Quality uncertainty and the market for renewable energy: Evidence from German consumers

Renewable Energy

Volumn 94, Issue , 2016, Pages 106-113

  Rommel, Jens ^a   Sagebiel, Julian ^b   Müller, Jakob R ^c  

^a LEIBNIZ CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESEARCH ZALF   (Germany)

^b Institute for Ecological Economy Research (I W)   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ERFURT   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cooperatives; Discrete choice experiment; Energy transition; Germany; Willingness to Pay

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; INVESTMENTS;

COOPERATIVES; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; ENERGY TRANSITIONS; GERMANY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ENERGY POLICY;

DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ELECTRICITY SUPPLY; ENERGY MARKET; ENERGY RESOURCE; MARKET CONDITIONS; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; SOCIAL POLICY; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

GERMANY;

CITRUS LIMON;

EID: 84961832260     PISSN: 09601481     EISSN: 18790682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.049     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Akerlof G.A. The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 1970, 84(3):488-500.
2. Amador F.J., González R.M., Ramos-Real F.J. Supplier choice and WTP for electricity attributes in an emerging market: the role of perceived past experience, environmental concern and energy saving behavior. Energy Econ. 2013, 40:953-966.
3. Banerjee A., Solomon B.D. Eco-labeling for energy efficiency and sustainability: a meta-evaluation of US programs. Energy Policy 2003, 31(2):109-123.
4. Bigerna S., Polinori P. Assessing the determinants of renewable electricity acceptance integrating meta-analysis regression and a local comprehensive survey. Sustainability 2015, 7(9):11909-11932.
5. Bonus H. The cooperative association as a business enterprise: a study in the economics of transactions. J. Inst. Theor. Econ. 1986, 142:310-339.
6. Castaldo S. Trust in Market Relationships 2007, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
7. ChoiceMetrics NGene 1.1.1. User Manual & Reference Guide 2012.
8. Eurostat Electricity and Natural Gas Price Statistics 2014, Available online:, (7 Sept 2014). http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Electricity_and_natural_gas_price:statistics#Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers.
9. Farizo B.A., Joyce J., Soliño M. Dealing with heterogeneous preferences using multilevel mixed models. Land Econ. 2014, 90(1):181-198.
10. Farizo B.A., Louviere J.J., Soliño M. Mixed integration of individual background, attitudes and tastes for landscape management. Land Use Policy 2014, 38:477-486.
11. Forsa Sampling Methods 2015, Available online:, (26 June 2015). http://www.forsa.de/1/methods/.
12. Glenk K., Hall C., Liebe U., Meyerhoff J. Preferences of Scotch malt whisky consumers for changes in pesticide use and origin of barley. Food Policy 2012, 37:719-731.
13. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model. Appl. Econ. 2013, 45(14):1897-1902.
14. Grösche P., Schröder C. Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques. Energy Econ. 2011, 33(2):363-370.
15. Hensher D.A., Greene W.H. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30(2):133-176.
16. Herbes C., Ramme I. Online marketing of green electricity in Germany: a content analysis of providers' websites. Energy Policy 2014, 66:257-266.
17. Herbes C., Friege C., Baldo D., Mueller K.M. Willingness to pay lip service? Applying a neuroscience-based method to WTP for green electricity. Energy Policy 2015, 87:562-572.
18. Hess S., Bierlaire M., Polak J.W. A systematic comparison of continuous and discrete mixture models. Eur. Transp. 2007, 37:35-61.
19. Höfer H.H., Rommel J. Internal governance and member investment behavior in energy cooperatives: an experimental approach. Util. Policy 2015, 36:52-56.
20. Janssen M., Hamm U. Product labelling in the market for organic food: consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 25(1):9-22.
21. Kaenzig J., Heinzle S.L., Wüstenhagen R. Whatever the customer wants, the customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity products in Germany. Energy Policy 2013, 53:311-322.
22. Krishnamurthy C.K.B., Kriström B. Determinants of the price-premium for Green Energy: evidence from an OECD cross-section. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2016, (in press). 10.1007/s10640-014-9864-y.
23. Lehmann P., Creutzig F., Ehlers M.H., Friedrichsen N., Heuson C., Hirth L., Pietzcker R. Carbon lock-out: advancing renewable energy policy in Europe. Energies 2012, 5(2):323-354.
24. Ma C., Rogers A.A., Kragt M.E., Zhang F., Polyakov M., Gibson F., Chalak M., Pandit R., Tapsuwan S. Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable energy: a meta-regression analysis. Resour. Energy Econ. 2015, 42:93-109.
25. Mattes A. Grüner Strom: Verbraucher sind bereit, für Investitionen in erneuerbare Energien zu zahlen. DIW Wochenber. 2012, 79(7):2-9.
26. Meijer E., Rouwendal J. Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients. J. Appl. Econ. 2006, 21(2):227-244.
27. Müller J.R., Dorniok D., Flieger B., Holstenkamp L., Mey F., Radtke J. Energiegenossenschaften: Das Erfolgsmodell braucht neue Dynamik. GAIA-Ecological Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2015, 24(2):96-101.
28. Müller J.R., Sagebiel J. Machen Genossenschaften Ökostrom wertvoller?. Zeitschrift für öffentliche und gemeinwirtschaftliche Unternehmen 2015, 38(2-3):226-237.
29. Oehlmann M., Meyerhoff J. Stated preferences towards renewable energy alternatives in Germany: do the consequentiality of the survey and trust in institutions matter?. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2016, (in press). 10.1080/21606544.2016.1139468.
30. Regulation European Commission No. 834/2007. Available online: (26 June 2015). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007R0834&from=EN.
31. Renewable Energy Act, 2014. Available online: . http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/eeg_2014/index.html#BJNR106610014BJNE000200000.
32. Rommel K., Meyerhoff J. Empirische Analyse des Wechselverhaltens von Stromkunden: Was hält Stromkunden davon ab, zu Ökostromanbietern zu wechseln?. Z. Energiewirtschaft 2009, 33(1):74-82.
33. Sagebiel J. Comparing the latent class model with the random parameters logit: a choice experiment analysis of highly heterogeneous electricity consumers in Hyderabad, India. Paper Presented at the International Choice Modelling Conference, 4-6 July 2011, Leeds, UK 2011.
34. Sagebiel J., Müller J.R., Rommel J. Are consumers willing to pay more for electricity from cooperatives? Results from an online Choice Experiment in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014, 2:90-101.
35. Sagebiel J., Rommel K. Preferences for electricity supply attributes in emerging megacities: Policy implications from a discrete choice experiment of private households in Hyderabad, India. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2014, 21:89-99.
36. Sardianou E., Genoudi P. Which factors affect the willingness of consumers to adopt renewable energies?. Renew. Energy 2013, 57:1-4.
37. Savage S.J., Waldman D.M. Learning and fatigue during choice experiments: a comparison of online and mail survey modes. J. Appl. Econ. 2008, 23(3):351-371.
38. Sillano M., de Dios Ortúzar J. Willingness-to-pay estimation with mixed logit models: some new evidence. Environ. Plan. A 2005, 37(3):525-550.
39. Soon J.J., Ahmad S.A. Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44:877-887.
40. Spence M. Job market signaling. Q. J. Econ. 1973, 87(3):355-374.
41. Statista Versorgerwechsel der Haushalte in der Stromversorgung in Deutschland in den Jahren 2007 bis 2014 2016, Available online:, (30 January 2016). http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/155532/umfrage/versorgerwechsel-der-haushalte-in-der-stromversorgung-seit-2005/.
42. Statistisches Bundesamt Bevölkerung nach Familienstand für Gemeinden 2014, Available online:, (30 January 2016). https://www.destatis.de/DE/Methoden/Zensus_/Downloads/2C_BevoelkerungFamilienstand.html.
43. Statistisches Bundesamt Ergebnisse der Bevölkerungsfortschreibung auf Grundlage des Zensus 2011 2014, Available online:, (30 January 2016). https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/VorlBevoelkerungsfortschreibung5124103149004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.
44. Statistisches Bundesamt Wirtschaftsrechnungen 2013 2015, Available online:, (30 January 2016). https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/EinkommenKonsumLebensbedingungen/EinkommenVerbrauch/EVS_EinnahmenAusgabenprivaterHaushalte2152604139004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.
45. Statistisches Bundesamt, Zensus 2011: Haushalte und Familien, 2015. Available online: http://www.statistikportal.de/Statistik-Portal/Zensus_2011_familie.pdf (30 January 2016).
46. Statistisches Bundesamt Bildungsstand 2014 2016, Available online:, (30 January 2016). https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/BildungForschungKultur/Bildungsstand/Tabellen/Bildungsabschluss.html.
47. Statistisches Bundesamt Fortschreibung des Bevölkerungsstandes 2016, Available online:, (30 January 2016). https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online/data;jsessionid=4BACDA80F62BD354D63F16299B5D6201.tomcat_GO_1_3?operation=begriffsRecherche&suchanweisung_language=de&suchanweisung=12411-0005&x=13&y=10.
48. Štreimikiene D., Baležentis A. Assessment of willingness to pay for renewables in Lithuanian households. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2015, 17(2):515-531.
49. Sundt S., Rehdanz K. Consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity: a meta-analysis of the literature. Energy Econ. 2015, 51:1-8.
50. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2008, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
51. Truffer B., Markard J., Wüstenhagen R. Eco-labeling of electricity: strategies and tradeoffs in the definition of environmental standards. Energy Policy 2001, 29(11):885-897.
52. Van Rijnsoever F.J., Van Mossel A., Broecks K.P. Public acceptance of energy technologies: the effects of labeling, time, and heterogeneity in a discrete choice experiment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45:817-829.
53. Varela E., Jacobsen J.B., Soliño M. Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 106:91-104.
54. Vecchiato D., Tempesta T. Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: a marketing analysis with choice experiments. Energy 2015, 88:168-179.
55. Vetter H., Karantininis K. Moral hazard, vertical integration, and public monitoring in credence goods. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2002, 29(2):271-279.
56. Yildiz Ö. Financing renewable energy infrastructures via financial citizen participation: the case of Germany. Renew. Energy 2014, 68:677-685.
57. Yildiz Ö., Rommel J., Debor S., Holstenkamp L., Mey F., Müller J.R., Radtke J., Rognli J. Renewable energy cooperatives as gatekeepers or facilitators? Recent developments in Germany and a multidisciplinary research agenda. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 6:59-73.