IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/cauewp/201002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Elicting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Grösche, Peter
  • Schröder, Carsten

Abstract

With its commitment to double the share of renewables in electricity generation to at least 30% by 2020, the German government has embarked on a costly policy course whose public support remains an open empirical question. Building on ample household survey data, we trace peoples' willingness-to-pay (WTP) for various fuel mixes in electricity generation, and capture preference heterogeneity among respondents using random parameter techniques. Based on our estimates, we infer price premia that can be charged for specific electricity mixes while ensuring that a majority of people still supports the policy. Despite that people's WTP for electricity is positively correlated with the share of renewables in electricity generation, our results imply that the financial scope for subsidizing renewables is virtually exhausted.

Suggested Citation

  • Grösche, Peter & Schröder, Carsten, 2010. "Elicting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques," Economics Working Papers 2010-02, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:cauewp:201002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/30033/1/618631879.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
    3. Merz, Joachim, 1994. "Microdata Adjustment by the Minimum Information Loss Principle," MPRA Paper 7231, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Halstead, John M. & Luloff, A.E. & Stevens, Thomas H., 1992. "Protest Bidders In Contingent Valuation," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), October.
    5. 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.
    6. I J Bateman & I H Langford, 1997. "Budget-Constraint, Temporal, and Question-Ordering Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environment and Planning A, , pages 1215-1228.
    7. 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.
    8. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
    9. Andrew A. Goett & Kathleen Hudson & Kenneth E. Train, 2000. "Customers' Choice Among Retail Energy Suppliers: The Willingness-to-Pay for Service Attributes," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 1-28.
    10. Smith, V. Kerry & Osborne, Laura L., 1996. "Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 287-301, November.
    11. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Bergmann, Ariel & Hanley, Nick & Wright, Robert, 2006. "Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1004-1014, June.
    14. Diamond, Peter, 1996. "Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 337-347, May.
    15. Alberini, Anna & Zanatta, Valentina & Rosato, Paolo, 2007. "Combining actual and contingent behavior to estimate the value of sports fishing in the Lagoon of Venice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 530-541, March.
    16. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 1498-1507.
    17. Fouquet, Roger, 1998. "The United Kingdom demand for renewable electricity in a liberalised market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 281-293, March.
    18. Eikeland, Per Ove, 1998. "Electricity market liberalisation and environmental performance: Norway and the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(12), pages 917-927, October.
    19. Fuchs-Schundeln, Nicola & Alesina, Alberto, 2007. "Good-Bye Lenin (Or Not?): The Effect of Communism on People's Preferences," Scholarly Articles 4553032, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    20. 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.
    21. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
    22. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
    23. Ajzen, Icek & Brown, Thomas C. & Rosenthal, Lori H., 1996. "Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-57, January.
    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. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    26. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    27. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    28. 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.
    29. Sendhil Mullainathan & Marianne Bertrand, 2001. "Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 67-72, May.
    30. Zarnikau, Jay, 2003. "Consumer demand for `green power' and energy efficiency," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(15), pages 1661-1672, December.
    31. Menegaki, Angeliki, 2008. "Valuation for renewable energy: A comparative review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 12(9), pages 2422-2437, December.
    32. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
    33. Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2008. "Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier.
    34. Roland Menges & Carsten Schroeder & Stefan Traub, 2005. "Altruism, Warm Glow and the Willingness-to-Donate for Green Electricity: An Artefactual Field Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(4), pages 431-458, August.
    35. Boyle Kevin J. & Welsh Michael P. & Bishop Richard C., 1993. "The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 80-99, July.
    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. Rommel, Jens & Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R., 2016. "Quality uncertainty and the market for renewable energy: Evidence from German consumers," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 106-113.
    2. Malte Hübner & Christoph M. Schmidt & Benjamin Weigert, 2012. "Energiepolitik: Erfolgreiche Energiewende nur im europäischen Kontext," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 13(4), pages 286-307, November.
    3. repec:zbw:rwipos:045 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Sauthoff, Saramena & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2017. "To switch or not to switch? Understanding German consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity tariff attributes," DARE Discussion Papers 1707, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    7. Carsten Herbes & Lorenz Braun & Dennis Rube, 2016. "Pricing of Biomethane Products Targeted at Private Households in Germany—Product Attributes and Providers’ Pricing Strategies," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Simona Bigerna & Paolo Polinori, 2015. "Assessing the Determinants of Renewable Electricity Acceptance Integrating Meta-Analysis Regression and a Local Comprehensive Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(9), pages 1-24, August.
    10. Vecchiato, Daniel & Tempesta, Tiziano, 2015. "Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-179.
    11. Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten & Narita, Daiju & Okubo, Toshihiro, 2017. "Public preferences for alternative electricity mixes in post-Fukushima Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, pages 262-270.
    12. Bigerna, Simona & Polinori, Paolo, 2014. "Italian households׳ willingness to pay for green electricity," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 110-121.
    13. Meier, Helena & Tode, Christian, 2015. "How Technological Potentials are Undermined by Economic and Behavioural Responses - The Treatment Effect of Endogenous Energy Efficiency Measures," EWI Working Papers 2015-4, Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universitaet zu Koeln (EWI).
    14. Oberst, Christian & Madlener, Reinhard, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro‐Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," FCN Working Papers 22/2014, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    15. Lim, Kyoung-Min & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2014. "Estimating the economic value of residential electricity use in the Republic of Korea using contingent valuation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 601-606.
    16. repec:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:8:p:1127-:d:106550 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Noblet, Caroline L. & Teisl, Mario F. & Evans, Keith & Anderson, Mark W. & McCoy, Shannon & Cervone, Edmund, 2015. "Public preferences for investments in renewable energy production and energy efficiency," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 177-186.
    18. Manuel Frondel & Nolan Ritter & Christoph M. Schmidt, 2011. "Die Kosten des Klimaschutzes am Beispiel der Strompreise," RWI Positionen, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, pages 24, 04.
    19. Simona Bigerna & Carlo Andrea Bollino & Paolo Polinori, 2014. "The Question of Sustainability of Green Electricity Policy Intervention," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 6(8), pages 1-23, August.
    20. Frondel, Manuel & Ritter, Nolan & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2011. "Die Kosten des Klimaschutzes am Beispiel der Strompreise," RWI Positionen 45, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    21. repec:gam:jeners:v:9:y:2016:i:4:p:252:d:66797 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    green electricity; willingness-to-pay; preference heterogeneity; policy evaluation;

    JEL classification:

    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:cauewp:201002. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vakiede.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.