Valuing smart meters

Energy Economics

Volumn 45, Issue , 2014, Pages 280-294

  Pepermans, Guido ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Conditional logit model; Random parameter logit model; Smart meter; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENTS; INVESTMENTS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; CONDITIONAL LOGIT; DEVICE CHARACTERISTICS; LOGIT MODELING; RANDOM PARAMETERS; SMART METERING; SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

SMART METERS;

HOUSEHOLD ENERGY; LOGIT ANALYSIS; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; NUMERICAL MODEL;

EID: 84907353603     PISSN: 01409883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.07.011     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. ACER Annual Report on the Results of Monitoring the Internal Electricity and Natural Gas Markets in 2012 2013, ACER, Luxembourg.
2. Amaya-Amaya M., Gerard K., Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in a nutshell. Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care 2008, vol. 11:13-46. Springer, Dordrecht.
3. Banfi S., Farsi M., Filippini M., Jakob M. Willingness to pay for energy-saving measures in residential buildings. Energy Econ. 2008, 30:503-516.
4. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Moureto S., Özdemiroglu E., Pearce D.W., Sudgen R., Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: a Manual 2002, 458. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. 1st ed.
5. Beenstock M., Goldin E., Haitovsky Y. Response bias in a conjoint analysis of power outages. Energy Econ. 1998, 20:135-156.
6. Bergmann A., Hanley N., Wright R. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Pol. 2006, 34:1004-1014.
7. Borchers A.M., Duke J.M., Parsons G.R. Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?. Energy Pol. 2007, 35:3327-3334.
8. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 23:421-446.
9. Campbell D., Hensher D.A., Scarpa R. Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2011, 54:1061-1076.
10. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R. Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2008, 41:401-417.
11. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. Does it matter when a power outage occurs? - A choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to avoid power outages. Energy Econ. 2008, 30:1232-1245.
12. Champ P.A., Boyle K.J., Brown T.C. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 1st ed.
13. Council of European Energy Regulators Status Review of Regulatory Aspects of Smart Metering 2013, 33. CEER.
14. CREG International comparison of electricity and gas prices for households: final report on a study prepared for the CREG 2011, 146. CREG, Brussel.
15. CREG Evolutie van de elektriciteitsprijzen op de residentiële markt 2012, 15. CREG, Brussel.
16. Faruqui A., Harris D., Hledik R. Unlocking the €53 billion savings from smart meters in the EU: how increasing the adoption of dynamic tariffs could make or break the EU's smart grid investment. Energy Pol. 2010, 38:6222-6231.
17. Faruqui A., Palmer J. The Discovery of Price Responsiveness - a Survey of Experiments Involving Dynamic Pricing of Electricity 2012, Available at SSRN 2020587.
18. Faruqui A., Sanem S., Lamine A. The impact of dynamic pricing on residential and small commercial and industrial usage: new experimental evidence from Connecticut. Energy J 2014, 35:25.
19. Faruqui A., Sergici S. Household response to dynamic pricing of electricity: a survey of 15 experiments. J. Regul. Econ. 2010, 38:193-225.
20. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Metering - Staff Report 2012, 130. FERC, Washington D.C.
21. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Metering - Staff Report 2013, 38. FERC, Washington D.C.
22. Giordano V., Meletiou A., Covrig C.-F., Mengolini A.M., Ardelean M., Fulli G., Sanchez Jimenez M., Filiou C. Smart grid projects in Europe: Lessons learned and current developments 2012 update 2013, 142.
23. Hensher D., Greene W.H. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30:133.
24. Hess S., Rose J.M., Polak J. Non-trading, lexicographic and inconsistent behaviour in stated choice data. Transp. Res. D: Transp. Environ. 2010, 15:405-417.
25. Hierzinger R., Albu M., van Elburg H., Scott A., Łazicki A., Penttinen L., Puente F., Sæle H. European Smart Metering Landscape Report 2012 - Update May 2013 2013, SmartRegions Deliverable.
26. Hole A.R. Attribute non-attendance in patients' choice of general practitioner appointment. second international choice modelling conference, ICMC, Oulton Hall, Leeds 2011.
27. Jespers K., Dams Y., Kristien A., Pascal S., Frederic J., Laurent D. Energy Consumption Survey for Belgian Households 2012, 111.
28. Joskow P.L. Creating a smarter U.S. electricity grid. J. Econ. Perspect. 2012, 26:29-47.
29. Krishnamurti T., Schwartz D., Davis A., Fischhoff B., de Bruin W.B., Lave L., Wang J. Preparing for smart grid technologies: a behavioral decision research approach to understanding consumer expectations about smart meters. Energy Pol. 2012, 41:790-797.
30. Lancsar E., Louviere J. Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?. Health Econ. 2006, 15:797-811.
31. 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.
32. Loomis J. What's to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies?. J. Econ. Surv. 2011, 25:363-370.
33. Louviere J.J. Analyzing decision making. Metric Conjoint Analysis 1988, 95. SAGE publications, Newbury Park.
34. Louvière J.J., Hensher D., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application 2003, 402. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2nd ed.
35. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics 1973, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zaremba (Ed.).
36. McFadden D. Computing Willingness-to-pay in Random Utility Models 1995, 30. Department of Economics, Berkeley.
37. Moore R. Using Attitudes to Characterize Heterogeneous Preferences University of Georgia 2008, 36.
38. Morey E., Rossmann K.G. Using stated-preference questions to investigate variations in willingness to pay for preserving marble monuments: classic heterogeneity, random parameters, and mixture models. J. Cult. Econ. 2003, 27:215-229.
39. Morey E., Thacher J., Breffle W. Using angler characteristics and attitudinal data to identify environmental preference classes: a latent-class model. Environ Resour. Econ. 2006, 34:91-115.
40. Murphy J., Allen P., Stevens T., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 30:313-325.
41. Neenan B., Hemphill R.C. Societal Benefits of Smart Metering Investments 2008, 32-45.
42. Newsham G.R., Bowker B.G. The effect of utility time-varying pricing and load control strategies on residential summer peak electricity use: a review. Energy Pol. 2010, 38:3289-3296.
43. Nielsen J.S. Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: a comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews. Resour. Energy Econ. 2011, 33:119-129.
44. Pepermans G. The value of continuous power supply for Flemish households. Energy Pol. 2011, 39:7853-7864.
45. Pietsch P. Demand Response & Smart Grid-State Legislative and Regulatory Policy Action Review: July 2011-May 2012 2012, 74. Association for Demand Response and Smart Grid (ADS).
46. Revelt D., Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1998, 80:647-657.
47. Rose J.M., Bliemer M.C.J. Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Trans. Rev. 2009, 29:587-617.
48. Rulleau B., Dachary-Bernard J. Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: some empirical tests. J. Socio-Econ. 2012, 41:198-206.
49. Ryan M., Bate A. Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2001, 8:59-63.
50. Sælensminde K. Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 59:331-340.
51. 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.
52. Scarpa R., Zanoli R., Bruschi V., Naspetti S. Inferred and stated attribute non-attendance in food choice experiments. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2013, 95:165-180.
53. Schrijner M., Burgers J., Koenis F. Energiemeters worden mondiger . . . Resultaten van een kosten-batenanalyse naar de invoering van 'slimme meters' in Vlaanderen 2008.
54. Schrijner M., Mulder W., Koenis F. Financiële haalbaarheid slimme energiemeters in Vlaanderen. Een kosten-batenanalyse in maatschappelijk perspectief 2011, 72. KEMA.
55. Shen J., Saijo T. Does an energy efficiency label alter consumers' purchasing decisions? A latent class approach based on a stated choice experiment in Shanghai. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90:3561-3573.
56. Street D.J., Burgess L., Louviere J.J. Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2005, 22:459-470.
57. Stromback J., Dromacque C., Yassin M.H. The potential of smart meter enabled programs to increase energy and systems efficiency: a mass pilot comparison 2011, 92.
58. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulations 2003, 334. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1st ed.
59. VREG Resultaten Enquête Particulieren 2011 - Gedrag & ervaringen van huishoudelijke afnemers op de vrijgemaakte Vlaamse energiemarkt 2011, 37. VREG, Brussel.
60. VREG Marktmonitor 2012 2012, 100. VREG, Brussel.
61. VREG Marktmonitor 2013 2013, 100. VREG, Brussel.
62. VREG Marktrapport 2012 2013, 90. VREG, Brussel.
63. VREG Rapport van de Vlaamse Regulator van de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt met betrekking tot de actualisatie van de kosten-batenanalyse slimme meters 2014, 26. VREG, Brussel.
64. Yu Z. A market power model with price caps and compact DC power flow constraints. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2003, 25:301-307.