State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals:

Status Through 2003

by

Thomas Petersik

As of the end of 2003, 15 States have programs to encourage the development of renewable energy for

electricity generation. Of the 17 programs (two States have multiple programs), 9 are renewable

portfolio standards (RPS), 4 are renewable energy mandates, and 4 are renewable energy goals. RPS

provisions generally require that a specified share of electricity generation or sales come from qualifying renewable technologies. Mandates, on the other hand, require the construction of set amounts of

new renewable capacity using specified technologies. Goal-based programs are voluntary, and generally the goals can be met with a mix of renewable technologies. As of the end of 2003, 2,004 megawatts (86 percent) of the 2,335 megawatts of new renewable energy capacity constructed in the 15

States was a result of mandates, and the vast majority (93 percent) of the new capacity consisted of

wind power installations. Nearly 51 percent (1,186 megawatts) of all the new capacity was installed

in Texas. However, because RPS and voluntary goal programs are newer and often include output

from existing capacity and alternative compliance options, they have not had large impacts to date.

Introduction

Fifteen States have established requirements or goals to

increase renewable energy use.1 They have enacted

either (1) renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that set

increasing percentage shares of electricity generation or

sales, (2) mandates that specify quantities of new generating capacity to be built, or (3) voluntary goals. This

paper summarizes the renewable energy programs of

those 15 States and their renewable capacity through

December 31, 2003.2 Of the 15 States, 9 States have RPS, 4

States have mandates, and 4 States have voluntary programs.3 This paper identifies key characteristics of the

programs—including their requirements and target

time frames for compliance, acceptable and excluded

renewable energy sources, alternatives to building new

capacity, and potential sanctions—and the amounts of

renewable capacity constructed through the end of 2003.

Renewable Portfolio Standards

The type of program used most frequently by the States

is an RPS requiring that some specified percentage of

electricity supply be provided by qualifying renewable

energy sources (Table 1). Most State RPS programs were

initiated when privately owned electric utilities were

being deregulated, in order to ensure their continued

investment in renewables.

In most of the States with RPS programs, the years of

required compliance begin after 2000, with New Mexico’s 2006 initial compliance year being the latest. All but

Maine require an increasing percentage over time, until

a target level is reached. Requirements for years after the

final targets are reached are not always explicitly stated,

but most appear to continue at the highest specified

percentage.

Because other features of RPS programs and existing

electricity supplies differ from State to State, the percentage of renewable energy specified in a given State’s RPS

does not reveal the actual amount of new renewable

energy capacity required. Most of the programs include

output from existing capacity (except for those in Arizona, and excluding historical levels of output in Massachusetts); generation supplied from other States

(Arizona accepts only solar from other States, and

Energy Information Administration / State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals 1

1This report was assembled by EIA from a number of sources and in a series of steps, beginning with a review of State RPS and other program summaries available on web sites, followed by a review of State laws and regulations, and then further clarified by direct contact with

State public utility commissions, electric utilities, and others. In most cases, information in this report can be found in the States’ laws and

regulations. In some cases, however, characteristics are not explicitly described in records but have been clarified either in practice or by

decisions and interpretations of the State offices running the programs or by the utilities subject to them. Specific current information about

any State’s renewables requirements can be obtained by contacting the State’s public utility commission or accessing its web site (see “For

More Information” at the end of this report). Additional information for this report was obtained from the Renewable Energy Policy Project,

web site www.repp.org/rps_map.html, and the North Carolina Solar Center’s Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE),

web site www.dsireusa.org. Among web sites with useful analyses of State renewable energy programs, see http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/

EMS_pubs.html. 2There is no Federal renewable energy mandate.

3Two States have multiple programs.
Nevada and Texas accept only limited amounts); credit

trading (except California); and conventional hydroelectric power (except Massachusetts).4 Key differences

among the States include their definitions of qualifying

renewables, alternatives to new renewable capacity,

approaches to cost recovery, opt-out provisions, and

enforcement mechanisms.

Qualifying Renewables

RPS definitions of qualifying renewable technologies

vary widely among the States (Table 2). Landfill gas,

solar thermal electric, solar photovoltaic, and wind

energy are acceptable in all nine States with RPS programs, but the rules vary for other technologies.

Although biomass is also accepted in all nine of the

States, its acceptability hinges on the particular environmental requirements in each State. Connecticut accepts

only “sustainable” biomass.5 Massachusetts accepts

only low-emission advanced biomass conversion technologies, such as biomass gasification, and Nevada

accepts only agricultural crops or residues. In five States,

municipal solid waste (MSW) is excluded. At least 5 percent of Nevada’s RPS (increasing over time from 0.25 to

0.75 percent of sales) must be provided by solar

technologies.

The treatment of hydroelectric power also varies,

accounting for some of the variation in the scale of State

RPS requirements. Most accept only “small hydropower” (usually limited to plants smaller than 5 to 30

megawatts). Arizona and Massachusetts exclude hydropower altogether. Wisconsin accepts hydroelectric

plants up to 60 megawatts. Maine’s 30-percent RPS,

which includes conventional hydroelectric plants up to

100 megawatts, captures most of the hydroelectric

2 Energy Information Administration / State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals

Table 1. Basic Features of State Renewable Energy Requirements as of December 31, 2003

State

Part of

Deregulation

Initial Year

Enacted

Beginning and Last Specified

Requirements

Accepts

Existing

Capacity

Out-ofState

Supply

Credit

Trading

Renewable Portfolio Standards

Arizona. . . . . . . . Yes 1996 0.2-1.1% of sales, 2001-2007 No Solar only Yes

California . . . . . . No 2002 +1% of sales per year, to 20.0% by 2017 Yes Yes No

Connecticut . . . . Yes 2003 6.5-10.0% of generation, 2003-2010 Yes Yes Yes

Maine . . . . . . . . . Yes 1997 30.0% of sales by 1999 Yes Yes Yes

Massachusetts. . Yes 1997 1.0-4.0% of sales, 2003-2009 No Yes Yes

Nevada . . . . . . . No 2001 5.0-15.0% of sales, 2003-2013;

5% of requirements must be solar

Yes Yes Yes

New Jersey . . . . Yes 1999 3.0-6.5% of sales, 2001-2008 Yes Yes Yes

New Mexico . . . . No 2002 5.0-10.0% of sales, 2006-2011 Yes Yes Yes

Wisconsin . . . . . No 1999 0.5-2.2% of sales, 2001-2011 Yes Yes Yes

Mandates

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . No 1983 105 megawatts (no set date) No NS No

Minnesota . . . . . No 1994 1,125 megawatts wind by 2010

+ 125 megawatts biomassa

No Yes No

Texas . . . . . . . . . No 1999 400-2,000 megawatts, 2003-2009 No Yes Yes

Wisconsin . . . . . No 1997 50 megawatts by 2000 No No No

Goals

Hawaii . . . . . . . . No 2001 9.0% of sales by 2010 Yes NA No

Illinois. . . . . . . . . No 2001 15.0% of sales by 2020 NS No No

Minnesotab. . . . . No 2003 1.0-10.0% of sales, 2005-2015 NS Yes Yes

Pennsylvania . . . Yes 1998 Individual agreements with five utilities NS NS NS

aVarious dates, beginning in 2003. The original requirement for 125 megawatts of biomass capacity has been reduced.

bSpecific characteristics are being determined. See web site www.puc.state.mn.us, Docket 03-869.

NS = not specified in the State requirement. NA = not applicable.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting.

4“Credits” are a market-based means of distinguishing the renewable characteristic of electricity from the electricity itself. Credits are

tradable certificates documenting that specified kilowatthours of electricity were generated from qualifying renewable energy sources, are

independent of the kilowatthours generated, and do not represent the delivery of actual electricity to the buyer. 5Although Connecticut does not define “sustainable biomass,” “sustainable” usually means “when harvested, is replaced by new biomass such that no net depletion occurs.” See Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA) “An Introduction to Biomass Energy, A Renewable Resource,” by Donald L. Klass, accessible at http://www.bera1.org/about.html (February 3, 2004).
plants in the State, including some pumped storage.

Connecticut’s RPS accepts existing and new run-of-river

hydroelectric plants not larger than 5 megawatts. Wisconsin allows existing hydropower to count toward a

maximum of 0.6 percent of the energy requirements,

potentially exceeding the 0.5-percent target for the first

compliance year.

Alternatives to New Renewables Capacity

Most of the State RPS programs include alternatives to

the construction of new renewable capacity (Table 3).

Seven States accept fuel cells powered by renewable

sources, and Connecticut and Maine also accept natural

gas fuel cells as well. In Arizona and Nevada,

non-electric technologies (such as solar hot water heating and air conditioning) can be used to meet the RPS

requirements.

Some States favor certain renewable energy technologies by offering more than one credit per kilowatthour.

This practice may stimulate the favored technologies but

can also reduce the effective size of the RPS if the

technologies are developed. For example, Arizona offers

extra credits for in-State manufacture, in-State installation, and early installation of distributed solar technologies and for participation in solar incentive programs,

which in total could reduce the amount of renewables

needed to meet Arizona’s RPS by as much as 50 percent.

Nevada’s RPS grants 2.4 credits for off-grid photovoltaics, increased to 2.55 credits for grid-connected

photovoltaics (to account for line losses). New Mexico

provides 2 credits for biomass, geothermal, landfill gas,

and fuel cells and 3 credits for solar technologies.

Cost Recovery

The States use several approaches for funding their

RPS programs, including passing the higher costs

directly to all utility ratepayers (referred to as “ratebasing”), applying a charge on selected categories of

sales, or encouraging consumers voluntarily to pay a

premium for renewable power (through “green power,”

“green markets,” or “green pricing” programs). Six

States allow ratebasing, and three apply a separate

charge—usually referred to as “system benefits charge”

Energy Information Administration / State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals 3

Table 2. Acceptable Technologies and Resources for State Renewable Energy Requirements

as of December 31, 2003

State Biomass

Biomass

Co-firing

Biomass

CogenerationGeothermal

Conventional

HydroelectricLandfill

Gas

Municipal

Solid

Waste

Ocean or

Tidal Solar Wind

Renewable Portfolio Standards

Arizona. . . . . . . . Yes NS NS Yesa No Yes NS No Yes Yes

California . . . . . . Yes NS NS Yes Small only Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Connecticut . . . . Yes NS NS No Small only Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Maine . . . . . . . . . Yes Yes Yes Yes Small only Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Massachusetts. . Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Nevada . . . . . . . Yes NS NS Yes Small only Yes No No Yes Yes

New Jersey . . . . Yes Yes NS Yes Small only Yes No Yes Yes Yes

New Mexico . . . . Yes Yes NS Yes Small only Yes No No Yes Yes

Wisconsin . . . . . Yes Yes NS Yes Small only Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Mandates

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . Yes NS Yes NS Small only Yes Yes NS Yes Yes

Minnesota . . . . . Yes NS NS No Small only Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Texas . . . . . . . . . Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Wisconsin . . . . . Yes Yes NS Yes Small only Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Goals

Hawaii . . . . . . . . Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Illinois. . . . . . . . . NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Yes Yes

Minnesotab. . . . . Yes NS NS No Small only Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Pennsylvania . . . Yes NS NS Yes No Yes Noc Yes Yes Yes

aAccepted by waiver only.

bSpecific characteristics are being determined. See web site www.puc.state.mn.us, Docket 03-869.

cYes by exception, for General Public Utilities (GPU) only.

NS = not specified in the State requirement.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting.
(SBC)—that is collected per kilowatthour or as a fixed

charge levied on selected customer groups. Arizona levies both an SBC and an environmental charge. Four

States (Arizona, Maine, New Mexico, and Wisconsin)

also allow RPS costs to be recovered through green

power programs. Two States (Connecticut and Massachusetts) exclude capacity purchased in green power

programs from contributing to their RPS requirements.

Except for Maine, States may reduce their RPS requirements if costs are excessive (”cost-outs”). Arizona’s RPS

increases after 2004 only if the cost of renewable energy

declines sufficiently. California’s RPS is limited by its

SBC funding. In Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New

Jersey, fees ranging from 5.0 to 5.5 cents per kilowatthour may be levied if the required renewables are not

purchased. Nevada, New Jersey, and Wisconsin require

that costs be reasonable and prudent. New Mexico

requires life-cycle costs to be similar to those for

nonrenewable sources. The State laws may leave the

specification of “excessive,” “sufficient,” “reasonable

and prudent,” or other such limits to be determined

later.

Non-Cost Outs and Delay Provisions

Except for Arizona, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, States

may also reduce or eliminate RPS requirements for

non-cost reasons. California’s three investor-owned utilities do not have to comply with the RPS if they are

deemed not creditworthy.6 New Mexico excuses utilities

from the RPS altogether if existing long-term contracts

for non-RPS technologies cover all the utilities’

requirements.

Some RPS States may delay compliance. If a California

utility does not meet a specific year’s requirement, it

may do so over the next 3 years, so long as those future

years’ requirements are also met. Maine’s RPS allows

compliance within a 2-year period, or even longer upon

commission ruling. Massachusetts can meet initial 2003

requirements using otherwise qualified generation that

occurred in 2002 (reverse delay). For New Jersey, a

shortfall in one year can be made up in the next.

4 Energy Information Administration / State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals

Table 3. Acceptable Alternatives to and Cost Support for Renewable Technologies for State Renewable

Energy Requirements as of December 31, 2003

State Fuel Cells

Non-electric

Alternatives

Favored

Technologies

System

Benefits

Charges

Green

Power

Cost

Outs

Non-Cost

Outs/Delays

Penalties

Renewable Portfolio Standards

Arizona. . . . . . . . No Yes Solar Yes Yes Yes No No

California . . . . . . Renewable fuels only No No Yes NS Yes Yes Yes

Connecticut . . . . Renewables and natural gas No No No No Yes Yes Yes

Maine . . . . . . . . . Renewables and natural gas No No No Yes No Yes Yes

Massachusetts. . Renewable fuels only No No No No Yes Yes Yes

Nevada . . . . . . . No Yes Solar No NS Yes Yes Yes

New Jersey . . . . Renewable fuels only No No Yes NS Yes Yesa Yes

New Mexico . . . . Renewable fuels only No All but wind/hydro No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wisconsin . . . . . Renewable fuels only No No No Yes Yes No Yes

Mandates

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . No No No No NS No No NS

Minnesota . . . . . Yes No Wind, biomass No NS No No Yes

Texas . . . . . . . . . Renewable fuels only Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wisconsin . . . . . Renewable fuels only No No No Yes NS Yes NS

Goals

Hawaii . . . . . . . . Renewable fuels only Yes No No NS No Yes No

Illinois. . . . . . . . . No No No NS NS Yes No No

Minnesotab. . . . . Yes No NS No NS NS Yes No

Pennsylvania . . . No No No Yes NS Yes Yes No

aDelays only.

bSpecific characteristics are being determined. See web site www.puc.state.mn.us, Docket 03-869.

NS = not specified in the State requirement.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting.

6As of 2004, all three California utilities were considered to be creditworthy.
Enforcement

Most State RPS programs do not appear to have specific

enforcement procedures, except for the option of revoking the operating licenses of covered utilities as a sanction. Collaboration and cooperation appear to be

preferred enforcement tools. In addition, California’s

RPS provides for a penalty of 5 cents per kilowatthour,

up to $25 million. Maine can require payments into a

renewable resources research and development fund.

Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin can rely on fines

for noncompliance, and New Jersey permits the disallowance of costs along with prohibitions against accepting new retail customers. Through the end of 2003, no

electric utility in any State had incurred a penalty for

noncompliance with a State RPS.

RPS Stimulation of New Renewable

Capacity

It is difficult to determine whether specific renewable

energy projects were caused by State RPS programs.

Individual projects are developed for a variety of reasons, some unrelated to State RPS requirements. Moreover, the States’ annual expectations for their RPS

programs usually are not specified or measured in terms

of new capacity.

Based on discussions with the States in the spring of

2004, Table 4 compares the amounts of new renewable

capacity they expected their programs to stimulate

through 2003 with the qualifying amounts actually built.

As shown, most of the RPS States did not expect their

programs to stimulate new capacity by the end of 2003.

Only Arizona and Nevada expected their RPS programs

to lead to new capacity by that time.

Given that the State RPS programs are relatively new, it

is not surprising that they had not stimulated much new

capacity by the end of 2003. Five States showed no new

renewable capacity. Although the renewable capacity

added in California and Wisconsin can be used to

comply with their RPS programs, it is believed—but

not definitively known—to have been constructed in

response to other Federal, State, or local incentives (such

as the Federal production tax credits for wind energy), to

meet environmental requirements, or for commercial

reasons in the context of existing law and regulation. In

fact, only 9 of the 14 megawatts of new renewable capacity brought on line in Arizona is unambiguously a result

of the State’s RPS program, although most or all of the

94 megawatts of new wind capacity contributing to Wisconsin’s RPS goal is reported to have been built primarily in response to requirements.

To date, RPS requirements are being met for the most

part by output from existing renewable capacity within

States or from adjacent States. Some requirements are

being met by purchasing credits or by expecting deficiencies to be made up in the future. In Nevada, 2003

requirements will be partially made up with anticipated

new capacity in 2004 and 2005. In Maine and Wisconsin,

renewable generation currently exceeds the amount

required. As a result, they are earning credits that can be

used in future years, and they do not expect to need

additional renewable capacity until after 2010.

The 321 megawatts of new renewable energy capacity

that entered service in the nine States with RPS programs accounted for 13.7 percent of the 2,335 megawatts

of total new renewable energy capacity identified as

contributing to all State programs (RPS, mandates, and

goals) through 2003 (Table 5). The 9 megawatts of new

photovoltaic capacity added in Arizona accounted for

only 0.4 percent of the total. Among the new capacity

contributing to RPS programs, new wind power provided the vast majority (84.0 percent), landfill gas 6.9

percent, conventional hydroelectricity 6.2 percent, and

photovoltaics 2.8 percent.

Mandates

Whereas State RPS programs specify percentages of

generation and a broad range of alternatives, mandates

narrowly specify the new capacity required (see Table

1). To date, State mandates for new renewable energy

capacity have accounted for 86 percent of all new renewable energy capacity from State programs, and the 1,186

megawatts from the Texas mandate alone accounted for

nearly 51 percent of the total.

Iowa’s 1983 mandate, the oldest, ordered its three investor-owned utilities to develop 105 megawatts of new

renewable energy capacity in Iowa (or in their service

Energy Information Administration / State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals 5

Table 4. Cumulative New RPS Capacity Expected

From State Requirements, and Actual

New Qualifying Capacity, Through

December 31, 2003

(Megawatts, Nameplate Capacity)

State RPS Expected Actual Qualifying

Arizona . . . . . . . . 65 14

California . . . . . . . 0 201

Connecticut . . . . . 0 0

Maine. . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Massachusetts . . 0 9

New Jersey . . . . . 0 0

New Mexico. . . . . 0 0

Nevada . . . . . . . . 133 0

Wisconsin . . . . . . 0 97

Total . . . . . . . . . 198 321

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting.
areas), with each utility’s share based on its share of

peak demand. No deadline was set. Originally, for ratemaking purposes, the Iowa Utilities Board interpreted

the 105 megawatts specified in the statute as “average

capacity” based on kilowatthours output. The 260 megawatts of wind and other capacity installed under the

Iowa mandate by 1999 is the nameplate equivalent

capacity of the 105 average megawatts under the Iowa

law. The State has since rescinded the “average capacity” concept, which is no longer part of the Iowa Utilities

Board rules. Additional wind capacity built in Iowa

since 1999 was not mandated. However, Iowa may

increase the mandated requirement if the total peak

demand for electricity in the State exceeds 120 percent of

its 1990 peak—something that has not occurred to date.

Minnesota’s 1994 mandate required Xcel Energy (then

Northern States Power) to acquire 425 megawatts of

wind capacity by December 31, 2002, plus 125 megawatts of biomass capacity, in exchange for storing additional nuclear waste at its Prairie Island plant. In 1999

Xcel was ordered to acquire 400 additional megawatts of

wind capacity by 2006, and in 2003 it was ordered to add

another 300 megawatts by 2010. Significant shares must

come from small facilities (2 megawatts of capacity or

less), distributed State-wide. Mandated wind capacity is

being acquired on schedule (476 megawatts), but biomass acquisitions (25 megawatts through December 31,

2003) have not been accomplished because of difficulties

encountered with the technology and financing for new

biomass capacity. The 2003 legislation requires a power

6 Energy Information Administration / State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals

Table 5. Estimated Capacity Contributing to State Renewable Energy Programs Through 2003

(Megawatts, Nameplate Capacity)

State Biomassa

Geothermal

Conventional

HydroelectricLandfill

Gas

Municipal

Solid

Waste

Ocean

or Tidal

Solar

Photovoltaics Wind

Other/

Unknown Total

Renewable Portfolio Standards

Arizona. . . . . . . . 0b 0 05b 0 0 9 00 14

California . . . . . . 0 0 20c 6c 0 0 0 175c 0 201

Connecticut . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maine . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Massachusetts. . 0 0 0 8c 0 00 1c 0 9

Nevada . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

New Jersey . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

New Mexico . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wisconsin . . . . . 0 0 0 3 0 0 —d 94 0 97

Mandates

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 237 7 260

Minnesota . . . . . 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 476 0 501

Texas . . . . . . . . . 5 0 10 31 0 0 0.2 1,140 0 1,186

Wisconsin . . . . . 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 57

Goals

Hawaii . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Illinois. . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Minnesota . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pennsylvaniae . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10

Total . . . . . . . . . 53 0 30 53 0 0 9.2 2,183 7 2,335

Share of Total. . 2.3% 0% 1.3% 2.3% 0% 0% 0.4% 93.5% 0.3% 100.0%

aIncludes biomass co-firing and cogeneration capacity, but none is known to have been built.

bIn Arizona, a 3-megawatt biomass-fueled plant slated for 2003 entered service in early 2004 and is not shown here. In addition to

capacity shown here, the Salt River project added a 4-megawatt landfill gas project under a separate requirement. cNew capacity that contributes to the State’s RPS requirement but was built for other reasons.

dIn Wisconsin, 20 kilowatts of solar capacity was also built. The RPS also spurred biomass co-firing in varying proportions at 79

megawatts of existing fossil-fueled capacity, as well as refurbishment and operation of 7.2 megawatts of existing hydroelectric

capacity. ePennsylvania’s program has resulted in 10 megawatts of new renewables capacity. In addition, 118 megawatts of new wind

capacity in Pennsylvania and 66 megawatts in West Virginia were supported by separate sustainable development funds.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting.
purchase agreement for 10 to 20 megawatts of biomass

energy, operational by 2005, at no more than $55 per

megawatthour.

The 1999 renewable energy mandate in Texas requires

the installation of 2,000 megawatts of new generating

capacity by 2009. It has resulted in more new renewable

energy generating capacity than any other State-level

requirement to date, with 1,140 megawatts of new wind

capacity installed by the end of 2003, plus small amounts

of landfill gas and other capacity. The Texas mandate

includes municipal electric utilities and cooperatives as

well as investor-owned utilities. Penalties for deficiencies are primarily the lesser of $50 per megawatthour

or 200 percent of the average cost of credits. Under

current law, the 2,000 megawatt requirement remains

unchanged from 2009 to 2019.

Before its 1999 RPS, Wisconsin in 1998 required four

eastern utilities to install 50 megawatts of new renewable energy capacity by December 31, 2000. The mandate was met with nearly 57 megawatts of new capacity,

including three wind projects—Rosiere (11.2 megawatts), Lincoln (9.2 megawatts), and Montfort (30 megawatts)—and the 6.5-megawatt Minergy biomass project

using papermill waste.

Voluntary Goals, Objectives,

and Settlements

Four States—Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania—have instituted programs that encourage, but do

not require, new renewable energy capacity (see Table

1). Hawaii’s 2001 renewable portfolio goal resembles a

typical RPS, except for the absence of penalties and the

inability to obtain supply from other States. The program is intended to increase the renewable share of the

State’s electricity supply from 7 percent of net electricity

sales in 2003 to 9 percent by 2010. Existing capacity qualifies, and the full range of renewables is accepted, as well

as some energy conservation. Utilities in Hawaii are

reported to have exceeded the 2003 goal of 7 percent

using existing generation, averaging 8.2 percent

State-wide.

Illinois passed legislation in 2001 that sets a target of at

least 5 percent of electricity production from qualified

renewables by 2010 and 15 percent by 2020; however,

the goal is not supported by schedules, a menu of acceptable renewable technologies or alternatives other than

solar and wind, compliance mechanisms (other than the

possibility of a $50 per megawatthour penalty for

noncompliance), credit trading, or most of the other features of State RPS programs.

In Minnesota, utilities other than Xcel, including

municipals and cooperatives, are subject to the State’s

2001 Renewable Energy Objective (amended in 2003),

which requires a “good faith effort” to increase renewable energy’s contribution from 1 percent of sales in 2005

to 10 percent by 2015. By law, the objective is considered

to be a mandate for Xcel. At least 0.5 percent should be

generated from biomass by 2005 and 1.0 percent by 2010.

The objective accommodates basic renewable technology options, as well as hydroelectric facilities less than

60 megawatts, hydrogen fuel cells, and municipal solid

waste. Following the 2003 amendments, the Minnesota

Public Utility Commission is developing a weighted

scale that will favor some (so far unspecified)

renewables, based on public interest. Although the program lacks specific penalties, utilities must report both

plans and progress.7

Pennsylvania does not have an RPS or other renewable

energy mandate and has no renewable energy capacity

target or requirement. However, as part of utility

restructuring legislation in 1996, five Pennsylvania utilities settled restructuring cases on terms requiring that

any future “competitive default supply” would include

a minimum percentage of renewables.8 Among these,

only the Pennsylvania Electric Company (PECO) energy

program was implemented, and one default supplier,

Green Mountain Energy, built the 10.4-megawatt

Garrett (Pennsylvania) wind project partly in response

to the PECO program.

In addition, the five utilities’ restructuring settlements

established four sustainable energy funds and other

activities that are reported to have either directly or indirectly supported the development of significant

amounts of new wind capacity and small amounts of

other generating capacity. These include four utilityscale wind projects in Pennsylvania, totaling 118 megawatts (Meyersdale, Mill Run, Somerset, and Waymart),

as well as the 66-megawatt Mountaineer wind project in

West Virginia. Finally, although the totals are not

known, a number of small new landfill gas and photovoltaic projects have been triggered by these energy

funds.

Conclusions

State renewable portfolio standards, mandates, and

renewable energy goals are all relatively new, with the

Energy Information Administration / State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals 7

7According to a Minnesota Public Utilities Commission staff briefing paper, Minnesota Statute 216C.051, Subd. 7, lists as preferred

renewable energy technologies first solar and wind, second biomass and low-head or refurbished hydropower, and finally landfill gas, natural-gas-fired cogeneration, and waste materials or byproducts combined with natural gas. Briefing dated September 23, 2003, Docket

Number E-999/CI-03-869, page 7, web site www.puc.State.mn.us/docs/briefing_papers/b03-0119.pdf. 8“Competitive default supply” refers to suppliers serving customers who do not choose among alternative suppliers.
majority just now entering their initial compliance years.

Nevertheless, this review indicates that requirements or

goals for new renewable energy capacity in 15 States had

resulted in an estimated 2,335 megawatts of new renewable electricity supply by the end of 2003. Most of the

new capacity is fueled by wind power (2,183 megawatts), with smaller amounts of landfill gas, hydroelectricity, biomass, and solar photovoltaic technologies.

Of total State-level programs, State mandates—especially in Texas—account for the vast majority of new

renewable energy capacity. Through 2003, 321 megawatts of renewable capacity have been built that contribute to State RPS programs, and State renewable

mandates have led to the development of 2,004 megawatts of renewable capacity.9 Without doubt, some State

initiatives have significantly propelled the development

of renewable energy capacity, especially in Texas (1,186

megawatts), Minnesota (501 megawatts), and Iowa

(260 megawatts) and to some extent in Wisconsin, Arizona, California, and Massachusetts as well.

Because of alternative compliance options, opt-out provisions, and other limitations, it is difficult to project the

future impact of the State RPS programs. Moreover,

some States, including Hawaii and New Jersey, may be

accelerating their programs in 2004; and additional

States, including Maryland, New York, and Rhode

Island, have either passed legislation or proposed new

programs. As recent history has shown, however, new

capacity from State RPS requirements can be either

delayed or significantly less than the RPS requirements

initially suggest, because utilities facing RPS requirements can choose alternatives to building new renewable energy capacity. As a result, the amount of new

generating capacity ultimately built under State programs may be less than the maximum potential initially

anticipated from the statutes.

8 Energy Information Administration / State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals

9The development of some small amounts of additional renewable energy capacity may also have occurred in States in which RPS programs, mandates, or goals do not exist, in anticipation of income from future renewable energy credits for sales to entities in States with

renewable energy programs.
Energy Information Administration / State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals 9

For More Information

For additional information about State renewable portfolio standards, mandates, goals, and settlements, see the

following web sites, which provide laws, rules, and program descriptions by public utility commissions or other

State agencies:

• Arizona: For Arizona’s legal basis, see rule R14-2-1618 at http://www.sos.state.az.us/public_services/

Title_14/14-02.htm; for additional information, see the Arizona Corporation Commission web site, at

http://www.cc.state.az.us/utility/electric/environmental.htm.

• California: For the California Energy Commission, see http://www.energy.ca.gov/portfolio; for the

California Public Utilities Commission, see http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/industry/electric/

renewableenergy/index.htm; for guidebooks, see http://www.energy.ca.gov/portfolio/documents/

index.html.

• Connecticut: For original legislation, see http://www.cga.state.ct.us/ps98/act/pa/pa%2D0028.htm; for

revisions, see http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2003/act/Pa/2003PA-00135-R00SB-00733-PA.htm and

http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2003/act/Pa/2003PA-00221-R00HB-06428-PA.htm. For general descriptive

information, see http://www.wattsnewct.com, under “renewables.”

• Hawaii: For law, see http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2001/bills/HB173_cd1_.htm; for Hawaii

Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, see http://www.state.hi.us/dbedt/ert/rps.

html.

• Illinois: See http://www.commerce.state.il.us/com/energy/renewable.html.

• Iowa: For law, see http://www.legis.state.ia.us/cgi-bin/IACODE/Code2003SUPPLEMENT.pl (enter “476”

for “chapter” and “41” for “section”); for description, see

http://www.state.ia.us/dnr/energy/MAIN/PUBS/ IRERG/documents/RenewableEnergyResources.pdf.

• Maine: For the Maine statute, see http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/35-A/title35-Asec3210.html; for the

Maine rule, see http://www.state.me.us/mpuc/rules/Part%203/ch-311.htm.

• Massachusetts: For the Massachusetts regulation, see http://www.mass.gov/doer/rps/225cmr.pdf; for

descriptive information, see Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources, http://www.mass.gov/doer/rps/

index.htm.

• Minnesota: For the Minnesota renewable energy mandate, see http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/

216B/2423.html; for its renewable energy objective, see http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/216B/

1691.html; for 2004 implementation orders, see http://www.puc.state.mn.us (enter “03-869” as the docket

search).

• Nevada: For law, see http://www.leg.state.nv.us/71st/bills/SB/SB372_EN.pdf. For Nevada Public Utilities

Commission materials, see http://www.puc.state.nv.us/renewable_energy.htm.

• New Jersey: For law, see http://www.bpu.state.nj.us/wwwroot/energy/Dereglaw.pdf; for standard, see

http://www.bpu.state.nj.us/wwwroot/energy/portfoliostands.pdf; for the New Jersey web site, see

http://www.njcep.com/.

• New Mexico: For rule, see http://www.nmprc.state.nm.us/utility/pdf/3619finalrule.pdf.

• Pennsylvania: For Pennsylvania code, see http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/052/chapter54/chap54toc.

html; for the Pennsylvania Sustainable Energy Board, see http://puc.paonline.com/electric/reports/

PASustainable_Energy_Board_2003AR.pdf.

• Texas: For rule, see: http://www.puc.state.tx.us/rules/subrules/electric/25.173/25.173ei.cfm; for web site,

see http://www.texasrenewables.com.

• Wisconsin: For law, see http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lc/jlc99/im99_6.pdf; for Wisconsin Department of

Administration web site, see http://www.doa.state.wi.us/pagesubtext_detail.asp?

linksubcatid=563&linkcatid=288&linkid=