which state is yoda?
TRANSCRIPT
Energy Policy 42 (2012) 613–615
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Energy Policy
0301-42
doi:10.1
n Tel.:
E-m1 Th
and ind
sophisti
impact2 H
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Viewpoint
Which state is Yoda?
Matt Croucher n
Seidman Research Institute, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 29 June 2011
Accepted 13 December 2011Available online 31 December 2011
Keywords:
Economic impact
JEDI
Solar
15/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. A
016/j.enpol.2011.12.031
þ1 480 965 4198; fax: þ1 480 965 0748.
ail address: [email protected]
ese models utilize information from intervi
ustry experts as well as various inputs f
cated input–output (IO) model that is often u
of various situations.
ence the title reference to Yoda—possibly the
a b s t r a c t
As Yoda famously said ‘‘Size matters not,y. Look at me. Judge me by size, do you’’. If indeed we do judge
by size then Pennsylvania appears to be the Yoda of solar deployment.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
There is a growing desire by public-policy makers to understandthe economic impact caused by solar generation being constructedand operated within a particular state. Also, many solar proponentsargue that building solar generation within a particular state willreduce the flow of ‘‘energy dollars’’ that leave the state in form ofresource payments for things like oil, natural gas and coal.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has createdseveral excel-based models that potentially assist with understandingthe economic impact of solar deployment.1 These Jobs and EconomicDevelopment Impact (JEDI) models2 are publically available forvarious types of technologies including wind, natural gas, solar—
concentrating solar power (CSP) and photovoltaic (PV) and coal.The purpose of this brief is to use one of the JEDI models
available—we selected the photovoltaic model—to answer asimple question. Which state for a given amount of solar deploy-ment leads to the greatest state economic impact? Simply put,which state is the most powerful JEDI? Which state is Yoda?
Section 2 describes our methodology and results. Section 3provides some conclusions and warnings about the results.
3 That is not to say that none of the parameters in the model ever changed. For
instance when the state was changed from California to Arizona some of the
default underlying parameters did change but these were pre-determined within
the model itself and thus left unchanged. Essentially we did not override any of
the internal settings.
2. JEDI modeling results
The JEDI model used was the JEDI–Photovoltaics releasenumber PV1.10.01. Our methodology was simple. We left all
ll rights reserved.
ews with project developers
rom IMPLAN. IMPLAN is a
sed to examine the economic
greatest JEDI.
default variables unchanged and simply changed the State inwhich the assumed construction and operation of the PV systemswould take place.3,4
Thus, for each state examined the year of construction was2010, the average name plate size of the PV system was 2.5 kilo-watts (KW), 100 installations were assumed, all systems werenew residential construction and all monetary values are in 2008dollars.
Table 1 summarizes the results.Using the total economic output created during construction
as the metric, which determines overall rankings then it appearsthat Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin arestates that would derive the greatest level of economic activityfrom solar generation being deployment within their state.5
Interestingly, Arizona, a state with the highest solar insola-tion,6 is ranked the lowest in terms of economic impact from theconstruction and operation of photovoltaic systems. California,another state with a high level of solar insolation, is ranked 38th.
4 NREL does allow changes in the default settings and also note within their
literature that ‘‘To the extent that a user has and can incorporate project-specific data
as well as the share of spending expected to occur locally, the results are more likely to
better reflect the actual impacts from the specific project.’’5 If jobs created during construction was used then New Mexico, Ohio,
Vermont South Dakota and Idaho are the top five. If jobs during operations was
the ranking metric, New Mexico, Idaho, Vermont, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma
would be the top five. In all cases Arizona would be in the bottom 10–20.6 See NREL insolation maps.
Table 1Economic impact associated with PV deployment across the States.
Source: JEDI.
Ranking State Construction and installation period Operation period
Jobs Earnings $000 Output $000 Annual jobs Annual earnings $000 Annual output $000
1 PENNSYLVANIA 28.98 1214.37 3220.16 0.20 8.14 22.62
2 ILLINOIS 27.65 1226.09 3150.66 0.18 7.87 21.09
3 MINNESOTA 29.36 1198.14 3131.11 0.03 1.85 2.99
4 OHIO 31.32 1185.48 3111.35 0.03 1.79 2.82
5 WISCONSIN 30.08 1097.74 2915.96 0.03 1.83 2.96
6 MARYLAND 25.62 1148.61 2904.59 0.03 1.85 2.93
7 VERMONT 30.50 1073.91 2896.05 0.20 6.87 18.63
8 MISSOURI 28.02 1057.00 2872.99 0.20 7.25 20.32
9 NEW YORK 22.17 1110.25 2865.26 0.03 1.89 3.04
10 NEW MEXICO 31.50 1046.24 2853.82 0.22 7.28 20.34
11 MASSACHUSETTS 23.19 1148.61 2847.50 0.03 1.89 2.99
12 NEVADA 24.01 1058.76 2834.27 0.03 1.78 2.83
13 TENNESSEE 26.14 1014.28 2829.65 0.18 6.74 19.52
14 OREGON 27.08 1033.37 2824.56 0.03 1.81 2.96
15 NEBRASKA 29.33 1015.68 2808.39 0.19 6.59 18.67
16 FLORIDA 26.11 1076.35 2807.66 0.03 1.86 3.03
17 HAWAII 26.85 1012.79 2753.21 0.17 6.71 18.69
18 WASHINGTON 23.95 1029.07 2743.80 0.15 6.26 17.17
19 UTAH 27.55 1001.28 2743.34 0.19 6.56 18.56
20 OKLAHOMA 29.18 970.03 2740.97 0.20 6.37 18.71
21 MICHIGAN 26.02 1045.96 2723.97 0.03 1.80 2.87
22 GEORGIA 24.36 1023.36 2723.03 0.16 6.54 18.18
23 NEW JERSEY 20.62 1044.11 2718.34 0.03 1.82 2.86
24 COLORADO 23.82 987.71 2716.32 0.16 6.27 18.14
25 IDAHO 30.22 958.43 2715.94 0.20 6.23 18.33
26 LOUISIANA 27.26 999.18 2711.10 0.03 1.78 2.84
27 TEXAS 23.54 960.67 2705.83 0.03 1.76 2.87
28 SOUTH DAKOTA 30.26 950.70 2693.61 0.03 1.77 2.87
29 ALABAMA 27.57 998.09 2689.52 0.18 6.43 18.02
30 KANSAS 27.81 980.30 2682.41 0.03 1.78 2.87
31 ARKANSAS 29.57 983.02 2680.56 0.20 6.34 18.11
32 INDIANA 28.00 1001.47 2679.90 0.18 6.48 18.03
33 ALASKA 25.23 955.57 2645.85 0.16 6.11 17.52
34 CONNECTICUT 20.29 1016.65 2627.86 0.03 1.85 2.93
35 NORTH CAROLINA 26.76 1002.91 2623.58 0.06 2.69 5.65
36 VIRGINIA 23.51 1042.79 2623.56 0.15 6.50 16.92
37 NORTH DAKOTA 29.72 946.06 2620.46 0.03 1.76 2.84
38 CALIFORNIA 21.19 960.01 2615.08 0.03 1.82 2.97
39 KENTUCKY 27.32 979.22 2613.60 0.18 6.34 17.36
40 NEW HAMPSHIRE 23.21 991.12 2610.10 0.16 6.62 17.79
41 MISSISSIPPI 28.92 941.65 2607.43 0.20 6.21 17.63
42 MAINE 26.60 939.81 2606.61 0.18 6.15 17.49
43 MONTANA 29.26 898.86 2598.32 0.03 1.72 2.80
44 IOWA 28.67 951.32 2592.71 0.03 1.77 2.85
45 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 18.43 1160.13 2588.72 0.11 7.04 15.39
46 SOUTH CAROLINA 27.21 974.81 2582.86 0.17 6.12 16.73
47 WEST VIRGINIA 28.40 950.02 2567.35 0.19 6.19 17.08
48 WYOMING 26.04 844.12 2485.26 0.17 5.31 15.53
49 RHODE ISLAND 22.59 945.61 2443.61 0.14 5.85 14.99
50 DELAWARE 21.24 966.40 2402.47 0.13 5.77 14.36
51 ARIZONA 21.33 880.30 2372.78 0.03 1.81 2.95
M. Croucher / Energy Policy 42 (2012) 613–615614
3. Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the economic impactof photovoltaic solar electric systems being deployed acrossstates. Using the JEDI model created by NREL we find thatPennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin are statesthat enjoy relatively large amounts of economic activity duringconstruction (which tends to be when the majority of economicactivity from the construction and operation of PV systems willoccur).7
7 For instance assuming a PV system last 30 years the total economic output
from the operations phase in Pennsylvania is approximately $680 million whilst
during the construction and installation phase the economic output is estimated
to be $3.2 billion—over 4 times as much as the operations phase.
Thus, it initially appears that from a national stimulus point ofview more solar deployment should occur within these states.Also, Arizona is ranked last in terms of the overall economicactivity from the construction, installation and operation of PVsystems.
However, caution should be taken when interpreting theresults from Section 2. First the JEDI models only look at grosseconomic activity caused by the deployment of PV systems.8 Thatis, no consideration is taken to evaluate how these systems willbe paid for, what generation facilities will the PV systems offset
8 Also the JEDI models are only a ‘‘stripped-down’’ version of IMPLAN which
itself is a more complex input-output model.
M. Croucher / Energy Policy 42 (2012) 613–615 615
and the potential resulting impact on electricity prices—whichthemselves will cause changes in the state’s overall economicactivity.9
Also, the JEDI model for PV systems ignores the impactcapacity factor differences across the States may have on theefficiency of the systems, the resulting output generated and theresulting levelized cost of electricity as well as rates of returns onthe PV systems.
That is not to say the JEDI models are not useful tools. For onethey highlight some of the numerous factors that have to be
9 In a relatively simplistic manner the implicit assumption made is that the
solar generation that is deployed is for export purposes – thus the costs of the
system are borne by people outside of the state.
considered when examining the economic impact of solar gen-eration. They also illustrate how the economic impact from solargeneration deployment will differ across states due, in part, to thevarying nature of each individual state’s economy.
Thus, to fully understand the economic impact solar deploy-ment would have on a state’s overall economy takes carefulconsideration and attempts to simplify the analysis can lead tosurprising results such as the ones found within this paper,namely Arizona is not a desirable state in which to deploy solarfrom an national economic development stand-point.