IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hub/wpecon/201024.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Value of Continuous Power Supply for Flemish Households

Author

Listed:
  • Pepermans, Guido

    () (Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel (HUB), Belgium)

Abstract

This paper estimates the willingness to pay of Flemish households for continuous power supply, based on a stated preference approach. The data were collected via choice experiments which were then used to estimate a set of logit models ranging from a main effects conditional logit model to random parameter logit model with interaction effects and correlated preferences. Power outages are characterized by 6 attributes: annual frequency, duration, peak or off peak, announced or unannounced, winter or summer and invoice impact. All estimates have the expected sign and are used to assess the marginal willingness to pay by Flemish households for each of these attributes. Overall, the estimates suggest that Flemish households have heterogeneous preferences regarding power outage attributes, and that a significant share of them is willing to switch to a lower reliability level if that would be compensated by a relatively small electricity bill discount. We further illustrate i) how the model estimates can be used to assess the impact on a households consumer surplus of a transition from an initial power outage state of the world (the status quo in the choice experiment) to a new state of the world, and ii) how the estimates can be used to assess the market potential of different power outage profiles if they would be offered for sale by electricity suppliers and/or distribution companies. Again, these illustrations show that some market potential exists for differentiated power outage contracts.

Suggested Citation

  • Pepermans, Guido, 2010. "The Value of Continuous Power Supply for Flemish Households," Working Papers 2010/24, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
  • Handle: RePEc:hub:wpecon:201024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://lirias.hubrussel.be/bitstream/123456789/3782/1/10HRP24.pdf
    File Function: draft version
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raymond J. G. M. Florax & Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2005. "A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 441-467, December.
    2. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    3. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2008. "Does it matter when a power outage occurs? -- A choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to avoid power outages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 1232-1245, May.
    4. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
    5. Moore, Rebecca, 2008. "Using Attitudes to Characterize Heterogeneous Preferences," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6488, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840.
    7. Caves, Douglas W & Herriges, Joseph A & Windle, Robert J, 1990. "Customer Demand for Service Reliability in the Electric Power Industry: A Synthesis of the Outage Cost Literature," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 79-119, April.
    8. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2006. "Do Experience and Cheap Talk influence Willingness to Pay in an Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Survey?," Working Papers in Economics 190, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    9. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    10. Raymond S. Hartman & Michael J. Doane & Chi-Keung Woo, 1991. "Consumer Rationality and the Status Quo," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(1), pages 141-162.
    11. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    12. de Nooij, Michiel & Koopmans, Carl & Bijvoet, Carlijn, 2007. "The value of supply security: The costs of power interruptions: Economic input for damage reduction and investment in networks," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 277-295, March.
    13. Hsu, George J. Y. & Chang, Pao-long & Chen, Tser-yieth, 1994. "Various methods for estimating power outage costs : Some implications and results in Taiwan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 69-74, January.
    14. Beenstock, Michael & Goldin, Ephraim & Haitovsky, Yoel, 1998. "Response bias in a conjoint analysis of power outages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 135-156, April.
    15. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    16. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    17. Woo, Chi-Keung & Pupp, Roger L., 1992. "Costs of service disruptions to electricity consumers," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 109-126.
    18. Douglas W. Caves & Joseph A. Herriges & Robert J. Windle, 1992. "The Cost of Electric Power Interruptions in the Industrial Sector: Estimates Derived from Interruptible Service Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(1), pages 49-61.
    19. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    20. Serra, Pablo & Fierro, Gabriel, 1997. "Outage costs in Chilean industry," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 417-434, October.
    21. Ajodhia, Virendra & Hakvoort, Rudi, 2005. "Economic regulation of quality in electricity distribution networks," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 211-221, September.
    22. Edward Morey & Kathleen Greer Rossmann, 2003. "Using Stated-Preference Questions to Investigate Variations in Willingness to Pay for Preserving Marble Monuments: Classic Heterogeneity, Random Parameters, and Mixture Models," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 215-229, November.
    23. Provencher, Bill & Bishop, R.C.Richard C., 2004. "Does accounting for preference heterogeneity improve the forecasting of a random utility model? A case study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 793-810, July.
    24. Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher & William Breffle, 2006. "Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 91-115, May.
    25. M. Munasinghe & A. Sanghvi, 1988. "Reliability of Electricity Supply, Outage Costs and Value of Service: An Overview," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 1-18.
    26. Woo, C.K. & Kollman, E. & Orans, R. & Price, S. & Horii, B., 2008. "Now that California has AMI, what can the state do with it?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1366-1374, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sagebiel, Julian, 2017. "Preference heterogeneity in energy discrete choice experiments: A review on methods for model selection," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 804-811.
    2. Buryk, Stephen & Mead, Doug & Mourato, Susana & Torriti, Jacopo, 2015. "Investigating preferences for dynamic electricity tariffs: The effect of environmental and system benefit disclosure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 190-195.
    3. repec:eee:appene:v:212:y:2018:i:c:p:141-150 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Woo, C.K. & Ho, T. & Shiu, A. & Cheng, Y.S. & Horowitz, I. & Wang, J., 2014. "Residential outage cost estimation: Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 204-210.
    5. Johannes Breit & Satoru Komatsu & Shinji Kaneko & Partha Pratim Ghosh, 2016. "Evaluating households’ preferences regarding reducing power outages in rural areas: cases in the Ganges Floodplain in Bangladesh," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 73-94, February.
    6. Broberg, Thomas & Persson, Lars, 2016. "Is our everyday comfort for sale? Preferences for demand management on the electricity market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 24-32.
    7. Pepermans, Guido, 2014. "Valuing smart meters," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 280-294.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Power outage; Willingness to pay; Survey; Choice experiment; Random parameter logit;

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q41 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Demand and Supply; Prices

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hub:wpecon:201024. 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: (Sabine Janssens). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/emhubbe.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.