This analysis shows the impact of power purchase agreements on regional economic outcomes, indicating significant benefits when implemented locally.
Local governments increasingly combine power purchase agreements (PPAs) with local retail power producers and suppliers (RPPSs) to pursue decarbonization and regional revitalization. However, there is limited municipal-scale evidence on how contractual design translates into regional multiplier and employment outcomes under structural uncertainty. Using a 38-sector municipal input–output table (2015) for Fukuchiyama City, Kyoto, Japan, we conduct scenario-based simulations to quantify the output and employment multipliers of on-site and off-site solar photovoltaic PPAs. We compare Type I multipliers (household exogenous) and Type II multipliers (household endogenous) across nine scenarios that combine three PPA arrangements—off-site sales to the local RPPS [A], off-site sales to a major utility [B], and on-site self-consumption [C]—with three interregional leakage scenarios (1)–(3). A systematic sensitivity analysis (±10–20% perturbation of structural coefficients) was implemented to provide results as conditional ranges rather than point estimates. Under baseline leakage (3), off-site PPAs sold to the local RPPS [A3] yield the largest short-term total effects (1.24 million USD/year). Crucially, the error bars confirm that the policy ranking of A > B > C remains robustly invariant across all leakage conditions. Endogenizing households increases total effects by approximately 22.9% without changing this ranking, with induced effects concentrated in consumption-related services. In contrast, on-site PPAs [C] yield significantly larger long-term cumulative multipliers through stable expenditure savings from avoided electricity purchases. These results provide a transferable evaluation protocol and identify policy levers—off-taker localization, local supply chain thickening, and localized O&M—that jointly determine whether PPAs deliver broad-based regional economic benefits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
NAKAJIMA et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: