IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i8p1821-d1373462.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Preferences for Wood-Pellet-Based Green Pricing Programs in the Eastern United States

Author

Listed:
  • Sydney Oluoch

    (College of Arts and Sciences, Northern Kentucky University, 1 Louie B Nunn Dr, Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA)

  • Pankaj Lal

    (Clean Energy and Sustainability Analytics Center (CESAC), Montclair State University, 150 Clove Rd., Little Falls, NJ 07424, USA)

  • Andres Susaeta

    (Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management, Oregon State University, 244 Peavy Forest Science Center, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA)

  • Meghann Smith

    (Clean Energy and Sustainability Analytics Center (CESAC), Montclair State University, 150 Clove Rd., Little Falls, NJ 07424, USA)

  • Bernabas Wolde

    (Clean Energy and Sustainability Analytics Center (CESAC), Montclair State University, 150 Clove Rd., Little Falls, NJ 07424, USA)

Abstract

Co-firing wood pellets with coal is an attractive alternative energy generation method with economic, social, and environmental benefits for the US energy generation sector. One way to sustainably use wood pellets for co-firing is to create consumer-supported green pricing programs (GPPs). Our study surveyed residents of five states (Alabama, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) to investigate preferences for the attributes of a hypothetical GPP. The study applied the Best Worst Choice method, which employs the Best Worst Scaling (BWS) and binary choice (BC) task. The BWS analysis showed that residents of all five states most value the flexibility of contracts, the location of energy generation, and the reduction of carbon emissions as attributes of GPPs. The BC analysis, however, showed that residents are willing to pay a premium for length of contract, followed by reduction of carbon emissions and variability of payments. This study shows that the adoption of optimal GPP attributes can create real customer value. The success of GPPs will depend on increasing enrollment and public support; hence, the next step will be to increase awareness levels and green consciousness through sensitization in the form of public education exercises and media campaigns. Such measures will serve to inform and educate residents on the benefits of GPPs and lessen the gap between intrinsic value and willingness to pay for select attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • Sydney Oluoch & Pankaj Lal & Andres Susaeta & Meghann Smith & Bernabas Wolde, 2024. "Consumer Preferences for Wood-Pellet-Based Green Pricing Programs in the Eastern United States," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:8:p:1821-:d:1373462
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/8/1821/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/8/1821/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roni, Md.S. & Eksioglu, Sandra D. & Searcy, Erin & Jha, Krishna, 2014. "A supply chain network design model for biomass co-firing in coal-fired power plants," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 115-134.
    2. Zhang, Lei & Wu, Yang, 2012. "Market segmentation and willingness to pay for green electricity among urban residents in China: The case of Jiangsu Province," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 514-523.
    3. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    4. Felix Ebeling & Sebastian Lotz, 2015. "Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(9), pages 868-871, September.
    5. Herbes, Carsten & Ramme, Iris, 2014. "Online marketing of green electricity in Germany—A content analysis of providers’ websites," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 257-266.
    6. Borchers, Allison M. & Duke, Joshua M. & Parsons, George R., 2007. "Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 3327-3334, June.
    7. Soto, José R. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J., 2016. "Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 35-42.
    8. Soto, José R. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Khachatryan, Hayk & Adams, Damian C., 2018. "Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 31-39.
    9. Bergmann, Ariel & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2008. "Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 616-625, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mishra, Bijesh, 2022. "Economics and human dimension of active management of forest-grassland ecotone in South-central USA under changing climate," MPRA Paper 116200, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 30 Jul 2022.
    2. Herbes, Carsten & Friege, Christian & Baldo, Davide & Mueller, Kai-Markus, 2015. "Willingness to pay lip service? Applying a neuroscience-based method to WTP for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 562-572.
    3. Bae, Jeong Hwan & Rishi, Meenakshi, 2018. "Increasing consumer participation rates for green pricing programs: A choice experiment for South Korea," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 490-502.
    4. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Cardella, Eric & Ewing, Brad & Williams, Ryan Blake, 2018. "Green is Good – The Impact of Information Nudges on the Adoption of Voluntary Green Power Plans," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266583, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Bae, Jeong Hwan & Rishi, Meenakshi & Li, Dmitriy, 2021. "Consumer preferences for a green certificate program in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    7. Faulques, Martin & Bonnet, Jean & Bourdin, Sébastien & Juge, Marine & Pigeon, Jonas & Richard, Charlotte, 2022. "Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    8. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    9. Balezentis, Tomas & Streimikiene, Dalia & Mikalauskas, Ignas & Shen, Zhiyang, 2021. "Towards carbon free economy and electricity: The puzzle of energy costs, sustainability and security based on willingness to pay," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    10. Knoefel, Jan & Sagebiel, Julian & Yildiz, Özgür & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2018. "A consumer perspective on corporate governance in the energy transition: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 440-448.
    11. Petter Gudding & Gorm Kipperberg & Craig Bond & Kelly Cullen & Eric Steltzer, 2018. "When a Good Is a Bad (or a Bad Is a Good)—Analysis of Data from an Ambiguous Nonmarket Valuation Setting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    12. MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Rose, John M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Bark, Rosalind H. & Pritchard, Jodie, 2019. "Managing groundwater in a mining region: an opportunity to compare best-worst and referendum data," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    13. Simona Bigerna & Carlo Andrea Bollino & Paolo Polinori, 2014. "The Question of Sustainability of Green Electricity Policy Intervention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(8), pages 1-23, August.
    14. Rubino, Elena C. & Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Soto, José R., 2018. "Structuring Legal Trade in Rhino Horn to Incentivize the Participation of South African Private Landowners," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 306-316.
    15. Sundt, Swantje & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity: A meta-analysis of the literature," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    16. Soon, Jan-Jan & Ahmad, Siti-Aznor, 2015. "Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 877-887.
    17. Anna Kowalska-Pyzalska, 2019. "Do Consumers Want to Pay for Green Electricity? A Case Study from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, March.
    18. Cardella, Eric & Ewing, Bradley T. & Williams, Ryan B., 2017. "Price volatility and residential electricity decisions: Experimental evidence on the convergence of energy generating source," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 428-437.
    19. Hackbarth, André, 2018. "Attitudes, preferences, and intentions of German households concerning participation in peer-to-peer electricity trading," Reutlingen Working Papers on Marketing & Management 2019-2, Reutlingen University, ESB Business School.
    20. Anna Kowalska-Pyzalska, 2018. "An Empirical Analysis of Green Electricity Adoption Among Residential Consumers in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:8:p:1821-:d:1373462. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.