IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Environmental pricing of externalities from different sources of electricity generation in Chile

  • Aravena, Claudia
  • Hutchinson, W. George
  • Longo, Alberto
Registered author(s):

    The rapid increase in electricity demand in Chile means a choice must be made between major investments in renewable or non-renewable sources for additional production. Current projects to develop large dams for hydropower in Chilean Patagonia impose an environmental price by damaging the natural environment. On the other hand, the increased use of fossil fuels entails an environmental price in terms of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. This paper studies the debate on future electricity supply in Chile by investigating the preferences of households for a variety of different sources of electricity generation such as fossil fuels, large hydropower in Chilean Patagonia and other renewable energy sources. Using Double Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation, a novel advanced disclosure method and internal consistency test are used to elicit the willingness to pay for less environmentally damaging sources. Policy results suggest a strong preference for renewable energy sources with higher environmental prices imposed by consumers on electricity generated from fossil fuels than from large dams in Chilean Patagonia. Policy results further suggest the possibility of introducing incentives for renewable energy developments that would be supported by consumers through green tariffs or environmental premiums. Methodological findings suggest that advanced disclosure learning overcomes the problem of internal inconsistency in SB-DB estimates.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988311002787
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Energy Economics.

    Volume (Year): 34 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 4 ()
    Pages: 1214-1225

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:34:y:2012:i:4:p:1214-1225
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Hanley, Nick & Nevin, Ceara, 1999. "Appraising renewable energy developments in remote communities: the case of the North Assynt Estate, Scotland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 527-547, September.
    2. Georgakellos, Dimitrios A., 2010. "Impact of a possible environmental externalities internalisation on energy prices: The case of the greenhouse gases from the Greek electricity sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 202-209, January.
    3. Cooper, Joseph C. & Hanemann, W.M. & Signorello, Giovanni, 2002. "One and One-Half Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," MPRA Paper 17190, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Nov 2002.
    4. 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.
    5. Burton, Anthony C. & Carson, Katherine S. & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George, 2003. "An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 472-489, November.
    6. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    7. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
    8. Koundouri, Phoebe & Kountouris, Yiannis & Remoundou, Kyriaki, 2009. "Valuing a wind farm construction: A contingent valuation study in Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1939-1944, May.
    9. Longo, Alberto & Markandya, Anil & Petrucci, Marta, 2008. "The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: Willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 140-152, August.
    10. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick, 2002. "Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 107-116, January.
    11. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    12. Wiser, Ryan H., 2007. "Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 419-432, May.
    13. Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh & Patricia A. Champ, 1997. "Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay When Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses Are Not Independent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 255-267.
    14. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    15. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non-Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow-Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122.
    16. Anthony D. Owen, 2006. "Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Renewable Energy Technologies," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 39(2), pages 207-215, 06.
    17. Färe, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Pasurka, Carl Jr., 2010. "Toxic releases: An environmental performance index for coal-fired power plants," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 158-165, January.
    18. Barbara J. Kanninen, 1993. "Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(2), pages 138-146.
    19. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    20. Peter A. Groothuis & Jana D. Groothuis & John C. Whitehead, 2007. "Green vs. Green: Measuring the Compensation Required to Site Electrical Generation Windmills in a Viewshed," Working Papers 07-12, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    21. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    22. Mulder, Arjen, 2008. "Do economic instruments matter? Wind turbine investments in the EU(15)," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2980-2991, November.
    23. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    24. Batley, S. L. & Colbourne, D. & Fleming, P. D. & Urwin, P., 2001. "Citizen versus consumer: challenges in the UK green power market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 479-487, May.
    25. Zarnikau, Jay, 2003. "Consumer demand for `green power' and energy efficiency," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(15), pages 1661-1672, December.
    26. Anthony Burton & Katherine Carson & Susan Chilton & W. George Hutchinson, 2009. "Why do people non-demand reveal in hypothetical double referenda for public goods?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(27), pages 3561-3569.
    27. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F. & Levy, Alan & Russell, Matthew, 2001. "US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 917-925, September.
    28. Scarpa, Riccardo & Willis, Ken, 2010. "Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: Primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 129-136, January.
    29. David Aadland & Arthur Caplan, 2002. "Cheap Talk Reconsidered: New Evidence from CVM," Working Papers 2002-20, Utah State University, Department of Economics.
    30. Nomura, Noboru & Akai, Makoto, 2004. "Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 78(4), pages 453-463, August.
    31. Lintunen, Jussi & Kangas, Hanna-Liisa, 2010. "The case of co-firing: The market level effects of subsidizing biomass co-combustion," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 694-701, May.
    32. Whitehead, John C. & Cherry, Todd L., 2007. "Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 247-261, November.
    33. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    34. Brian Byrnes & Clive Jones† & Sandra Goodman‡, 1999. "Contingent Valuation and Real Economic Commitments: Evidence from Electric Utility Green Pricing Programmes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 149-166.
    35. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
    36. Carlo Andrea Bollino, 2009. "The Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy Sources: The Case of Italy with Socio-demographic Determinants," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 81-96.
    37. Bergmann, Ariel & Hanley, Nick & Wright, Robert, 2006. "Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1004-1014, June.
    38. Trudy Ann Cameron & John Quiggin, 1992. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data From a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire," UCLA Economics Working Papers 653, UCLA Department of Economics.
    39. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia & Hartje, Volkmar, 2010. "Landscape externalities from onshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 82-92, January.
    40. Riccardo Scarpa & Ian Bateman, 2000. "Efficiency Gains Afforded by Improved Bid Design versus Follow-up Valuation Questions in Discrete-Choice CV Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 299-311.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:34:y:2012:i:4:p:1214-1225. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.