Old Dominion University
ODU Digital Commons
#(//,/&4",)#%15)#%!#4,384",)#!3)/.2 #(//,/&4",)#%15)#%
State Energy-Based Economic Development
Policies and Examples
Juita-Elena Yusuf
Old Dominion University*8424&/$4%$4
Katharine A. Neill
Old Dominion University
/,,/63()2!.$!$$)3)/.!,6/1+2!3 (;02$)')3!,#/--/.2/$4%$404",)#2%15)#% 04"2
!13/&3(% .%1'8/,)#8/--/.2!.$3(% 4",)#/,)#8/--/.2
:)213)#,%)2"1/4'(33/8/4&/1&1%%!.$/0%.!##%22"83(%#(//,/&4",)#%15)#%!3)')3!,/--/.23(!2"%%.!##%03%$&/1).#,42)/.).
#(//,/&4",)#%15)#%!#4,384",)#!3)/.2"8!.!43(/1)9%$!$-).)231!3/1/&)')3!,/--/.2/1-/1%).&/1-!3)/.0,%!2%#/.3!#3
$)')3!,#/--/.2/$4%$4
%0/2)3/18)3!3)/.
424&4)3!,%.!!.$%),,!3(!1).%3!3%.%1'8!2%$#/./-)#%5%,/0-%.3/,)#)%2!.$7!-0,%2 School of
Public Service Faculty Publications
(;02$)')3!,#/--/.2/$4%$404",)#2%15)#% 04"2
1
STATE ENERGY-BASED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND
EXAMPLES: A RESEARCH NOTE
Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf
Katharine A. Neill
Abstract
States have adopted various policies and initiatives to develop and/or expand their energy
industries, many of which have been driven by economic development purposes rather than
specific energy or environmental concerns. Of the many reasons why states have considered
explicit energy policies, the direct economic benefits of stimulating the economy, creating jobs,
and increasing revenues, have often been at the forefront of policy decision making. This
research note reviews existing policies targeted at developing the energy industry and presents
two typologies of state-level energy policies. The first typology offers an organizing framework
for categorizing such policies by energy source (existing versus new) and energy approach
(production versus consumption). The second typology categorizes policies by regulatory
approach (regulation versus incentives) and target audience (producers versus consumers).
Different policy options are described and used to illustrate the different types of policies
according to the two typologies.
Keywords: energy policy, renewable energy, energy-based economic development, tax
incentives, energy efficiency
2
Introduction
In the U.S., the past twenty to thirty years have seen an increase in federal and state
energy policies to encourage the commercial deployment of advanced energy supply
technologies to enhance fuel diversity and energy security, and to mitigate the human footprint
and climate change, while at the same time sustaining the efficient utilization of energy
resources. The majority of energy issues traditionally have been addressed not at the federal
level, but at the state level (Hopkins, 2003), primarily because states have greater discretion
and/or authority over utilities, transportation, taxation, and other policy areas affecting the
energy sector. States may also be in a better position to address the energy issues that are unique
to their region and climate (Morris & Qiao, 2012). There have been two primary forces behind
the states’ energy policy agenda: (1) environmental concerns surrounding the production and
consumption of non-renewable energy sources, and (2) the link between energy production and
consumption and state economic development. State policymakers have focused on a two-part
strategy involving energy diversification and energy efficiency (Taylor, 2006).
Environmental concerns behind energy policies include emissions and pollution produced
by traditional energy generation and consumption, and the lack of sustainability of current
energy sources. In response, state governments have turned to clean energy policies. These
policies often revolve around encouraging the development and use of renewable, alternative, or
green energy technologies; attracting new and innovative businesses producing or using such
technologies; and supporting the continued growth of the economy by ensuring affordable and
reliable energy supply. The scope of this research note is energy-based economic development
policies undertaken by states that focus on renewable, alternative, or green technologies, and the
innovative use or technological advancement of existing energy resources. (1) The intent of this
3
research note is to provide a framework for organizing the many different energy policies that
states have adopted under their economic development umbrella.
For many states, money spent on energy resources leaves the state, going to outside
utilities or energy suppliers. When such dollars are spent on importing energy, they are no longer
available to foster in-state economic activity. Because energy purchases account for a large
amount of personal and business expenditures, these funds represent a substantial loss in terms of
income and jobs that could instead have been used to strengthen the state economy. Developing
or diversifying the state’s energy industry by focusing on new energy resources or enhancing
existing energy resources can result in more energy dollars being spent in the local economy,
helping to generate local revenue (Hopkins, 2003).
When considering the environmental and economic potential that increased energy
diversification and development hold for a state, policymakers need to be aware of the tools and
options available to them to craft effective strategy. While environmental concerns do contribute
to policy decision making in the energy arena, economic factors are often at the forefront of
policy discussion. Energy policy and related initiatives have often been adopted as part of a
state’s economic development strategy, rather than as environmental initiatives.
There are several reasons why states have considered explicit energy policies. Given the
current economic crisis, lower business investment, high unemployment rates, and the mounting
evidence regarding climate change, many states are considering policies that can address these
problems. Energy policies have the potential to stimulate the economy and create jobs, increase
state tax revenue bases, allow states to better control energy costs for consumers and businesses,
reduce consumption of foreign oil, and enhance domestic energy security. Of these, the direct
4
economic incentives of stimulating the economy, creating jobs, and increasing revenues, have
helped fuel states’ interest in the energy sector.
Typologies of Energy Policies: Two Organizing Frameworks
This research note proposes two typologies as organizing frameworks for categorizing
the different energy policies. Typology X and Typology Y are both four-cell typologies that
categorize policies by energy approach (production versus consumption) and energy source
(existing versus new) for Typology X, and by regulatory approach (regulation versus incentives)
and target audience (producers versus consumers) for Typology Y.
Typology X
Typology X (summarized in Figure 1) proposes four categories of energy-based
economic development policies. They are:
Type A – Policies targeted at enhancing energy production using native resources or homegrown
technologies
Type B – Policies targeted at encouraging the development of new renewable, alternative, or
green energy sources
Type C – Policies targeted at reducing energy consumption by emphasizing energy efficiency
and conservation
Type D – Policies targeted at encouraging the adoption and use of renewable, alternative, or
green energy sources
[Figure 1 about here]
5
Type A policies are focused on encouraging the use of native resources or homegrown
technologies to enhance energy generation or production. For many American states, given their
energy resources, these policies involve enhancing the use of existing coal, natural gas, or
petroleum resources. These states can further capitalize on their energy assets by encouraging the
development of such resources beyond their current uses. Type B policies revolve around
enhancing, through research and development or through capital investment, the capacity to
produce clean energy. Clean energy sources typically include renewable, alternative and green
energy sources, which are often energy efficient, have low emissions of greenhouse gases and
other air pollutants, and in some instances use renewable energy resources or employ alternative
methods of energy generation. Type C policies focus on addressing the broader issue of energy
dependence by reducing consumption. This strategy supports economic development by
reducing the amount of money spent on energy. Finally, Type D policies complement Type B
policies by focusing on the adoption and use of the clean energy produced.
Typology Y
Figure 2 summarizes Typology Y which, in contrast to Typology X, organizes energy
policies by whether the policy utilizes regulatory tools or incentives. According to this typology,
there are four categories of energy-based economic development policies. They are:
Type I – Policies targeted at encouraging the development or production of new renewable,
alternative, or green energy using business or industrial incentives
Type II – Policies targeted at encouraging the development or production of new renewable,
alternative, or green energy sources through government regulation
6
Type III – Policies targeted at encouraging the adoption and use of renewable, alternative, or
green energy sources using incentives
Type IV – Policies targeted at encouraging the adoption and use of renewable, alternative, or
green energy sources through regulation
[Figure 2 about here]
Type I policies are aimed at encouraging energy producers to focus on developing clean
energy sources through incentives. Such incentives are often financial in nature; for example, a
state may offer tax breaks to companies that invest in research and development in a specific
energy technology. In contrast, Type II policies encourage the production of clean energy
through regulations, such as by setting standards or goals for renewable energy production.
Policies in Types III and IV are primarily concerned with encouraging consumers (individuals,
businesses, and government agencies) to use renewable, alternative, or green energy sources.
Type III policies seek to achieve these goals through providing incentives to consumers, while
Type IV policies use government regulatory tools. The next sections review several energy-
based economic development policy options and discuss how they fit within the two typologies.
Coal Gasification Incentives
Policymakers in several states with coal deposits have turned to gasification as a solution
for using coal to produce cleaner and more efficient sources of electricity, natural gas
alternatives, liquid fuels and other chemicals, and hydrogen-powered fuel cells. Several states
have utilized incentives to encourage the development of coal gasification facilities, including
tax incentives, financing incentives, commercialization- or development incentives, and cost
recovery incentives. These policies fall under the category of Type A and Type I policies.
7
Tax-based incentives include a variety of exemptions or credits tied to different taxes.
The Indiana coal gasification investment tax credit provides tax liability credits for qualified
investments in an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant equivalent to 10%
of the project cost for the first $500 million and 5% of the remaining cost above $500 million.
Illinois’ “Opportunity Returns” program provides incentives for coal gasification activities
including up to $200 million in bond funds for new gasification facilities. The “High Impact
Business” program provides tax incentives (credits on or exemptions to the sales and use tax,
income tax, retailers’ occupation tax, and electricity excise tax) for gasification-related activities
and the creation of jobs related to these activities (Illinois Department of Commerce and
Economic Opportunity, 2010).
Financing-based incentives address the critical issue of intensive, up-front capital
requirements for many energy projects. These incentives include loan and grant programs
targeted at lowering the high initial capital outlays associated with energy- or power-related
investments. For example, the Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority and
the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority provide priority funding for advanced coal
gasification projects, in addition to low-interest loans for IGCC projects.
Development-based incentives are typically used in association with state energy
initiatives that emphasize supporting technology development. Colorado’s New Energy
Technologies legislation provides financial assistance for project engineering and development
activities. Minnesota provides, through the state Renewable Development Account, a grant of up
to $2 million a year for five years for development and engineering activities associated with
IGCC projects.
8
Cost recovery incentives, such as those offered by the state of Colorado, make certain
projects or investments eligible for cost recovery of project expenditures during construction,
start-up, and implementation phases. In Indiana, clean coal and energy projects are eligible for
cost recovery for construction, repowering, expansion, operation and/or maintenance.
Renewable Energy Production Incentives
Many states have introduced policies, particularly those involving financial incentives,
targeted at encouraging investment in alternative energy generation and renewable energy
technology. These policies fall under Type B and Type I categories.
For illustration purposes, consider policies targeted at the renewable energy sector. There
are many different financial incentives available to states to directly encourage the development
of renewable energy technology and generation. Most of these financial incentives are targeted at
lowering the high initial capital outlays associated with renewable energy investments. Table 1
summarizes how the states have used different financial incentives such as production incentives,
industrial recruitment incentives, grants, and loans to encourage industrial and commercial
application of renewable energy technologies.
[Table 1 about here]
Production incentives can take the form of tax credits or cash rebates. These can be used
to reward the generation of renewable, alternative, or green electricity. Twenty-seven states
employ this incentive at the state-wide level. In the tax credit form, state incentives usually
involve a 1 cent to 1.5 cents credit per kWh of energy produced (Hopkins, 2003). Rebates or
cash payments incentives, on the other hand, are typically provided on a dollar-per-kWh basis.
These types of incentives can be a more effective mechanism for ensuring that quality renewable
9
energy projects are being pursued, as the incentives reward ongoing performance rather than
subsidizing one-time capital investments.
Loan and grant programs, on the other hand, offer financing for the purchase of specific
renewable energy equipment. These are intended to encourage the development of different
renewable energy technologies. While most states offer support for a broad range of renewable
energy equipment and technologies, some states focus on promoting one particular type of
renewable energy such as wind technology or alternative fuels.
Industrial recruitment/support incentives listed in Table 1 include financial incentives to
recruit or cultivate the production, manufacturing and development of renewable energy and
associated systems and equipment. These incentives commonly take the form of tax credits, tax
exemptions and grants. Most of these incentives apply to renewable energy technologies broadly
defined, but a few states target specific technologies, such as wind or solar. These incentives are
generally designed to attract industries that will benefit the economy and create jobs. In most
cases, the incentives are temporary measures that will help support the industries in their early
years but they can also include sunset provisions to encourage the industries to become self-
sufficient within a specified number of years.
Oregon offers the Business Energy Tax Credit to companies that invest in renewable
energy development. Businesses that manufacture renewable energy equipment may be eligible
for a tax credit of “50 percent of eligible costs, up to a maximum of $40 million in eligible costs”
(Oregon Department of Energy, 2008). Through this tax credit, the state has been able to
encourage the development of wave power technology. The Iowa Power Fund is a state program
that encourages renewable energy development by providing financing for approved projects,
which then receive matching funds from private investors or the federal government. In addition
10
to helping the state achieve its energy independence goals, projects must provide job creation,
work to establish public-private partnerships, and have external financial support (Iowa Office of
Energy Independence, 2010). In Montana, the legislature passed the “Clean and Green” property
tax incentives, which apply to a number of various energy facilities and equipment. Companies
that invest in renewable energy research and development equipment can receive tax abatements
for up to $1 million of the equipment value. Other equipment and facilities that meet certain
qualifications are eligible for a 3% tax rate, which is lower than the standard tax rate. Renewable
energy manufacturing facilities may also qualify for the “Clean and Green” incentives (Montana
Department of Environmental Quality, 2009).
Long-term Supply/Purchase Contracts
State policymakers have used their regulatory powers to spur energy development, for
example by allowing long-term purchase contracts for gasification products and other renewable
energy. Illinois’ Senate Bill 90 permits gas utilities to enter into long-term supply contracts with
any plant that uses IGCC to produce natural gas, resulting in the price for IGCC-produced
natural gas being fixed between 18% and 30% lower than that of conventional natural gas.
Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Indiana are other states that allow similar long-term purchase or
supply contracts at favorable prices, rates, or tariffs. Such incentives for enhancing energy
production fall under policy Type A or Type B, depending on the type of energy source. Under
Typology Y, these policies can be classified as Type II policies as they involve the loosening of
regulations regarding energy purchases by allowing longer-term contracts and therefore
encourage production of clean energy.
11
Incentives for Adoption and Use of Renewable, Alternative, or Green Energy Sources
There are a number of incentives that states can use to promote renewable energy use by
consumers (individuals and corporations). These policies can be categorized as Type D and Type
III. Table 2 summarizes how states have used tax incentives and rebates to encourage consumers
to adopt renewable, alternative, and green energy sources. Personal tax incentives typically
include deductions and income tax credits. These are intended to make the purchase of
renewable energy and energy efficiency systems and equipment more affordable. Property tax
incentives also include tax credits, abatements, exclusions, and exemptions. North Carolina uses
personal tax credits to induce businesses and individuals to install renewable energy technologies
in commercial and residential buildings. Eligible technologies include solar, photovoltaics,
landfill gas, geothermal heat pumps, and ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, and geothermal direct-use.
The program “offers a tax credit equal to 35% of the cost of eligible renewable energy property
constructed” (Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, 2010).
[Table 2 about here]
States use sales tax incentives to encourage the purchase of renewable energy systems
and energy efficient appliances and equipment by providing exemptions from or refunds of the
sales tax. Many states without permanent sales tax exemptions now have “sales tax holidays,”
where consumers are given a short period of time during which they can purchase renewable
energy and energy efficiency products without having to pay the sales tax.
In some states, corporations that construct green buildings or install renewable energy
systems in existing buildings are eligible for a variety of incentives including tax credits,
deductions, and exemptions. Some states connect the incentive to the amount of energy produced
12
by a facility while others require the corporation to invest a minimum amount on an approved
project.
Forty-seven states use rebates to promote the installation of renewable energy systems,
especially solar water heating and/or photovoltaic systems (Database of State Incentives for
Renewables and Efficiency, 2010). New Jersey’s Renewable Energy Incentive Program helps to
reduce the cost of installation of renewable energy systems for consumers. A variety of
incentives are offered depending on technology, building type and system size. One incentive
offered by the program is solar renewable energy certificates (SREC). Solar project owners can
offset installation costs by earning an SREC for every 1,000kWh of electricity generated.
Consumers can earn rebates of up to $3.20 per kWh produced by wind systems and up to $5.00
per watt for biopower systems (New Jersey Office of Clean Energy, 2010).
Renewable Portfolio Standards and Other Regulatory Policies
In addition to incentives, states have used their regulatory powers to encourage energy
development. Table 3 summarizes some of the different approaches that use the regulatory
approach, including renewable portfolio standards (RPS), mandatory utility green power options,
and energy standards for public buildings.
[Table 3 about here]
RPS is a regulatory policy tool commonly used by states to encourage the use of
renewable and alternative energy sources. It requires that more energy be produced from
renewable sources, such as wind and solar power, and specifies that utility companies use
renewable energy to account for a certain percentage of their electricity sales or a certain amount
of generating capacity. These fall under policy Type II and Type D. Pennsylvania’s RPS
13
program requires utility and retail energy suppliers to supply 18% of their energy from
renewable sources (e.g. solar thermal, wind, geothermal, biomass) by 2020 (Database of State
Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, 2010). In addition to RPS, states have implemented
mandatory utility green power options, which require utility companies to offer their customers
the option of buying electricity generated from clean resources. The purpose of RPS is to
encourage the development and use of renewable energy sources, create jobs, and increase
domestic energy production (Taylor 2006).
States have also used government regulation to impose energy standards for state
buildings and require new government buildings to meet strict energy standards. These standards
are often dictated by the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) program. LEED has been used by businesses and governments
nationwide as a benchmark for the development and use of green buildings (U.S. Green Building
Council, 2010) and is a popular tool among states wishing to promote energy efficiency. Policy
examples include establishing green building standards, energy-reduction goals, equipment-
procurement requirements, and/or the use of on-site renewable energy. These policies are
examples of Type IV policies. Policies focusing on reducing energy consumption are Type C
policies and policies focusing on use of renewable energy are Type D policies.
In 2007 Massachusetts passed Executive Order 484—Leading by Example: Clean Energy
and Efficient Buildings. The legislation sets specific energy targets for state facilities. By 2012,
Massachusetts agencies are expected to meet the goals of 25% reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions, 20% reduction in energy use per square foot, and 15% of energy consumption
attained from renewable sources. All newly constructed state buildings and major renovations on
state buildings larger than 20,000 square feet must meet MassLEED Plus standards
14
(Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management, 2010). New Mexico’s “Lead by
Example” program calls for a 20% reduction in energy used to heat and cool state buildings by
2015, a 20% reduction in the amount of vehicle fuel used for employee transport by 2015, and
reducing the per capita energy consumption of the general population 10% by 2012 and 20% by
2020 (New Mexico General Services Department, 2010).
Incentives for Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Many states are incentivizing consumers to conserve energy and become more energy
efficient (Type C and Type III policies). Most of these strategies involve providing tax incentives
to consumers who purchase energy efficient equipment (see Table 4).
[Table 4 about here]
States offer rebates, grants, and loans to encourage energy efficiency and conservation.
They are primarily available to commercial, industrial, educational and/or governmental
consumers, but are also available to individual citizens. Most grant programs are designed to
help pay the cost of eligible energy efficiency or conservation equipment and loan programs
provide financing for the purchase of energy efficiency equipment.
An example is Wyoming’s Energy Audit Program that provides matching grants to
qualified small businesses to cover the cost of energy audits. These energy audits are designed to
quantify energy use and losses through analysis of equipment, systems, and operational
characteristics; calculate efficiency and energy and costs savings of suggested improvements;
and perform economic analysis of recommended conservation measures. The state also offers
low-interest loans to income-qualified homeowners to pay for energy efficient home retrofits
including furnace replacement, programmable thermostats, caulking and weather stripping.
15
States are also using tax incentives to encourage the purchase of energy efficient
equipment. For example, Kentucky offers a 30% income tax credit for installation of energy
efficiency systems (e.g. interior lighting, hot water, and heating, ventilation and air conditioning
systems). This tax credit applies to efficiency improvements made to residences and commercial
properties, and can be claimed against individual or corporate income taxes. The state is also
focused on improving energy efficiency of its manufacturing sector. Its Incentives for Energy
Independence Act includes sales tax exemptions for the purchase of energy efficient
manufacturing machinery and equipment that reduce consumption of energy or energy-
producing fuels in the manufacturing process.
Conclusion
States have pursued energy policies for various reasons, many of which go beyond
environmental and energy security concerns to include economic development purposes. Several
types of policy options provide economic development-related opportunities through expanding
and encouraging development of new and existing energy resources, in addition to diversifying
the energy sector. Other policies focus on increasing energy efficiency and managing energy
costs for businesses, citizens, and government agencies. These policies can be achieved either
using incentives or regulation and can be targeted at consumers and producers. Many states have
used a combination of these policy options as part of their overall economic development
strategy, hoping to both expand and diversify their economies by developing and nurturing their
energy industries. However, there is no single silver bullet policy solution. Each state must
consider its unique circumstances and available resources to enact effective economic
development-related energy policies.
16
This research note introduced two typologies useful for organizing energy policies that
have been adopted or are being considered for adoption by the states. Note that these typologies
are not exhaustive of all energy policies. For example, one popular method of coal extraction is
mountaintop mining. While this is certainly one way to obtain access to an existing energy
source (Type A), it does not fit with the spirit of that policy type, nor is it appropriate given the
focus of this research note which is on renewable, alternative, or green technologies, and the
innovative use or technological advancement of existing energy resources. Moreover, as some of
the examples indicate, these policy types are not mutually exclusive. States can adopt policies
that encourage both the production and adoption of renewable energy sources, or that promote
the adoption of new energy sources and the conservation of existing ones. Other combinations
are also possible.
While these policies are often thought to generate economic development, they are not
without risks. Given the preponderance of policies that rely on incentives, an important issue is
whether incentives actually contribute to economic development. Some research suggests that
incentives are costly and do little to stimulate job creation (Bartik, 1995; Gabe & Kraybill. 2002;
Ihlanfeldt & Sjoquist 2001). Incentives have been described as unnecessary gifts or welfare
grants to private firms (Harrison & Kanter 1978; Walton 1982). Businesses may overestimate
the number of jobs they created as a result of receiving incentives from the government in order
to justify the need for such incentives (Gabe & Kraybill, 2002). The risk also exists that a
business to which the government provides various incentives will fail, thus wasting the
incentive money (Bartik, 1995). In terms of the effectiveness of the more popular tax incentives,
research has uncovered contradictory findings, and some have concluded that their effects are
neither good nor bad (Buss, 2001). It can also be difficult to determine whether the tax incentive
17
is the driving force behind an individual’s or business’ decision to adopt clean energy practices.
For example, Morris and Qiao (2012) point to research that suggests energy credits that go
towards income taxes tend to bring the most benefit to higher-income households that would
have adopted energy efficient equipment and appliances anyway.
Like most other economic development policies, energy-based policies have fiscal
implications and costs to the state. With direct financing of energy development activity, money
spent on these incentives is money not spent elsewhere. As Barnekov and Rich (1989) argue,
incentives drain resources from other types of community needs. For example, if a state chooses
to devote significant resources to provide grants or loans for renewable energy projects, it may
have less money to spend in other areas. Tax incentives, while not directly requiring the state to
spend resources, result in tax expenditures or foregone tax revenues. They also tend to generate
administrative costs, and it can be difficult to determine whether the benefits from the incentive
offset those costs (Morris & Qiao, 2012). Property tax incentives, which are popular for energy-
related economic development, can be challenging because these taxes are usually the main
revenue source for local functions and school districts (Sweeney, 2004), and can therefore have
intergovernmental fiscal implications.
Furthermore, Dewar (1998) argues that incentives are unlikely to succeed because
success may lead to politically unpopular decisions. Likewise, policies that are politically
attractive to elected officials are often not effective in generating economic development. Thus,
according to Dewar, incentive programs are often effective and short-lived due to their
unpopularity, or are maintained for a longer period of time but with little economic benefit.
Burnier (1992) notes that for most policymakers “incentive programs are an imperfect
development tool, but in the “real world” of economic development these shortcomings must be
18
balanced against the possibility of new jobs and incentives… officials must be willing to make
trade-offs” (p. 19).
With respect to energy development incentives, states must be aware of specific
challenges and unintended consequences. For example, Rabe (2007) finds several challenges
associated with the popular RPS approach, especially with implementation. As states have begun
to favor more heavily expensive renewable sources, they have had to contribute greater financial
subsidies, thus increasing the cost of the RPS policy. Also, the focus on capitalizing on in-state
economic development gains may come at the expense of ignoring other, potentially successful
opportunities for cross-state collaboration.
Clearly there are risks associated with economic development incentives and other tools.
However, this does not mean they should not be used. Rather, it is important for state
policymakers to be aware of the tools available to them and their corresponding risks, so that
they may make responsible and effective policy. The typologies provide frameworks for
understanding the different energy policies that states have adopted under their economic
development umbrella. Using these frameworks, states and economic development practitioners
may be more cognizant of how they are able to adopt a portfolio of policies that address all four
types to result in a comprehensive energy-based economic development strategy, or to adopt
policies in one category to result in a more focused energy-based economic development
strategy.
End Notes
1. While the focus of this research note is on state-level policies, we acknowledge that this
focus on states may be too narrow. However, as Hopkins (2003) argues, energy-related
19
policies are typically the domain of state governments. While there may be inter-state
elements of energy policies, most policies are adopted and implemented by individual states,
hence the focus of this research note.
References
Barnekov, T. & Rich, D. (1989). Privatism and the limits of local economic development. Urban
Affairs Quarterly, 25, 212-238.
Bartik, T.J. (1995). Economic development incentive wars. W.E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research, 2, 3–4.
Burnier, D. (1992). Becoming competitive: How policymakers view incentive-based
development policy. Economic Development Quarterly, 6, 14-24.
Buss, T.F. (2001). The effect of state tax incentives on economic growth and firm location
decisions: An overview of the literature. Economic Development Quarterly, 15, 90-105
Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. (2010). Database of State Incentives
for Renewables and Efficiency. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from http://www.dsireusa.org/
Dewar, M.E. (1998). Why state and local economic development programs cause so little
economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 12, 68-87.
Gabe, T.M., & Kraybill, D.S. (2002). The effect of state economic development incentives on
employment growth of establishments. Journal of Regional Science, 42, 703-730.
Harrison, B., & Kanter, S. (1978). The political economy of states’ job-creation business
incentives. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 44, 424-435.
Hopkins, B. (2003). Renewable energy and state economies. Trends Alert: Critical Tools for
Decisionmakers. May 2003. Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments.
20
Retrieved October 25, 2011, from
http://www.csg.org/pubs/Documents/TA0305RenEnergy.pdf
Ihlanfeldt, K.R., & Sjoquist, D.L. (2001). Conducting an analysis of Georgia's Economic
Development Tax Incentive Program. Economic Development Quarterly, 15, 217-228.
Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. (2010). Tax assistance: High
impact businesses. Retrieved September 28, 2010, from
http://www.illinoisbiz.biz/dceo/Bureaus/Business_Development/Tax+Assistance/HIB.ht
m
Iowa Office of Energy Independence. (2010). Power fund Board invites more project
applications. Retrieved September 28, 2010, from
http://www.state.ia.us/government/governor/energy/Power_Fund/about_IPF.html
Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management. (2010). Executive Order 484—Leading
by Example: Clean energy and efficient buildings. Retrieved September 28, 2010, from
http://www.mass.gov/anf/property-mgmt-and-construction/facilities-mgmt-and-
maintenance/energy-and-sustainability/leading-by-exmple-clean-engy-and-effic-bldgs-
eo484.html
Montana Department of Environmental Quality. (2009). “Clean and Green” property tax
incentives. Retrieved September 28, 2010, from
http://deq.mt.gov/Energy/PropertyTaxIncentives.mcpx
Morris, D., & Qiao, P. (2012). Promoting energy savings with state income tax incentives for
homeowners. State Tax Notes, 63, 37-67.
New Jersey Office of Clean Energy. (2010). Renewable Energy Incentive Program. Accessed
September 28, 2010. http://www.njcleanenergy.com/renewable-energy/home/home
21
New Mexico General Services Department. (2010). What is Energy Efficiency “Lead by
Example”? Retrieved September 28, 2010, from
http://www.generalservices.state.nm.us/energy/
Oregon Department of Energy. (2008). Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit. Retrieved
September 28, 2010, from
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/BUS/docs/betcbro.pdf?ga=t
Rabe, B. (2007). Race to the Top: The Expanding Role of U.S. State Renewable Portfolio
Standards. Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 7, 10-17.
Sweeney, M. (2004). The Challenge of Business Incentives for State Policymakers: A
Practitioner’s Perspective. Spectrum: The Journal of State Government. Winter, 8-11.
Taylor, M. (2006). State Energy Solutions. Trends Alert: Critical Information for State Decision-
Makers. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from
http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/TA0602EnergySolutions.pdf
U.S. Green Building Council. (2010). An Introduction to LEED. Retrieved September 28, 2010,
from http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1988
Walton, J. (1982). Cities and jobs and politics. Urban Affairs and Quarterly, 18, 5-17.
22
Figure 1. Typology X
Energy Approach
Production Consumption/Use
Energy Source
Existing energy
sources A C
New energy
sources B D
23
Figure 2. Typology Y
Target Audience
Producer Consumer
Regulatory
Approach
Incentives I III
Regulation II IV
24
Table 1. Financial Incentives to Support Renewable Energy Development and Production
State/Territory Grants Loans Industrial
Recruitment/
Support
Production
Incentive
Alabama
x
x
Alaska
x
x
Arizona
x
Arkansas
x
x
California
x
x
x
Colorado
x
Connecticut
x
x
x
Delaware
x
x
Florida
x
Georgia
x
Hawaii
x
x
Idaho
x
Illinois
x
x
x
Indiana
Iowa
x
Kansas
x
x
Kentucky
x
Louisiana
x
Maine
x
x
x
Maryland
x
x
Massachusetts
x
x
x
x
Michigan
x
x
x
Minnesota
x
x
x
Mississippi
x
x
Missouri
x
Montana
x
x
Nebraska
x
Nevada
x
x
x
New Hampshire
x
New Jersey
x
x
x
New Mexico
x
x
New York
x
x
x
North Carolina
x
x
North Dakota
Ohio
x
x
x
Oklahoma
x
x
Oregon
x
x
x
x
Pennsylvania
x
x
x
x
Rhode Island
x
x
x
South Carolina
x
x
South Dakota
x
Tennessee
x
x
x
Texas
x
x
x
Utah
x
Vermont
x
x
Virginia
x
x
Washington
x
x
West Virginia
Wisconsin
x
Wyoming
x
District of Columbia
x
x
Source: Data from the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency
(http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/finre_printable.cfm) accessed October 21, 2011
25
Table 2. Financial Incentives to Support Use of Renewable Energy by Consumers
State/Territory Personal/
Property Tax
(a)
Corporate Tax Sales Tax Rebates
Alabama
X
Alaska
X
Arizona
X
x
x
Arkansas
California
X
x
Colorado
X
x
Connecticut
X
x
x
Delaware
x
Florida
x
Georgia
X
x
x
Hawaii
X
x
x
Idaho
X
Illinois
X
x
x
Indiana
X
Iowa
X
x
x
Kansas
X
x
Kentucky
X
x
x
x
Louisiana
X
x
x
Maine
x
x
Maryland
X
x
x
x
Massachusetts
X
x
x
x
Michigan
X
Minnesota
X
x
x
Mississippi
Missouri
X
x
Montana
X
x
Nebraska
X
x
x
Nevada
X
x
x
New Hampshire
X
x
New Jersey
X
x
x
New Mexico
X
x
x
New York
X
x
x
x
North Carolina
X
x
North Dakota
X
x
x
Ohio
X
x
Oklahoma
x
Oregon
X
x
x
Pennsylvania
X
Rhode Island
X
x
x
South Carolina
X
x
x
South Dakota
X
x
Tennessee
X
x
Texas
X
x
Utah
X
x
x
x
Vermont
X
x
x
x
Virginia
X
x
Washington
x
West Virginia
X
x
Wisconsin
X
x
x
x
Wyoming
x
District of Columbia
x
Source: Data from the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency
(http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/finre.cfm
accessed October 21, 2011
(a) Morris and Qiao (2012) offer an analysis and inventory of incentives offered by states through residential energy income tax
credits and deductions.
26
Table 3. Regulatory Policies
State/Territory RPS Required Green
Power
Energy Standards for
Public Buildings
Alabama
x
Alaska
Arizona
x
x
Arkansas
x
California
x
x
Colorado
x
x
x
Connecticut
x
x
Delaware
x
x
Florida
x
Georgia
x
Hawaii
x
x
Idaho
x
Illinois
x
x
Indiana
x
x
Iowa
x
x
x
Kansas
x
Kentucky
x
Louisiana
x
Maine
x
x
x
Maryland
x
x
Massachusetts
x
x
Michigan
x
x
Minnesota
x
x
Mississippi
Missouri
x
x
Montana
x
x
x
Nebraska
Nevada
x
x
New Hampshire
x
x
New Jersey
x
x
New Mexico
x
x
New York
x
x
North Carolina
x
x
North Dakota
x
Ohio
x
x
Oklahoma
x
x
Oregon
x
x
x
Pennsylvania
x
x
Rhode Island
x
x
South Carolina
x
South Dakota
x
x
Tennessee
x
Texas
x
x
Utah
x
x
x
Vermont
x
x
Virginia
x
x
Washington
x
x
West Virginia
x
Wisconsin
x
x
Wyoming
District of Columbia
x
x
Source: Data from the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency
(http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/rrpre.cfm
accessed October 21, 2011
27
Table 4. Financial Incentives to Encourage Energy Efficiency
State/Territory Personal/
Property Tax
Corporate Tax Sales Tax Rebates/Grants Loans
Alabama
x
Alaska
x
x
Arizona
x
Arkansas
x
California
x
x
Colorado
x
Connecticut
x
x
x
Delaware
x
x
Florida
x
Georgia
x
x
Hawaii
x
x
Idaho
x
x
Illinois
x
x
Indiana
Iowa
x
Kansas
x
Kentucky
x
x
x
x
x
Louisiana
x
x
Maine
x
x
Maryland
x
x
x
x
x
Massachusetts
x
x
Michigan
x
x
x
Minnesota
x
Mississippi
x
Missouri
x
x
x
x
Montana
x
x
x
Nebraska
x
Nevada
x
x
x
x
New Hampshire
x
x
New Jersey
x
x
x
New Mexico
x
New York
x
x
x
x
North Carolina
x
x
North Dakota
x
Ohio
x
Oklahoma
x
x
x
Oregon
x
x
x
x
Pennsylvania
x
x
Rhode Island
South Carolina
x
x
x
South Dakota
x
Tennessee
x
x
Texas
x
x
Utah
x
Vermont
x
x
Virginia
x
x
x
x
Washington
West Virginia
x
Wisconsin
x
x
Wyoming
x
x
District of Columbia
x
x
Source: Data from the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency
(http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/finee.cfm
) accessed October 21, 2011
