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

Energy Economics

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 1214-1225

  Aravena, Claudia ^a,b   Hutchinson, W George ^a   Longo, Alberto ^a  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^b TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Externalities of electricity generation; Fossil fuels; Large scale hydropower; Willingness to pay for renewable energy

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; CURRENT PROJECTS; DICHOTOMOUS CHOICE CONTINGENT VALUATION; ELECTRICITY DEMANDS; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ELECTRICITY SUPPLY; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; LARGE DAMS; LARGE SCALE HYDROPOWER; NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS; NON-RENEWABLE; PATAGONIA; RENEWABLE ENERGIES; RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT; RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CLIMATE CHANGE; COSTS; ELECTRIC GENERATORS; ENERGY POLICY; FOSSIL FUELS; GAS EMISSIONS; GREENHOUSE GASES; HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES; HYDROELECTRIC POWER; HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANTS; NATURAL RESOURCES; RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES;

ECONOMICS;

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; CLIMATE CHANGE; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ELECTRICITY SUPPLY; EMISSION; ENERGY RESOURCE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; FOSSIL FUEL; GREENHOUSE GAS; HOUSEHOLD ENERGY; HYDROELECTRIC POWER; PRICING POLICY; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CHILE; PATAGONIA;

EID: 84862178713     PISSN: 01409883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.11.004     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Aadland D., Caplan A. Cheap talk considered: new evidence from CVM. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2006, 60:562-578.
2. Alberini A. Efficiency vs bias of willingness-to-pay estimates: bivariate and interval-data models. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1995, 29:169-180.
3. Alberini A., Kanninen B., Carson R.T. Modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Econ. 1997, 73:309-324.
4. Álvarez-Farizo B., Hanley N. Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain. Energy Policy 2002, 30:107-116.
5. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 1993, 58:4601-4614.
6. Bateman I.J., Willis K.G. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries 1999, Oxford University Press, USA.
7. Bateman I.J., Langford I.H., Jones A.P., Kerr G.N. Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resource Energy Econ. 2001, 23:191-213.
8. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Ozdemiroglu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: a Manual 2002, Edward Elgar, Ltd, Cheltenham.
9. Bateman I.J., Cole M., Cooper P., Georgiou S., Hadley D., Poe G.L. On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2004, 47:71-93.
10. Bateman I.J., Burgess D., Hutchinson W.G., Matthews D.I. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2008, 55:127-141.
11. Batley S., Fleming P., Urwin P. Willingness to pay for renewable energy: implications for UK green tariff offering. Indoor Built Environ. 2000, 9:157-170.
12. Batley S., Colbourne D., Fleming P., Urwin P. Citizen versus consumer: challenges in the UK green power market. Energy Policy 2001, 29:479-487.
13. Bergmann A., Hanley N., Wright R. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 2006, 34:1004-1014.
14. Bollino C.A. The willingness to pay for renewable energy sources: the case of Italy with socio-demographic determinants. Energy J. 2009, 30:81-96.
15. Borchers A.M., Duke J.M., Parsons G.R. Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?. Energy Policy 2007, 35:3327-3334.
16. Burton A.C., Carson K.S., Chilton S.M., Hutchinson W.G. An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2003, 46:472-489.
17. Burton A.C., Carson K.S., Chilton S.M., Hutchinson W.G. Why do people non-demand revel in hypothetical double referenda for public goods. Appl. Econ. 2009, 41:3561-3569.
18. Byrnes B., Jones C., Goodman S. Contingent valuation and real economic commitments: evidence from electric utility green pricing programmes. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 1999, 42:149-166.
19. Cameron T.A., Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a "dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1994, 27:218-234.
20. Campbell D., Aravena C., Hutchinson W.G. Cheap and expensive alternatives in stated choice experiments: are they equally considered by respondents?. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2011, 18:743-747.
21. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. Do Experience and Cheap Talk influence Willingness to Pay in an Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Survey? Working Papers in Economics 190 2006, Göteborg University, Department of Economics.
22. Carson R.T., Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 37:181-210.
23. Carson R.T., Hanemann W.M., Mitchell R.C. Determining the Demand for Public Goods by Simulating Rederendums at Different Tax Prices. Working Paper 1986, Department of Economics. University of California, San Diego.
24. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C., Hanemann M., Kopp R.J., Presser S., Ruud P.A. Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 25:257-286.
25. Chilean General Law of Electric Services Number 20257 Chilean General Energy Law of Electric Services 2008, 7.
26. Cooper J.C., Hanemann M., Signorello G. One-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2002, 84:742-750.
27. Cummings R., Taylor L. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am. Econ. Rev. 1999, 89:649-665.
28. Cummings R.G., Brookshire D.S., Schulze W.D. Valuing Environmental Goods: an Assessment of the Contingent-Valuation Method 1986, Rowan and Allenheld, Totowa, NJ.
29. DeShazo J.R. Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2002, 43:360-385.
30. Diaz-Rainey I., Ashton J. Characteristics of UK Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Green Energy. Working Paper 2007, Social Sciences Research Network.
31. Efron B., Tibshirani R.J. An Introduction to the Bootstrap 1993, Chapman & Hall/CRC, London.
32. Ek, K., 2002 Valuing the environmental impacts of wind energy: A choice experiment approach. Licentiate thesis. Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences. Lulea University of Technology. October. Sweden.
33. European Commission External Costs: Research Results on Socio-environmental Damages due to Electricity and Transport 2003, Directorate-General for Research, Directorate J-Energy, Brussels.
34. European Commission ExternE - Externalities of Energy: Methodology 2005 Update 2005, Directorate-General for Research, Sustainable Energy Systems, Brussels.
35. Färe R., Grosskopf S., Pasurka C.A. Toxic releases: an environmental performance index for coal-fired power plants. Energy Econ. 2010, 32:158-165.
36. Farhar B.C. Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Renewable Resources: a Review of Utility Market Research. NREL/TP- 550-26148 1999, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, July.
37. Farhar B.C., Coburn T. Colorado Homeowner Preferences on Energy and Environmental Policy. NREL/TP-550-25285 1999, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, June.
38. Farhar B.C., Houston A.H. Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Renewable Energy NREL Technical Report 1996, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.
39. Georgakellos D. Impact of a possible environmental externalities internalization on energy prices: the case of the greenhouse gases from the Greek electricity sector. Energy Econ. 2010, 32:202-209.
40. Groothuis P.A., Groothuisand John C., Jana D. Green vs. green: measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed. Energy Policy 2008, 36:1545-1550.
41. Haab T.C., McConnell K.E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: the Econometrics of Non-market Valuation 2002, Edward Elgar Publishing.
42. Hall S., Román R., Cuevas P. ¿Se necesitan represas en La Patagonia? Un análisis del futuro energético chileno 2009, Ocholibros, Universidad de Chile, Chile.
43. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1984, 66:332.
44. Hanemann M., Loomis J., Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1991, 73:1255.
45. Hanley N., Nevin C. Appraising renewable energy developments in remote communities: the case of the North Assynt Estate, Scotland. Energy Policy 1999, 27:527-547.
46. Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R., Chilton S.M., McCallion T. Parametric and Non-parametric estimates of willingness to pay for forest recreation in Northern Ireland: a discrete choice contingent valuation study with follow-ups. J. Agric. Econ. 2001, 52:104-122.
47. InvestChile Corfo Project Directory Renewables and SDM in Chile. Investment Opportunities and Project Financing. Document of the Chilean Economic Development Agency 2008.
48. IPCC, Climate Change Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri, A. Reisinger (Eds.).
49. Ivanova G. Queensland Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources. Working paper of the Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics. Paper presented in the Ecological Economics in Action Conference in Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, December 11-12, 2005 2005, Available at:. http://www.anzsee.org/anzsee2005papers/Ivanova_%20WTP_for_renewable_energy.pdf.
50. Kanninen B.J. Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Econ. 1993, 69:138-146.
51. Kanninen B.J. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1995, 28:114-125.
52. Koundouri P., Kountouris Y., Remoundou K. Valuing a wind farm construction: a contingent valuation study in Greece. Energy Policy 2009, 37:1939-1944.
53. Lintunen J., Kangas H.L. The case of co-firing: the market level effects of subsidizing biomass co-combustion. Energy Econ. 2009, 32:694-701.
54. Longo A., Markandya A., Petrucci M. The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 67:140-152.
55. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Front. econometrics 1974, 8:105-142.
56. McFadden D. Contingent valuation and social choice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76:689-708.
57. Meyerhoff J., Ohl C., Hartje V. Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energy Policy 2010, 38:82-92.
58. MIDEPLAN División Social, National survey data CASEN - the National Socioeconomic Characterization Survey Available at:. http://www.mideplan.cl/casen.
59. MIDEPLAN Precios Sociales para la Evaluación Social de Proyectos. Chilean Government Available at. http://www.mideplan.cl.
60. Miller G.T., Spoolman S.E. Sustaining the Earth 2009, Cengage Advantage Books, Belmont, Canada. Ninth ed.
61. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method 1989, Resources for the Future, Washington.
62. Mulder A. Do economic instruments matter? Wind turbine investments in the EU (15). Energy Econ. 2008, 30:2980-2991.
63. NEC Report on electricity prices. April 2007. Available at and Statistics of CDEC and Centro de Despacho Económico de Carga (Economic Center of Charge Service). Available at: http://www.cdec-sic.cl/.
64. Nomura N., Akai M. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Appl. Energy 2004, 78:453-463.
65. Operation Statistics CDEC-SIC. Central Interconnected System/Load Economic Dispatch Center Also available at:. http://www.cdec-sic.cl/datos/anuario2009/imagenes/cdec_ing.pdf.
66. Owen A.D. Evaluating the cost and benefits of renewable energy technologies. Aust. Econ. Rev. 2006, 39:207-215.
67. Poe G., Welsh M., Champ P. Measuring the difference in mean willingness to pay when dichotomous choice contingent valuation responses are not independent. Land Econ. 1997, 73:255-267.
68. Polinori P. Italians, Renewable Energy Sources and EU "Climate Vision." IAEE Newsletter, Second Quarter 2009.
69. Roe B., Teisl M.F., Levy A., Russell M. US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 2001, 29:917-925.
70. Rowlands I., Scott D., Parker P. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2003, 12:36-48.
71. Scarpa R., Bateman I. Efficiency gains afforded by improved bid design versus follow-up valuation questions in discrete-choice CV studies. Land Econ. 2000, 76:299-311.
72. Scarpa R., Willis K. Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies. Energy Econ. 2010, 32:129-136.
73. Sundqvist T. Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities 2002, Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden.
74. Verbeet B. The willingness to pay for green electricity. AENORM 2007, 56:13-16. August.
75. Whitehead J.C., Cherry T.L. Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: a comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches. Resour Energy Econ. 2007, 29:247-261.
76. Wiser R.H. Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62:419-432.
77. Zarnikau J. Consumer demand for green power and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 2003, 31:1661-1672.