IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fisisi/s202018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How much load flexibility can a euro buy? Findings from a choice experiment with companies in the German commerce and services sector

Author

Listed:
  • Olsthoorn, Mark
  • Schleich, Joachim
  • Wohlfarth, Katharina
  • Klobasa, Marian

Abstract

Demand-side load management is considered a cost-efficient solution for ac-commodating growing shares of intermittent renewable electricity production. Here, we use double-bounded dichotomous choice (DBDC) contingent valua-tion (CV) to estimate the effectiveness of a subsidy for companies to make available their HVAC and cooling systems for automated load management. Our sample includes 1131 companies in the German commerce and services sector with Ï10 employees of which we elicit the willingness to accept (WTA) automated load management in exchange for an annual subsidy payment. To our knowledge, our study is the first CV study on load management among companies.

Suggested Citation

  • Olsthoorn, Mark & Schleich, Joachim & Wohlfarth, Katharina & Klobasa, Marian, 2018. "How much load flexibility can a euro buy? Findings from a choice experiment with companies in the German commerce and services sector," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S20/2018, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fisisi:s202018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/184726/1/1040220061.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olsthoorn, Mark & Schleich, Joachim & Gassmann, Xavier & Faure, Corinne, 2017. "Free riding and rebates for residential energy efficiency upgrades: A multi-country contingent valuation experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 33-44.
    2. Gils, Hans Christian, 2014. "Assessment of the theoretical demand response potential in Europe," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 1-18.
    3. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    4. Trudy Ann Cameron & Michelle D. James, 1986. "Utilizing "Closed-Ended" Contingent Valuation Survey DAta for Preliminary Demand Assessments," UCLA Economics Working Papers 415, UCLA Department of Economics.
    5. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    6. Alberini, Anna & Bigano, Andrea, 2015. "How effective are energy-efficiency incentive programs? Evidence from Italian homeowners," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 76-85.
    7. Yueming Qiu & Loren Kirkeide & Yi David Wang, 2018. "Effects of Voluntary Time-of-Use Pricing on Summer Electricity Usage of Business Customers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 417-440, February.
    8. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    9. Barton, John & Huang, Sikai & Infield, David & Leach, Matthew & Ogunkunle, Damiete & Torriti, Jacopo & Thomson, Murray, 2013. "The evolution of electricity demand and the role for demand side participation, in buildings and transport," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 85-102.
    10. Olsthoorn, Mark & Schleich, Joachim & Klobasa, Marian, 2015. "Barriers to electricity load shift in companies: A survey-based exploration of the end-user perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 32-42.
    11. Ruester, Sophia & Schwenen, Sebastian & Batlle, Carlos & Pérez-Arriaga, Ignacio, 2014. "From distribution networks to smart distribution systems: Rethinking the regulation of European electricity DSOs," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 229-237.
    12. Ahmad Faruqui, Sanem Sergici, and Lamine Akaba, 2014. "The Impact of Dynamic Pricing on Residential and Small Commercial and Industrial Usage: New Experimental Evidence from Connecticut," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    13. Ahmad Faruqui & Sanem Sergici, 2010. "Household response to dynamic pricing of electricity: a survey of 15 experiments," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 193-225, October.
    14. 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)

    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. Olsthoorn, Mark & Schleich, Joachim & Wohlfarth, Katharina & Klobasa, Marian, 2019. "How much load flexibility can a euro buy? Findings from a contingent valuation experiment with companies in the German commerce and services sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(S1).
    2. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    3. Ricardo Faria & Raul Matsuhita & Jorge Nogueira & Benjamin Tabak, 2007. "Realism Versus Statistical Efficiency: A Note on Contingent Valuation with Follow-up Queries," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 35(4), pages 451-462, December.
    4. Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2011. "Can unbiased be tighter? Assessment of methods to reduce the bias-variance trade-off in WTP estimation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 293-314, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Carlsson, Fredrik & Matthews, David I, 2015. "Testing preference formation in learning design contingent valuation (LDCV) using advanced information and repetitivetreatments," Working Papers in Economics 619, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    7. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, July.
    8. Kang, Heechan & Haab, Timothy C., 2006. "Inconsistent responses in the dichotomous choice contingent valuation with follow-up questions," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21394, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Kang, Heechan & Haab, Timothy C. & Interis, Matthew G., 2013. "Identifying inconsistent responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation with follow-up questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 396-411.
    10. Jorge Araña & Carmelo León, 2007. "Repeated Dichotomous Choice Formats for Elicitation of Willingness to Pay: Simultaneous Estimation and Anchoring Effect," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 475-497, April.
    11. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    12. McNair, Ben J. & Hensher, David A. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a latent class approach," MPRA Paper 23427, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. 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.
    14. Satoshi Yamazaki & Steven Rust & Sarah Jennings & Jeremy Lyle & Sven Frijlink, 2013. "Valuing recreational fishing in Tasmania and assessment of response bias in contingent valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), pages 193-213, April.
    15. Carson, Katherine Silz & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George, 2009. "Necessary conditions for demand revelation in double referenda," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 219-225, March.
    16. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    18. P. Calia & E. Strazzera, 1998. "Bias and efficiency of single vs. double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis," Working Paper CRENoS 199801, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    19. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    20. Deutschmann, Joshua W. & Postepska, Agnieszka & Sarr, Leopold, 2021. "Measuring willingness to pay for reliable electricity: Evidence from Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    load management; demand response; subsidies; contingent valuation;
    All these keywords.

    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:fisisi:s202018. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isfhgde.html .

    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.