 

easier for the consumer. 

Market Barriers

• Renewable portfolio standard (RPS). An RPS mandates the provision of a certain 

level of renewable energy, which increases investment certainty for project 

developers and infrastructure planners by creating a market for renewable energy 

within the jurisdiction.9

• Net metering. This policy provides an avenue for renewable energy producers to 

retrieve the value of electricity delivered to the grid, which expands the market for 

renewable energy. 

 9 A similar policy for the fuels sector is the state renewable fuels standard. Because the focus of this report 

is electricity production, these policies are not covered. However, more information can be found in Brown 

et al. 2007. 
97

Technology Accessibility

Once the market is prepared through the barrier-reduction policies discussed above, the 

major remaining barrier to renewable technologies is related to their high initial capital 

costs. The accessibility policies, listed below, address this barrier by providing financial 

incentives that make renewable energy technologies more economically accessible and 

competitive in the market: 

• Grants

• Loans

• Rebates

• Renewable energy production incentives

• Corporate tax incentives

• Personal tax incentives

• Property tax incentives

• Sales tax incentives

Statistical Analyses Method

In this analysis, the independent ratio variables are: 

1) The number of market preparation policies that a state has implemented.

2) The number of technology accessibility policies that a state has implemented.

3) The number of all policies that a state has implemented. 

Using SAS software, each independent variable is correlated with each of the dependent 

variables. The dependent variables are the same as in the previous two methods (see 

Table 4.2 for a list of the dependent variables). The resulting p-value and Pearson’s 

correlation coefficient are analyzed to determine whether there is a positive relationship 

between the number of policies that a state has implemented, and various renewable 

energy development indicators. In this analysis, only relationships found significant at the 

0.05 level of significance are accepted.10 The corresponding correlation coefficient, 

which ranges from -1 to 1, indicates direction and strength of the relationship. A 

correlation coefficient of -1 indicates a very strong inverse relationship between the 

variables, while a correlation coefficient of 1 indicates a very strong positive relationship. 

Extending the time-lag methodology into this analysis, policy sums from 2005 are used in 

addition to policy sums from 2008.

RPS and Tax Incentive Portfolios

In this analysis, t-tests are conducted to determine whether specific combinations (i.e.,

portfolios) of policies can be linked with higher levels of renewable energy development. 

The methodology and the dependent variables used are the same as for the analyses of the 

individual policies outlined above (see Table 4.2 for a list of the dependent variables). 

The only difference is that combinations of policies are tested against renewable energy 

 10 It is important to note that, because of the large number of statistical tests performed here, approximately 

5% of the p-values can be expected to be less than 0.05. This is also due to the natural variation in the data 

under the null hypothesis
98

development indicators, rather than individual policies. The analysis is conducted both 

without and with the time-lag element (described above).

The policy portfolios are each made up of a “center policy” and one or more “supporting 

policies.” Not all policies can have the role of being a center policy, but many policies 

complement a center policy and play an important role in doing so. These supporting 

policies can be critical to the effectiveness of the entire policy program. The two center 

policies investigated here are an RPS and tax incentives. A discussion regarding the 

selection of these portfolios follows.

RPS is a relatively common policy used to support renewable energy development within 

the United States. As of July 2009, 35 states, one territory, and Washington, D.C., used 

some type of RPS. As a result, the understandings of the best practices and policy 

interactions with RPS policy are continuing to grow. RPS policies are thought to be most 

effective in states that have abundant, low-cost resources (or good out-of-state 

transmission and institutional coordination), good state resource knowledge, and a 

concrete plan for development of the resources (perhaps including identified renewable 

energy development zones). Green power purchasing policy and financing assistance 

may also support or complement an RPS policy (Cory et. al. 2009, State and Federal RPS 

Collaborative 2009, Hurlbut 2008). 

This portfolio analysis explores various combinations of an RPS policy plus the 

following supporting policies to identify significant relationships with high levels of 

renewable energy development indicators:

11

• required green power purchasing, 

• land access, 

• generation disclosure, 

• interconnection, 

• line-extension analysis, 

• grants and loans. 

The analysis also considered portfolios that had tax incentives as a main policy. Many 

states, as well as the federal government, use tax incentives to encourage renewable 

energy development. These incentives, which have a longer track record than many 

renewable energy policies, can be provided on several levels, including: corporate, 

personal, property, and sales tax incentives. Some states do not have one of the four types 

of taxes, so a tax incentive for that category was not applicable in this analysis. 

 11 The independent variables in the policy portfolio analysis include RPS + land access, RPS + generation 

disclosure, RPS + interconnection, RPS + line extension analysis, RPS + green power purchasing, RPS + 

net metering, RPS + RE production incentive, RPS + land access + interconnection, RPS + required green 

power + generation disclosure, required green power + generation disclosure, RPS + interconnection + 

generation disclosure, RPS + land access + generation disclosure, RPS + interconnection + generation 

disclosure, RPS + interconnection + required green power, RPS + grants + loans, grants + loans, 3 of 4 tax 

incentives, 3 of 4 tax incentives + grants + loans.
99

For this portfolio analysis, a t-test is run to determine whether the implementation of 

three out of four possible types of tax incentives within a state is significantly related to

increased renewable energy development. Grants and loans are tested as supporting 

policies to tax incentives, because these can provide assistance during the financing stage 

of project development. This is one of the most commonly cited barrier points for 

renewable energy projects, and a policy area that may be complementary to tax 

incentives. 

Statistical t-tests are used to investigate whether the implementation of the test portfolios 

described above are significantly related to higher amounts of renewable energy 

development. The analysts run various tests to see which combinations of policies 

resulted in statistically significant higher development levels. 

3) Effectiveness of Individual Policy Best Practice Policy Design Elements

This analysis provides a method to connect policy design to policy performance. 

Historical policy analyses have largely been based on the structure of the policy. As 

increased data is collected and renewable energy markets develop, analyses that evaluate 

the actual effectiveness of the policies in terms of renewable energy resource 

development are made possible. The 2008 report offered a limited analysis of the best 

practices policy designs, which included best practices for only interconnection and net 

metering policies. For both years, the analysis uses the NNEC report (2008), the 

industrial standard for net-metering and interconnection best practices. This year, similar 

analyses are completed for RPS policies, based on Wiser and Barbose (2008). 

RPS Best Practices Methodology

Design best practices for RPS policy are defined in the literature (see below for citations). 

At this stage of RPS implementation, these best practices are the best understood

determinates of policy success. This analysis attempts to move toward a quantitative 

understanding of the impacts of these policy designs by comparing best practice-designed 

policies to actual renewable energy generation in the state. 

Each state RPS policy is defined according to the 12 indicators listed in Table 4.4. 

Definitions for the indicators can be found in the RPS best practices section (Chapter 3).

The analysis considers the significance of each individual best practice feature on 

increased renewable energy development, as well as whether implementing more than 

half (7) of the best practices significantly increases development. A more detailed 

weighting of the importance of each of these features would be helpful; however, the 

necessary understandings have not yet been developed to make a more detailed weighting 

possible. This warrants further study through this and other projects. Future editions of 

this report will incorporate lessons learned from other analyses as both the policies and 

the understanding of their impacts evolves. 
100

Table 4.4. RPS Best Practices Criteria and State Status, as of 2007 (1=yes, 0=no)

Implemented

ACP/ Penalty1

REC Trading

REC 

Tracking2

Utility 

Reporting3

RPS Review4

Distributed 

Generation

Encouraging 

Project 

Financing5

% of state 

sales 

covered6

In-state (Does 

not require in 

state)7

Transmission 

Policies

Solar Specific

Compliance8

1. ACP/Penalty: has either a financial penalty for noncompliance and/or 

allows utilities to make an alternative compliance payment (ACP) to 

reach compliance (the financial penalty must either be an ACP or an 

explicit financial penalty as defined by Wiser and Barbose 2008, p. 

24 (states w/ only discretionary financial penalties or legislative 

authority w/o specific rules are not given a point)

2. REC Tracking: States were given a 1 if they were covered by a REC 

tracking system according to Wiser and Barbose 2008, p. 25. (note: 

NY's is under development, and they currently manually track 

bundled energy and attributes) (CA is planning on using WREGIS 

once it is considered verifiable)

3. Utility Reporting: gets a 1 if the applicable providers are required to 

turn in reports (often annual or biennial)

4. RPS Review: gets a 1 if there is a defined procedure for review of 

the RPS, or if the governing board is authorized to modify or adjust 

implementation standards

5. Encouraging Project Financing: States are given a 1 if they are listed 

on Table 2 of Wiser and Barbose 2008, p. 28 as having implemented 

policies to encourage long-term project financing

6. Percent of state sales covered: they get a 1 if more than 90% of the 

state sales are covered (Source: Wiser and Barbose 2008, Table 2,

p. 9)

7. In-State: only gets a zero if it requires in-state (Source: Wiser and 

Barbose 2008, Table 3, p. 10)

8. Compliance: for states that had compliance obligations in 2006, they 

get a 1 if they had 95% compliance. Blank boxes indicate no early 

compliance target for the policy. Source: Wiser and Barbose 2008, 

with data through 2007, p. 16.

Note: KS, MO, and MI currently have an RPS policy, but they did not at the 

time that this table was created, so they are not included in the analysis. In 

addition, VT, ND, SD, VA, and UT have renewable energy goals; but because 

they are not mandated goals, they do not meet our definition of an RPS policy 

and are not included in the analysis. Similarly, FL is also excluded from the 

analysis because its policy does not encompass the whole state and is,

therefore, not considered a state policy. MO and MI are excluded because of 

incomplete data about the policies.

Refer to the RPS best practices section of Chapter 3 for definitions of the 

indicators.

AZ 2007 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

CA 2003 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1

CO 2004 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

CT 1998 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0

DC 2005 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1

DE 2008 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

HI 2003 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

IL 2007 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

IA 1983 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

ME 2000 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

MD 2008 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1

MA 2003 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

MN 2007 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

MT 2006 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

NV 2002 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0

NH 2007 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1

NJ 2001 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

NM 2007 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

NY 2004 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0

NC 2008 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

OH 2009 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

OR 2007 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

PA 2005 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

RI 2004 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0

TX 1999 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

WA 2006 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

WI 2001 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
101

Net-Metering and Interconnection Best Practices Methodology

This section summarizes statistical analyses performed to determine whether the 

implementation of net-metering and interconnection policies, specifically, may lead to 

significant renewable energy resource development. The analysis used t-tests and 

correlations to identify relationships between best practice features within policies and 

renewable energy generation development indicators. The following independent 

variables are examined:

• Net-metering or interconnection implementation

• Net-metering and interconnection simultaneous implementation

• Net-metering and/or interconnection best practices 

This analysis uses the NNEC 2008 report to define best practice policy design. Based on 

a literature review, the NNEC report is determined to be the most comprehensive listing 

of best practices for the development of interconnection and net-metering policies. 

However, the report methodology is not universally agreed to, and the definition of 

“best” in best practices is clearly weighted toward the increased development of 

renewable energy technologies. However, because the goal of many net-metering and 

interconnection policies, as stated in the legislation (e.g., Minnesota), is to increase 

distributed generation on the grid, using this version of best practices to determine the 

likelihood of increased renewable energy on the grid is logical. As more information on 

the policies is published, further analysis in this area using different methodologies could 

be conducted. 

In the NNEC 2008 report, each net-metering policy is either awarded or penalized a 

number of points depending on its design with regard to the following best practices. 

Total points relate to a letter grade score. Some of the points are awarded based on tiered 

levels for the category and others are awarded simply if the policy follows that best 

practice. More detailed information can be found in the NNEC report, but the system is 

summarized below:

• Size Restrictions: Policies with the least-restrictive arbitrary size restrictions are 

awarded more points than those with more stringent policies. The best practice is 

to restrict the size of the system so that it does not exceed the consumer’s demand. 

• Capacity Limits: Points are awarded based on the percentage of peak demand that 

can be generated from distributed generation. Policies with a higher allowable 

percentage are awarded more points. 

• Rollover Restrictions: Policies that allow for more flexible rollover of excess 

generation are awarded positive points. Those with restrictive rollover policies 

and those that are designed so that the excess generation passes to the utility 

without any compensation to the generator are penalized with negative points. 

• Metering Issues: Various points are awarded or subtracted based on the specific 

metering regulations regarding new meter requirements and time-of-use meters.
102

• REC Ownership: The best practice for REC ownership is that the owner of the 

distributed-generation system maintains ownership of the REC. All other 

procedures are penalized. 

• Eligible Technology: Points are awarded if all renewable energy technologies and 

other zero-emissions technologies are eligible. 

• Eligible Customers: Policies with the fewer sector restrictions are awarded more 

points, while those with excessive restrictions are penalized. 

• Fees: Policies are penalized if they charge fees for net metering. 

• Rule Coverage: Policies that apply to all utilities are awarded points.

The set of best practices for interconnection standards in the NNEC 2008 report is 

selected because it follows the generally accepted Interstate Renewable Energy Council 

(IREC) model interconnection standards. The method penalizes policies that do not 

promote interconnection for renewable energy technologies. The following 14 points are 

included in the NNEC review of interconnection policies:

• Eligible Technology: A negative point is awarded if the policy applies only to 

renewable energy systems and not all customer generators. 

• Individual System Capacity: Varying levels of negative points are awarded if the 

maximum size of the eligible system is limited to 10 MW or less. 

• Breakpoints: Policies that have four categories of technical requirements based on 

installation capacity receive a positive point, and policies with two or fewer 

categories receive negative points.

• Timelines: Positive or negative points are awarded based on whether the policy 

surpasses or fails to comply with the established FERC standards. 

• Interconnection Charges: Positive points are awarded if interconnection fees are 

waived for net-meter customers or are at least less than FERC standards. Policies 

are penalized if the fees are greater than FERC standards 

• Engineering Charges: For projects in which an engineering review is applicable, 

policies are awarded a point if the associated fees are fixed. 

• External Disconnect Switch: Because an external disconnect switch is considered 

to be a redundant safety measure, policies that prohibit an external disconnect 

switch are awarded a point while policies that require it receive negative points. 

• Certification: Negative points are awarded to policies with certification 

requirements that conflict with nationally accepted standards. [Underwriters 

Laboratories (UL)/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)]. 

• Technical Screens: FERC has established technical interconnection screen 

standards, and negative points are awarded to a policy if anything other than the 

FERC screens is used. 

• Spot Network Interconnection/Area Network Interconnection: Although different 

limits are awarded points, allowing interconnection in the two different types of 

networks gains a point.

• Standard Form Agreement: Policies with established standard-form agreements 

with “friendly clauses” receive a point. Policies with unnecessarily complex 

standard-form agreements are penalized with negative points. 
103

• Insurance Requirements: Positive points are awarded to policies that prohibit the 

requirement of extra insurance policies, while policies that require additional 

insurance are penalized. 

• Dispute Resolution: Policies with clearly defined, inexpensive, and efficient 

dispute resolution guidelines receive positive points. If dispute resolution is 

handled at the utility’s discretion, the policy is penalized. 

• Rule Coverage: Policies that apply to all utilities are awarded points.

For each of these criteria, the NNEC method awards points, and total points relate to a 

letter grade score. More detailed information can be found in the NNEC report.

For the analysis conducted here, the data is explored in several ways. First, each letter 

grade for both net-metering policies and interconnection standards is numerically coded,

and a correlation analysis is run between the individual grades and various renewable 

energy development indicators. Additionally, a t-test is used to determine whether states 

whose policy received a “C” grade or better perform stronger in terms of renewable 

energy generation and other development indicators. This is determined by grouping 

policies that received an “A,” “B,” or “C” in one group and those that received a “D” or 

“F” in another group.

12 The same methodology is used for both net-metering and 

interconnection policy analysis. 

4) Impact of the Age of and RPS Policy

Intuitively, a policy is more likely to influence renewable energy development the longer 

it has been in effect. In this analysis, RPS policies are binned according to how long they 

have been in effect: 1-3 years, 4-6 years, 7-9 years, and 10 or more years, which 

considers the time it takes between policy implementation and actual development of 

renewable resources. It is hypothesized that states with longer-standing policies will have 

a stronger correlation with higher levels of renewable energy generation. Correlation 

analysis is then used to reveal any significant relationships in the data.

5) Removal of Outlying States

This analysis investigates whether removing the states with the highest and lowest 

renewable generation and capacity from the distribution of dependent variables further 

clarifies the relationship between policy implementation and renewable energy 

development. Once the 10% tails are removed, t-tests are performed again. Removing 

 12 For the net-metering policies, only those policies with a grade of a “C” or better are selected in this part 

of the analysis, because it represents a minimum policy design for effective net-metering rules while 

excluding policies with a negative impact on renewable energy development. A policy earning a “C” is 

defined as one that consists of “...adequate net metering rules, but...(may have)...some significant fees or 

other obstacles that undercut the value or make the process of net metering more difficult.” For

interconnection standards, a grade of “C” is chosen because it meets the minimum FERC standard as well 

as satisfactorily removes market barriers for renewable energy development. A policy earning a “C” is 

described as one that is “...adequate for interconnection although systems incur higher fees and longer 

delays than necessary. There are likely a few systems that will be precluded from interconnection because 

of remaining barriers in the interconnection rules.”
104

the outliers is theorized to control for instances where contextual factors, such as resource 

availability or socio-political climate, affect renewable energy development aside from 

policy. For example, if the cultural landscape of a state favors renewable energy 

development, despite which policies are being implemented, then including this state in 

the dataset might skew the results of a test meant to identify the relationship between 

policy and development. It was hypothesized that by removing the highest and lowest 

performing states in a distribution, some of the variation in the distribution is eliminated, 

which may tighten the focus onto the variables of interest and provide further insights.

A t-test is used to first look at the relationship between policy implementation in all states 

and the following three dependent variables:

• Total RE Generation 2007

• Percent Change in Total RE Generation from 2001 – 2007

• Total RE Generation per Capita 2007

Next, the states for which performance (in terms of the dependent variable) falls within 

the top 10% or bottom 10% are removed from the dataset. Figure 4.2 shows the 

distribution of states for the dependent variable, “total renewable energy generation 

2007.” Each dot represents a state. The y-axis denotes total renewable energy generation 

in 2007, in terms of megawatt hours. As the figure indicates, there are a few very highperforming states, as well as a number of relatively low-performing states. After 

removing these outliers, the analysts rerun the t-test and compare results.

Figure 4.2. Distribution of Total Renewable Energy Generation by State, 2007
105

Results

1a) Impact of Individual Policies (No Time Lag)

Individual policy analysis found 41 statistically significant relationships between 

individual policy implementation and renewable energy development indicators. These 

relationships indicate that states that have implemented the policy also demonstrate 

significantly stronger performance in terms of the listed renewable energy development 

indicator. The relationships are shown in Table 4.5. Only relationships that are 

significant at the 0.1 level or better are shown. 

Table 4.5. Relationships between Policy and Performance

2008

No. of Positive 

Relationships Renewable Energy Development Indicators

Required Green Power 11

wind generation**, non-hydro as % of generation*, wind per 

capita**, hydro per capita*, non-hydro per capita **, total per 

capita*, wind per GSP**, hydro per GSP*, non-hydro per GSP**, 

total per GSP*, wind capacity 2009*

Generation Disclosure 6

biomass generation*, wind generation**, non-hydro generation**, 

total generation*, hydro % chg 01-07**, wind capacity 2009**

RPS 5

wind generation*, total generation*, hydro % chg 01-07**, nonhydro as % of generation*, wind capacity 2009**

Loans 4

non-hydro % chg 01-07**, biomass as % generation*, non-hydro 

as % generation**, biomass per capita*

Construction and 

Design 3 non-hydro generation*, total generation*, hydro % chg 01-07**

Personal Tax Incentive 3 hydro per capita*, total RE per capita*, hydro per GSP*

Corporate Tax 

Incentive 2 wind per capita*, wind per GSP*

Land Access 2 hydro generation* total generation*

Grants 1 biomass generation**

Green Power 

Purchasing 1 wind generation*

Industry Support 1 hydro % chg 01-07*

Property Tax Incentive 1 wind capacity 2009*

Rebates 1 biomass generation*

*significant at 0.1 level

**significant at 0.05 level

Note: Policy definitions are listed in Chapter 3

See Table 4.2 for a list of the indicators and their abbreviations

1b) Impact of Individual Policies (With Time Lag)

The time-lag approach highlights 28 relationships between policy and performance. The

very different results of the analysis when a time lag is included indicate the potential 

importance of considering the delay in detectable results after the implementation of a 

policy. The time-lag method likely provides more insight into the effectiveness of policy 

because it accounts for the time it may take for a policy to influence renewable energy 

development. 
106

Table 4.6 lists the significant relationships found. Only relationships that are at least at 

the 0.1 level are given.

Table 4.6. Relationships between Policy and Performance: Time-Lag Analysis

2005

No. of 

Relationships Renewable Energy Development Indicators

Net Metering 7

wind generation*, non-hydro as % gen**, wind per capita**, 

non-hydro per capita**, wind per GSP**, non-hydro per GSP**, 

wind capacity 2009*

Required Green 

Power 7

wind generation*, hydro % chg 01-07**, wind as % of 

generation**, wind per capita**, non-hydro per capita**, wind 

per GSP**, non-hydro per GSP**

Generation 

Disclosure 4

wind generation*, hydro %chg 01-07**, non-hydro as % 

generation*, wind capacity 2009*

Interconnection 3 wind generation*, non-hydro generation*, total generation*

Personal Tax 

Incentive 2 hydro generation**, total generation* 

Rebates 2 hydro generation*, total generation*

Sales Tax Incentive 2 wind per capita*, wind per GSP*

Corporate Tax 

Incentive 1 hydro %change 01-07*

*significant at 0.1 level

**significant at 0.05 level

Note: Policy definitions are listed in Chapter 3

See Table 4.2 for a list of the indicators and their abbreviations

The graphical reproductions of t-tests conducted during the time-lag analysis contribute 

to the analysis by further validating relationships or trends that emerge in the t-tests. 

Additionally, they help to flush out spurious and misleading relationships that may exist 

between the variables.

Time-lag t-test analysis indicates that a trend may exist between the net-metering policy 

and generation from non-hydroelectric renewable sources. States that had a net-metering 

policy in 2005 performed significantly stronger in terms of three different metrics that are 

each designed to measure non-hydro renewable generation in 2007: non-hydro renewable 

generation as a percent of total state generation, non-hydro renewable generation per 

capita, and non-hydro renewable generation per GSP. 

The graphical reproductions of the t-tests further validate these relationships. The graph 

of the t-test between net metering and non-hydroelectric renewable generation as a 

percent of total state generation is shown in Figure 4.3; net metering and non-hydro 

renewable generation per capita in Figure 4.4; and net metering and non-hydro 

renewable generation per GSP in Figure 4.5. Each figure includes the p-value that 

resulted from the t-tests, the test statistic (t-value), the mean value of states that had 

implemented a net- metering policy by 2005, and the mean value of states that had not 
107

implemented a net- metering policy by 2005. (Refer to the Time-Lag Analysis 

Methodology section, above, for help with interpreting the graph.)

p-value = 0.0275**; t value = -2.30

Mean of states with policy = 4.1%

Mean of states without policy = 1.8%

Figure 4.3. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Generation as a Percent of Total State 

Generation (2007) and the Presence of a Net-Metering Policy (2005)

The t-test, p-value, and test statistic indicate that this relationship is significant at the 0.05 

level, and that the null-hypothesis (that there is no relationship) can be rejected. In 

addition, the t-test identifies that states that did not have a net-metering policy in 2005 

had a mean value of 1.8% in terms of non-hydroelectric renewable generation as a 

percent of total state generation in 2007. Alternatively, states that did have a net-metering 

policy in 2005 had a mean value of 4.1%, which represents a 128% increase. The graph 

presents a visualization of the distribution of observations. Clearly, states with a netmetering policy in 2005 are concentrated higher up on the graph. This indicates that, as a 

group, they generally produced a higher percentage of total state electricity from nonhydro renewable resources. This does not verify that the net-metering policy results in the 

development of increased renewable energy generation; it only indicates that there is a 

correlation between the implementation of the policy (over time) and the increasing 

development of renewable energy resources.

Thus, there is a reasonable indication that the relationship between implementing a 

net-metering policy in 2005 and performing stronger in non-hydroelectric renewable 

generation as a percent of total state generation in 2007 is not by chance.
108

p-value = 0.0126**; t value = -2.62

Mean of states with policy = 0.59 MWh/person

Mean of states without policy = 0.26 

MWh/person

Figure 4.4. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Generation per Capita (2007) and the Presence of 

a Net-Metering Policy (2005)

The t-test, p-value, and test statistic indicate that this relationship is significant at the 0.05 

level, and the null-hypothesis (that there is no relationship) can be rejected. In addition, 

the t-test identifies that states that did not have a net-metering policy in 2005 had a mean 

value of 0.26 MWh/person in terms of non-hydro renewable generation per capita in 

2007. Alternatively, states that did have a net metering policy in 2005 had a mean value 

of 0.59 MWh/person – a 127% increase. The graph presents a visualization of the

distribution of observations. Clearly, states with a net-metering policy in 2005 are 

concentrated higher up on the graph. This indicates that, as a group, they generally 

produced more electricity per person from non-hydro renewable resources. 

Thus, there is a reasonable indication that the relationship between having a netmetering policy in 2005 and performing stronger in non-hydroelectric renewable 

generation per capita in 2007 is not by chance.
109

p-value = 0.0456**; t value = -2.07

Mean of states with the policy = 13.6 MWh/M$ GSP

Mean of states without the policy = 6.7 MWh/M$ 

GSP

Figure 4.5. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Generation per GSP (2007) and the Presence of 

a Net-Metering Policy (2005)

The t-test, p-value, and test statistic indicate that this relationship is significant at the 0.05 

level of significance, and the null-hypothesis (there is no relationship) can be rejected. In 

addition, the t-test identifies that states that did not have a net-metering policy in 2005 

had a mean value of 6.7 MWh/M$GSP in terms of non-hydroelectric renewable

generation per M$GSP in 2007. Alternatively, states that did have a net-metering policy 

in 2005 had a mean value of 13.6 MWh/M$GSP – a 103% increase. The graph presents a 

visualization of the distribution of observations. Clearly, states with a net-metering policy 

in 2005 are concentrated higher up on the graph. This indicates that, as a group, they 

generally produced more electricity per $GSP from non-hydro renewable resources.

Thus, there is a reasonable indication that the relationship between having a netmetering policy in 2005 and performing stronger in non-hydroelectric renewable 

generation per GSP in 2007 is not by chance. 

It is important to note that the relationship between the presence of a net-metering policy 

in 2005, and the higher level of non-hydroelectric renewable electricity generation as a 

percent of total generation in 2007, is reinforced by the relationships that emerged 

between the same policy and the other two metrics of non-hydro renewable generation 
110

(i.e., per capita and per GSP). In other words, the triangulation of the results provides 

additional validation of the relationship between net-metering policy and renewable 

energy development. The fact that the presence of a net-metering policy in 2005 resulted 

in higher levels of non-hydro renewable generation in 2007 for all three metrics 

substantiates the claim that net-metering policy supports renewable energy development.

In interpreting these results, however, it should be recalled that net-metering policies are 

generally limited to smaller renewable energy projects, which would exclude many largescale wind energy projects from being affected by the policy. Therefore, it could be 

argued that the relationship seen between net-metering policy and increased generation is 

not valid. To verify the relationship, a more detailed analysis must account for the 

specific elements of the policies and whether the projects that were responsible for the 

increase in generation were eligible for the benefits provided by the policy. Until this 

more detailed work is conducted, the analysis can’t make definitive conclusions about the 

relationship. It could be hypothesized, however, that part of the relationship is because 

states that have implemented the net-metering policy are perhaps more generally 

supportive of renewable energy development than those that have not implemented the 

policy.

2) Impact of Policy Portfolios

Market-Transformation Portfolio

This analysis compares two categories of policies – market preparation (barrier 

reduction) and technology accessibility (defined in the methodology, above) – to see 

whether there is a connection between the number of policies implemented and increased 

renewable energy development. The significant positive correlations with 2008 policies 

(no time lag) are presented in Table 4.7. The significant positive correlations with 2005 

policies (time lag) are presented in Table 4.8.

More positive correlations are identified through the time-lag analysis than without the 

time lag (19, as compared to four). For the time-lag analysis, positive correlations are 

found between total number of policies implemented in 2005 and renewable electricity 

generation (from various sources, as well as cumulative) in 2007. Moreover, most of the 

correlations are with 2007 generation numbers by source, indicating a noticeable trend 

between total number of policies and improved generation for each individual source of 

renewable energy. 
111

Table 4.7. Policy Correlation Table: Market-Transformation Portfolio (No Time Lag)

2008

No. of Positive 

Relationships Renewable Energy Development Indicators

Correlations 4

Sum Market Prep Policies 

(correlation)

2

total generation*, hydro % chg 01-07*

Sum Tech Access Policies 

(correlation) 1 hydro % chg 01-07*

Sum Total Policies (correlation) 1 hydro % chg 01-07*

*significant at 0.05 level

**significant at 0.01 level

See Table 4.2 for a list of the indicators and their abbreviations

Table 4.8. Policy Correlation Table: Market-Transformation Portfolio (Time Lag)

2005

No. of Positive 

Relationships Renewable Energy Development Indicators

Correlations 19

Sum Market Prep Policies 

(correlation)

7

geothermal generation*, solar capacity*, 

wind generation**, non-hydro generation**, 

total RE generation*, non-hydro as % of 

generation*, wind capacity**

Sum Tech Access Policies 

(correlation)

5

geothermal generation**, solar capacity**, 

hydro generation*, non-hydro generation**, 

total RE generation**

Sum Total Policies (correlation)

7

geothermal generation**, solar capacity**, 

wind generation**, hydro generation*, nonhydro generation**, total RE generation**, 

wind capacity*

*significant at 0.05 level

**significant at 0.01 level

See Table 4.2 for a list of the indicators and their abbreviations
112

RPS and Tax Incentive Portfolios

This analysis runs t-tests on specific combinations of policies to determine whether 

portfolios of policies can be related to increased renewable energy development 

indicators. The analysis is conducted both without and with a time-lag component (see 

the discussion of the time-lag method, above). 

Similar to the results for the individual policies, the number of significant relationships 

identified is greater for the analysis without the time lag than the analysis with the time

lag. One explanation for more relationships emerging without the time lag is that there 

are more policies implemented with time, and the increasing number of policies lends an 

increased chance for relationships to emerge. Not all of these relationships, however, may 

be valid. It should be reemphasized that for the analysis without the time lag, policies in 

place in 2008 are tested against generation from 2007, which means that not all of the 

policies were necessarily in place when the generation was measured. Thus, the results of 

the analysis without the time lag should be carefully critiqued. The significant 

relationships found for the analysis with no time lag are presented in Table 4.9.

The time-lag portfolio t-test analysis identified six significant relationships (shown in 

Table 4.10). One of the combinations was responsible for four of these positive 

relationships. Interestingly, that portfolio did not include either of the center policies. 

Required Green Power programs plus Generation Disclosure policies were found to be 

significantly related to the renewable energy development indicators: hydroelectric 

generation percent change between 2001-2007, non-hydroelectric renewable 

generation per capita, wind generation per capita, and wind generation per GSP. 

Theoretically, this combination of policies is complementary, because disclosing the 

resource mix of the electricity to customers provides information that may encourage 

them to participate in the required green power programs; this can lead to increased 

demand and deployment of renewable energy. This theory is supported by this analysis. 

More research regarding these combinations of policies, however, is warranted, 

particularly as more data becomes available over the years.
113

Table 4.9. Portfolio T-test Results Summary Table (No Time Lag)

2008 No. of Positive 

Relationships

Renewable Energy

Development Indicators

Portfolio 1 59

RPS and Required Green 

Power 12

wind generation**, wind as % generation**, nonhydro as % generation, wind per capita**, hydro 

per capita*, non-hydro per capita**, total RE per 

capita*, wind per GSP**, hydro per GSP*, nonhydro per GSP**, total RE per GSP*, wind 

capacity 2009*

RPS, Interconnection, and 

Required Green Power 10

wind generation**, non-hydro as % generation*, 

wind per capita**, hydro per capita*, non-hydro 

per capita**, total RE per capita*, wind per 

GSP**, non-hydro per GSP**, total RE per GSP*, 

wind capacity 2009*

RPS and Generation 

Disclosure 5

wind generation**, non-hydro generation*, total 

generation*, hydro % chg 01-07**, wind capacity 

2009**

RPS, Interconnection, and 

Generation Disclosure 5

wind generation**, non-hydro generation*, total 

RE generation*, hydro % chg 01-07*, wind 

capacity 2009**

RPS, Land Access, and 

Generation Disclosure 4 hydro generation*, total RE generation*, hydro % 

chg 01-07**, non-hydro as % generation*

RPS and Land Access 4 hydro generation*, total RE generation*, hydro % 

chg 01-07**, non-hydro as % generation*

RPS, Required Green 

Power, and Generation 

Disclosure

4 wind generation**, wind per capita**, wind per 

GSP**, wind capacity**

Required Green Power and 

Generation Disclosure 4 wind generation**, wind per capita**, wind per 

GSP**, wind capacity**

RPS and Interconnection 3 wind generation**, total RE generation*, wind 

capacity 2009**

RPS, Land Access, and 

Interconnection 2 hydro generation*, total RE generation*

RPS, Grants and Loans 2 hydro % chg 01-07*, non-hydro as % generation*

RPS and Net Metering 2 hydro % chg 01-07**, non-hydro as % 

generation*

RPS and Green Power 

Purchasing 1 hydro % chg 01-07*

RPS and RE Production 

Incentive 1 wind capacity*

Portfolio 2 2

3 of 4 Tax Incentives*** and 

Grants and Loans

2 biomass generation*, non-hydro as % 

generation*

*significant at 0.1 level

**significant at 0.05 level

***States that have three of the four possible tax incentives: personal, corporate, property, and sales.

See Table 4.2 for a list of the indicators and their abbreviations
114

Table 4.10. Portfolio T-test Results Summary Table (Time Lag)

2005 No. of Positive 

Relationships RE Development Indicators

Portfolio 1 5

Required Green Power, 

Generation Disclosure 4

hydro % chg 01-07*, wind per capita*, non-hydro 

per capita*, wind per GSP*

RPS and Generation 

Disclosure 1 hydro % chg 01-07*

Portfolio 2 1

Grants and Loans 1 hydro % chg 01-07**

*significant at 0.1 level

**significant at 0.05 level

See Table 4.2 for a list of the indicators and their abbreviations

3) Effectiveness of Individual Policy Best Practice Design Elements

RPS Best Practices

The findings on the impacts of policy design best practices relative to the overall impact 

of the RPS policies are challenging to interpret. This is not only because of the relative 

newness of the policies (Iowa started an RPS in 1983, but most RPS policies have been 

implemented in the past 10 years, see Table 4.4), but also because RPS exists in a 

contextual environment that can have an effect on overall policy impact. In general, 

however, the following conclusions can be drawn from this year’s analysis:

Seven of the policy features (defined in the methodology) are found to be significant with 

at least one of the renewable energy development indicators, for a total of 12 significant 

observations (Table 4.11). 

Table 4.11. RPS Best Practices T-test Results: Significant Policy Features

Policy Feature Significant Indicator

ACP Penalty biomass generation 2007*

total RE per capita*

total RE per GSP*

Does Not Require In-State biomass generation 2007**

hydro generation 2007**

total RE generation 2007**

REC Trading total RE per GSP*

REC Tracking total RE per GSP*

% of State Sales Covered biomass generation 2007*

More than 1⁄2 of best practices in policy total RE per GSP*

GSP=Gross State Product

*Significant at the 0.1 level

**Significant at the 0.05 level

Note: Policy feature definitions are found in RPS best practices section in Chapter3

See Table 4.2 for a list of the indicators and their abbreviations
115

The interpretation provided here is based on analytic expertise and consideration of 

external and contextual factors, in addition to the results themselves. 

The connection of elements of RPS design best practices to biomass and hydroelectric 

generation in 2007 stands out as one of the outcomes from the t-test analysis. Because 

these generators are typically not “new” generation by the requirements of the RPS 

(typically renewable generation eligible to meet RPS must be in place after 1996), it is 

unlikely that the results reflect an actual connection between the policy and the 

development of these specific resources. Instead, it is likely that states having extensive 

experience with renewable technologies historically may be more comfortable and 

interested in developing renewable energy policies due to that previous experience. As a 

result, the statistical results are not seen to improve the understanding of the role of best 

practice design in policy effectiveness for renewable energy generation. 

Setting the significant t-tests with specific technologies aside, the remaining significant 

observations are generally related to the variables “total renewable energy generation per 

capita” and “per gross state product (GSP).” Normalizing the renewable energy growth 

across states based on the economic variable GSP allows for removal of state financial 

capabilities to support increase renewable energy. This allows for a clearer understanding 

of other factors, such as the role of policy (including specifically designed best practices 

policy) and resource availability. 

In the case of RPS policies, t-test analysis indicates that states with an RPS policy in 

2005 did not perform significantly stronger in terms of any of the 2007 renewable 

development indicators. However, when broken down into best practices policy features, 

several individual features emerge as significant components. The feature “does not 

require in-state,” which specifies that eligible projects are not restricted to only in-state 

development, proved to be a significant feature of an RPS policy. Posing an in-state 

requirement may contribute to the economic development within that state, but perhaps at 

the expense of renewable energy development at the national level. The findings indicate 

that the states that do not pose this requirement performed stronger in three of the 

metrics.

States with several of the features (ACP penalty, REC trading, REC tracking), as well as 

those states with an RPS policy with the majority of the features, produced significantly 

more renewable energy per GSP than states without those individual features or without 

an RPS policy having the majority of the features. While not a clear indication of 

causation that RPS with the majority of best practices features are related to increased 

renewable energy when normalized for economic conditions, this result warrants further 

analysis in future reports (with more data on the progress of RPS policies) to further 

explore this connection. 

Using multiple regression analysis, an attempt was made to develop a working model to 

predict renewable energy generation. The modeling used all possible combinations of 

best practice policy design elements. However, none of the individual best practice 

design elements qualified for a model that adequately predicts any of the renewable 
116

energy development indicators. Consequently, the analyses suggest that although some 

of the features of a well-designed RPS policy are found to significantly contribute to 

renewable energy development when looked at individually, none of them can be 

combined into a model that adequately predicts any of the renewable energy generation 

indicators.

The addition of more states with RPS policies as well as the continued implementation of 

current policies (see the discussion on the time lag in the methodology overview and 

methodology detailed description sections) may lead to increased data and more insights 

that can be informative to the effectiveness of RPS policy and the connection to best 

practice policy design features. Moreover, the development of alternative design 

techniques may increase the effectiveness of policies and should be considered in the 

development of future policies and analyses. 

Net-Metering and Interconnection Best Practices

Results of this analysis indicate that there is no significant relationship between policy 

and development for the states that currently have a net-metering and/or interconnection 

policy.13 In addition, whether or not a state received a high policy grade or followed 

exceptional best practice guidelines has no significant affect. 

Theory and policy analysts (NNEC 2008, Wiser and Barbose 2008) assert that the 

effectiveness of a policy is largely determined by whether it follows best practice 

guidelines. A policy can be reinforced, or undermined, by the presence, or absence, of a 

specific attribute or component that may greatly influence the actions of renewable 

energy developers. However, the findings of this analysis do not support a direct 

connection between a policy and increased generation in the same year. 

Based on the findings that a time lag could be an important element, it is hypothesized 

that states that followed best practice guidelines for net-metering and interconnection 

policies in 2005 would perform stronger in renewable energy development indicators in 

the following years. This, however, was not tested. Next steps for future versions of this 

report include gathering a record of states that followed net-metering and interconnection 

policy best practice guidelines in 2005, and testing whether or not they performed 

stronger in the following years.

4) Impact of the Age of an RPS Policy

The age of an RPS policy is found to be positively correlated with installed wind 

capacity. The correlation test p-value of 0.0423 indicates that the relationship is 

significant at the 0.05 level, while the corresponding correlation coefficient of 0.40102 

indicates that the relationship is moderate in strength and positive in direction. In other 

words, as the age of the RPS policy increases, so does the amount of installed wind 

capacity. This relationship indicates that wind development may be particularly 

 13 See the section discussing the analysis on individual policies, above, for a description of the general 

findings for individual policies, not accounting for best practice elements.
117

responsive to an RPS policy. One factor may be that an RPS mandates the provision of a 

certain amount of renewable energy generation, yet this does not necessarily mean that 

subsidies are available for construction; because wind energy is one of the most 

competitive renewable energy technologies, it is a common technological option taken to 

fulfill RPS mandates.

5) Removal of Outlying States

Fewer positive relationships between policy and renewable energy generation are found 

once the outlying states, or “tails,” are omitted from the analysis (see Methodology 

section for details). Before removing the tails, there are 15 significant positive 

relationships between policies and the three dependent renewable generation variables. 

After removing the 10% tails from each distribution, respectively, the findings indicate 

only three significant positive relationships, which are 12 fewer than before (see Table 

4.12). 

Table 4.12. Removal of Outlying States: T-test and Correlation Results

Significant Relationships Between Policy and Total RE Generation

Results Prior to Removing Tail-ends

Construction and Design

Results After Removing Tail-ends

Equipment Certification

Generation Disclosure Personal Tax Incentive

Land Access

RPS

RPS and Land Access

RPS and Generation Disclosure

RPS and Interconnection

RPS, Land Access, and Interconnection

RPS, Interconnection, and Generation 

Disclosure

RPS, Land Access, and Generation Disclosure

Significant Relationships Between Policy and Total RE Generation per Capita

Results Prior to Removing Tail-ends

Required Green Power

Results After Removing Tail-ends

Personal Tax Incentive 

Personal Tax Incentive

RPS and Required Green Power

RPS and Personal Tax Incentive

RPS, Interconnection, and Required Green 

Power

Significant Relationships Between Policy and Total RE Generation % Change 

from 2001-2007

Results Prior to Removing Tail-ends

none

Results After Removing Tail-ends

none
118

The renewable energy “powerhouse” states are responsible for significant positive 

relationships between policy and renewable energy development indicators; and 

removing these states from the analysis resulted in far fewer relationships between policy 

and development. The fact that so few relationships between policy and development 

occur once the tails are removed means that policy implementation has not significantly 

spurred development in a majority of states. This suggests that although policy often acts 

as a catalyst for renewable energy generation and development, contextual factors also 

contribute substantially to the amount of development achieved. It is possible that, in 

removing the tail-ends of the distribution, the most important contributing factors to 

development were also removed. 

In sum, eliminating the tail-ends did not strengthen the previously observed relationship 

between policy and renewable energy generation and development, as was hypothesized. 

The findings suggest that at this early stage of renewable energy development, 

contextual factors may prove to be stronger indicators of renewable energy generation 

and development than policy.

Discussion and Conclusions

The development of the quantitative methodologies presented is an attempt to expand 

policy evaluation beyond qualitative methods and increase the understanding of policy 

effectiveness. The statistical analyses identified significant connections between state 

policies and renewable energy development indicators. However, many connections that 

were hypothesized to exist did not appear, and some relationships that did emerge appear 

trivial after viewing the graphical representations. Overall, several conclusions can be 

drawn from the analyses (see Table 4.13 for a summary of conclusions): 

• The time-lag analysis contributes to the understanding of how long it takes before 

the effects of a policy can be observed. 

• The time-lag analysis also reveals that states that had a net-metering policy in 

2005 had significantly more renewable energy generation in 2007 (in terms of 

total generation, as a percent of total electricity generation, and per capita) than 

states without the policy. 

• Portfolio analysis identifies significant relationships between the number of 

market-transformation policies (including both barrier reduction and technology 

accessibility policies) and the total renewable energy generation. This is 

particularly true when considering individual technologies. 

• Policy portfolio analysis using a time- lag supports, in particular, the effectiveness 

of combining generation-disclosure requirements with required green power 

programs; however, this observation warrants further research.

• Some of the features of a well-designed RPS policy are found to significantly

contribute to renewable energy development when looked at individually;

however, none of them can be combined into a model that adequately predicts any 

of the renewable energy generation indicators. 

• The result of the methodology that omits outlying states emphasizes the role of 

contextual factors in renewable energy development, whether they’re 
119

sociological, political, economic, or geographic. This highlights the importance of 

understanding the contextual factors involved and identifying the most effective 

set of policies for addressing contextual issues and reducing the barriers to

renewable energy development. These are discussed further in the following 

chapter. 

Table 4.13. Summary of Conclusions

Analysis Goal Notable Results

Impact of 

Individual Policies

• Explore impact of individual 

policy implementation.

• Net-metering policy is related to increased 

non-hydro renewable generation.

Impact of 

Policy Portfolios

• Explore effects of policy 

interactions.

• Number of policies is related to increased 

generation.

• Combining generation disclosure and 

required green power related to increased 

generation.

Impact of Policy 

Design 

(RPS, Net

metering, 

Interconnection 

Policies)

• Explore effects of best 

practice design features.

• Some RPS best practice design features 

related to increased renewable generation;

however, no successful model for 

combining the features was identified.

Impact of Policy 

Age

(RPS)

• Explore effects of policy 

age.

• As the age of the RPS increases, wind 

capacity significantly increases.

Removal of 

Outlying States

• Explore the influence of 

contextual factors.

• Removing the highest- and lowestperforming states reduces the number of 

relationships seen between policy and 

generation. Thus, contextual factors other 

than policy may be stronger indicators of 

development than policy.

Based on these conclusions, more in-depth analysis can be done in the future to refine the 

connections between policy and renewable energy generation development. 

In particular, best practices in policy design do not appear to have a large impact on 

policy effectiveness (given the metrics considered in this study). However, the 

connection may be overshadowed because of insufficient time for a policy to be in effect 

before seeing the results of the best practice elements. Next steps to explore this issue 

should include: 

• Expanding the database to include a more comprehensive listing of exactly when 

each state policy was implemented.

• Using a time-lag approach for best practice design analysis.

• The inclusion of many more contextual factors as quantified independent 

variables. 

This improved methodology will account for many of the remaining explanatory 

variables and provide a clearer insight into effectiveness of state renewable energy 

policy.
120

In addition, policy portfolio analysis provides insight into identifying quantitative trends 

that may exist regarding effective policy combinations. Although a limited number of 

trends are found using the time-lag approach to portfolio analysis, allowing for more time 

for many of the policies to take effect and impact the markets will contribute to the 

understanding of how long it takes for policies to take effect. It will also provide insight 

on which policy combinations work best together and foster renewable energy 

development. 

Finally, the demonstrated importance of contextual factors, and accounting for these 

factors within the statistical analysis, may provide additional insights into policy 

effectiveness. Next steps will include methodologies for quantifying contextual factors, 

where possible.
121

Chapter 5. Contextual Factors Affecting Renewable Energy 

Development

Introduction

Contextual factors are the existing natural resource, economic, environmental, and social 

conditions that set the stage for renewable energy development. They define the 

framework for renewable energy markets, and can be either barriers or accelerators to 

renewable energy development. 

State policymakers who understand contextual factors are in a better position to design 

and implement policies with beneficial outcomes within their state. Each state has a 

unique set of contextual factors, and the particular mix determines which policies should 

be implemented to optimize the deployment of renewable energy resources.

This chapter identifies and summarizes 14 contextual factors that impact renewable 

energy development in a positive, negative, or neutral way (see Table 5.1). While the 

focus of this chapter is on contextual factors, state policies that can be effective within the

framework of these factors are also briefly discussed (policies are reviewed in greater 

detail in Chapter 3).
122

Table 5.1. Renewable Energy Contextual Factors

1. Resource Availability – The natural resources that exist in a state that can be used to produce 

renewable energy.

2. Technology Availability – The commercial availability of technically proven renewable energy 

hardware.

3. Technology Cost – The cost of building and maintaining renewable energy facilities.

4. Energy Costs – Prices paid by consumers for energy produced from renewable energy and 

competing power generation technologies. 

5. Economic Factors – Economic health of a state and energy consumers in that state.

6. Project Financing Options – Financing mechanisms to fund renewable energy installations.

7. Ownership Options – Project ownership structures that allow for maximum use of available 

incentives. 

8. Transmission Issues – Transmission lines and infrastructure that transport electricity from the 

renewable resource power production location to end-use electricity markets.

9. Environmental Considerations – The impacts of renewable energy on the natural environment.

10. Institutional Structures – The attitudes and policies of existing utility companies and regulatory 

organizations toward renewable energy.

11. Land-Use Issues and Constraints – Land availability and land-use laws and zoning.

12. Information Dissemination – The availability of information about renewable energy technologies, 

resource availability, financial incentives, and regulatory hurdles in a state. 

13. Social Acceptance – Public support for, or opposition to, renewable energy development.

14. Larger Policy Context – Federal action on incentives and regulatory issues that set the 

background for how states implement renewable energy policies.

Contextual Factors

Resource Availability

The opportunities for renewable energy development and generation vary by state and are

based on available natural resources. A state must identify its renewable resources before 

determining which policies to enact that will promote the development of those resources 

– policy formulation should be tailored to the available resources. Examples of how 

renewable resources vary across the United States include:

• Solar – The southwestern states and parts of California have abundant insolation 

and can take advantage of solar energy (thermal and photovoltaic).

• Wind – The potential for wind energy production is high in the Great Plains 

region of the United States – a large expanse stretching from North Dakota to 

north Texas, often called the “wind belt.”

• Biomass – Biomass is abundant in the eastern states and some parts of the Pacific 

Northwest (NREL 2009, DOE 2009a, AWEA 2009b).
123

• Geothermal – Geothermal energy is abundant in several western states (DOE 

2006).

Renewable resource data and maps are available from the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL 2009) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE 2009a). Through 

these sources, renewable energy resource assessments and site-prospecting programs are 

widely available to the developer community.

States need to consider the specific location of a resource within their borders. In some 

cases, resources are in remote areas far from large population centers, which can require 

that new transmission lines be built to transport the electricity to consumers. Other factors 

that may affect the development of resources are land-use constraints, environmental 

considerations, local economic factors, institutional structures, and local public 

acceptance. These contextual factors are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections 

of this chapter. 

Many renewable energy policies – such as financial incentives, renewable portfolio 

standards (RPS), and production credits – can be used to promote a wide range of 

renewable energy technologies. However, other policies can be tailored to address 

specific state issues and resources. These policies include those related to transmission 

access, interconnection, net metering, and land use. The focus of state policies can be 

adjusted to address specific resource availability. 

Different types of renewable energy technologies can have significantly different 

capacities, and these capacity differences need to be considered when designing policies. 

For example, policies directed toward solar energy development may not encourage the 

development of utility-scale wind energy or other large capacity renewable energy

systems. Because rooftop photovoltaic installations are typically smaller in capacity than 

wind or biomass systems, a 100 kW limit for standard interconnection and net metering 

may be sufficient to promote residential and commercial solar development; however, it 

may be too low to encourage the development of wind or biomass. State policymakers 

need to carefully consider the type of resources that are available within their state to 

ensure that proper policies are enacted to promote the use of these resources. 

Technology Availability

The availability of highly efficient and cost-effective renewable technologies is an 

important foundation for increased development of renewable energy. A healthy 

renewable energy market is dependent on the commercial availability of reliable 

equipment from multiple vendors. In recent years, there have been several significant 

advancements that have improved the technical performance and reduced the cost of 

wind turbines, solar PV, and other renewable energy technologies. New equipment 

suppliers have entered the market, which results in a wider range of product offerings but 

also keeps prices competitive. However, the renewable energy market is far from fully 

commercialized, and equipment prices and performance are expected to show continued 

improvement as the market expands.
124

There have been growing pains in renewable energy markets. For example, access to 

sufficient raw materials has hampered technology availability in some cases. Shortages of 

pure silicon, and competition for the resource with the growing semiconductor industry, 

have affected the manufacturing costs and availability of crystalline photovoltaic cells.

As production capacity of crystalline silicon has increased during the past few years, the 

shortage has eased. Shortages of steel and other raw materials due to increased global 

demand also have increased production costs of and lengthened the lead time for 

procuring wind turbines (Kanellos 2008). However, the recent worldwide economic 

recession has eased many materials constraints. 

Some manufacturers have been hesitant to invest in new factories, fearing that demand 

will fall as financial incentives sunset. An insufficient production infrastructure could 

hamper expectations for a robust increase in the deployment of renewable energy 

technologies.

Several policies can ease problems with technology availability: Research and 

development support spurs advancements; manufacturing incentives and 

commercialization assistance will promote production; and extended timeframes for 

production incentives, tax incentives, and mandatory production policies increase market 

stability and ease supplier concerns about demand fluctuations.

Technology Cost

The technology used to recover energy from a renewable resource varies significantly 

between each type of resource. Solar PV, solar thermal, wind, biomass, and geothermal 

resources require different conversion technologies, and the equipment costs vary greatly 

depending on the resource type as well as the resource scale (e.g., large-scale wind 

compared to rooftop or distributed wind; residential solar compared to utility-scale solar 

power).

A continuing issue for renewable energy technologies is that they tend to have higher upfront capital costs compared to fossil-fuel technologies. However, renewable 

technologies generally have lower operation and maintenance (O&M) and lower (or even 

nonexistent) fuel costs compared to conventional technologies. Given higher up-front 

costs for renewable energy technologies and relatively low prices for oil and natural gas –

at least based on current market conditions – renewable energy development may be seen 

as too expensive (Wald 2009). 

Solar PV systems tend to have the highest costs per kilowatt of installed capacity,

followed by solar thermal, geothermal, biomass, and wind, which has the lowest cost 

(EIA 2001). However, a true comparison of energy costs should be made on the basis of 

total “life-cycle” costs. Life-cycle costs account for the initial capital costs, O&M costs, 

and any fuel costs over the entire equipment lifetime. In many cases, life-cycle costs 

show that renewable energy sources are comparable to conventional sources (Beck and 

Martinot 2004). 
125

Environmental costs are often not included when comparing renewable energy to fossil 

fuels. The environmental impacts of fossil fuels can lead to societal costs such as adverse 

human-health effects (due to harmful air emissions), infrastructure decay (from acid 

rain), declining forests and fisheries, and rising sea levels (resulting from climate 

change). Although environmental impacts and the associated costs are sometimes 

included in economic comparisons between renewable and fossil-fuel energy sources, 

investors rarely include such costs in bottom-line investment decisions.

Various policies can compensate for the higher capital costs of renewable energy 

technologies and account for their environmental benefits. Grants can be used to buydown the initial capital costs of renewable equipment and encourage investment. Feed-in 

tariffs, tax incentives, loan guarantees, and production requirements can work to improve 

financing options and costs. Some states may also provide research and development 

incentives to companies that manufacture renewable technologies, with the goal of 

reducing technology costs and stimulating in-state job growth. Emission trading (or 

‘”cap-and trade”) programs also help level the playing field for renewable energy 

technologies by imposing a monetary cost to the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) 

from fossil-fired plants – a cost not imposed on renewable energy technologies. 

Energy Costs

An important contextual factor that impacts the development of renewable energy 

projects is the relative cost of energy produced from renewable resources compared to the 

cost of electricity from conventional power generation plants. Contextual factors such as 

technology costs (discussed previously) have a direct influence on the cost that 

consumers pay for electricity generated from renewable resources. Transactional costs, 

which can be higher for renewable energy projects compared to conventional power 

plants, are another factor that influences the cost of renewable energy. Transactional costs 

cover project development activities such as siting assessments, permitting, financing, 

and negotiating power-purchase contracts. Transactional costs tend to be relatively flat 

regardless of project size; therefore, a small-capacity renewable energy project will have 

a higher transaction-cost burden (measured in ¢/kWh) compared to a large-capacity plant. 

Transactional costs, combined with capital cost differentials, often lead to higher costs on 

a per kilowatt-hour basis for renewable energy projects compared to conventional power 

plants.

Cost implications can pose a dilemma for policymakers in some states. For example, it 

may turn out that states with an abundance of coal-generated or hydroelectric power may 

have low electricity costs, and policymakers in these states may be reluctant to promote 

renewable energy development that could increase the cost of electricity (EIA 2003). In 

contrast, policymakers in states with high electricity prices will generally be motivated to 

invest in alternative forms of energy as they seek to reduce costs (EIA 2007). 
126

Economic Factors

The health of state energy budgets and the amount of discretionary income that state 

residents have are two factors that can influence investments in renewable energy. In 

general, the environment for stimulating investments in renewable energy will be best in 

those states that have stable or expanding government budgets, as well as those that have 

relatively low unemployment rates and relatively high household incomes. 

States with healthy budgets have more options for considering how, and to what level, 

renewable technologies can be supported. The potential for economic growth from 

renewable energy development is considerable; and with recent shifts in manufacturing 

and the increase in unemployment rates, some states are placing high value on the 

opportunity for economic growth and job creation (as well as increasing renewable 

energy project development) by attracting renewable energy technology manufacturers to 

their state (Lantz 2009).

A report by the Political Economy Research Institute shows that the skills necessary for 

laborers in the renewable energy sector are largely the same as those for the existing 

labor pool. This means that local laborers can apply their existing skills to renewable 

energy development with limited retraining (Pollin and Wiks-Lim 2008). The jobs that 

can be created through increased renewable energy deployment include positions for 

metal workers, electricians, welders, assemblers, construction equipment operators, truck 

drivers, and first-line production supervisors, procurement specialists, and engineers.

The American Solar Energy Society issued a report that investigates the current and 

future state of renewable energy jobs and economics in the United States (Bezdek 2009).

The conclusions indicate a potentially significant number of jobs and revenue growth as a 

result of increased renewable energy deployment. According to the report, renewable 

energy gross revenues totaled nearly $43 billion in 2007, with the number of jobs created 

by the sector exceeding 500,000. Figures indicate that the renewable energy industry 

grew twice as fast as the overall U.S. economy between 2006 and 2007.

State policymakers can attract renewable energy businesses and manufacturing to their

state through industrial recruitment policies such as tax credits and grants. Long-term 

policies may be more effective in attracting businesses to a particular state than shortterm policies and incentives, because they send a signal to investors that the state has a 

long-term commitment to renewable energy development, thereby reducing uncertainty 

and perceived risk. State policymakers can also adopt mandatory green power purchasing

rules, government procurement programs, and RPS policies, which are all steps that can

increase the market penetration of renewable resources. States can also implement public 

benefit charges, and use the resulting funds for research and development activities. This 

effort can lead to accelerated technology advancements and the creation of in-state jobs 

for private companies, universities, and other organizations that conduct research and 

development. 
127

Project-Financing Options

The high initial capital cost of most renewable energy projects means that the availability 

of financing is a critical issue for most developers, who are typically not in a position to 

self-finance. Today, project financing is most often a barrier, rather than a stimulator, to 

renewable energy development. Project financing for conventional central power plants 

typically involves sums greater than $500 million. However, renewable energy projects 

are typically on a smaller financial scale. For these smaller projects, high administrative 

and transaction costs of financing can be prohibitive.

Lenders are often uncomfortable with the perceived risk of renewable energy 

technologies, which are frequently viewed as new and unfamiliar technologies that are 

rapidly evolving. Lenders look for long-term testing and verification of technologies and 

predetermined acceptance in the marketplace, which are not always criteria that evolving 

renewable energy technologies can meet. Some technologies are manufactured by small 

start-up companies with a short credit record, or the manufacturer and project owner may 

be the same – both of these increase the perceived risk to lenders. Perceived risk is 

further increased if there is no long-term power purchasing contract, if the utility 

company purchasing the power does not have a high credit rating, if tax credits or other 

incentives are not guaranteed for the long term, or if there is uncertainty in the resource 

availability or environmental impacts of the project (UNDP and SEFI 2008).

Policies designed to provide financing support to renewable energy technologies need to 

address specific challenges. Examples of policies that address financing barriers include 

low-interest financing, loan guarantees, and loan=-softening programs. Technical 

assistance programs that build the capacity of the actors along the financing chain can 

reduce perceived risk through education, and help build an experienced lender base.

Longer terms on production incentives, tax credits, mandated generation, and netmetering provisions provide additional risk reduction that makes financing easier to 

obtain and may lower the cost of capital. Grants and rebates can lower the amount of 

capital that developers require, thereby reducing financial costs. 

State renewable energy policies can be designed to create incentives for different types of 

ownership structures, corporate tax structures (e.g., nonprofit versus for-profit 

organizations), and changing market conditions. One significant barrier that has been 

cited to the creation of effective policies (particularly low-interest loans) is the potential 

loss of state and federal tax credits under subsidized financing programs (Wiser et al. 

2002). Policy interactions of this type should be considered closely when creating these 

financing programs. Creative solutions can be established, such as decoupling tax 

incentives from power generation, which allows tax-exempt entities to benefit from 

project-financing incentives by transferring tax credits to tax-paying entities such as 

banks or developers.
128

Ownership Options

There are a variety of different ownership structures applicable to renewable energy 

installations. Large installations may be constructed and owned by electric utilities or 

third-party developers, which may lease public land or pay rent to landowners.

Alternatively, developers may transfer ownership to a landowner after construction.

Other options that have been implemented with success in Europe are the “share offers”

and “cooperative ownership” structures. Individuals wanting to invest in renewable 

energy may buy shares in a large project that is managed by a single company, or may 

own shares as part of a cooperative that manages the continued operation of the project

(McLaren Loring 2007). Smaller renewable energy systems (<10 kW) are typically 

owned by individual landowners or homeowners. However, some municipal utility 

companies have programs through which they own and maintain residential photovoltaic 

systems by renting out the homeowner’s rooftop. Increasing numbers of government 

agencies are also installing renewable energy on their facilities, sometimes funded 

through clean energy bonds (Cory 2008). 

The feasibility of various ownership schemes is often dependent on financing structures, 

the ability to take advantage of incentives, the ease with which grid connection can be 

established, and the availability to establish long-term contracts for power sales. States 

can provide opportunities for increased development by reducing barriers to alternative 

ownership options, raising awareness of alternative ownership arrangements, and 

ensuring that state incentives are available to a wide audience.

It should be noted that the ownership structure that is chosen can significantly impact 

public perception and acceptance of a renewable energy project. A cooperative or jointly 

owned project is more likely to gain public acceptance, because more local community 

members feel a sense of ownership and have a financial stake in the project. The 

installation of systems by banks, schools, and government entities can improve public 

acceptance as well, as more segments of the public gain familiarity with the technologies.

Transmission Issues

The issues regarding the interconnection of renewable energy projects with the 

transmission grid are complex, yet their resolution is essential to the greening of the 

electricity system. A few of the barriers that must be overcome include the need for grid 

expansions, ensuring fair tariff structures, and clarifying procedures for transmission 

access and use by renewable energy generators. Continued research into the incorporation 

of intermittent power generation resources such as wind and solar into the grid – as well 

as the development of “smart-grid” technologies – are essential to increased deployment

of renewable resources.

Relatively little investment in transmission infrastructure has been made during the past 

15 to 20 years, and lack of transmission access is a barrier to increased renewable energy 

development in some areas (DOE 2007). If a renewable energy system is located at or 

near the place of consumption, transmission issues may be easier to address. However, 
129

much of the country’s wind resource is located in the Midwest, where the population is 

sparse. Building new transmission lines to these remote areas can be a challenging and 

lengthy process, due to transmission access rulings and right-of-way disputes. The long 

lead times often associated with transmission grid expansion projects can delay 

renewable energy projects from coming online (NPR 2009).

Even when transmission lines are nearby, grid connection can be prohibitively expensive 

for some projects. The power markets in the United States are currently governed by 

more than 200 different tariffs that set the rules and conditions for access to, and use of,

the electric grid. Many of these tariffs assign fixed costs to incremental transactions and 

impose non-cost-based penalties on generators that deviate from predetermined 

schedules. Because variable electricity is not scheduled like standard resources, these 

tariffs cause variable sources like wind and solar to bear a high share of the costs of 

expanding and operating the grid (Swisher 2004).

In addition, institutional structures and utility attitudes can affect the ease with which 

renewable energy generators obtain grid access. Some utilities have been reluctant to 

approve significant quantities of renewable energy interconnection, due to concerns of 

increased system instability. However, as more sophisticated equipment and smart-grid 

technologies are developed, and as more research is completed on the amount of variable

electricity the grid can handle, many of the concerns are being displaced.

In an increasing number of states, standardized requirements have been enacted, which 

provide specific guidelines, timeframes, and cost structures for the interconnection of 

renewable energy systems. These policies reduce the risk and uncertainty for new 

projects and can create more level playing fields across technologies.

Some states are even proactively developing the transmission infrastructure needed to 

accommodate new renewable energy development in remote areas. Texas began 

identifying and creating competitive renewable energy zones in 2006; these zones define 

areas where significant renewable resources exist and where transmission infrastructure 

will be built in advance of installed generation (DOE 2007). The identification of 

appropriate zones for renewable energy development, through the consideration of a 

variety of factors, is also occurring as part of the Western Renewable Energy Zones 

Initiative by the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) and the Department of Energy 

(WGA 2009).

The development of a smart grid is another potentially critical component of renewable 

energy development. Improved capacity of the grid to receive and manage dispersed and 

intermittent generation could provide a major boost to renewable development. Smartgrid development is a federal priority, with $4.5 billion tagged for electricity delivery and 

reliability in Title IV of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (DOE 

2009b). 
130

Environmental Considerations

Because of the air quality benefits of renewable energy technologies over conventional 

fossil fired sources of electricity, states have embraced renewable energy development as 

a mechanism to reduce criteria pollutants (negative impact on human health) and 

greenhouse gas emissions (connected with climate change). However, issues such as 

water scarcity and sensitive landscapes also need to be considered when selecting which 

technologies are appropriate for a particular region within a state. For example, some 

designs for concentrating solar power plants use significant amounts of water, and water 

is in scarce supply in desert environments where concentrating solar power plants are 

often considered for siting. Concerns also exist regarding the effects of tidal energy 

systems on aquatic ecosystems, and the effects of wind turbines on bird and bat species.

In some cases, stakeholder working groups are addressing these specific issues (BWEC 

2009, NWCC 2009). In general, environmental impacts associated with renewable energy 

resources continue to decline as ecologists formulate better understandings of the impacts 

on habitats, and as researchers improve system designs to mitigate unwanted impacts.

Weighing the environmental benefits and hazards of deploying renewable energy systems 

is not straightforward and involves assessing multiple technologies and environmental 

parameters. Decision makers are tasked with balancing broader air quality, water quality 

and greenhouse gas reduction benefits of renewable energy with the potential impact on 

local ecosystems.

Institutional Structures

Electric utilities and regulatory agencies can greatly influence the development of 

renewable energy in a state. State public utility commissions (PUCs), or public service 

commissions (PSCs), regulate utility rates and associated policies. PUCs and PSCs that 

are strongly inclined toward renewable energy can use their regulatory power to require 

interconnection standards, rates, and other policies that will allow and encourage 

renewable development. Utilities may be less willing to encourage renewable energy due 

to factors including lack of experience and information, concerns about the ability to 

control renewable generators, economic risk, and a lack of adequate planning tools.

Some utilities have not had significant direct experience with renewable energy, and may 

not be aware of recent technology and performance improvements, as well as approaches 

for dealing with the variable nature of renewable energy resources. Therefore, these 

utilities may still regard renewable energy technologies as being too risky (Parsons and 

Wan 1993). While conventional generating units can be dispatched to meet the system 

maintenance schedule and other operational requirements, many renewable generation 

technologies lack this operating flexibility. However, there is substantial utility 

experience with the use of variable resources, and this information can be valuable to 

utilities that are considering the addition of renewable resources. Although a significant 

amount of grid-operating experience with renewable technologies has been accumulated 

during the past couple of decades, information about these utility experiences is not 

always widely available to utilities and regulatory bodies. Utilities may also lack 
131

adequate planning tools to evaluate the cost and impact of incorporating renewable 

technologies into their resource planning. 

Some of these issues can be managed through increased information dissemination and 

by accelerating technology transfer activities. States can take an active role in 

disseminating information on performance characteristics and best practices of utility use 

of renewable technologies and resource planning with renewable energy. States also can 

establish interconnection and net-metering policies to reduce the contractual costs and 

risks for renewable energy producers. The design of these policies can vary widely, and 

states are encouraged to consider the lessons learned and best practices that have been 

developed for net-metering policies (see Chapter 3) (DSIRE 2009).

Land-Use Issues and Constraints

Planning laws and zoning regulations can reduce barriers to renewable energy 

development, or vice versa, greatly inhibit their development. Often, renewable energy 

projects face long application timeframes, as well as costly delays and appeals, which 

cause many projects to be delayed or canceled. 

Experience has shown that public dissent can be high for some renewable energy 

proposals (BWEC 2009, McLaren Loring 2007). Anytime there is competition for land 

use, there will be conflict. Site selection for renewable energy technologies must consider 

not only resource availability and transmission issues, but other competing land-use 

needs. Whether the issues surround aesthetics, noise, property values, habitat destruction, 

and water or land use, tradeoffs must often be made and the issues weighed carefully. 

Research has shown that early-stage community involvement in planning discussions

helps address potential conflicts before issues become inflamed and goes a long way to 

reducing controversy. Open public discussions are more effective than one-way 

information dissemination and may result in creative solutions to potential problems that 

are acceptable to all parties involved (McLaren Loring 2007). This translates into time 

and money saved for all parties involved.

In addition to early-stage stakeholder involvement, there are a number of other specific 

measures that planning authorities can use to reduce planning barriers that renewable 

energy projects often face:

• Ensure that zoning laws do not inhibit the installation of distributed generation 

technologies, such as small wind turbines.

• Consider passing solar access laws to ensure that solar resources are available to 

those who want to take advantage of them.

• Ensure that planning regulations are consistent with industry-wide construction 

and safety standards.

• Identify specific zones in which renewable energy project applications are 

welcome, and fast-track applications in these zones.
132

• Develop and publicize chosen procedures for analyzing the impacts of renewable 

energy projects.

• Establish planning goals and targets for the use of green energy technologies, 

which will clarify priorities and reduce perceived risks of potential investors; also 

link goals and targets with state and national goals, when possible (Mueller 2009, 

APA 2004).

Information Dissemination

Even if state governments offer generous incentives, significant investment will be 

hampered if potential investors and developers do not have access to the information 

needed to weigh the costs and benefits of the technologies – or if procedures are unclear 

or overly complex (Sawin 2004). Ensuring that clear, accurate information about 

renewable energy technologies and incentives is readily available can reduce 

misunderstandings and empower action to spur further development.

There are several different audiences to which information should be directed, including: 

political decision makers, project developers, electric utilities, financing institutions, and 

the general public. Each of these audiences will have varying degrees of prior knowledge, 

as well as different informational needs. Thus, it is important that the information is 

tailored to the intended audience.

The EPA State Best Practices Web site (EPA 2009) and the International Council for 

Local Environmental Initiatives’ (ICLEI) online information (ICLEI 2009) are good 

resources that can help state and local governments assist decision makers in weighing 

options and taking steps toward renewable energy development. The online Database of 

State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE 2009) compiles information on 

state and federal policies. 

State and city governments can help promote information dissemination by ensuring that 

the policies listed in DSIRE and other databases are current, and by directing 

stakeholders to the relevant information for their specific area. Creating a one-stop shop 

for renewable energy information within each state for various end users can demystify 

the development process and encourage development. Useful topics to address include:

• Detailed resource availability

• Technological developments and applications

• Policy and incentive details

• Relevant application and permitting processes

• Applicable fees and taxes

• Training programs

• Electricity suppliers offering renewable energy options

• Fuel mix of the electricity supply

U.S. electricity-sector restructuring policies mandate that information be disseminated to 

customers about choice of electricity providers and the characteristics of electricity being 
133

provided, such as emissions levels and fuel types (ICLEI 2009). In many states, general 

education to raise customer awareness about renewable energy and the environmental 

impacts of energy generation is required, typically via Web sites and printed materials.

States that have not gone through the restructuring process can encourage customer 

choice by enacting these same policies. State programs that provide resource, 

transmission, zoning, and permitting assessments may also help to spur new renewable 

energy developments. These assessment programs have been credited with stimulating 

early wind energy development in California (McLaren Loring 2007).

Social Acceptance

Despite evidence of general support for the greening of the electricity system, individual 

technological applications and specific renewable energy projects are often subject to 

intense public dissent. In the United States, this has been seen in cases such as the highly 

publicized controversy surrounding the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound (Cape 

Wind 2009).

Public opposition is based on a variety of issues, which range from visual and noise 

pollution, effects on wildlife, concerns regarding the devaluing of nearby property, or 

competing land-use issues. Renewable energy installations are, by nature, often more 

visible than conventional energy sources. For instance, wind turbines and PV panels are 

generally in open spaces and are needed in large numbers, while traditional power plants 

are often sited in remote areas and shielded from view by fences or buildings. The 

smaller-capacity, more dispersed nature of renewable energy technologies necessitates a 

larger number of siting decisions, increasing the chances and likelihood of public 

opposition. 

Opposition may come from national or local interest groups or individuals who feel 

strongly about a proposed project. A number of prominent nonprofit organizations, such 

as the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, and the Union of Concerned Scientists have 

taken positions on renewable energy (Nature Conservancy 2009, UCS 2009).

Planning decision processes are designed to consider and weigh the various interests and 

issues that occur when new projects are proposed. Planning processes that encourage 

inclusive and open discourse during early stages can help strengthen support among the 

public and avoid conflict. Renewable energy projects with a higher rate of public 

participation in the decision-making process have been shown to have a higher likelihood 

of success. The use of alternative ownership structures is also an effective way to give 

communities a sense of connection to a project and increase public acceptance. In 

Europe, the construction of visitor centers connected with renewable energy installations 

have created a sense of community pride in, and income from, new projects – and worked 

to avoid potential conflicts during the project planning phase (McLaren Loring 2007).

In some cases, laws and regulations can be used to ensure fair access to resources and a 

level playing field for renewable energy technologies. For example, covenant laws can be 

structured to prohibit neighborhoods from explicitly restricting the installation or use of 
134

renewable energy equipment, while access and easement laws can help to create a 

balance between the use of a renewable resource, such as water, for energy production 

and competing needs. Policies that address street orientation and building height can 

facilitate infrastructure that is amenable to renewable energy and responsive to public 

concerns.

Larger Policy Context

Policies on the federal, state, and local levels all influence renewable energy 

development. These policies interact, but it is often difficult to anticipate or determine the 

effects of one policy on another – and impossible to anticipate how policies on one level 

will change over time. 

Federal policies that provide incentives and funding for renewable energy include the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (EPAct 2005, EISA 2007, ARRA 

2009). In addition to these federal policies, there are myriad state and local incentives.

States can structure their incentives and programs so that they can be used in conjunction 

with – and complement – national level incentives. State funding can leverage national 

funds with the goal of developing a particular regional resource or meeting specific state 

goals. States may also establish higher mandates or more aggressive development goals 

than required at the national level. Existing stakeholders or industries may encourage 

state policymakers to enact support mechanisms for the technologies already being 

produced or developed within the state.

Policymakers must carefully consider the selection and design of state policies to avoid 

unwanted policy interactions with federal rules. For example, state policymakers will 

generally not want to craft policies that exclude recipients of state funds from qualifying 

for federal incentives. Policies that have provisions for tax incentives frequently overlap 

with state and federal rules, and policymakers should pay particular attention to policies 

that include tax relief to ensure that desired outcomes are achieved.

Conclusions 

This chapter provides an overview of 14 contextual factors that may affect renewable 

energy development and policy effectiveness at the state level. Each state has a unique set 

of circumstances, and the same contextual factors may affect states differently, depending 

on specific state conditions. From a qualitative perspective, all 14 factors influence the 

bottom-line economics for renewable energy projects. The interplay among the various 

contextual factors is less quantified at this point. An increased understanding of these 

interactions – and how policies can be used to account for and take advantage of the 

interactions – will improve the future effectiveness of policy design and implementation.
135

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Future Efforts

This report summarizes the status of renewable energy development in the U.S. states, 

identifying trends and high-performing states based on a variety of metrics (Chapter 2). 

It identifies the policies that are being used to encourage development, and presents the 

current understandings of design-based best practices (Chapter 3). A connection is then 

drawn between the policies and development, using a quantitative investigation of the 

relationship between policy implementation and actual generation, and a variety of 

statistical analyses (Chapter 4). This report explores other factors that affect renewable 

energy development are explored to place the policy discussion within the broader 

context (Chapter 5). And, finally, the report provides overall conclusions, next steps, and 

a list of resources (this chapter).

Main Conclusions of the Chapters 

Chapter 2 – Quantitative Trends in Renewable Energy Development

• Washington maintains its position at No. 1 for total renewable generation in 2007, 

while California maintains its spot at No. 1 for non-hydroelectric renewable 

generation in 2007.

• Idaho and Maine each secured the No. 1 spots for total renewable generation as a 

percent of total state generation, and non-hydroelectric generation as a percent of 

total state generation, respectively.

• Washington and Maine each secured the No. 1 spot for total renewable 

generation per capita and non-hydroelectric renewable generation per capita, 

respectively.

• Montana and Maine each secured the No. 1 spot for total renewable generation 

per GSP and non-hydroelectric renewable generation per GSP, respectively.

• Hydroelectric generation continues to represent the largest portion of renewable 

generation in the United States at 70%. Wind has experienced the most growth of 

the renewable energy technologies in recent years, growing 30% from 2006-2007.

• Overall, national hydroelectric generation declined by more than 14% from 2006 

to 2007. A portion of this decline can be attributed to a lack of rainfall in various 

parts of the country. The decline of hydroelectric generation was concentrated in 

areas that have experienced moderate to severe drought conditions during that 

timeframe. In 2007, hydroelectric generation was significantly lower in the 

following areas: New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, South 

Atlantic, East South Central, Mountain, the Pacific regions. Much of the 

hydroelectric generation within the United States occurs in some of these regions 

(Mark Gielecki – from EIA). It is also important to recognize that climate change 

may cause more weather irregularities in the future, leading to generation 

numbers that may seem inconsistent and volatile. In addition, El Niño, a seasonal 

weather fluctuation, is expected to arrive in late 2009. Unstable El Niño weather 

conditions may also influence renewable energy generation in 2009-2010.
136

Chapter 3 – Supporting Renewable Energy Development Through State-Level 

Policy

• Net metering, interconnection standards, renewable portfolio standards, tax 

incentives, renewable energy access laws, and generation-disclosure laws are the 

most commonly implemented renewable energy policies within the U.S. states.

• Net metering, tax incentives, and renewable portfolio standards were the most

commonly added state renewable energy policies during the past year. 

• As more policies are implemented on various levels, policymakers must pay 

increasing attention to the interactions between federal and state policies, as well 

as between policies of different types.

• Due to the limited time period and extent to which renewable energy policies 

have been in use, and the limited evaluation that has taken place, the most 

effective policy designs and their direct impacts on renewable energy 

development are not always well understood.

• The current understandings of best practices in policy design are presented in 

Chapter 3. Evaluating policy design continues to be an important area of research.

Chapter 4 – Statistical Analyses of State Policy Impact on Renewable Energy 

Development

• This chapter presents four statistical and empirical methodologies to explore the 

link between state-level policy and renewable energy deployment. These methods 

build on those presented in last year’s report, with the goal of furthering the 

development of qualitative methodologies for policy evaluation.

• The time-lag analysis contributes to the understanding of how long it may take 

before the resulting effects of a policy can be observed. 

• Time-lag analysis also reveals that states that had implemented net-metering 

legislation in 2005 had significantly more renewable energy generation in 2007 

(in terms of total generation, as a percent of total electricity generation, and per 

capita) than states without the policy. 

• An analysis is conducted to determine the effectiveness of best practice design 

elements for three individual policies: RPS, net metering, and interconnection. 

Some of the features of a well-designed RPS policy are found to significantly 

contribute to renewable energy development when looked at individually;

however, none of them can be combined into a model that adequately predicts any 

of the renewable energy generation indicators. 

• Various policy portfolio combinations are examined, which provides insight into 

effective policy combinations. Time-lag analysis of policy portfolios supports, in 

particular, the effectiveness of combining generation-disclosure requirements with 

required green power programs; however, this observation warrants further 

research.
137

Chapter 5 – Identification and Description of Contextual Factors Related to 

Renewable Energy Development

• There are many contextual factors, other than policy, that affect renewable energy 

development. These include – but are not limited to – resource and technology 

availability, the economic context, land-use and public-perception issues, 

transmission availability, institutional structures, and financing. 

• Understanding the contextual factors within which policy will be set is essential to 

defining the most appropriate policy features.

• The complex and changing interactions between contextual factors, and between 

these factors and policy measures, necessitates flexibility and creativity in policy 

design.

Future efforts

The results of the analyses presented here contribute to the understanding of the impact of 

policy on renewable energy development in the United States. In addition, they 

demonstrate that many factors other than policy can affect development. Future efforts 

for this analysis include augmenting the methodologies employed in this report and 

formulating more robust methods. 

Aside from method development, future efforts will focus on obtaining a more 

comprehensive dataset. In particular, developing a dataset that spans multiple years will 

assist in strengthening the time-lag analysis. This would include a more thorough record 

of when the policies being considered are implemented, changed, or discontinued, as well 

as an enhanced historical record of renewable energy generation and development data. 

This will contribute to a more valid analysis of the time lag between policy 

implementation and the resulting renewable energy development, as well as a better 

understanding of the impact of policy on development. 

Future efforts regarding best practice policy designs include continuing research to 

broaden the understandings of best practices, as well as integrating time-lag analysis with 

this methodology. Discovering when certain states began following the best practice 

guidelines for any given policy should contribute greatly to the understanding of policy 

design and its impact on renewable energy development.

Future efforts include enhancing the methodologies used in this report, but also using 

new methodologies. State of the States 2009 attempted to normalize the renewable energy 

development data for state population and wealth using per capita and per GSP statistics. 

However, it is clear that other contextual factors also greatly influence the development 

of renewable energy in the states (see Chapter 6 on contextual factors). Consequently, 

future efforts also include a more thorough approach that quantifies and includes as many 

contextual factors and explanatory variables as possible. This will allow a clearer picture 

to emerge of how policy affects renewable energy development.

Although time-lag analysis is included in this report to the extent possible, it is 

hypothesized that additional time is needed before strong conclusions can be made 
138

concerning the influence of policy on renewable energy development. The renewable 

energy policy field is still quite infantile in many respects. Many states have only 

implemented policy and begun generating electricity from renewable sources in recent 

years, which leaves connections between policy and development vague or uncertain. 

Consequently, future versions of this report will be improved not only by expanded and 

additional methodologies, but also by increased time; this will allow the effects of state

policy portfolios to be seen. As the renewable energy field continues to develop, 

connections between policy and the ensuing development will become more evident. 
139

Resource List

FUNDING SOURCES

Grants.gov lists funding opportunities from all federal agencies at a single online portal.

www.Grants.gov

The EERE Financial Opportunities home page is the main portal for information 

related to EERE financial assistance available, how to apply, and the funding and awards 

process.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/

The Industrial Technologies Program Save Energy Now States initiative provides 

funding to state energy offices, state economic development entities, regional energy 

efficiency groups, utilities, academic institutions, and not-for-profits in to reach more 

industrial customers and increase energy efficiency through the delivery of tools and 

resources. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/financial/solicitations_active.html

The following programs provide DOE funding to states, local governments, and Indian 

tribes based on yearly allocations by Congress. They are managed through the EERE 

Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (WIP).

The State Energy Program dispenses annual grants to states for their energy efficiency 

and renewable energy programs, and competitive grants for innovative state and regional 

initiatives.

www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program

The Weatherization Assistance Program provides funding and guidance to states to 

administer their weatherization programs for low-income families. States and local 

weatherization service providers can find all of the information needed to administer the 

program from the Weatherization Assistance Program Technical Assistance Center.

www.waptac.org

The Tribal Energy Program offers financial and technical assistance to Indian tribes 

through government-to-government partnerships for energy and economic development 

projects. 

www.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy

The Renewable Energy Production Incentive administers incentives for public utilities 

and electrical cooperatives to generate electricity from renewable energy.

www.eere.energy.gov/repi
140

CROSSCUTTING RESOURCES

The Technical Assistance Project (TAP) for state and local officials provides quick, 

short-term access to experts at DOE national laboratories for technical assistance with 

their renewable energy and energy efficiency policies and programs. TAP provides 

assistance with crosscutting issues that are not addressed by individual EERE technology 

programs.

www.eere.energy.gov/wip/tap.cfm

The Renewable Energy Data Book includes information about renewable energy 

capacity, generation, investment, and other useful information.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/maps_data/pdfs/eere_databook.pdf

The State Clean Energy Policies Analysis (SCEPA) project is evaluating the 

environmental, economic, and energy security impacts of a broad range of state policies 

to help policymakers select and design policies to best achieve state priorities.

www.nrel.gov/applying_technologies/scepa.html

The State Renewable Energy Market Development project facilitates discussions 

between the Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA) and administrators of state renewable 

portfolio standards and with states that are considering establishing renewable standards. 

www.cleanenergystates.org/jointprojects.html

The Clean Energy and Air Quality Integration project helps states build on their 

experience by including clean energy projects that support air quality programs. 

www.eere.energy.gov/wip/air_quality.cfm

The EERE Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (WIP) publishes an online list 

of energy models, databases, and documents that are ready for immediate use by stateand local-level energy analysts, officials, and decision makers.

www.eere.energy.gov/wip/resources.cfm

NREL’s Renewable Energy Data and Analysis Tools include datasets for national wind 

resources, tools to assist in renewable energy project planning, and various tools to 

determine the potential for generating electricity using photovoltaics at a specific site or 

home.

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/data_analysis.html

NREL’s Renewable Energy Resource Maps provide information on renewable 

resources across the United States. 

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/maps.html

The EERE State Information Summaries contain hundreds of Web pages with statespecific information such as an overview of energy consumption, listing of energy 

efficiency goals under the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, a summary of the status of 
141

renewable energy and energy efficiency policies, and a list of political leaders and state 

agency administrators who shape energy policy in some states

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/state_information.cfm

ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability is an international association of local 

governments and other organizations committed to sustainable development. They 

provide training, consulting, information, and campaigns to build capacity and support 

governments in working toward local sustainable development.

http://www.icleiusa.org/

Information on state-by-state electricity costs is available on the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) Web site.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html

The Energy Information Administration also maintains information on state coal 

production.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/usaimagemap.htm

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has information available on the top 

20 wind-producing states, current installations, and fact sheets with general

information about wind energy production and reliability.

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets.html

The American Planning Association is a resource for information on planning and 

zoning issues related to renewable energy development. 

http://www.planning.org/

Western Renewable Energy Zones Initiative is an effort by the Western Governors’ 

Association and the U.S. Department of Energy to identify renewable resources in the 

West.

http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/wrez/

The EPA has published a State and Local Guide to Action that outlines a strategy for 

developing energy efficiency and renewable energy through planning and policy 

implementation and provides lessons learned for 16 commonly used policies.

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/state-and-local/state-bestpractices.html 

CASE STUDIES

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has an extensive list of downloadable case 

studies on renewable energy project and policy implementation.

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/cases/
142

The U.S. Department of Energy also provides case studies and examples of energy 

efficiency and renewable energy projects. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/renewable_energy/renewable_casestudies.html; 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/guide/case_studies.html

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES

The EERE Building Technologies Program sets efficiency standards for equipment and 

appliances and works cooperatively with states and local jurisdictions to improve 

building energy codes. The program supports initiatives to improve the energy 

performance of schools, hospitals, homes, and commercial buildings, and it publishes an 

online publications database and software directory. 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings

Energy efficiency design guidelines provide builders with a series of best practices for 

building new homes that are durable, comfortable, and energy efficient in every climate 

found in North America.

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america/

DOE has initiated The Builders Challenge to the homebuilding industry – to build 

220,000 high-performance homes by 2012. Homes that qualify must meet a 70 or better 

on the EnergySmart Home Scale (E-Scale). The E-Scale is a scale that allows 

homebuyers to understand – at a glance – how the performance of a particular home 

compares to that of others.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/challenge/index.html 

The Building Technologies Application Centers provide technical, best practice, 

marketing, and other information to states to accelerate the widespread market adoption 

and implementation of advanced energy-efficient building technologies and practices. 

http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/btac.stm

Northwest Building Efficiency Center provides information on energy efficiency 

technologies to builders, code officials, public building managers and other building 

professionals.

http://www.nwbuildings.org/

ELECTRIC POWER

The mission of the DOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability is to 

lead national efforts to modernize the electric grid; enhance security and reliability of the 

energy infrastructure; and facilitate recovery from disruptions to energy supply.

http://www.oe.energy.gov/index.htm

The Green Power Network publishes tables and maps showing green power programs 

by state and publishes news about progress in the green power industry. 

www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower
143

The National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency is a public-private initiative involving 

more than 120 organizations that are making an aggressive commitment to energy 

efficiency. EERE supports this effort by publishing guidelines that state and local 

governments, regulators, and utilities can use to plan their energy efficiency programs. 

www.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/napee.html

The utility technical assistance project schedules seminars with utility regulators 

covering topics such as performance-based regulation, demand-side management, and 

green pricing through the Regulatory Assistance Project. 

www.raponline.org

INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES

The Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) State Activities Web site provides users 

with a summary of all ITP-related activities by state. In addition, this Web site provides a 

summary of the industrial profile and energy-use trends within each state. Moreover, the 

site has a listing of key state contacts that can provide assistance to industrial 

manufactures to help improve their energy efficiency. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/about/state_activities/main_map.asp

The EERE Industrial Technologies Program provides the States Incentives and 

Resources Database. This database is a repository of energy incentives, tools, and 

resources for commercial and industrial managers. Incentives and resources are available 

at the national, state, county, and local levels. Utilities, private companies, and nonprofits 

also offer incentives for energy efficiency measures including rebates, waived fees, tax 

credits, and loans. Resources include analysis tools, education, training programs, and 

energy audits. This database is designed to help people making energy efficiency 

upgrades to their facilities. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/about/state_activities/incentive_search.asp

Save Energy Now provides U.S. industrial companies with energy assessments free of 

charge. Save Energy Now is a national initiative to reduce the energy intensity of 

American industry by 25% in 10 years. Through Save Energy Now, DOE energy experts 

identify opportunities for savings in energy-intensive processes such as manufacturing. 

www.eere.energy.gov/industry/saveenergynow

The Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs), sponsored by EERE's Industrial 

Technologies Program, provide eligible small- and medium-sized manufacturers with nocost energy assessments.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/iacs.html

COMBINED HEAT AND POWER TECHNOLOGIES

The following combined heat and power (CHP) regional centers were created by DOE to 

assist states in the adoption of combined cooling, heating, and power technologies. 
144

Intermountain CHP Center – for the states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, 

and Wyoming.

www.intermountainchp.org/

Mid-Atlantic CHP Application Center – for the District of Columbia and the states of 

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.

www.chpcentermw.org/home.html

Gulf Coast CHP Application Center – for the states of Texas, Louisiana, and 

Oklahoma.

www.gulfcoastchp.org

Northeast CHP Application Center – for the states of Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

www.northeastchp.org/nac/index.htm

Northwest CHP Application Center – for the states of Alaska, Oregon, Washington, 

Idaho, and Montana.

www.chpcenternw.org/

Pacific Region CHP Application Center – for the states of California, Hawaii, and 

Nevada.

www.chpcenterpr.org/

Southeast CHP Application Center – for the states of Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia. 

www.chpcenterse.org/home.html

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

The EERE Vehicle Technologies Program helps states meet requirements for 

alternative fuels under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. It also provides a comprehensive 

clearinghouse of data, publications, tools, and information related to advanced 

transportation technologies through the Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data 

Center.

www.eere.energy.gov/afdc

Clean Cities Tiger Teams provide local solutions to reducing petroleum consumption in 

the transportation sector. Clean Cities is a nationwide network of more than 85 coalitions 

that are partly supported by DOE. Sometimes coalitions encounter problems that slow 

progress in their regions, or vehicle fleet owners who want to implement alternative fuels 

projects experience technical problems. When solutions cannot be found locally, experts 

from Clean Cities Tiger Teams can help. Their assistance can be used to evaluate the 

feasibility of complex projects, fueling station design and fire safety, and operation and 

maintenance of alternative fuel vehicles. 

www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/technical_assistance.html
145

SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES

The Solar America Showcases project provides hands-on technical assistance to 

enable states and local agencies to implement their large, high-impact solar installations.

www.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_america/solar_america_showcases.html

WIND TECHNOLOGIES

Wind Powering America coordinates with wind energy stakeholders in key states to 

overcome market barriers to wind development. Wind Powering America also publishes 

online wind data and lists activities by state. 

www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/

HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELLS TECHNOLOGIES

The Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program provides regular educational programs about 

hydrogen that involve stakeholders in the states.

www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/education
146

References

Chapter 1

Brown, E.; Busche, S. (2008). State of the States 2008: Renewable Energy Development 

and the Role of Policy. 123 pp.; NREL Report No. TP-670-43021. 

Couture, T.; Cory, K. (2009). State Clean Energy Policies Analysis (SCEPA) Project: An 

Analysis of Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariffs in the United States (Revised). 51 

pp.; NREL Report No. TP-6A2-45551.

DOE. (2009). “Case Studies for Policy Effectiveness.” U.S. Department of Energy. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/renewable_energy/renewable_casestudies.htm

l; http://www1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/guide/case_studies.html. Accessed 

July 11, 2009. 

EPA. (2008). Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action: Policies, Best Practices, and 

Action Steps for States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 2006. 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/state-and-local/state-bestpractices.html Accessed August 25, 2009.

Hurlbut, D. (2008). State Clean Energy Practices: Renewable Portfolio Standards. 23 

pp.; NREL Report No. TP-670-43512.

Lantz, E.; Doris, E. (2009). State Clean Energy Practices: Renewable Energy Rebates. 38 

pp.; NREL Report No. TP-6A2-45039.

LBNL. (2009) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

(http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/cases/). Accessed July 11, 2009. 

Wiser, R.; Bolinger, M.; Barbose, G. (2007). “Using the Federal Production Tax Credit to 

build a durable market for wind power in the United States.” The Electricity 

Journal, 20(9), pp. 77-88.

Wiser, R.; Bolinger, M.; Milford, L.; Porter, K.; Clark, R. (2002). Innovation, renewable 

energy, and state investment: case studies of leading clean energy funds. 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL-51493. 

http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMS/reports/51493.pdf

Wiser, R; Pickle, S. (1997). Financing Investments in Renewable Energy: The Role of 

Policy Design and Restructuring. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

University of California Berkeley. http://eande.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/39826.pdf

Chapter 2

AWEA. (2009a). “Wind Energy Fact Sheets.” American Wind Energy Association.

www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets.html. Accessed July 13, 2009.

AWEA. (2009b). “Projects Database” American Wind Energy Association.

http://www.awea.org/projects/. Accessed July 13, 2009.

BEA. (2009). Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.

http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp/ Accessed July 10, 2009.

BLM. (2009). Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy. Why the 

Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS is Needed. 

http://solareis.anl.gov/eis/why/index.cfm Accessed July 13, 2009.
147

Census Bureau. (2008) “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United 

States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 (NSTEST2008-01)” Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau. Release Date: 

December 22, 2008. http://www.census.gov/popest/states/states.html Accessed 

July 10, 2009.

EIA. (2009a). Energy Information Administration. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/glossary/glossary_c.htm Accessed July 13, 2009.

EIA (2009b). Energy Information Administration. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/rea_sum.html

Accessed July 13, 2009.

EIA. (2009c). Energy Information Administration. “Electric Power Annual 2007 – State 

Data Tables, 1990-2007 Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy 

Source (EIA-906).”

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html Accessed July 

10, 2009.

Gielecki, M. (2009). Energy Information Administration staff. Personal communication 

on April 15, 2009.

Milbrandt, A.; Overend, R. P (2008). Survey of Biomass Resource Assessments and 

Assessment Capabilities in APEC Economies. Singapore: Asia-Pacific Economic 

Cooperation 155 pp.; NREL Report No. TP-6A2-43710; APEC#208-RE-01.9.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/43710.pdf

Sherwood, L.. (2008). Interstate Renewable Energy Council. “U.S. Solar Market Trends 

2007.” August 2008.

Chapter 3

Appliance Standards Awareness Project. (2009). http://www.standardsasap.org/ Accessed 

July 9, 2009.

Beck, F.; Martinot, E. (2004). “Renewable energy policies and barriers.” Encyclopedia of 

Energy. Ed C. J. Cleveland. Academic Press/Elsevier Science. 

http://www.martinot.info/Beck_Martinot_AP.pdf Accessed July 9, 2009.

Bird, L. A.; Cory, K.S.; Swezey, B.G. (2008a). Renewable Energy Price-Stability 

Benefits in Utility Green Power Programs. NREL/TP-670-43532. Golden, CO: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Bird, L.; Kreycik, C.; Friedman, B. (2008b). Green Power Marketing in the United 

States: A Status Report (11th Edition). NREL/TP-6A2-44094. Golden, CO: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Bird, L.; Bolinger, M.; Gagliano, T.; Wiser, R.; Brown, M.; and Parsons, B. (2005). 

“Policies and market factors driving wind power development in the United 

States.” Energy Policy, 33, pp. 1397-1407.

Brown, E.; Quinlan, P.; Sachs, H.; Williams, D. (2004). Tax Credits for Energy 

Efficiency and Green Buildings: Opportunities for State Action. Report: ACEEEE021. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

CESA. (2009). “Distributed Renewable Energy Finance and Policy Toolkit.” Clean 

Energy States Alliance. http://www.stateinnovation.org/.../2-9-BOOK---Financeand-Policy-Toolkit-071609.aspx Accessed September 22, 2009.
148

Clement, D.; Lehman, M.; Hamrin, J.; Wiser. R. (2005). Draft report: international tax 

incentives for renewable energy: lessons for public policy. Center for Resource 

Solutions. Prepared for Energy Foundation China Sustainable Energy Program. 

http://www.resource-solutions.org/lib/librarypdfs/IntPolicyRenewable_Tax_Incentives.pdf (p. 20-24). Accessed July 9, 2009.

Clemmer, S.; Donovan, D.; Nogee, A.; Deyette, J. (2001). Clean Energy Blueprint: A 

Smarter National Energy Policy for Today and the Future. UCS, ACEEE, Tellus 

Institute. Cambridge, MA: UCS.

Darby, S. (2006). The Effectiveness of Feedback on Energy Consumption: A Review for 

DEFRA of the Literature on Metering, Billing and Direct Displays. 

Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford. Oxford, England. 

DOE. (2004). Guide to Purchasing Green Power: Renewable Energy, Renewable Energy 

Certificates and On-Site Renewable Generation. U.S. Department of Energy.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/purchase_green_power.pdf Accessed 

July 9, 2009.

DSIRE. (2009). Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. DSIRE: 

Glossary online. Accessed July 9, 2009.

EPA. (2007). State Clean Energy Funds: An Effective Mechanism to Encourage Clean 

Energy Supply. Washington, D.C: Environmental Protection Agency. 

http://www.epa.gov/CHP/documents/clean_energy_funds.pdf Accessed July 9, 

2009.

Gouchoe S.; Everette, V.; Haynes, R. (2003). “State Incentives for Renewable Energy: 

Case Studies of Program Effectiveness,” North Carolina Solar Center, North 

Carolina State University, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2003. 

http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/PolicyPublications/Case_Studies_Paper_ASE

S_2003.pdf Accessed July 9, 2009.

Kettles, C.M. (2008). “Solar America Board for Codes and Standards Report: A 

Comprehensive Review of Solar Access Law in the United States: Suggested 

Standards for a Model Statute and Ordinance.”

http://www.solarabcs.org/solaraccess/Solaraccess-full.pdf Accessed August 24, 

2009.

Mann, R. F.; Hymel, M.L. (2006). Getting into the act: enticing the consumer to become 

“green” through tax incentives. bepress Legal Series. Working paper 1068. 

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5083&context=expresso

Accessed July 9, 2009.

McNeill, D.; Wilkie, W. (1979). “Public Policy and Consumer Information: Impact of the 

New Energy Labels.” Journal of Consumer Research. Volume 6, Issue 1: P1-11..

NNEC. (2008). Freeing the Grid: Best and Worst Practices in State Net-Metering 

Policies and Interconnection Standards 2008. Network for New Energy Choices

(NNEC): New York, New York.

http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/FreeingTheGrid2008_report.pdf

Accessed July 9, 2009.

State and Federal RPS Collaborative. (2009). Recommended Principles and Best 

Practices for State Renewable Portfolio Standards. Montpelier, VT: Clean 

Energy Group.
149

Williamson, R. (2008). Arizona Corporation Commission. Personal communication to 

Elizabeth Brown (Doris) in May 2008. 

Wiser, R.; Barbose, G. (2008). Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States: A 

Status Report with Data through 2007. LBNL-154E. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory.

Wiser, R.; Bolinger, M.; Barbose, G. (2007). “Using the Federal Production Tax Credit to 

build a durable market for wind power in the United States.” The Electricity 

Journal, 20(9), pp. 77-88.

Wiser, R.,; Bolinger, M.; L. Milford, L.; Porter, K.; Clark, R. (2002). Innovation, 

Renewable Energy, and State Investment: Case Studies of Leading Clean Energy 

Funds. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL-51493. 

http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMS/reports/51493.pdf Accessed July 9, 2009.

Wiser, R.; Pickle, S. (1997). Financing Investments in Renewable Energy: The Role of 

Policy Design and Restructuring. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

University of California Berkeley. http://eande.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/39826.pdf

Accessed July 9, 2009.

Chapter 4

Brown, E.; Cory, K.; Arent, D. (2007). Understanding and Informing the Policy 

Environment: State-Level Renewable Fuels Standards. 41 pp.; NREL Report No. 

TP-640-41075. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41075.pdf

Cory, K.; Couture, T.; Kreycik, C. (2009). Feed-in Tariff Policy: Design, 

Implementation, and RPS Policy Interactions. 23 pp.; NREL Report No. TP-6A2-

45549.

Cory, K. S.; Swezey, B. G. (2007). Renewable Portfolio Standards in the States: 

Balancing Goals and Implementation Strategies. 36 pp.; NREL Report No. TP640-41409.

Cory, K. S.; Swezey, B. G. (2007). “Renewable Portfolio Standards in the States: 

Balancing Goals and Rules.” Electricity Journal. Vol. 40(4), May 2007; pp. 21-

32; NREL Report No. JA-640-41876. doi:10.1016/j.tej.2007.03.008

Doane, D.; Seward, L. (2006). “Applied Statistics in Business and Economics.” McGraw 

Hill.

Hurlbut, D. (2008). State Clean Energy Practices: Renewable Portfolio Standards. 23 

pp.; NREL Report No. TP-670-43512.

Lantz, E.; Doris, L. (forthcoming). State Clean Energy Practices: State Tax Incentives.

NREL Report.

State and Federal RPS Collaborative (2009). Recommended Principles and Best 

Practices for State Renewable Portfolio Standards. Montpelier, VT: Clean 

Energy Group.

NNEC. (2008). Freeing the Grid: Best and Worst Practices in State Net-Metering 

Policies and Interconnection Standards 2008. Network for New Energy Choices

(NNEC): New York, New York.

Wiser, R.; Barbose, G. (2008). Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States: A 

Status Report with Data through 2007. LBNL-154E. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, p. 16.
150

Wiser, R.; Bolinger, M.; and Barbose, G. (2007). “Using the Federal Production Tax 

Credit to build a durable market for wind power in the United States.” The 

Electricity Journal, 20(9), pp.77-88.

Chapter 5

APA (2004). “Policy Guide on Energy.” American Planning Association. Ratified April 

2004. http://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/energy.htm. 

ARRA. (2009). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. http://www.recovery.gov/

Accessed July 27, 2009.

AWEA. (2009a). “Wind Energy Fact Sheets.” American Wind Energy Association.

www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets.html. Accessed July 13, 2009.

Beck, F; Martinot, E. (2004). “Renewable Energy Policies and Barriers.” Encyclopedia of 

Energy. http://www.martinot.info/Beck_Martinot_AP.pdf. 

Bezdek, R.H. (2009). “Green Collar Jobs in the U.S. and Colorado: Economic Drivers for 

the 21st Century.” Prepared for the American Solar Energy Society, Boulder, CO. 

www.greenforall.org/resources/ases-green-collar-jobs-report-forecasts-37-

million-jobs-from-renewable-energy-and-energy-efficiency-in-u.s.-by-2030.

BWEC. (2009). Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Information accessed at 

http://www.batsandwind.org/.

Cape Wind. (2009). http://www.capewind.org/. Accessed: August 25, 2009

Cory, K. (2008). “Renewable Energy Financing: The Role of Policy and Economics.” 

Presented to the EUCI RPS Symposium, March 27, 2008. 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/42918.pdf. 

DSIRE (2009). Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. “Summary 

Tables.” http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/index.cfm?ee=1&RE=1. 

Accessed June 15 2009.

DOE (2009a). “Maps & Data – Renewable Resource Maps.” U.S. Department of Energy. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/maps_data/renewable_resources.html . Accessed 

July 9, 2009.

DOE (2009b). ”Smart Grid.” U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability. www.oe.energy.gov/smartgrid.htm. Accessed June 15 

2009.

DOE (2007). “Annual Report of U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance 

Trends: 2006.” U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf. 

DOE (2006). “U.S. Geothermal Resource Map.” U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Geothermal Technologies Program. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geomap.html. Accessed July 9, 2009.

EIA (2007), “2007 State Electricity Profiles.” Energy Information Administration

http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html. Accessed July 9, 2009.

EIA (2003). Energy Information Administration, “State Coal Profile Index Map.” 

www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/usaimagemap.htm. Accessed 

July 9, 2009.
151

EIA (2001).“Cost and Performance Characteristics for Renewable Generating 

Technologies.” Energy Information Administration. 

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo01/assumption/tbl77.html. Accessed June 20, 

2009. 

EISA (2007). Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Pub. L. 110-140. 

(Originally called the Clean Energy Act of 2007.)

EPA (2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State Clean Energy Policy Maps.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/energyprograms/state-and-local/policy-maps.html. Accessed June 20, 2009.

EPAct (2005). Energy Policy Act of 2005. Public Law 109-58, August 8.2005. 119 Stat. 

594. 

ICLEI (2009). Local Governments for Sustainability USA. www.icleiusa.org. Accessed 

June 15 2009.

Kanellos, M. (2008) “GE Confirms that Wind Turbine Supply is Getting Worse.” Green 

Tech. http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9918121-54.html.

Lantz, E. (2009) “State Policy and the Pursuit of Renewable Energy Manufacturing” 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory: State Clean Energy Practices 

Publication, forthcoming.

McLaren Loring, J. (2007) “Wind energy planning in England, Wales, and Denmark: 

Factors influencing project success.” Energy Policy, 35: 2648-2660.

Mueller, J.; Rynne, S. (2009). “Integrating Energy and Climate into Planning.” American 

Planning Association. 

http://www.planning.org/pas/memo/open/jan2009/index.htm. 

NREL (2009). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Interactive U.S. Atlas of 

Renewable Resources. www.nrel.gov/gis/maps.html#resource_atlas. Accessed 

June 20, 2009.

Nature Conservancy (2009). http://www.nature.org/?src=logo . Accessed July 14, 2009. 

NPR (2009). “T. Boone Pickens Wind Farm Plan Stalls Out.” Aired July 7, 2009, on 

National Public Radio. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwoway/2009/07/t_boone_pickens_wind_farm_plan.html . Accessed July 15, 2009.

NWCC (2009). National Wind Coordinating Collaborative. 

http://www.nationalwind.org/.

Parsons, B.K.; Wan, Y.H. (1993). “Factors Relevant to Utility Integration of Intermittent 

Renewable Technologies.” www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/4953.pdf.

Pollin, R.; Wiks-Lim, J. (2008) “Job Opportunities for the Green Economy: A State-byState Picture of Occupations that Gain from Green Investments.” Political 

Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.: 

www.greenforall.org/resources/a-state-by-state-picture-of-occupations-that-gain .

Sawin, J. (2004). “National Policy Instruments: Policy Lessons for the Advancement & 

Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technologies Around the World.” Worldwatch 

Institute. http://www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP03-policies.pdf. 

Swisher, R. (2004). “Bringing Wind Energy Up to ‘Code.’” Public Utilities Fortnightly. 

http://www.pur.com/pubs/4395.cfm.

UCS (2009). Union of Concerned Scientists. Clean Energy Web site. 

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/. Accessed July 14, 2009.
152

UNDP and SEFI (2008). United Nations Development Programme and Sustainable 

Energy Finance Initiative. Public Finance Mechanisms to Mobilise Investment in 

Climate Change Mitigation: Final Report. United Nations Environment 

Programme. Paris, France.

Wald, M. (2009). “Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in 

Time of Recession.” New York Times, March 28, 2009. 

www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/business/energyenvironment/29renew.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss.

WGA (2009). “Western Renewable Energy Zones: a joint initiative of the Western 

Governors’ Association and U.S. Department of Energy.” June 2009. Available 

at http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/wrez/

Wiser, R.; Bolinger, M.; Gagliano, T. (2002). “Analyzing the Interaction Between State 

Tax Incentives and the Federal Production Tax Credit for Wind Power,” 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-51465, September 2002.

Chapter 6

Gielecki, M. (2009). Energy Information Administration staff. Personal communication 

on April 15, 2009.
153

Appendix

List of Tables

Total Renewable Resources: (Tables 7.1 – 7.4)

Growth 2001 – 2007: (Tables 7.5 – 7.8)

Growth 2006 – 2007: (Tables 7.9 – 7.12)

Non-hydroelectric Renewable Resources: (Tables 7.13 – 7.16)

Growth 2001 – 2007: (Tables 7.17 – 7.20)

Growth 2006 – 2007: (Tables 7.21 – 7.24)

Biomass: (Tables 7.25 – 7.28)

Growth 2001 – 2007: (Tables 7.29 – 7.32)

Growth 2006 – 2007: (Tables 7.33 – 7.36)

Hydroelectric: (Tables 37 – 40)

Growth 2001 – 2007: (Tables 41 – 44)

Growth 2006 – 2007: (Tables 45 – 48)

Geothermal: (Table 49)

Growth 2001 – 2007: (Table 50)

Growth 2006 – 2007: (Table 51)

Distributed Solar Capacity: (Table 52)

Wind: (Tables 53 – 56)

Growth 2001 – 2007: (Tables 57 – 60)

Growth 2006 – 2007: (Tables 61 – 64)

Capacity: (Table 65)
154

Total Renewable Resources 

Table 7.1. Total Renewable Electricity Generation (2007)

Rank State MWh Rank State MWh

1 Washington 82,559,749 26 Colorado 3,054,362

2 California 52,173,008 27 Wisconsin 2,845,601

3 Oregon 35,815,731 28 New Hampshire 2,388,501

4 New York 28,027,638 29 Maryland 2,255,677

5 Texas 11,932,049 30 Kentucky 2,134,210

6 Montana 9,971,057 31 Massachusetts 2,037,706

7 Idaho 9,674,539 32 North Dakota 1,939,672

8 Maine 7,945,148 33 New Mexico 1,677,211

9 Alabama 7,936,734 34 Mississippi 1,493,365

10 Arizona 6,639,310 35 Wyoming 1,484,305

11 Tennessee 5,910,128 36 Illinois 1,438,479

12 Georgia 5,651,609 37 West Virginia 1,421,985

13 Oklahoma 5,194,860 38 Alaska 1,302,453

14 Arkansas 4,860,497 39 Missouri 1,233,635

15 Pennsylvania 4,782,178 40 Kansas 1,163,039

16 North Carolina 4,656,378 41 Vermont 1,110,154

17 Minnesota 4,586,460 42 Connecticut 1,093,101

18 Florida 4,457,263 43 New Jersey 864,487

19 Iowa 3,870,122 44 Hawaii 845,690

20 Virginia 3,813,835 45 Ohio 845,579

21 Louisiana 3,806,525 46 Utah 733,737

22 Michigan 3,686,736 47 Indiana 681,183

23 South Carolina 3,551,946 48 Nebraska 625,468

24 Nevada 3,299,849 49 Rhode Island 159,121

25 South Dakota 3,067,301 50 Delaware 48,116

Source: EIA 2009
155

Table 7.2. Renewable Electricity Generation 

as a Percentage of Total State Electricity Generation (2007)

Rank State

% of 

Total Rank State

% of 

Total

1 Idaho 84.2% 26 Wisconsin 4.5%

2 Washington 77.2% 27 Massachusetts 4.3%

3 Oregon 65.0% 28 Louisiana 4.1%

4 South Dakota 50.0% 29 Georgia 3.9%

5 Maine 49.3% 30 North Carolina 3.6%

6 Montana 34.5% 31 South Carolina 3.4%

7 California 24.7% 32 Connecticut 3.3%

8 New York 19.2% 33 Wyoming 3.3%

9 Alaska 19.1% 34 Michigan 3.1%

10 Vermont 19.1% 35 Mississippi 3.0%

11 New Hampshire 10.3% 36 Texas 2.9%

12 Nevada 10.1% 37 Kansas 2.3%

13 Arkansas 8.9% 38 Rhode Island 2.3%

14 Minnesota 8.4% 39 Kentucky 2.2%

15 Iowa 7.8% 40 Pennsylvania 2.1%

16 Hawaii 7.3% 41 Florida 2.0%

17 Oklahoma 7.1% 42 Nebraska 1.9%

18 Tennessee 6.2% 43 Utah 1.6%

19 North Dakota 6.2% 44 West Virginia 1.5%

20 Arizona 5.9% 45 New Jersey 1.4%

21 Colorado 5.7% 46 Missouri 1.4%

22 Alabama 5.5% 47 Illinois 0.7%

23 Virginia 4.9% 48 Delaware 0.6%

24 New Mexico 4.7% 49 Ohio 0.5%

25 Maryland 4.5% 50 Indiana 0.5%
156

Table 7.3. Renewable Electricity Generation per Capita (2007)

Rank State MWh/Capita Rank State MWh/Capita

1 Washington 12.8 26 Hawaii 0.7

2 Montana 10.4 27 Colorado 0.6

3 Oregon 9.6 28 Georgia 0.6

4 Idaho 6.5 29 North Carolina 0.5

5 Maine 6.0 30 Mississippi 0.5

6 South Dakota 3.9 31 Wisconsin 0.5

7 North Dakota 3.0 32 Kentucky 0.5

8 Wyoming 2.8 33 Texas 0.5

9 Alaska 1.9 34 Virginia 0.5

10 New Hampshire 1.8 35 Kansas 0.4

11 Vermont 1.8 36 Maryland 0.4

12 Arkansas 1.7 37 Pennsylvania 0.4

13 Alabama 1.7 38 Michigan 0.4

14 New York 1.4 39 Nebraska 0.4

15 Oklahoma 1.4 40 Massachusetts 0.3

16 California 1.4 41 Connecticut 0.3

17 Iowa 1.3 42 Utah 0.3

18 Nevada 1.3 43 Florida 0.2

19 Arizona 1.0 44 Missouri 0.2

20 Tennessee 1.0 45 Rhode Island 0.2

21 Minnesota 0.9 46 Illinois 0.1

22 Louisiana 0.9 47 Indiana 0.1

23 New Mexico 0.9 48 New Jersey 0.1

24 South Carolina 0.8 49 Ohio 0.1

25 West Virginia 0.8 50 Delaware 0.1
157

Table 7.4. Renewable Electricity Generation per Gross State Product (2007)

Rank State MWh/$M Rank State MWh/$M

1 Montana 291.1 26 Mississippi 16.9

2 Washington 265.2 27 Georgia 14.3

3 Oregon 226.4 28 Kentucky 13.8

4 Idaho 189.1 29 Hawaii 13.7

5 Maine 165.2 30 Colorado 12.9

6 South Dakota 90.4 31 Wisconsin 12.3

7 North Dakota 70.0 32 North Carolina 11.7

8 Arkansas 51.0 33 Texas 10.5

9 Alabama 47.9 34 Virginia 10.0

10 Wyoming 47.1 35 Kansas 9.9

11 Vermont 45.2 36 Michigan 9.7

12 New Hampshire 41.7 37 Pennsylvania 9.0

13 Oklahoma 37.3 38 Maryland 8.4

14 Iowa 30.0 39 Nebraska 7.8

15 Alaska 29.3 40 Utah 6.9

16 California 28.8 41 Florida 6.1

17 Arizona 26.9 42 Massachusetts 5.8

18 Nevada 25.9 43 Missouri 5.4

19 New York 25.4 44 Connecticut 5.1

20 West Virginia 24.6 45 Rhode Island 3.4

21 Tennessee 24.2 46 Indiana 2.8

22 South Carolina 23.2 47 Illinois 2.4

23 New Mexico 22.0 48 New Jersey 1.9

24 Minnesota 18.0 49 Ohio 1.8

25 Louisiana 17.6 50 Delaware 0.8
158

Total Renewable Resources Growth, 2001-2007

Table 7.5. Growth in Total Renewable Electricity Generation, 2001-2007*

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Kansas 1678.5% 26 New York 12.6%

2 New Mexico 555.2% 27 Missouri 10.9%

3 Texas 252.9% 28 Louisiana 10.8%

4 Iowa 169.4% 29 California 10.6%

5 Oklahoma 101.7% 30 Utah 10.1%

6 Colorado 90.0% 31 North Carolina 7.1%

7 Illinois 74.9% 32 Mississippi 4.3%

8 South Carolina 67.6% 33 Massachusetts 1.1%

9 Minnesota 63.3% 34 Georgia 0.9%

10 Montana 49.3% 35 New Jersey 0.3%

11 Rhode Island 49.1% 36 Indiana -0.6%

12 Washington 47.6% 37 Alaska -3.3%

13 West Virginia 47.0% 38 Michigan -6.0%

14 Maryland 44.9% 39 Connecticut -8.6%

15 North Dakota 44.8% 40 Wisconsin -9.9%

16 Hawaii 41.6% 41 Ohio -10.2%

17 Virginia 38.1% 42 South Dakota -10.7%

18 Pennsylvania 34.9% 43 Nevada -11.1%

19 Idaho 24.7% 44 Vermont -12.4%

20 Maine 22.8% 45 Arizona -13.4%

21 Oregon 21.5% 46 Tennessee -23.9%

22 Arkansas 19.7% 47 Alabama -36.7%

23 Wyoming 19.3% 48 Kentucky -44.8%

24 New Hampshire 18.5% 49 Nebraska -45.3%

25 Florida 13.2%

*Delaware is not included because they did not produce renewable energy as tracked by the EIA in 2001;

therefore, 2001-2007 growth numbers cannot be calculated. However, Delaware produced 48,116 MWh 

from RE in 2007.
159

Table 7.6. Growth in Renewable Electricity Generation as a Percent of Total State 

Generation,2001-2007*

Rank State % Change Rank State

% 

Change

1 Kansas 1,487.9% 26 Arkansas 3.5%

2 New Mexico 512.0% 27 Idaho 1.5%

3 Texas 224.2% 28 Oregon -0.6%

4 Iowa 120.0% 29 Missouri -3.3%

5 Colorado 65.2% 30 North Carolina -3.3%

6 Rhode Island 58.6% 31 Florida -4.1%

7 Illinois 56.5% 32 Alaska -4.4%

8 Oklahoma 53.0% 33 New Jersey -4.9%

9 Maine 48.9% 34 Indiana -6.7%

10 Minnesota 45.4% 35 Nevada -7.9%

11 South Carolina 44.5% 36 Michigan -11.9%

12 Maryland 41.6% 37 Utah -13.0%

13 North Dakota 40.6% 38 Connecticut -15.9%

14 Virginia 30.6% 39 Wisconsin -16.5%

15 Hawaii 30.6% 40 Massachusetts -17.4%

16 West Virginia 28.1% 41 Vermont -17.5%

17 Montana 25.0% 42 Ohio -17.7%

18 Pennsylvania 17.3% 43 Georgia -17.7%

19 Wyoming 17.1% 44 Tennessee -23.0%

20 Washington 14.5% 45 New Hampshire -23.3%

21 Mississippi 11.4% 46 Arizona -31.3%

22 New York 11.1% 47 Alabama -44.9%

23 South Dakota 7.8% 48 Kentucky -45.8%

24 Louisiana 5.2% 49 Nebraska -48.6%

25 California 4.2%

Source: EIA 2009

*Delaware is not included because they did not produce renewable energy as tracked by the EIA in 2001;

therefore, 2001-2007 growth numbers cannot be calculated. However, Delaware produced 48,116 MWh 

from RE in 2007.
160

Table 7.7. Growth in Renewable Electricity Generation per Capita, 2001-2007*

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Kansas 1,629.6% 26 Idaho 10.1%

2 New Mexico 510.1% 27 Missouri 6.4%

3 Texas 215.8% 28 California 5.0%

4 Iowa 164.5% 29 Mississippi 1.9%

5 Oklahoma 93.7% 30 Florida 1.7%

6 Colorado 74.0% 31 Massachusetts 0.2%

7 Illinois 70.7% 32 New Jersey -1.5%

8 Minnesota 57.0% 33 North Carolina -2.8%

9 South Carolina 54.6% 34 Indiana -3.9%

10 Rhode Island 49.8% 35 Utah -5.5%

11 West Virginia 46.1% 36 Michigan -6.4%

12 North Dakota 44.4% 37 Alaska -10.1%

13 Montana 41.4% 38 Connecticut -10.1%

14 Maryland 38.6% 39 Georgia -10.7%

15 Washington 37.0% 40 Ohio -10.9%

16 Hawaii 35.1% 41 Wisconsin -13.0%

17 Pennsylvania 33.4% 42 Vermont -13.6%

18 Virginia 29.0% 43 South Dakota -14.8%

19 Maine 19.9% 44 Nevada -27.1%

20 Arkansas 13.8% 45 Arizona -27.7%

21 New Hampshire 13.5% 46 Tennessee -28.8%

22 Louisiana 13.0% 47 Alabama -39.0%

23 Oregon 12.9% 48 Nebraska -46.9%

24 Wyoming 12.4% 49 Kentucky -47.0%

25 New York 10.6%

Source: EIA 2009

*Delaware is not included because they did not produce renewable energy as tracked by the EIA in 2001;

therefore, 2001-2007 growth numbers cannot be calculated. However, Delaware produced 48,116 MWh 

from RE in 2007.
161

Table 7.8. Growth in Renewable Electricity Generation per GSP, 2001-2007*

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Kansas 1,210.4% 26 Michigan -17.7%

2 New Mexico 341.8% 27 Massachusetts -19.3%

3 Texas 135.5% 28 California -20.6%

4 Iowa 91.9% 29 Indiana -21.3%

5 Colorado 43.2% 30 New Jersey -21.8%

6 Illinois 36.7% 31 Mississippi -22.3%

7 Oklahoma 36.6% 32 Florida -23.3%

8 South Carolina 28.6% 33 North Carolina -23.4%

9 Minnesota 21.8% 34 Georgia -23.8%

10 Rhode Island 11.7% 35 Utah -27.0%

11 West Virginia 10.4% 36 Ohio -27.8%

12 Washington 7.0% 37 Wyoming -28.3%

13 Maryland 3.9% 38 Wisconsin -29.4%

14 Pennsylvania 3.3% 39 Connecticut -30.2%

15 Virginia -0.2% 40 Louisiana -31.5%

16 Montana -2.1% 41 Vermont -32.8%

17 North Dakota -3.3% 42 South Dakota -37.0%

18 Hawaii -3.7% 43 Arizona -42.0%

19 Maine -5.2% 44 Alaska -42.2%

20 New Hampshire -8.5% 45 Tennessee -43.7%

21 Missouri -11.9% 46 Nevada -46.0%

22 Idaho -13.1% 47 Alabama -54.7%

23 Arkansas -13.5% 48 Kentucky -58.8%

24 Oregon -14.9% 49 Nebraska -60.8%

25 New York -17.4%

Source: EIA 2009

*Delaware is not included because they did not produce renewable energy as tracked by the EIA in 

2001,;therefore, 2001-2007 growth numbers cannot be calculated. However, Delaware produced 48,116 

MWh from RE in 2007.
162

Total Renewable Resources Growth, 2006-2007

Table 7.9. Growth in Total Renewable Electricity Generation, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,438.6% 26 Indiana -4.0%

2 Missouri 452.7% 27 South Carolina -4.5%

3 Oklahoma 97.3% 28 Georgia -5.6%

4 Arkansas 48.5% 29 New York -6.4%

5 Illinois 40.7% 30 Montana -6.5%

6 Texas 40.7% 31 Michigan -7.0%

7 Minnesota 26.3% 32 Wyoming -7.4%

8 Kansas 16.1% 33 New Jersey -9.2%

9 Iowa 15.0% 34 Oregon -9.7%

10 Hawaii 14.6% 35 Pennsylvania -10.1%

11 New Mexico 13.7% 36 South Dakota -13.5%

12 Colorado 13.7% 37 Connecticut -16.4%

13 Alaska 5.8% 38 Maryland -17.4%

14 New Hampshire 5.0% 39 North Carolina -17.8%

15 Louisiana 3.6% 40 West Virginia -18.6%

16 Rhode Island 2.8% 41 Idaho -18.9%

17 North Dakota 2.4% 42 Ohio -22.5%

18 Virginia 0.1% 43 Utah -23.0%

19 Florida -1.7% 44 Massachusetts -27.0%

20 Washington -2.3% 45 California -27.5%

21 Nevada -3.0% 46 Alabama -28.7%

22 Arizona -3.0% 47 Kentucky -30.0%

23 Mississippi -3.1% 48 Tennessee -31.0%

24 Wisconsin -3.4% 49 Vermont -43.6%

25 Maine -3.7% 50 Nebraska -48.2%
163

Table 7.10. Growth in Renewable Electricity Generation 

as a Percentage of Total State Electricity, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 9,610.7% 26 Wyoming -7.8%

2 Missouri 456.0% 27 South Carolina -8.3%

3 Oklahoma 91.3% 28 Montana -8.7%

4 Arkansas 41.9% 29 New York -8.7%

5 Texas 39.0% 30 Georgia -10.3%

6 Illinois 35.2% 31 Mississippi -10.5%

7 Minnesota 23.5% 32 Arizona -10.7%

8 New Mexico 17.7% 33 New Jersey -12.1%

9 Hawaii 14.9% 34 Michigan -12.2%

10 Colorado 6.9% 35 Connecticut -12.6%

11 Kansas 5.5% 36 Oregon -12.6%

12 Iowa 5.1% 37 Pennsylvania -13.0%

13 Alaska 3.5% 38 Rhode Island -13.0%

14 Louisiana 1.7% 39 West Virginia -18.7%

15 North Dakota 1.3% 40 Maryland -19.4%

16 South Dakota 0.5% 41 North Carolina -20.9%

17 Maine 0.5% 42 Ohio -22.3%

18 New Hampshire -0.5% 43 California -25.5%

19 Washington -1.2% 44 Kentucky -28.9%

20 Florida -2.4% 45 Massachusetts -29.3%

21 Indiana -4.1% 46 Utah -29.9%

22 Nevada -5.4% 47 Alabama -30.2%

23 Idaho -5.5% 48 Vermont -31.4%

24 Wisconsin -6.0% 49 Tennessee -31.8%

25 Virginia -6.7% 50 Nebraska -49.4%
164

Table 7.11. Growth in Renewable Electricity Generation 

per Capita, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,315.4% 26 Arizona -5.9%

2 Missouri 448.9% 27 South Carolina -6.1%

3 Oklahoma 95.6% 28 Michigan -6.5%

4 Arkansas 47.4% 29 New York -7.1%

5 Illinois 40.2% 30 Georgia -7.4%

6 Texas 38.1% 31 Montana -7.4%

7 Minnesota 25.7% 32 New Jersey -9.1%

8 Kansas 15.2% 33 Wyoming -9.2%

9 Hawaii 14.8% 34 Pennsylvania -10.2%

10 Iowa 14.6% 35 Oregon -10.8%

11 New Mexico 12.4% 36 South Dakota -14.3%

12 Colorado 11.9% 37 Connecticut -16.2%

13 Alaska 5.2% 38 Maryland -17.6%

14 New Hampshire 4.9% 39 West Virginia -18.6%

15 Rhode Island 3.6% 40 North Carolina -19.4%

16 North Dakota 2.3% 41 Idaho -20.7%

17 Louisiana 0.5% 42 Ohio -22.6%

18 Virginia -0.7% 43 Utah -25.5%

19 Florida -2.5% 44 Massachusetts -27.4%

20 Washington -3.4% 45 California -27.8%

21 Maine -3.7% 46 Alabama -29.3%

22 Wisconsin -3.8% 47 Kentucky -30.6%

23 Mississippi -3.8% 48 Tennessee -31.8%

24 Indiana -4.5% 49 Vermont -43.6%

25 Nevada -5.3% 50 Nebraska -48.3%
165

Table 7.12. Growth in Renewable Electricity Generation per GSP, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,485.3% 26 Washington -7.9%

2 Missouri 444.1% 27 Arizona -8.7%

3 Oklahoma 90.7% 28 Georgia -9.7%

4 Arkansas 43.0% 29 Nevada -9.7%

5 Illinois 36.1% 30 New Jersey -11.6%

6 Texas 31.3% 31 Montana -11.7%

7 Minnesota 21.2% 32 Wyoming -13.1%

8 New Mexico 13.3% 33 New York -13.3%

9 Colorado 10.8% 34 Pennsylvania -13.6%

10 Kansas 10.6% 35 Oregon -13.7%

11 Iowa 10.5% 36 South Dakota -17.6%

12 Hawaii 8.6% 37 Maryland -20.7%

13 New Hampshire 3.0% 38 Idaho -20.9%

14 Rhode Island 0.1% 39 Connecticut -21.1%

15 Alaska -2.3% 40 West Virginia -21.5%

16 North Dakota -2.5% 41 North Carolina -23.0%

17 Indiana -3.1% 42 Ohio -23.3%

18 Virginia -3.5% 43 Utah -28.7%

19 Florida -4.5% 44 Massachusetts -29.9%

20 Wisconsin -5.5% 45 California -30.9%

21 Maine -5.9% 46 Alabama -31.0%

22 South Carolina -6.7% 47 Tennessee -32.6%

23 Michigan -7.2% 48 Kentucky -33.8%

24 Louisiana -7.5% 49 Vermont -44.4%

25 Mississippi -7.8% 50 Nebraska -51.0%
166

Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Resources

Table 7.13. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation (2007)

Rank State MWh Rank State MWh

1 California 24,845,257 26 Massachusetts 1,240,224

2 Texas 10,287,612 27 Kansas 1,152,538

3 Florida 4,302,817 28 New Hampshire 1,123,272

4 Maine 4,206,980 29 Tennessee 970,527

5 Minnesota 3,932,638 30 New Jersey 843,578

6 Alabama 3,800,620 31 Wyoming 754,881

7 Washington 3,730,554 32 Hawaii 753,347

8 Georgia 3,415,421 33 Connecticut 729,840

9 Louisiana 2,979,883 34 Idaho 652,849

10 Iowa 2,907,776 35 North Dakota 634,279

11 New York 2,775,083 36 Montana 606,721

12 Virginia 2,565,571 37 Maryland 603,461

13 Pennsylvania 2,546,196 38 Kentucky 465,623

14 Michigan 2,416,747 39 Vermont 463,549

15 Oregon 2,228,292 40 Ohio 435,143

16 Oklahoma 2,128,998 41 Nebraska 278,024

17 South Carolina 1,996,034 42 Indiana 231,247

18 North Carolina 1,672,219 43 Utah 194,955

19 Arkansas 1,623,744 44 West Virginia 167,588

20 Mississippi 1,493,365 45 Rhode Island 154,757

21 New Mexico 1,409,233 46 South Dakota 150,018

22 Wisconsin 1,329,518 47 Delaware 48,116

23 Colorado 1,324,829 48 Arizona 41,639

24 Nevada 1,296,658 49 Missouri 29,309

25 Illinois 1,284,752 50 Alaska 11,230
167

Table 7.14. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation 

as a Percentage of Total State Electricity Generation (2007)

Rank State % of Total Rank State % of Total

1 Maine 26.1% 26 Rhode Island 2.2%

2 California 11.8% 27 Wisconsin 2.1%

3 Vermont 8.0% 28 Montana 2.1%

4 Minnesota 7.2% 29 North Dakota 2.0%

5 Hawaii 6.5% 30 Michigan 2.0%

6 Iowa 5.8% 31 South Carolina 1.9%

7 Idaho 5.7% 32 Florida 1.9%

8 New Hampshire 4.8% 33 New York 1.9%

9 Oregon 4.1% 34 Wyoming 1.7%

10 Nevada 4.0% 35 New Jersey 1.4%

11 New Mexico 3.9% 36 North Carolina 1.3%

12 Washington 3.5% 37 Maryland 1.2%

13 Virginia 3.3% 38 Pennsylvania 1.1%

14 Louisiana 3.2% 39 Tennessee 1.0%

15 Mississippi 3.0% 40 Nebraska 0.9%

16 Arkansas 3.0% 41 Illinois 0.6%

17 Oklahoma 2.9% 42 Delaware 0.6%

18 Alabama 2.6% 43 Kentucky 0.5%

19 Massachusetts 2.6% 44 Utah 0.4%

20 Texas 2.5% 45 Ohio 0.3%

21 Colorado 2.5% 46 West Virginia 0.2%

22 South Dakota 2.4% 47 Indiana 0.2%

23 Georgia 2.4% 48 Alaska 0.2%

24 Kansas 2.3% 49 Arizona 0.0%

25 Connecticut 2.20% 50 Missouri 0.0%
168

Table 7.15. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation per Capita (2007)

Rank State MWh/Capita Rank State MWh/Capita

1 Maine 3.2 26 Colorado 0.3

2 Wyoming 1.4 27 Michigan 0.2

3 North Dakota 1.0 28 Wisconsin 0.2

4 Iowa 1.0 29 Florida 0.2

5 New Hampshire 0.9 30 Connecticut 0.2

6 Alabama 0.8 31 Pennsylvania 0.2

7 Minnesota 0.8 32 Massachusetts 0.2

8 Vermont 0.7 33 South Dakota 0.2

9 New Mexico 0.7 34 North Carolina 0.2

10 California 0.7 35 Tennessee 0.2

11 Louisiana 0.7 36 Nebraska 0.2

12 Montana 0.6 37 Rhode Island 0.1

13 Oregon 0.6 38 New York 0.1

14 Oklahoma 0.6 39 Kentucky 0.1

15 Hawaii 0.6 40 Maryland 0.1

16 Washington 0.6 41 Illinois 0.1

17 Arkansas 0.6 42 New Jersey 0.1

18 Mississippi 0.5 43 West Virginia 0.1

19 Nevada 0.5 44 Utah 0.1

20 South Carolina 0.5 45 Delaware 0.1

21 Idaho 0.4 46 Ohio 0.0

22 Texas 0.4 47 Indiana 0.0

23 Kansas 0.4 48 Alaska 0.0

24 Georgia 0.4 49 Arizona 0.0

25 Virginia 0.3 50 Missouri 0.0
169

Table 7.16. Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation 

per Gross State Product (2007)

Rank State MWh/$M GSP Rank State MWh/$M GSP

1 Maine 87.5 26 Michigan 6.3

2 Wyoming 24.0 27 Florida 5.9

3 Alabama 22.9 28 Wisconsin 5.7

4 North Dakota 22.9 29 Colorado 5.6

5 Iowa 22.5 30 Pennsylvania 4.8

6 New Hampshire 19.6 31 South Dakota 4.4

7 Vermont 18.9 32 North Carolina 4.2

8 New Mexico 18.5 33 Tennessee 4.0

9 Montana 17.7 34 Massachusetts 3.5

10 Arkansas 17.0 35 Nebraska 3.5

11 Mississippi 16.9 36 Connecticut 3.4

12 Minnesota 15.4 37 Rhode Island 3.3

13 Oklahoma 15.3 38 Kentucky 3.0

14 Oregon 14.1 39 West Virginia 2.9

15 Louisiana 13.8 40 New York 2.5

16 California 13.7 41 Maryland 2.3

17 South Carolina 13.1 42 Illinois 2.1

18 Idaho 12.8 43 Utah 1.9

19 Hawaii 12.2 44 New Jersey 1.8

20 Washington 12.0 45 Indiana 0.9

21 Nevada 10.2 46 Ohio 0.9

22 Kansas 9.8 47 Delaware 0.8

23 Texas 9.0 48 Alaska 0.3

24 Georgia 8.6 49 Arizona 0.2

25 Virginia 6.7 50 Missouri 0.1
170

Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Resources Growth, 2001-2007

Table 7.17. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation, 2001 – 2007*

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 South Dakota 17,123.7% 26 Virginia 46.9%

2 North Dakota 8,175.0% 27 Pennsylvania 34.3%

3 New Mexico 7,455.4% 28 Utah 23.2%

4 Kentucky 4,774.6% 29 Idaho 22.4%

5 Kansas 2,793.5% 30 Vermont 21.2%

6 Nebraska 1,341.1% 31 Wisconsin 20.6%

7 Alaska 1,082.1% 32 Tennessee 18.1%

8 Colorado 1,074.0% 33 California 14.9%

9 West Virginia 979.3% 34 Georgia 13.7%

10 Montana 827.4% 35 Florida 13.5%

11 Oklahoma 822.9% 36 Louisiana 10.2%

12 Iowa 391.5% 37 Maine 10.0%

13 Texas 371.7% 38 New Hampshire 9.5%

14 Missouri 233.2% 39 Nevada 8.1%

15 Washington 205.5% 40 Arkansas 7.4%

16 Oregon 165.4% 41 Arizona 5.6%

17 South Carolina 123.2% 42 Mississippi 4.3%

18 Wyoming 106.7% 43 Michigan 2.3%

19 Indiana 101.8% 44 Ohio 1.0%

20 Minnesota 98.9% 45 New Jersey 0.0%

21 Illinois 89.3% 46 North Carolina -4.5%

22 Maryland 61.8% 47 Massachusetts -5.5%

23 New York 54.1% 48 Alabama -9.3%

24 Hawaii 51.8% 49 Connecticut -19.7%

25 Rhode Island 49.4%

*Delaware is not included because they did not produce renewable energy as tracked by the EIA in 2001;

therefore, 2001-2007 growth numbers cannot be calculated. However, Delaware produced 48,116 MWh 

from RE in 2007.
171

Table 7.18. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation as a Percent of 

Total State Electricity Generation, 2001 – 2007*

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 South Dakota 20,671.7% 26 Virginia 38.9%

2 North Dakota 7,938.6% 27 Maine 33.4%

3 New Mexico 6,957.0% 28 Tennessee 19.4%

4 Kentucky 4,684.0% 29 Pennsylvania 16.8%

5 Kansas 2,483.3% 30 Vermont 14.0%

6 Nebraska 1,254.1% 31 Nevada 12.1%

7 Alaska 1,068.7% 32 Wisconsin 11.8%

8 Colorado 920.9% 33 Mississippi 11.4%

9 West Virginia 840.3% 34 California 8.2%

10 Montana 676.7% 35 Louisiana 4.6%

11 Oklahoma 600.2% 36 Idaho -0.4%

12 Texas 333.4% 37 Utah -2.6%

13 Iowa 301.4% 38 Florida -3.8%

14 Missouri 190.7% 39 Michigan -4.1%

15 Washington 137.1% 40 New Jersey -5.2%

16 Oregon 117.1% 41 Arkansas -7.2%

17 Wyoming 102.8% 42 Georgia -7.3%

18 South Carolina 92.5% 43 Ohio -7.4%

19 Indiana 89.4% 44 North Carolina -13.8%

20 Minnesota 77.2% 45 Arizona -16.2%

21 Illinois 69.5% 46 Alabama -20.9%

22 Rhode Island 58.9% 47 Massachusetts -22.8%

23 Maryland 58.1% 48 Connecticut -26.2%

24 New York 52.0% 49 New Hampshire -29.1%

25 Hawaii 39.9%

*Delaware is not included because they did not produce renewable energy as tracked by the EIA in 2001;

therefore, 2001-2007 growth numbers cannot be calculated. However, Delaware produced 48,116 MWh 

from RE in 2007.
172

Table 7.19. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation 

per Capita, 2001 – 2007*

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 South Dakota 16,326.3% 26 Virginia 37.2%

2 North Dakota 8,155.3% 27 Pennsylvania 32.8%

3 New Mexico 6,934.7% 28 Vermont 19.5%

4 Kentucky 4,580.3% 29 Wisconsin 16.5%

5 Kansas 2,713.9% 30 Louisiana 12.4%

6 Nebraska 1,299.4% 31 Tennessee 10.5%

7 Alaska 999.1% 32 California 9.0%

8 Colorado 974.9% 33 Idaho 8.1%

9 West Virginia 972.8% 34 Maine 7.4%

10 Oklahoma 786.2% 35 Utah 5.8%

11 Montana 778.4% 36 New Hampshire 4.9%

12 Iowa 382.7% 37 Arkansas 2.1%

13 Texas 322.2% 38 Florida 2.0%

14 Missouri 219.7% 39 Michigan 1.9%

15 Washington 183.7% 40 Mississippi 1.9%

16 Oregon 146.7% 41 Georgia 0.6%

17 South Carolina 105.9% 42 Ohio 0.2%

18 Indiana 95.1% 43 New Jersey -1.8%

19 Wyoming 94.8% 44 Massachusetts -6.4%

20 Minnesota 91.3% 45 Nevada -11.4%

21 Illinois 84.8% 46 Arizona -11.9%

22 Maryland 54.8% 47 Alabama -12.5%

23 New York 51.3% 48 North Carolina -13.4%

24 Rhode Island 50.1% 49 Connecticut -21.1%

25 Hawaii 44.8%

*Delaware is not included because they did not produce renewable energy as tracked by the EIA in 2001;

therefore, 2001-2007 growth numbers cannot be calculated. However, Delaware produced 48,116 MWh 

from RE in 2007.
173

Table 7.20. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation 

per GSP, 2001 – 2007*

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 South Dakota 12,035.8% 26 Hawaii 3.1%

2 North Dakota 5,429.7% 27 Pennsylvania 2.8%

3 New Mexico 4,993.8% 28 Wisconsin -5.5%

4 Kentucky 3,539.4% 29 Vermont -7.0%

5 Kansas 2,031.9% 30 Michigan -10.4%

6 Nebraska 933.4% 31 Tennessee -12.6%

7 Colorado 784.7% 32 Georgia -14.1%

8 West Virginia 711.0% 33 Idaho -14.7%

9 Alaska 606.6% 34 Maine -15.1%

10 Oklahoma 524.8% 35 New Hampshire -15.4%

11 Montana 508.4% 36 California -17.6%

12 Iowa 250.2% 37 Utah -18.2%

13 Texas 214.9% 38 Ohio -18.9%

14 Missouri 164.8% 39 New Jersey -22.0%

15 Washington 121.5% 40 Mississippi -22.3%

16 Oregon 86.1% 41 Arkansas -22.4%

17 South Carolina 71.3% 42 Florida -23.1%

18 Indiana 59.9% 43 Massachusetts -24.6%

19 Minnesota 48.4% 44 Arizona -29.3%

20 Illinois 48.0% 45 North Carolina -31.7%

21 Wyoming 24.2% 46 Louisiana -31.8%

22 Maryland 16.0% 47 Nevada -34.3%

23 New York 12.9% 48 Alabama -35.1%

24 Rhode Island 11.9% 49 Connecticut -38.7%

25 Virginia 6.1%

*Delaware is not included because they did not produce renewable energy as tracked by the EIA in 2001;

therefore, 2001-2007 growth numbers cannot be calculated. However, Delaware produced 48,116 MWh 

from RE in 2007.
174

Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Resources Growth, 2006-2007

Table 7.21. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,438.6% 26 California 3.9%

2 North Dakota 70.0% 27 Vermont 3.0%

3 Illinois 51.4% 28 Pennsylvania 3.0%

4 Alaska 50.7% 29 Kentucky 1.5%

5 New Hampshire 50.5% 30 South Dakota 0.7%

6 Washington 49.1% 31 Louisiana 0.6%

7 Colorado 47.8% 32 Georgia -0.1%

8 Texas 31.6% 33 Wyoming -0.6%

9 Minnesota 28.6% 34 Florida -0.6%

10 Missouri 22.3% 35 Michigan -1.1%

11 Hawaii 22.0% 36 Alabama -2.2%

12 Oregon 21.8% 37 Massachusetts -3.0%

13 Tennessee 19.7% 38 Mississippi -3.1%

14 Iowa 18.5% 39 Nevada -3.5%

15 Kansas 16.2% 40 Maryland -3.6%

16 Montana 14.4% 41 West Virginia -3.7%

17 New Mexico 10.3% 42 Connecticut -4.4%

18 New York 6.9% 43 Ohio -5.1%

19 Maine 6.0% 44 Utah -5.1%

20 Oklahoma 5.9% 45 Idaho -5.4%

21 Wisconsin 5.1% 46 Arkansas -5.8%

22 Indiana 5.0% 47 New Jersey -8.0%

23 South Carolina 4.5% 48 North Carolina -8.5%

24 Virginia 4.4% 49 Nebraska -11.3%

25 Rhode Island 3.9% 50 Arizona -22.3%
175

Table 7.22. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation 

as a Percentage of Total State Electricity Generation, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 9,610.7% 26 Oklahoma 2.7%

2 North Dakota 68.2% 27 Wisconsin 2.2%

3 Washington 50.7% 28 South Carolina 0.3%

4 Alaska 47.4% 29 Connecticut 0.0%

5 Illinois 45.4% 30 Pennsylvania -0.4%

6 New Hampshire 42.7% 31 Wyoming -1.1%

7 Colorado 39.0% 32 Louisiana -1.2%

8 Texas 30.0% 33 Florida -1.4%

9 Minnesota 25.6% 34 Virginia -2.7%

10 Vermont 25.3% 35 West Virginia -3.8%

11 Missouri 23.0% 36 Alabama -4.2%

12 Hawaii 22.2% 37 Ohio -5.0%

13 Tennessee 18.2% 38 Georgia -5.0%

14 Oregon 18.0% 39 Nevada -5.9%

15 South Dakota 17.1% 40 Maryland -6.0%

16 New Mexico 14.3% 41 Massachusetts -6.1%

17 Montana 11.7% 42 Michigan -6.7%

18 Maine 10.6% 43 Arkansas -9.9%

19 Idaho 10.3% 44 Mississippi -10.5%

20 Iowa 8.2% 45 New Jersey -10.9%

21 California 6.8% 46 North Carolina -12.0%

22 Kansas 5.5% 47 Rhode Island -12.0%

23 Indiana 4.9% 48 Nebraska -13.4%

24 New York 4.2% 49 Utah -13.7%

25 Kentucky 3.1% 50 Arizona -28.4%
176

Table 7.23. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation 

per Capita, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,315.4% 26 Vermont 3.0%

2 North Dakota 69.9% 27 Pennsylvania 2.8%

3 Illinois 50.8% 28 South Carolina 2.7%

4 New Hampshire 50.5% 29 Kentucky 0.7%

5 Alaska 49.9% 30 South Dakota -0.2%

6 Washington 47.3% 31 Michigan -0.5%

7 Colorado 45.5% 32 Florida -1.4%

8 Texas 29.2% 33 Georgia -2.0%

9 Minnesota 27.9% 34 Louisiana -2.4%

10 Hawaii 22.1% 35 Wyoming -2.6%

11 Missouri 21.4% 36 Alabama -2.9%

12 Oregon 20.4% 37 Massachusetts -3.5%

13 Tennessee 18.3% 38 West Virginia -3.8%

14 Iowa 18.0% 39 Mississippi -3.8%

15 Kansas 15.3% 40 Maryland -3.9%

16 Montana 13.2% 41 Connecticut -4.2%

17 New Mexico 9.1% 42 Ohio -5.2%

18 New York 6.1% 43 Nevada -5.8%

19 Maine 6.0% 44 Arkansas -6.5%

20 Oklahoma 5.0% 45 Idaho -7.4%

21 Rhode Island 4.8% 46 New Jersey -7.9%

22 Wisconsin 4.6% 47 Utah -8.3%

23 Indiana 4.5% 48 North Carolina -10.3%

24 Virginia 3.6% 49 Nebraska -11.5%

25 California 3.5% 50 Arizona -24.6%
177

Table 7.24. Growth in Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Electricity Generation per GSP, 

2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,485.3% 26 New York -1.0%

2 North Dakota 61.8% 27 California -1.0%

3 New Hampshire 47.7% 28 Pennsylvania -1.1%

4 Illinois 46.4% 29 Michigan -1.3%

5 Colorado 44.2% 30 Florida -3.5%

6 Washington 40.6% 31 Kentucky -3.9%

7 Alaska 39.1% 32 South Dakota -4.1%

8 Minnesota 23.3% 33 Georgia -4.4%

9 Texas 22.8% 34 Alabama -5.2%

10 Missouri 20.4% 35 Ohio -6.1%

11 Tennessee 16.9% 36 Wyoming -6.7%

12 Oregon 16.5% 37 Massachusetts -6.9%

13 Hawaii 15.6% 38 West Virginia -7.1%

14 Iowa 13.8% 39 Maryland -7.5%

15 Kansas 10.6% 40 Idaho -7.7%

16 New Mexico 9.9% 41 Mississippi -7.8%

17 Montana 7.9% 42 Arkansas -9.2%

18 Indiana 6.1% 43 Connecticut -9.8%

19 Maine 3.5% 44 Louisiana -10.1%

20 Wisconsin 2.8% 45 Nevada -10.2%

21 Oklahoma 2.4% 46 New Jersey -10.4%

22 South Carolina 2.0% 47 Utah -12.2%

23 Vermont 1.7% 48 North Carolina -14.2%

24 Rhode Island 1.2% 49 Nebraska -16.1%

25 Virginia 0.6% 50 Arizona -26.9%
178

Biomass Resources

Table 7.25. Biomass Generation (2007)

Rank State MWh Rank State MWh

1 California 5,712,644 26 Maryland 603,461

2 Florida 4,302,817 27 Idaho 480,582

3 Maine 4,107,909 28 Kentucky 465,623

4 Alabama 3,800,620 29 Vermont 453,038

5 Georgia 3,415,421 30 Ohio 420,395

6 Louisiana 2,979,883 31 Hawaii 285,277

7 Virginia 2,565,571 32 Oklahoma 279,854

8 Michigan 2,414,024 33 Indiana 231,247

9 Pennsylvania 2,076,178 34 Rhode Island 154,757

10 South Carolina 1,996,034 35 Iowa 151,100

11 New York 1,941,607 36 Montana 110,945

12 North Carolina 1,672,219 37 Nebraska 61,259

13 Arkansas 1,623,744 38 Delaware 48,116

14 Mississippi 1,493,365 39 Arizona 32,990

15 Minnesota 1,293,826 40 Colorado 31,105

16 Washington 1,292,731 41 Utah 31,030

17 Texas 1,281,229 42 Missouri 29,309

18 Massachusetts 1,240,224 43 New Mexico 15,994

19 Wisconsin 1,220,235 44 North Dakota 13,507

20 New Hampshire 1,123,272 45 Alaska 10,218

21 Oregon 981,298 46 Kansas 0

22 Tennessee 920,590 47 Nevada 0

23 New Jersey 823,166 48 South Dakota 0

24 Connecticut 729,840 49 West Virginia 0

25 Illinois 620,325 50 Wyoming 0

Source: EIA 2009
179

Table 7.26. Biomass Electricity Generation 

as a Percentage of Total State Electricity Generation (2007)

Rank State

% of 

Total Rank State

% of 

Total

1 Maine 25.5% 24 North Carolina 1.3%

2 Vermont 7.8% 25 Washington 1.2%

3 New Hampshire 4.8% 26 Maryland 1.2%

4 Idaho 4.2% 27 Tennessee 1.0%

5 Virginia 3.3% 28 Pennsylvania 0.9%

6 Louisiana 3.2% 29 Delaware 0.6%

7 Mississippi 3.0% 30 Kentucky 0.5%

8 Arkansas 3.0% 31 Oklahoma 0.4%

9 California 2.7% 32 Montana 0.4%

10 Alabama 2.6% 33 Texas 0.3%

11 Massachusetts 2.6% 34 Illinois 0.3%

12 Hawaii 2.5% 35 Iowa 0.3%

13 Minnesota 2.4% 36 Ohio 0.3%

14 Georgia 2.4% 37 Nebraska 0.2%

15 Connecticut 2.2% 38 Indiana 0.2%

16 Rhode Island 2.2% 39 Alaska 0.1%

17 Michigan 2.0% 40 Utah 0.1%

18 South Carolina 1.9% 41 Colorado 0.1%

19 Wisconsin 1.9% 42 New Mexico 0.0%

20 Florida 1.9% 43 North Dakota 0.0%

21 Oregon 1.8% 44 Missouri 0.0%

22 New York 1.3% 45 Arizona 0.0%

23 New Jersey 1.3%
180

Table 7.27. Biomass Electricity Generation per Capita (2007)

Rank State MWh/Capita Rank State MWh/Capita

1 Maine 3.12 24 Tennessee 0.15

2 New Hampshire 0.86 25 Rhode Island 0.15

3 Alabama 0.82 26 Montana 0.12

4 Vermont 0.73 27 Kentucky 0.11

5 Louisiana 0.68 28 Maryland 0.11

6 Arkansas 0.57 29 New York 0.10

7 Mississippi 0.51 30 New Jersey 0.10

8 South Carolina 0.45 31 Oklahoma 0.08

9 Georgia 0.36 32 Delaware 0.06

10 Virginia 0.33 33 Texas 0.05

11 Idaho 0.32 34 Iowa 0.05

12 Oregon 0.26 35 Illinois 0.05

13 Minnesota 0.25 36 Ohio 0.04

14 Michigan 0.24 37 Indiana 0.04

15 Florida 0.24 38 Nebraska 0.03

16 Hawaii 0.22 39 North Dakota 0.02

17 Wisconsin 0.22 40 Alaska 0.02

18 Connecticut 0.21 41 Utah 0.01

19 Washington 0.20 42 New Mexico 0.01

20 Massachusetts 0.19 43 Colorado 0.01

21 North Carolina 0.18 44 Arizona 0.01

22 Pennsylvania 0.17 45 Missouri 0.00

23 California 0.16
181

Table 7.28. Biomass Electricity Generation per Gross State Product (2007)

Rank State MWh/$M Rank State MWh/$M

1 Maine 85.39 24 Rhode Island 3.30

2 Alabama 22.92 25 Montana 3.24

3 New Hampshire 19.59 26 California 3.15

4 Vermont 18.46 27 Kentucky 3.02

5 Arkansas 17.03 28 Maryland 2.25

6 Mississippi 16.87 29 Oklahoma 2.01

7 Louisiana 13.79 30 New Jersey 1.77

8 South Carolina 13.06 31 New York 1.76

9 Idaho 9.40 32 Iowa 1.17

10 Georgia 8.61 33 Texas 1.12

11 Virginia 6.70 34 Illinois 1.02

12 Michigan 6.32 35 Indiana 0.94

13 Oregon 6.20 36 Ohio 0.90

14 Florida 5.86 37 Delaware 0.80

15 Wisconsin 5.25 38 Nebraska 0.76

16 Minnesota 5.07 39 North Dakota 0.49

17 Hawaii 4.64 40 Utah 0.29

18 North Carolina 4.19 41 Alaska 0.23

19 Washington 4.15 42 New Mexico 0.21

20 Pennsylvania 3.91 43 Arizona 0.13

21 Tennessee 3.77 44 Colorado 0.13

22 Massachusetts 3.53 45 Missouri 0.13

23 Connecticut 3.37
182

Biomass Resources Growth, 2001-2007

Table 7.29. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation, 2001-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,438.6% 24 Pennsylvania 10.1%

2 Kentucky 4,774.6% 25 New Hampshire 9.5%

3 Utah 464.6% 26 New York 9.1%

4 Nebraska 267.6% 27 Arkansas 7.4%

5 Missouri 233.2% 28 Maine 7.4%

6 South Carolina 123.2% 29 Washington 5.9%

7 Indiana 101.8% 30 California 5.7%

8 North Dakota 76.2% 31 Mississippi 4.3%

9 Montana 69.6% 32 Michigan 2.2%

10 Maryland 61.8% 33 Hawaii -0.8%

11 Rhode Island 49.4% 34 New Jersey -2.4%

12 Virginia 46.9% 35 Ohio -2.5%

13 Iowa 45.6% 36 North Carolina -4.5%

14 Oregon 30.7% 37 Massachusetts -5.5%

15 Texas 29.0% 38 Illinois -8.6%

16 Vermont 22.3% 39 Alabama -9.3%

17 Oklahoma 21.3% 40 Idaho -9.9%

18 Minnesota 19.8% 41 New Mexico -14.3%

19 Wisconsin 18.5% 42 Arizona -15.3%

20 Georgia 13.7% 43 Connecticut -19.7%

21 Florida 13.5% 44 Colorado -51.6%

22 Tennessee 12.0% 45 Alaska -34.2%

23 Louisiana 10.2% 46 West Virginia -100.0%

Note: The first year for biomass generation for Alaska and Delaware was 2002 and 2006, respectively. 

Therefore, the baseline year used to calculate their growth numbers were 2002 and 2006, respectively. 

South Dakota, Kansas, Nevada, and Wyoming did not produce biomass in 2001 or 2007.
183

Table 7.30. Growth in Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generated from Biomass, 2001-

2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 9,610.7% 24 California -0.5%

2 Kentucky 4,684.0% 25 Florida -3.8%

3 Utah 346.2% 26 Michigan -4.2%

4 Nebraska 245.5% 27 Pennsylvania -4.2%

5 Missouri 190.7% 28 Arkansas -7.2%

6 South Carolina 92.5% 29 Georgia -7.3%

7 Indiana 89.4% 30 New Jersey -7.5%

8 North Dakota 71.2% 31 Oklahoma -8.0%

9 Rhode Island 58.9% 32 Hawaii -8.6%

10 Maryland 58.1% 33 Ohio -10.6%

11 Montana 42.0% 34 North Carolina -13.8%

12 Virginia 38.9% 35 Alaska -16.9%

13 Maine 30.3% 36 Washington -17.8%

14 Iowa 18.9% 37 Illinois -18.2%

15 Texas 18.5% 38 New Mexico -19.9%

16 Vermont 15.1% 39 Alabama -20.9%

17 Tennessee 13.3% 40 Massachusetts -22.8%

18 Mississippi 11.4% 41 Connecticut -26.2%

19 Wisconsin 9.8% 42 Idaho -26.7%

20 New York 7.6% 43 New Hampshire -29.1%

21 Oregon 6.9% 44 Arizona -32.8%

22 Minnesota 6.7% 45 Colorado -57.9%

23 Louisiana 4.6% 46 West Virginia -100.0%

Note: The first year for biomass generation for Alaska and Delaware was 2002 and 2006, respectively. 

Therefore, the baseline year used to calculate their growth numbers were 2002 and 2006, respectively. 

South Dakota, Kansas, Nevada, and Wyoming did not produce biomass in 2001 or 2007.
184

Table 7.31. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation Per Capita, 2001-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,315.4% 24 Maine 4.9%

2 Kentucky 4,580.3% 25 Tennessee 4.8%

3 Utah 384.9% 26 Arkansas 2.1%

4 Nebraska 257.0% 27 Florida 2.0%

5 Missouri 219.7% 28 Mississippi 1.9%

6 South Carolina 105.9% 29 Michigan 1.8%

7 Indiana 95.1% 30 Georgia 0.6%

8 North Dakota 75.8% 31 California 0.3%

9 Montana 60.6% 32 Washington -1.7%

10 Maryland 54.8% 33 Ohio -3.2%

11 Rhode Island 50.1% 34 New Jersey -4.2%

12 Iowa 43.0% 35 Hawaii -5.4%

13 Virginia 37.2% 36 Massachusetts -6.4%

14 Oregon 21.5% 37 Illinois -10.8%

15 Vermont 20.6% 38 Alabama -12.5%

16 Oklahoma 16.5% 39 North Carolina -13.4%

17 Texas 15.4% 40 New Mexico -20.2%

18 Minnesota 15.2% 41 Idaho -20.4%

19 Wisconsin 14.5% 42 Connecticut -21.1%

20 Louisiana 12.4% 43 Alaska -21.8%

21 Pennsylvania 9.0% 44 Arizona -29.3%

22 New York 7.1% 45 Colorado -55.6%

23 New Hampshire 4.9% 46 West Virginia -100.0%

Note: The first year for biomass generation for Alaska and Delaware was 2002 and 2006, respectively. 

Therefore, the baseline year used to calculate their growth numbers were 2002 and 2006, respectively. 

South Dakota, Kansas, Nevada, and Wyoming did not produce biomass in 2001 or 2007.
185

Table 7.32. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation per GSP, 2001-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,485.3% 24 Maine -17.1%

2 Kentucky 3,539.4% 25 Oklahoma -17.9%

3 Utah 274.6% 26 New York -20.1%

4 Missouri 164.8% 27 Ohio -21.6%

5 Nebraska 163.7% 28 Mississippi -22.3%

6 South Carolina 71.3% 29 Arkansas -22.4%

7 Indiana 59.9% 30 Florida -23.1%

8 North Dakota 17.8% 31 Washington -23.2%

9 Maryland 16.0% 32 New Jersey -23.9%

10 Rhode Island 11.9% 33 California -24.2%

11 Montana 11.3% 34 Massachusetts -24.6%

12 Virginia 6.1% 35 Illinois -28.6%

13 Iowa 3.8% 36 North Carolina -31.7%

14 Vermont -6.2% 37 Louisiana -31.9%

15 Wisconsin -7.2% 38 Hawaii -32.6%

16 Oregon -8.4% 39 Alabama -35.1%

17 Michigan -10.5% 40 Idaho -37.2%

18 Minnesota -10.6% 41 Connecticut -38.7%

19 Texas -13.9% 42 New Mexico -42.2%

20 Georgia -14.1% 43 Arizona -43.3%

21 New Hampshire -15.4% 44 Alaska -49.8%

22 Pennsylvania -15.7% 45 Colorado -63.5%

23 Tennessee -17.1% 46 West Virginia -100.0%

Note: The first year for biomass generation for Alaska and Delaware was 2002 and 2006, respectively. 

Therefore, the baseline year used to calculate their growth numbers were 2002 and 2006, respectively. 

South Dakota, Kansas, Nevada, and Wyoming did not produce biomass in 2001 or 2007.
186

Biomass Resources Growth, 2006-2007

Table 7.33. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,438.6% 24 Louisiana 0.6%

2 North Dakota 281.1% 25 New York 0.0%

3 Utah 108.7% 26 California -0.1%

4 Alaska 53.3% 27 Georgia -0.1%

5 New Hampshire 50.5% 28 Florida -0.6%

6 Minnesota 28.9% 29 Michigan -1.1%

7 Missouri 22.3% 30 Pennsylvania -1.7%

8 Tennessee 21.8% 31 Alabama -2.2%

9 Nebraska 17.8% 32 Massachusetts -3.0%

10 Montana 17.5% 33 Mississippi -3.1%

11 Texas 11.6% 34 Maryland -3.6%

12 Iowa 10.4% 35 Connecticut -4.4%

13 Oregon 9.3% 36 Ohio -5.4%

14 Indiana 5.0% 37 Arkansas -5.8%

15 Wisconsin 4.8% 38 Oklahoma -5.9%

16 South Carolina 4.5% 39 Idaho -7.6%

17 Illinois 4.4% 40 North Carolina -8.5%

18 Virginia 4.4% 41 New Jersey -8.6%

19 Rhode Island 3.9% 42 Washington -11.8%

20 Maine 3.5% 43 Hawaii -12.4%

21 Vermont 3.2% 44 Arizona -18.4%

22 Kentucky 1.5% 45 New Mexico -26.9%

23 Colorado 1.4% 46 West Virginia -100.0%
187

Table 7.34. Growth in Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generated 

from Biomass, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 9,610.7% 24 Louisiana -1.2%

2 North Dakota 276.9% 25 Florida -1.4%

3 Utah 89.8% 26 New York -2.5%

4 Alaska 50.0% 27 Virginia -2.7%

5 New Hampshire 42.7% 28 Alabama -4.2%

6 Minnesota 25.9% 29 Colorado -4.7%

7 Vermont 25.5% 30 Pennsylvania -4.9%

8 Missouri 23.0% 31 Georgia -5.0%

9 Tennessee 20.2% 32 Ohio -5.2%

10 Nebraska 15.0% 33 Maryland -6.0%

11 Montana 14.7% 34 Massachusetts -6.1%

12 Texas 10.3% 35 Michigan -6.7%

13 Maine 8.0% 36 Oklahoma -8.7%

14 Idaho 7.7% 37 Arkansas -9.9%

15 Oregon 5.9% 38 Mississippi -10.5%

16 Indiana 4.9% 39 Washington -10.8%

17 Kentucky 3.1% 40 New Jersey -11.5%

18 California 2.8% 41 North Carolina -12.0%

19 Wisconsin 1.9% 42 Rhode Island -12.0%

20 Iowa 0.8% 43 Hawaii -12.2%

21 South Carolina 0.3% 44 New Mexico -24.3%

22 Illinois 0.3% 45 Arizona -24.9%

23 Connecticut 0.0% 46 West Virginia -100.0%
188

Table 7.35. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation per Capita, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,315.4% 24 California -0.4%

2 North Dakota 280.9% 25 Michigan -0.6%

3 Utah 101.7% 26 New York -0.7%

4 Alaska 52.5% 27 Florida -1.4%

5 New Hampshire 50.5% 28 Pennsylvania -1.8%

6 Minnesota 28.2% 29 Georgia -2.0%

7 Missouri 21.4% 30 Louisiana -2.4%

8 Tennessee 20.3% 31 Alabama -2.9%

9 Nebraska 17.4% 32 Massachusetts -3.5%

10 Montana 16.3% 33 Mississippi -3.8%

11 Iowa 10.0% 34 Maryland -3.9%

12 Texas 9.6% 35 Connecticut -4.2%

13 Oregon 8.0% 36 Ohio -5.5%

14 Rhode Island 4.8% 37 Arkansas -6.5%

15 Indiana 4.5% 38 Oklahoma -6.7%

16 Wisconsin 4.3% 39 New Jersey -8.5%

17 Illinois 4.0% 40 Idaho -9.6%

18 Virginia 3.6% 41 North Carolina -10.3%

19 Maine 3.5% 42 Hawaii -12.3%

20 Vermont 3.2% 43 Washington -12.8%

21 South Carolina 2.7% 44 Arizona -20.8%

22 Kentucky 0.7% 45 New Mexico -27.7%

23 Colorado -0.3% 46 West Virginia -100.0%
189

Table 7.36. Growth in Biomass Electricity Generation per GSP, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Delaware 11,485.3% 24 Florida -3.5%

2 North Dakota 262.7% 25 Kentucky -3.9%

3 Utah 93.1% 26 Georgia -4.4%

4 New Hampshire 47.7% 27 California -4.8%

5 Alaska 41.6% 28 Alabama -5.2%

6 Minnesota 23.6% 29 Pennsylvania -5.5%

7 Missouri 20.4% 30 Ohio -6.4%

8 Tennessee 18.9% 31 Massachusetts -6.9%

9 Nebraska 11.3% 32 New York -7.3%

10 Montana 10.9% 33 Maryland -7.5%

11 Indiana 6.1% 34 Mississippi -7.8%

12 Iowa 6.1% 35 Oklahoma -9.0%

13 Oregon 4.5% 36 Arkansas -9.2%

14 Texas 4.2% 37 Connecticut -9.8%

15 Wisconsin 2.5% 38 Idaho -9.9%

16 South Carolina 2.0% 39 Louisiana -10.1%

17 Vermont 1.8% 40 New Jersey -11.0%

18 Rhode Island 1.2% 41 North Carolina -14.2%

19 Maine 1.1% 42 Washington -16.8%

20 Illinois 1.0% 43 Hawaii -17.0%

21 Virginia 0.6% 44 Arizona -23.2%

22 Colorado -1.2% 45 New Mexico -27.2%

23 Michigan -1.3% 46 West Virginia -100.0%
190

Hydroelectric Resources

Table 7.37. Hydroelectric Generation (2007)

Rank State MWh Rank State MWh

1 Washington 78,829,195 26 Michigan 1,269,989

2 Oregon 33,587,439 27 New Hampshire 1,265,229

3 California 27,327,751 28 West Virginia 1,254,397

4 New York 25,252,555 29 Virginia 1,248,264

5 Montana 9,364,336 30 Missouri 1,204,326

6 Idaho 9,021,690 31 Iowa 962,346

7 Arizona 6,597,671 32 Louisiana 826,642

8 Tennessee 4,939,601 33 Massachusetts 797,482

9 Alabama 4,136,114 34 Wyoming 729,424

10 Maine 3,738,168 35 Minnesota 653,822

11 Arkansas 3,236,753 36 Vermont 646,605

12 Oklahoma 3,065,862 37 Utah 538,782

13 North Carolina 2,984,159 38 Indiana 449,936

14 South Dakota 2,917,283 39 Ohio 410,436

15 Georgia 2,236,188 40 Connecticut 363,261

16 Pennsylvania 2,235,982 41 Nebraska 347,444

17 Nevada 2,003,191 42 New Mexico 267,978

18 Colorado 1,729,533 43 Florida 154,446

19 Kentucky 1,668,587 44 Illinois 153,727

20 Maryland 1,652,216 45 Hawaii 92,343

21 Texas 1,644,437 46 New Jersey 20,909

22 South Carolina 1,555,912 47 Kansas 10,501

23 Wisconsin 1,516,083 48 Rhode Island 4,364

24 North Dakota 1,305,393 49 Delaware 0

25 Alaska 1,291,223 50 Mississippi 0
191

Table 7.38. Hydroelectric Generation as a Percent of Total In-State Generation (2007)

Rank State

% of 

Total Rank State

% of 

Total

1 Idaho 78.6% 25 Massachusetts 1.7%

2 Washington 73.7% 26 Wyoming 1.6%

3 Oregon 61.0% 27 Virginia 1.6%

4 South Dakota 47.5% 28 Georgia 1.5%

5 Montana 32.4% 29 South Carolina 1.5%

6 Maine 23.2% 30 West Virginia 1.3%

7 Alaska 18.9% 31 Missouri 1.3%

8 New York 17.3% 32 Minnesota 1.2%

9 California 13.0% 33 Utah 1.2%

10 Vermont 11.1% 34 Connecticut 1.1%

11 Nevada 6.1% 35 Nebraska 1.1%

12 Arkansas 5.9% 36 Michigan 1.1%

13 Arizona 5.8% 37 Pennsylvania 1.0%

14 New Hampshire 5.4% 38 Louisiana 0.9%

15 Tennessee 5.2% 39 Hawaii 0.8%

16 Oklahoma 4.2% 40 New Mexico 0.7%

17 North Dakota 4.2% 41 Texas 0.4%

18 Maryland 3.3% 42 Indiana 0.3%

19 Colorado 3.2% 43 Ohio 0.3%

20 Alabama 2.9% 44 Illinois 0.1%

21 Wisconsin 2.4% 45 Florida 0.1%

22 North Carolina 2.3% 46 Rhode Island 0.1%

23 Iowa 1.9% 47 New Jersey 0.0%

24 Kentucky 1.7% 48 Kansas 0.0%
192

Table 7.39. Hydroelectric Generation per Capita (2007)

Rank State MWh/capita Rank State MWh/capita

1 Washington 12.22 25 Iowa 0.32

2 Montana 9.79 26 Maryland 0.29

3 Oregon 8.99 27 Wisconsin 0.27

4 Idaho 6.03 28 Georgia 0.23

5 South Dakota 3.67 29 Missouri 0.20

6 Maine 2.84 30 Utah 0.20

7 North Dakota 2.05 31 Nebraska 0.20

8 Alaska 1.90 32 Louisiana 0.19

9 Wyoming 1.39 33 Pennsylvania 0.18

10 New York 1.30 34 Virginia 0.16

11 Arkansas 1.14 35 New Mexico 0.14

12 Vermont 1.04 36 Michigan 0.13

13 Arizona 1.04 37 Minnesota 0.13

14 New Hampshire 0.96 38 Massachusetts 0.12

15 Alabama 0.89 39 Connecticut 0.10

16 Oklahoma 0.85 40 Hawaii 0.07

17 Tennessee 0.80 41 Indiana 0.07

18 Nevada 0.78 42 Texas 0.07

19 California 0.75 43 Ohio 0.04

20 West Virginia 0.69 44 Illinois 0.01

21 Kentucky 0.39 45 Florida 0.01

22 Colorado 0.36 46 Rhode Island 0.00

23 South Carolina 0.35 47 Kansas 0.00

24 North Carolina 0.33 48 New Jersey 0.00
193

Table 7.40. Hydroelectric Generation per GSP (2007)

Rank State MWh/M$ GSP Rank State MWh/M$ GSP

1 Montana 273.4 25 Colorado 7.3

2 Washington 253.3 26 Wisconsin 6.5

3 Oregon 212.3 27 Maryland 6.1

4 Idaho 176.4 28 Georgia 5.6

5 South Dakota 86.0 29 Missouri 5.2

6 Maine 77.7 30 Utah 5.1

7 North Dakota 47.1 31 Nebraska 4.3

8 Arkansas 33.9 32 Pennsylvania 4.2

9 Alaska 29.0 33 Louisiana 3.8

10 Arizona 26.7 34 New Mexico 3.5

11 Vermont 26.3 35 Michigan 3.3

12 Alabama 24.9 36 Virginia 3.3

13 Wyoming 23.1 37 Minnesota 2.6

14 New York 22.9 38 Massachusetts 2.3

15 New Hampshire 22.1 39 Indiana 1.8

16 Oklahoma 22.0 40 Connecticut 1.7

17 West Virginia 21.7 41 Hawaii 1.5

18 Tennessee 20.3 42 Texas 1.4

19 Nevada 15.7 43 Ohio 0.9

20 California 15.1 44 Illinois 0.3

21 Kentucky 10.8 45 Florida 0.2

22 South Carolina 10.2 46 Rhode Island 0.1

23 North Carolina 7.5 47 Kansas 0.1

24 Iowa 7.5 48 New Jersey 0.0
194

Hydroelectric Resources Growth, 2001-2007

Table 7.41. Growth in Hydroelectric Electricity Generation, 2001-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Washington 44.0% 25 Missouri 9.1%

2 Montana 41.6% 26 California 7.0%

3 Maine 41.3% 27 Illinois 6.7%

4 Maryland 39.6% 28 Utah 6.0%

5 Rhode Island 38.9% 29 Florida 4.6%

6 Texas 37.0% 30 North Dakota -2.0%

7 Pennsylvania 35.5% 31 Alaska -4.1%

8 West Virginia 31.8% 32 Hawaii -8.3%

9 Oklahoma 30.8% 33 Arizona -13.5%

10 New Hampshire 27.7% 34 Georgia -13.9%

11 Arkansas 27.0% 35 South Dakota -15.0%

12 South Carolina 27.0% 36 Wyoming -17.0%

13 Connecticut 26.9% 37 Michigan -18.7%

14 Idaho 24.9% 38 Ohio -19.7%

15 Virginia 23.1% 39 Nevada -20.3%

16 Oregon 17.3% 40 Indiana -21.2%

17 New Jersey 16.2% 41 Minnesota -21.4%

18 Colorado 15.7% 42 Wisconsin -26.3%

19 North Carolina 15.0% 43 Vermont -26.9%

20 Iowa 13.9% 44 Tennessee -28.9%

21 Massachusetts 13.5% 45 Alabama -50.5%

22 New Mexico 12.9% 46 Kentucky -56.7%

23 Louisiana 12.9% 47 Kansas -58.9%

24 New York 9.4% 48 Nebraska -69.1%
195

Table 7.42. Growth in Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generation from Hydroelectric, 

2001-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Maine 71.4% 25 North Dakota -4.8%

2 Rhode Island 47.8% 26 Missouri -4.8%

3 Maryland 36.4% 27 Alaska -5.1%

4 Texas 25.9% 28 Iowa -7.0%

5 Montana 18.6% 29 Massachusetts -7.2%

6 Pennsylvania 17.8% 30 Florida -11.4%

7 Connecticut 16.6% 31 Hawaii -15.5%

8 Virginia 16.4% 32 Utah -16.3%

9 West Virginia 14.8% 33 New Hampshire -17.3%

10 Washington 11.8% 34 Nevada -17.4%

11 New Jersey 10.1% 35 Wyoming -18.6%

12 Arkansas 9.8% 36 Michigan -23.8%

13 South Carolina 9.5% 37 Indiana -26.0%

14 New York 7.9% 38 Ohio -26.3%

15 Louisiana 7.2% 39 Tennessee -28.1%

16 New Mexico 5.5% 40 Georgia -29.8%

17 North Carolina 3.8% 41 Minnesota -30.0%

18 South Dakota 2.5% 42 Vermont -31.2%

19 Idaho 1.7% 43 Arizona -31.4%

20 California 0.8% 44 Wisconsin -31.7%

21 Colorado 0.6% 45 Alabama -56.9%

22 Oklahoma -0.8% 46 Kentucky -57.5%

23 Oregon -4.1% 47 Kansas -63.3%

24 Illinois -4.5% 48 Nebraska -71.0%
196

Table 7.43. Growth in Hydroelectric Electricity Generation per Capita, 2001-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Rhode Island 39.6% 25 North Carolina 4.3%

2 Maine 38.0% 26 Illinois 4.2%

3 Montana 34.1% 27 California 1.6%

4 Pennsylvania 34.1% 28 North Dakota -2.2%

5 Washington 33.8% 29 Florida -6.1%

6 Maryland 33.5% 30 Utah -9.0%

7 West Virginia 31.0% 31 Alaska -10.8%

8 Oklahoma 25.6% 32 Hawaii -12.6%

9 Connecticut 24.7% 33 South Dakota -18.9%

10 Texas 22.6% 34 Michigan -19.0%

11 New Hampshire 22.4% 35 Ohio -20.2%

12 Arkansas 20.7% 36 Wyoming -21.8%

13 South Carolina 17.1% 37 Indiana -23.8%

14 Louisiana 15.1% 38 Georgia -23.8%

15 Virginia 15.0% 39 Minnesota -24.4%

16 New Jersey 14.0% 40 Arizona -27.8%

17 Massachusetts 12.5% 41 Vermont -27.9%

18 Iowa 11.8% 42 Wisconsin -28.8%

19 Idaho 10.3% 43 Tennessee -33.5%

20 Oregon 9.0% 44 Nevada -34.6%

21 New York 7.4% 45 Alabama -52.3%

22 Colorado 5.9% 46 Kentucky -58.5%

23 New Mexico 5.1% 47 Kansas -60.1%

24 Missouri 4.7% 48 Nebraska -70.0%
197

Table 7.44. Growth in Hydroelectric Electricity Generation per GSP, 2001-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Maine 9.1% 25 California -23.2%

2 Washington 4.5% 26 New Mexico -23.9%

3 Rhode Island 4.1% 27 Michigan -28.8%

4 Pennsylvania 3.8% 28 Florida -29.2%

5 Maryland 0.1% 29 Utah -29.7%

6 West Virginia -1.0% 30 Louisiana -30.2%

7 New Hampshire -1.4% 31 North Dakota -34.5%

8 South Carolina -2.6% 32 Georgia -35.0%

9 Connecticut -3.2% 33 Ohio -35.4%

10 Montana -7.1% 34 Indiana -37.6%

11 Arkansas -8.2% 35 Hawaii -37.7%

12 Texas -8.6% 36 South Dakota -40.1%

13 Massachusetts -9.4% 37 Minnesota -41.3%

14 New Jersey -9.4% 38 Arizona -42.1%

15 Virginia -11.1% 39 Wisconsin -42.3%

16 Oklahoma -11.5% 40 Alaska -42.7%

17 Colorado -12.8% 41 Vermont -43.9%

18 Idaho -13.0% 42 Tennessee -47.3%

19 Missouri -13.3% 43 Wyoming -50.1%

20 Illinois -16.6% 44 Nevada -51.6%

21 North Carolina -17.8% 45 Alabama -64.6%

22 Oregon -17.8% 46 Kentucky -67.7%

23 Iowa -18.9% 47 Kansas -69.7%

24 New York -19.8% 48 Nebraska -77.8%
198

Hydroelectric Resources Growth, 2006-2007

Table 7.45. Growth in Hydroelectric Electricity Generation, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Missouri 504.5% 25 South Carolina -13.9%

2 Oklahoma 391.7% 26 South Dakota -14.1%

3 Texas 148.4% 27 North Dakota -14.2%

4 Arkansas 108.8% 28 Michigan -16.5%

5 New Mexico 35.2% 29 New Hampshire -17.3%

6 Louisiana 15.9% 30 Idaho -19.8%

7 Minnesota 14.4% 31 West Virginia -20.2%

8 Kansas 8.8% 32 Pennsylvania -21.4%

9 Iowa 5.8% 33 Maryland -21.5%

10 Alaska 5.5% 34 North Carolina -22.3%

11 Nevada -2.7% 35 Hawaii -23.1%

12 Arizona -2.9% 36 Florida -24.1%

13 Colorado -3.4% 37 Rhode Island -26.2%

14 Washington -3.9% 38 Utah -27.9%

15 Montana -7.6% 39 Connecticut -33.2%

16 Virginia -7.6% 40 Ohio -35.1%

17 New York -7.7% 41 Kentucky -35.6%

18 Indiana -8.1% 42 Tennessee -36.3%

19 Wisconsin -9.7% 43 New Jersey -41.0%

20 Oregon -11.3% 44 Alabama -43.0%

21 Illinois -11.3% 45 California -43.1%

22 Maine -12.6% 46 Massachusetts -47.3%

23 Georgia -13.0% 47 Vermont -57.4%

24 Wyoming -13.5% 48 Nebraska -61.1%
199

Table 7.46. Growth in Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generation from 

Hydroelectric, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Missouri 508.1% 25 Illinois -14.8%

2 Oklahoma 376.8% 26 North Dakota -15.1%

3 Texas 145.4% 27 Georgia -17.2%

4 Arkansas 99.5% 28 South Carolina -17.3%

5 New Mexico 40.0% 29 West Virginia -20.3%

6 Louisiana 13.8% 30 Michigan -21.2%

7 Minnesota 11.8% 31 New Hampshire -21.6%

8 Alaska 3.3% 32 Hawaii -22.9%

9 South Dakota -0.2% 33 Maryland -23.4%

10 Kansas -1.2% 34 Pennsylvania -23.9%

11 Washington -2.8% 35 Florida -24.6%

12 Iowa -3.3% 36 North Carolina -25.2%

13 Nevada -5.1% 37 Connecticut -30.2%

14 Idaho -6.5% 38 Utah -34.4%

15 Indiana -8.2% 39 Kentucky -34.6%

16 Maine -8.9% 40 Ohio -34.9%

17 Colorado -9.2% 41 Tennessee -37.1%

18 Montana -9.8% 42 Rhode Island -37.5%

19 New York -9.9% 43 California -41.5%

20 Arizona -10.5% 44 New Jersey -42.9%

21 Wisconsin -12.2% 45 Alabama -44.1%

22 Virginia -13.9% 46 Vermont -48.2%

23 Wyoming -14.0% 47 Massachusetts -48.9%

24 Oregon -14.1% 48 Nebraska -62.0%
200

Table 7.47. Growth in Hydroelectric Generation per Capita, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Rhode Island 39.6% 25 North Carolina 4.3%

2 Maine 38.0% 26 Illinois 4.2%

3 Montana 34.1% 27 California 1.6%

4 Pennsylvania 34.1% 28 North Dakota -2.2%

5 Washington 33.8% 29 Florida -6.1%

6 Maryland 33.5% 30 Utah -9.0%

7 West Virginia 31.0% 31 Alaska -10.8%

8 Oklahoma 25.6% 32 Hawaii -12.6%

9 Connecticut 24.7% 33 South Dakota -18.9%

10 Texas 22.6% 34 Michigan -19.0%

11 New Hampshire 22.4% 35 Ohio -20.2%

12 Arkansas 20.7% 36 Wyoming -21.8%

13 South Carolina 17.1% 37 Indiana -23.8%

14 Louisiana 15.1% 38 Georgia -23.8%

15 Virginia 15.0% 39 Minnesota -24.4%

16 New Jersey 14.0% 40 Arizona -27.8%

17 Massachusetts 12.5% 41 Vermont -27.9%

18 Iowa 11.8% 42 Wisconsin -28.8%

19 Idaho 10.3% 43 Tennessee -33.5%

20 Oregon 9.0% 44 Nevada -34.6%

21 New York 7.4% 45 Alabama -52.3%

22 Colorado 5.9% 46 Kentucky -58.5%

23 New Mexico 5.1% 47 Kansas -60.1%

24 Missouri 4.7% 48 Nebraska -70.0%
201

Table 7.48. Growth in Hydroelectric Generation per GSP, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Missouri 495.1% 25 Michigan -16.7%

2 Oklahoma 375.2% 26 South Dakota -18.2%

3 Texas 131.9% 27 North Dakota -18.3%

4 Arkansas 101.0% 28 New Hampshire -18.8%

5 New Mexico 34.7% 29 Wyoming -18.9%

6 Minnesota 9.7% 30 Idaho -21.7%

7 Kansas 3.6% 31 West Virginia -23.1%

8 Louisiana 3.6% 32 Pennsylvania -24.5%

9 Iowa 1.7% 33 Maryland -24.7%

10 Alaska -2.6% 34 Florida -26.3%

11 Colorado -5.8% 35 North Carolina -27.1%

12 Indiana -7.2% 36 Hawaii -27.1%

13 Arizona -8.6% 37 Rhode Island -28.1%

14 Washington -9.4% 38 Utah -33.3%

15 Nevada -9.4% 39 Ohio -35.8%

16 Virginia -10.9% 40 Connecticut -37.0%

17 Wisconsin -11.7% 41 Tennessee -37.8%

18 Montana -12.8% 42 Kentucky -39.1%

19 Illinois -14.2% 43 New Jersey -42.6%

20 New York -14.4% 44 Alabama -44.8%

21 Maine -14.7% 45 California -45.8%

22 Oregon -15.2% 46 Massachusetts -49.4%

23 South Carolina -15.9% 47 Vermont -58.0%

24 Georgia -16.7% 48 Nebraska -63.2%
202

Geothermal Resources

Table 7.49. Geothermal Electricity Generation

MWh Generated (2007) As a Percentage of Total State 

Electricity Generation (2007)

Rank State MWh Rank State % of Total 

1 California 12,990,711 1 California 6.2%

2 Nevada 1,252,691 2 Nevada 3.8%

3 Hawaii 229,886 3 Hawaii 2.0%

4 Utah 163,925 4 Utah 0.4%

Per Capita (2007) Per GSP (MWh/M$) (2007)

Rank State MWh/Capita Rank State MWh/$M

1 Nevada 0.5 1 Nevada 9.8

2 California 0.4 2 California 7.2

3 Hawaii 0.2 3 Hawaii 3.7

4 Utah 0.1 4 Utah 1.6

Source: EIA 2009

Table 7.50. Growth in Geothermal Electricity Generation: 2001-2007

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Hawaii 11.3% 1 Nevada 8.3%

2 Utah 7.3% 2 Hawaii 2.6%

3 California 6.6% 3 California 0.4%

4 Nevada 4.4% 4 Utah -15.2%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Hawaii 6.2% 1 California -23.5%

2 California 1.2% 2 Hawaii -24.4%

3 Utah -7.8% 3 Utah -28.8%

4 Nevada -14.4% 4 Nevada -36.6%
203

Table 7.51. Growth in Geothermal Electricity Generation, 2006-2007

Generation Percent Growth As a Percent of Total State Electricity 

Generation

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Hawaii 8.3% 1 Hawaii 8.5%

2 California 1.3% 2 California 4.2%

3 Nevada -6.8% 3 Nevada -9.1%

4 Utah -14.0% 4 Utah -21.8%

Per Capita Per GSP (MWh/M$)

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Hawaii 8.4% 1 Hawaii 2.6%

2 California 1.0% 2 California -3.5%

3 Nevada -9.0% 3 Nevada -13.2%

4 Utah -16.9% 4 Utah -20.4%
204

Distributed Solar

Table 7.52. Grid-Connected Cumulative Installed Capacity, 2008 (kWdc)

Rank State kWdc Rank State kWdc

1 California 528,262 23

District of 

Columbia 661

2 New Jersey 70,236 24 Montana 651

3 Colorado 35,730 25 Minnesota 635

4 Nevada 34,214 26 Rhode Island 574

5 Arizona 25,301 27 Tennessee 388

6 New York 21,882 28 Michigan 358

7 Hawaii 13,525 29 Maine 326

8 Connecticut 8,760 30 Virginia 212

9 Oregon 7,651 31 Utah 202

10 Massachusetts 7,527 32 New Hampshire 96

11 North Carolina 4,697 33 Wyoming 88

12 Texas 4,428 34 Mississippi 76

13 Pennsylvania 3,938 35 Missouri 65

14 Washington 3,673 36 Alabama 58

15 Maryland 3,129 37 Iowa 51

16 Wisconsin 3,078 38 Georgia 47

17 Florida 2,992 39 Idaho 41

18 Illinois 2,758 40 Arkansas 38

19 Delaware 1,824 41 Kentucky 37

20 Ohio 1,356 42 Indiana 19

21 Vermont 1,110 43 Oklahoma 6

22 New Mexico 1,040 44 South Carolina 1
205

Wind Resources

Table 7.53. Wind Generation Reported to EIA by State, 2007

Rank State MWh Rank State MWh

1 Texas 9,006,383 16 Pennsylvania 470,018

2 California 5,584,933 17 Hawaii 238,184

3 Iowa 2,756,676 18 Nebraska 216,765

4 Minnesota 2,638,812 19 Idaho 172,267

5 Washington 2,437,823 20 West Virginia 167,588

6 Oklahoma 1,849,144 21 South Dakota 150,018

7 New Mexico 1,393,239 22 Wisconsin 109,283

8 Colorado 1,291,516 23 Maine 99,071

9 Oregon 1,246,994 24 Tennessee 49,937

10 Kansas 1,152,538 25 New Jersey 20,412

11 New York 833,476 26 Ohio 14,748

12 Wyoming 754,881 27 Vermont 10,511

13 Illinois 664,427 28 Michigan 2,723

14 North Dakota 620,772 29 Alaska 1,012

15 Montana 495,776

Table 7.54. Wind Generation as a Percent of Total In-state Generation, 2007

Rank State

% of 

Total Rank State

% of 

Total

1 Iowa 5.54% 16 Idaho 1.50%

2 Minnesota 4.84% 17 Nebraska 0.67%

3 New Mexico 3.87% 18 Maine 0.61%

4 California 2.65% 19 New York 0.57%

5 Oklahoma 2.54% 20 Illinois 0.33%

6 South Dakota 2.44% 21 Pennsylvania 0.21%

7 Colorado 2.40% 22 Vermont 0.18%

8 Kansas 2.30% 23 West Virginia 0.18%

9 Washington 2.28% 24 Wisconsin 0.17%

10 Oregon 2.26% 25 Tennessee 0.05%

11 Texas 2.22% 26 New Jersey 0.03%

12 Hawaii 2.07% 27 Alaska 0.01%

13 North Dakota 1.99% 28 Ohio 0.01%

14 Montana 1.71% 29 Michigan 0.00%

15 Wyoming 1.65%
206

Table 7.55. Wind Generation per Capita, 2007

Rank State MWh/capita Rank State MWh/capita

1 Wyoming 1.44 16 Nebraska 0.12

2 North Dakota 0.97 17 Idaho 0.12

3 Iowa 0.92 18 West Virginia 0.09

4 New Mexico 0.71 19 Maine 0.08

5 Montana 0.52 20 Illinois 0.05

6 Oklahoma 0.51 21 New York 0.04

7 Minnesota 0.51 22 Pennsylvania 0.04

8 Kansas 0.41 23 Wisconsin 0.02

9 Washington 0.38 24 Vermont 0.02

10 Texas 0.38 25 Tennessee 0.01

11 Oregon 0.33 26 New Jersey 0.00

12 Colorado 0.27 27 Alaska 0.00

13 South Dakota 0.19 28 Ohio 0.00

14 Hawaii 0.19 29 Michigan 0.00

15 California 0.15

Table 7.56. Wind Generation per GSP, 2007

Rank State MWh/M$ GSP Rank State MWh/M$ GSP

1 Wyoming 23.95 16 California 3.08

2 North Dakota 22.39 17 West Virginia 2.90

3 Iowa 21.37 18 Nebraska 2.71

4 New Mexico 18.29 19 Maine 2.06

5 Montana 14.47 20 Illinois 1.09

6 Oklahoma 13.27 21 Pennsylvania 0.88

7 Minnesota 10.35 22 New York 0.76

8 Kansas 9.83 23 Wisconsin 0.47

9 Texas 7.89 24 Vermont 0.43

10 Oregon 7.88 25 Tennessee 0.20

11 Washington 7.83 26 New Jersey 0.04

12 Colorado 5.47 27 Ohio 0.03

13 South Dakota 4.42 28 Alaska 0.02

14 Hawaii 3.87 29 Michigan 0.01

15 Idaho 3.37
207

Wind Resource Growth, 2001-2007

Table 7.57. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation, 2001 - 2007*

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 South Dakota 17,123.7% 15 New Mexico 661.3%

2 Hawaii 11,108.7% 16 Texas 658.4%

3 Nebraska 8,142.0% 17 Washington 484.6%

4 Pennsylvania 4,106.4% 18 Iowa 465.1%

5 New York 3,957.8% 19 Minnesota 194.2%

6 Illinois 3,591.3% 20 Wyoming 106.7%

7 Oklahoma 3,324.3% 21 California 59.6%

8 Kansas 2,793.5% 22 Wisconsin 51.2%

9 Colorado 2,555.3% 23 New Jersey 27.7%

10 West Virginia 1,762.1% 24 Montana 13.7%

11 Oregon 1,307.7% 25 Ohio 13.5%

12 Tennessee 1,148.4% 26 Alaska 6.5%

13 North Dakota 952.2% 27 Idaho 1.6%

14 Michigan 872.5% 28 Vermont -13.4%

* For states in which wind generation began after 2001, the first year in which the EIA reports 

wind generation in that state is used to create the baseline to determine the most-improved 

rankings. The baseline years for each state are: baseline year 2002 - TN, WA, WV; baseline year 

2003 - IL, NM, ND, OK; baseline year 2005 - OH; baseline year 2006 - ID, MT, NJ. Maine, which 

began generating wind in 2007, is not included in the most-improved rankings because its 

baseline year is the same as the year in which the most recent data for wind generation is 

available and, as a result, its rate of change could not be measured.
208

Table 7.58. Growth in Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generation from Wind, 

2001-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 South Dakota 20,671.7% 15 New Mexico 611.1%

2 Hawaii 10,233.8% 16 Texas 596.9%

3 Nebraska 7,644.7% 17 Iowa 361.4%

4 New York 3,903.2% 18 Washington 353.8%

5 Pennsylvania 3,557.3% 19 Minnesota 162.0%

6 Illinois 3,204.0% 20 Wyoming 102.8%

7 Oklahoma 2,498.1% 21 California 50.3%

8 Kansas 2,483.3% 22 Wisconsin 40.2%

9 Colorado 2,208.9% 23 New Jersey 21.0%

10 West Virginia 1,522.3% 24 Alaska 5.3%

11 Tennessee 1,163.0% 25 Ohio 4.0%

12 Oregon 1,051.4% 26 Montana -4.8%

13 North Dakota 922.1% 27 Idaho -17.3%

14 Michigan 811.7% 28 Vermont -18.5%
209

Table 7.59. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation per Capita, 2001-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 South Dakota 16,326.3% 15 New Mexico 608.9%

2 Hawaii 10,592.7% 16 Texas 578.8%

3 Nebraska 7,903.6% 17 Iowa 455.0%

4 Pennsylvania 4,061.5% 18 Washington 443.0%

5 New York 3,884.2% 19 Minnesota 182.9%

6 Illinois 3,502.3% 20 Wyoming 94.8%

7 Oklahoma 3,188.3% 21 California 51.5%

8 Kansas 2,713.9% 22 Wisconsin 46.0%

9 Colorado 2,331.1% 23 New Jersey 25.3%

10 West Virginia 1,750.8% 24 Ohio 12.6%

11 Oregon 1,208.4% 25 Montana 7.7%

12 Tennessee 1,068.3% 26 Alaska -1.0%

13 North Dakota 949.7% 27 Idaho -10.3%

14 Michigan 868.4% 28 Vermont -14.6%

Table 7.60. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation per GSP, 2001-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 South Dakota 12,035.8% 15 New Mexico 413.3%

2 Hawaii 7,518.3% 16 Texas 406.2%

3 Nebraska 5,810.7% 17 Washington 324.0%

4 Pennsylvania 3,121.1% 18 Iowa 302.6%

5 New York 2,874.5% 19 Minnesota 119.5%

6 Illinois 2,785.2% 20 Wyoming 24.3%

7 Oklahoma 2,218.5% 21 Wisconsin 18.4%

8 Kansas 2,031.9% 22 California 14.5%

9 Colorado 1,900.8% 23 New Jersey -0.5%

10 West Virginia 1,299.2% 24 Ohio -8.8%

11 Oregon 886.7% 25 Montana -25.4%

12 Tennessee 824.4% 26 Idaho -29.3%

13 Michigan 751.5% 27 Vermont -33.5%

14 North Dakota 603.1% 28 Alaska -36.3%
210

Wind Resource Growth, 2006-2007

Table 7.61. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation, 2006-2007*

Rank State %Change Rank State %Change

1 Hawaii 199.0% 15 Kansas 16.2%

2 Illinois 161.0% 16 California 14.4%

3 Washington 134.9% 17 Montana 13.7%

4 North Dakota 68.0% 18 New Mexico 11.0%

5 Colorado 49.2% 19 Oklahoma 8.0%

6 Texas 35.0% 20 Wisconsin 7.8%

7 Oregon 33.9% 21 Ohio 2.4%

8 Pennsylvania 30.2% 22 Idaho 1.6%

9 Alaska 28.4% 23 South Dakota 0.7%

10 Minnesota 28.4% 24 Wyoming -0.6%

11 New Jersey 27.7% 25 Vermont -1.7%

12 New York 27.2% 26 West Virginia -3.6%

13 Michigan 23.1% 27 Tennessee -8.5%

14 Iowa 18.9% 28 Nebraska -17.0%

*Maine not included because 2007 is its 1st year of wind generation

Table 7.62. Growth in Percentage of Total In-State Electricity Generation from Wind, 

2006-2007

Rank State %Change Rank State %Change

1 Hawaii 199.6% 15 California 17.6%

2 Illinois 150.8% 16 South Dakota 17.1%

3 Washington 137.6% 17 Michigan 16.1%

4 North Dakota 66.2% 18 New Mexico 14.9%

5 Colorado 40.3% 19 Montana 11.0%

6 Texas 33.4% 20 Iowa 8.7%

7 Oregon 29.7% 21 Kansas 5.5%

8 Pennsylvania 26.0% 22 Wisconsin 4.8%

9 Alaska 25.7% 23 Oklahoma 4.7%

10 Minnesota 25.5% 24 Ohio 2.6%

11 New York 24.0% 25 Wyoming -1.1%

12 New Jersey 23.6% 26 West Virginia -3.7%

13 Vermont 19.6% 27 Tennessee -9.7%

14 Idaho 18.38% 28 Nebraska -19.0%
211

Table 7.63. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation per Capita, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Hawaii 199.3% 15 Kansas 15.3%

2 Illinois 160.0% 16 California 14.0%

3 Washington 132.2% 17 Montana 12.6%

4 North Dakota 67.9% 18 New Mexico 9.7%

5 Colorado 46.9% 19 Wisconsin 7.3%

6 Texas 32.6% 20 Oklahoma 7.1%

7 Oregon 32.3% 21 Ohio 2.3%

8 Pennsylvania 30.0% 22 South Dakota -0.2%

9 New Jersey 27.8% 23 Idaho -0.6%

10 Alaska 27.7% 24 Vermont -1.7%

11 Minnesota 27.7% 25 Wyoming -2.6%

12 New York 26.2% 26 West Virginia -3.6%

13 Michigan 23.7% 27 Tennessee -9.6%

14 Iowa 18.5% 28 Nebraska -17.3%

Table 7.64. Growth in Wind Electricity Generation per GSP, 2006-2007

Rank State % Change Rank State % Change

1 Hawaii 183.3% 15 Kansas 10.6%

2 Illinois 152.5% 16 New Mexico 10.6%

3 Washington 121.6% 17 California 9.0%

4 North Dakota 59.9% 18 Montana 7.3%

5 Colorado 45.5% 19 Wisconsin 5.5%

6 Oregon 28.0% 20 Oklahoma 4.4%

7 Texas 26.0% 21 Ohio 1.3%

8 Pennsylvania 25.1% 22 Idaho -0.9%

9 New Jersey 24.3% 23 Vermont -3.0%

10 Minnesota 23.2% 24 South Dakota -4.1%

11 Michigan 22.8% 25 Wyoming -6.7%

12 Alaska 18.6% 26 West Virginia -7.0%

13 New York 17.8% 27 Tennessee -10.7%

14 Iowa 14.3% 28 Nebraska -21.6%
212

Wind Capacity

Table 7.65. Wind Capacity, 2008

Rank State MW Rank State MW

1 Texas 7,117.7 19 South Dakota 186.8

2 Iowa 2,791.3 20 Missouri 162.5

3 California 2,503.0 21 Indiana 130.5

4 Minnesota 1,753.4 22 Michigan 129.4

5 Washington 1,446.8 23 Idaho 75.3

6 Colorado 1,067.7 24 Nebraska 71.9

7 Oregon 1,067.2 25 Hawaii 63.1

8 Illinois 915.1 26 Maine 46.6

9 New York 831.8 27 Tennessee 29.0

10 Oklahoma 830.9 28 New Hampshire 25.4

11 Kansas 814.5 29 Utah 19.8

12 North Dakota 714.4 30 New Jersey 7.5

13 Wyoming 676.1 31 Ohio 7.4

14 New Mexico 497.5 32 Vermont 6.1

15 Wisconsin 394.9 33 Massachusetts 5.4

16 Pennsylvania 360.7 34 Alaska 3.3

17 West Virginia 330.0 35 Rhode Island 0.7

18 Montana 271.5 36 Arkansas 0.1

Source: AWEA 2009b
F1147-E(10/2008)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

September 2009

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

State of the States 2009: Renewable Energy Development and the 

Role of Policy

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08-GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

E. Doris, J. McLaren, V. Healey, and S. Hockett 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-6A2-46667

5e. TASK NUMBER

IGST.9000

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-3393

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-6A2-46667

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

As U.S. states increasingly focus on developing renewable energy resources, there is a need to track the progress of development, as 

well as the policies and support mechanisms being implemented to encourage this development. Beyond tracking, the evaluation of 

policy measures is necessary to determine their effectiveness, guide future efforts, and efficiently allocate resources. This report 

addresses each of these needs. It provides a detailed picture of the status of renewable energy development in each of the U.S. 

states using a variety of metrics and discusses the policies being used to encourage this development. The report then explores the 

context in which renewable energy development occurs by discussing the factors that can affect the uptake of power generation

technologies. The analysis offers suggestions on how policies can be used to address these variables, which leads to tailored policy 

support that considers the specific circumstances within each state. The analysis presents results of several quantitative evaluation 

methods that have been designed to explore the link between policy implementation and actual development. Finally, the report 

discusses contextual factors, aside from policy, that affect renewable energy development. The report concludes with a summary of 

the main points from each chapter, discussion of next steps, and a list of resources.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

renewable energy; analysis; state policy; renewable energy resources; power generation; renewable energy 

development; renewable portfolio standards; net metering; market transformation; interconnection standards; green 

power purchasing; contractor licensing; equipment certification; generation disclosure; grant programs; line-extension 

analysis; electric utilities; production incentives; rebate programs; public benefit funds; tax incentives; NREL

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18