Can renewable energy be financed with higher electricity prices? Evidence from a Spanish region

Energy Policy

Volumn 50, Issue , 2012, Pages 784-794

  Gracia, Azucena ^a   Barreiro Hurlé, Jesús ^b   Pérez y Pérez, Luis ^a  

^a Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón IA2   (Spain)

^b FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS   (Italy)

Author keywords

Aragon; Discrete choice experiment; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ARAGON; DISCRETE CHOICE; ELECTRIC POWER; ELECTRICITY PRICES; FEED-IN TARIFF; MARKET SEGMENT; POWER SUPPLY; RENEWABLE ENERGIES; RENEWABLE SOURCES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EXPERIMENTS; SOLAR ENERGY;

ELECTRICITY;

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ELECTRICITY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; POWER GENERATION; PRICE DYNAMICS; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; SOLAR POWER; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

SPAIN;

EID: 84866896334     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.028     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Alvarez-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.
2. Bang H.K., Ellinger A.E., Hadjimarcou J., Traichal P.A. Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude towards renewable energy: an application of the reasoned action theory. Psychology & Marketing 2000, 17:449-468.
3. Bateman I.J., Carson R.C., Day B., Hanemann W.M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Maourato S., Özdemiroglu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual 2002, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
4. Batley S.L., Colbourne D., Fleming P.D., Urwin P. Citizen versus consumer: challenges in the UK green power market. Energy Policy 2001, 29:479-487.
5. Bergmann A., Hanley N., Wright R. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 2006, 34:1004-1014.
6. Bergmann A., Colombo S., Hanley N. Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:616-625.
7. BOE (Boletín Oficial del Estado), 2007. Real Decreto 661/2007, de 25 de mayo, por el que se regula la actividad de producción de energía eléctrica en régimen especial. 126, 22846-22886.
8. Bollino C. The willingness to pay for renewable energy sources: the case of Italy with socio-demographic determinants. The Energy Journal 2009, 30(2):81-96.
9. 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.
10. Campbell D. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2007, 58:467-483.
11. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R. Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics 2008, 41:401-417.
12. Campbell, D., Lorimer, V.S., 2009. Accommodating attribute processing strategies in stated choice analysis: do respondents do what they do? 17th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Amsterdam, 24-27 June.
13. Carlsson F., Kataria M., Lampi E. Dealing with ignored attributes in choice experiments on valuation of Sweden's environmental quality objectives. Environmental and Resource Economics 2010, 47:65-89.
14. Carson R.T., Louviere J.J. A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environmental and Resource Economics 2011, 49:539-559.
15. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 19:383-402.
16. Dimitropoulos A., Kontoleon A. Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: a choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands. Energy Policy 2009, 37:1842-1854.
17. Ek K. Public and private attitudes towards "green" electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 2005, 33:1677-1689.
18. Espinosa-Goded M., Barreiro-Hurlé J. Las preferencias discontinuas en los experimentos de elección: impacto en el cálculo de la prima de los programas agroambientales. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales 2010, 10:155-176.
19. European Commission, 2010. EU Energy and Transport in Figures 2010. Statistical Pocket Book, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
20. Goerten.J., Ganea D. Electricity Prices for First Semester 2010. Data in Focus 46/2010 2010, Euorstat, Luxembourg.
21. Goett A.A., Hudson K., Train K.E. Customers' choice among retail energy suppliers: the willingness-to-pay for service attributes. The Energy Journal 2000, 21(4):1-28.
22. Gossling S., Kunkel T., Schumacher K., Heck N., Birkemeyer J., Froese J., Naber N., Schiermann E. A target group-specific approach to "green" power retailing: students as consumers of renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2005, 9:69-83.
23. 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.
24. Hansla A., Gamble A., Juliusson A., Gärling T. Psychological determinants of attitude towards and willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 2008, 36:768-774.
25. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M. Simplifying choice through attribute preservation or non-attendance: implications for willingness to pay. Transportation Research E: Logistics and Transportation Review 2009, 45:583-590.
26. Hess S., Rose J.M. Should reference alternatives in pivot design SC surveys be treated differently?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 42:297-317.
27. Hu W., Boehle K., Cox L., Pan M. Economic values of dolphin excursions in Hawaii: a stated choice analysis. Marine Resource Economics 2009, 24:61-76.
28. IAEST (Instituto Aragonés de Estadística), 2010. Datos básicos de Aragón: Año 2010. IAEST, Zaragoza.
29. IDAE (Instituto para la Diversificación y el Ahorro de la Energía), 2011. Plan de Energías Renovables 2011-2020, IDAE, Madrid.
30. INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística), 2008. Encuestas de condiciones de vida 2008. INE, Madrid.
31. Jacobsen J.B., Thorsen B.J. Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1532-1544.
32. Johnson E., Nemet G., 2010. Willingness to Pay for Climate Policy: A Review of Estimates. La Follete Working Paper No. 2010-011, La Follette School of Public Affairs, Wisconsin.
33. Koundouri P., Kountouris Y., Remoundou K. Valuing a wind farm construction: a contingent valuation study in Greece. Energy Policy 2009, 37:1939-1944.
34. Krueger A.D., Parsons G.R., Firestone J. Valuing the visual disamenity of offshore wind power projects at varying distances from the shore: an application on the Delaware shoreline. Land Economics 2011, 87:268-283.
35. Ladenburg J., Dubgaard A. Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark. Energy Policy 2007, 35:4059-4071.
36. Lancaster K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political Economy 1966, 74:132-137.
37. Lockwood M. Non-compensatory preference structures in non-market valuation of natural area policy. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1996, 40:85-101.
38. 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. Ecological Economics 2008, 67:140-152.
39. Lusk J.L., Rosen J., Fox J.A. Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: a comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 85:16-29.
40. McFadden D.L. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
41. Menegaki A. Valuation for renewable energy: a comparative review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2008, 12:2422-2437.
42. Meyerhoff J., Ohl C., Hartje V. Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energy Policy 2010, 38:82-92.
43. MITYC (Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio), 2011. Nota de prensa de presentación del avance del balance energético 2010 [28.03.2011].
44. Nomura N., Akai M. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Applied Energy 2004, 78:453-463.
45. OJEU (Official Journal of the European Union), 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, OJEC L140/16, 16-62.
46. Rekola M. Lexicographic preferences in contingent valuation: a theoretical framework with illustrations. Land Economics 2003, 79:277-291.
47. Roe B., Teisl M.F., Levy A., Russell M. US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 2001, 29:917-925.
48. Rowlands I.H., Scott D., Parker P. Consumers and green electricity: profiling potential purchasers. Business Strategy and the Environment 2003, 12:36-48.
49. Saelensminde K. The impact of choice inconsistencies in stated choice studies. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 23:403-420.
50. Scarpa R., Del Giudice T. Market segmentation via mixed logit: extra-virgin olive oil in urban Italy. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 2004, 2(1). article 7.
51. Scarpa R., Ferrini S., Willis K. Performance of error component models for status quo effects in choice experiments. Applications of Simulations Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 247-274. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
52. Scarpa R., Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G. Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: sequential Bayesian design and respondents rationality in a choice experiment. Land Economics 2007, 83:617-634.
53. Scarpa R., Rose J.M. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2008, 52:253-282.
54. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Marangon F. Using flexible taste distributions to value collective reputation for environmentally friendly production methods. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008, 56:145-162.
55. Scarpa R., Willis K. Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies. Energy Economics 2010, 32:129-136.
56. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Hensher D.A. Monitoring choice task attribute attendance in nonmarket valuation of multiple park management services: does it matter?. Land Economics 2010, 86:817-839.
57. Scarpa, R., Raffaelli, R., Notaro, S., Louviere, J., 2011. Modelling the effects of stated attribute non-attendance on its inference: an application to visitors benefits from the Alpine grazing commons. 2nd International Choice Modelling Conference, Leeds, 4-6 July.
58. Spash C.L. Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland re-creation. Ecological Economics 2000, 34:195-215.
59. Soliño M., Vázquez M.X., Prada A. Social demand for electricity from forest biomass in Spain: does payment periodicity affect the willingness to pay?. Energy Policy 2009, 37:531-540.
60. Soliño M., Alvarez-Farizo B., Campos P. The influence of home-site factors on residents' willingness to pay: an application for power generation from scrubland in Galicia, Spain. Energy Policy 2009, 37:4055-4065.
61. Soliño M. External benefits of biomass-e in Spain: an economic valuation. Bioresource Technology 2010, 101:1992-1997.
62. Stern N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
63. Street D.J., Burgess L., Louviere J.J. Quick and easy sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiment. International Journal of Research in Marketing 2005, 22:459-470.
64. Street D.J., Burgess L. The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods 2007, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New Jersey.
65. Train, K., 1999. Halton Sequences for Mixed logit. ELSA Berkley Working Paper 08/99, Berkley.
66. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
67. Vermeulen B., Goos P., Scarpa R., Vandebroek M. Bayesian conjoint choice designs for measuring willingness to pay. Environmental and Resource Economics 2011, 48:129-149.
68. 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. Resource and Energy Economics 2007, 29:247-261.
69. Wiser R.H. Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecological Economics 2007, 62:419-432.
70. Zarnikau J. Consumer demand for 'green power' and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 2003, 31:1661-1672.
71. Zografakis N., Sifaki E., Pagalou M., Nikitaki G., Psarakis V., Tsagarakis K.P. Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy sources in Crete. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2010, 14:1088-1095.