energy paper

1

ANNOTATED OUTLINE 2

M5A1: Energy Policy Paper: Annotated Outline

I. Introduction

A. In the United States, energy policy involves the local, states and federal governmental actions related to different types of energy (Tomain, J. P. (2017).

B. The US Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) was developed to help communities and states to achieve their goals by reducing or eliminating barriers to the generation of renewable energy (Mullett, 2017).

C. States may help in implementing this incentive program although it is not a requirement for them (Lane, 2016).

D. The program encourages the widespread development of renewable energy technologies that are paramount for climate strategies and long term clean energy production.

E. CEIP creates significant job opportunities from construction and deployment of renewable energy products (Tomain, J. P. (2017).

II. Policy Basis

CEIP allows states to give emission rate credits for projects focusing on clean energy or on reducing demand for energy.

A. Investment in non-renewable energy

1. CEIP helps states to invest in the generation of zero-emission energy before they met the limits of their carbon emission.

2. The program helps communities to reduce barriers of generating clean energy (Lane, 2016).

B. Expansion of Clean Energy

1. CEIP also expands clean energy incentives to a wide range of technologies beyond wind or solar power, such as hydropower and geothermal.

2. States have invested in the development of new technologies to enhance production of clean energy.

III. Achievement of Intended outcome

CEIP has partially achieved its intended outcomes despite more actions being taken to make it even more effective and practical.

A. Development of non-renewable energy

1. CEIP has helped states to develop and distribute clean energy to communities in all parts of the country.

2. The program has helped communities in different parts of the country in making businesses and homes more efficient (Lane, 2016).

B. Paris Agreement

1. The program has helped local, state and federal governments to make significant steps towards achieving the country’s commitments to Paris agreement.

2. CEIP has helped states to make significant achievements towards achieving the Paris agreement commitment (Tomain, J. P. (2017).

IV. Influence on Technology

CEIP has significant influences on the current technology. Significant investments have been done to increase the development of non renewable energy.

A. Technological designs

1. The program has forced states to develop technologies that align to its goals to help people access clean energy in their homes.

2. Outdated technology is upgraded to meet the needs of the Program and also help reduce waste of energy in low-income communities.

B. Leverage capital

1. CEIP has allowed states and communities to invest in technologies that are cost effective in development of clean energy (Borenstein & Davis, 2016).

2. The program advocates for frequent innovations to meet its commitments in the Paris Agreement.

V. Unintended Consequences

While the CEIP has significant positive consequences in the United States, it also has various negative consequences on communities.

A. Costly and Burdensome interconnection process

1. Technical requirements in some states particularly New York is excessive as compared to standards applied in other states in the country.

2. Administrative obstacles and additional testing on the installations have notably the impact of the program on the market (Cox, 2016).

B. A weak infrastructure

1. Increasing demand for photovoltaic before enough infrastructures for installation can act as a barrier to deployment of technology.

2. Inadequate number of distributors I different states make the process of ordering, delivery and installation expensive and very time consuming (Cox, 2016).

C. Motivation by noneconomic factors

1. People are motivated to purchase nonrenewable technologies as a result of increased cost of electricity, the desired to reduce dependence on utilities and security threats.

2. Most businesses invest on renewable energy technologies to show their commitment to a sustainable future (Mullett, 2017).

D. Single financial incentive

1. A single incentive cannot be able to achieve all the objectives of the program considering it is rolled out at the same time in all states.

2. More financial incentives that can work with the tax credit; loans and utility rebates for nonrenewable technologies (Cox, 2016).

VI. Summary

A. CEIP gives incentives to states to help the increase the efficiency of solar and wind power in low-income communities.

B. This increases the flexibility of states with how they can meet goals for the reduction of emission to the environment.

C. Bringing clean energy to more people and making homes and business more efficient will help the country achieve its commitment to the Paris agreement.

D. This program will drive the development of technologies that are aligned to its goals.

E. The program has also yielded negative consequences including costly and burdensome interconnection process, motivation by noneconomic factors and a weak infrastructure.

F. A single incentive cannot be able to meet all the needs of the program and help the nation meet its commitment to the Paris agreement.

References

Borenstein, S., & Davis, L. W. (2016). The distributional effects of US clean energy tax credits. Tax Policy and the Economy, 30(1), 191-234. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/685597

Cox, S. (2016). Financial incentives to enable clean energy deployment: Policy overview and good practices (No. NREL/TP-6A20-65541). National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States). Retrieved from https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1239887

Lane, D. (2016). How will EPA’s Clean Energy Incentive Program impact solar projects?. The Electricity Journal, 29(9), 12-15. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619016301555

Mullett, M. A. (2017). The Clean Energy Incentive Program: A Withdrawn Invitation to Technological Innovation and Market Transformation in the Electric Energy Industry. Val. UL Rev., 52, 205. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/valur52&div=9&id=&page=

Tomain, J. P. (2017, May). A US Clean Energy Transition and the Trump Administration. In 2017 International Symposium on Environment & Energy Finance Issues, IPAG Business School Paris Campus (Vol. 184, pp. 22-23). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2983231

Tomain, J. P. (2016). A perspective on clean power and the future of US energy politics and policy. Utilities Policy, 39, 5-12. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957178716300170