Assessment of Korean customers’ willingness to pay with RPS

Abstract To increase the use of renewable energy, the Korean government will introduce the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in 2012. The RPS places responsibility for extra renewable energy costs on the consumers and allows price competition among different renewable sources. Accordingly, this study analyzes through the contingent valuation (CV) the willingness of Korean households to pay more for electricity generated by wind, photovoltaic (PV), and hydropower. Our empirical results show that, although the willingness to pay (or WTP) was highest for wind power and lowest for hydropower, the differences in WTP among the renewable sources were statistically insignificant. This suggests that Korean consumers prefer a renewable portfolio that minimizes power supply costs. The average WTP for all three energy types was KRW 1562.7 (USD 1.350) per month per household, which was approximately 3.7% of the average monthly electricity bill in 2010. This amount represents only 58.2% of what the Korean government allocated in its budget to the new and renewable energy dissemination program in 2010. Thus, our results imply that the promotion of the new and renewable energy dissemination program may be difficult only with the WTP for electricity generated from renewable sources. Specifically, the mean WTP will not support the set-aside dissemination capacity for PV after 2014.

[1]  R. Warren,et al.  Estimating the Economic Value of Lethal VersusNonlethal Deer Control in Suburban Communities , 2003 .

[2]  Ryan Wiser,et al.  Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles , 2002 .

[3]  S. Yen,et al.  Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications , 2008, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[4]  I. Bateman.  Economic valuation with stated preference techniques : a manual : department for transport , 2002 .

[5]  Bruce A. Babcock,et al.  Spatial Heterogeneity and the Choice of Instruments to Control Nonpoint Pollution , 2001 .

[6]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 1991 .

[7]  K. Tsagarakis,et al.  Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy sources in Crete , 2010 .

[8]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies. , 1993 .

[9]  A. Menegaki.  Valuation for renewable energy: A comparative review , 2008 .

[10]  Haitao Yin,et al.  Do State Renewable Portfolio Standards Promote In-State Renewable Generation? , 2010 .

[11]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction , 1992 .

[12]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions , 1997 .

[13]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses , 1984 .

[14]  J. Graham,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability? , 1999 .

[15]  Jess Chandler,et al.  Trendy solutions: Why do states adopt Sustainable Energy Portfolio Standards? , 2009 .

[16]  Cliff Chen,et al.  Weighing the costs and benefits of state renewables portfolio standards in the United States: A comparative analysis of state-level policy impact projections , 2009 .

[17]  Makoto Akai,et al.  Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method , 2004 .

[18]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation , 1996 .

[19]  G. Garrod,et al.  Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys , 2003 .

[20]  Kristina Ek.  Public and private attitudes towards “green” electricity: the case of Swedish wind power , 2005 .

[21]  P. Urwin,et al.  Citizen versus consumer: challenges in the UK green power market , 2001 .

[22]  B. Kriström.  Spike Models in Contingent Valuation , 1997 .

[23]  José L. Bernal-Agustín,et al.  Optimal investment portfolio in renewable energy: The Spanish case , 2009 .

[24]  MEASURING VALUES FOR IMPROVED AIR QUALITY FROM DISCRETE RESPONSE DATA: TWO EXPERIMENTS , 1988 .

[25]  Seung-Hoon Yoo,et al.  WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR GREEN ELECTRICITY IN KOREA: A CONTINGENT VALUATION STUDY , 2009 .

[26]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[27]  Mark Jaccard,et al.  The renewable portfolio standard:: design considerations and an implementation survey , 2001 .

[28]  Ryan Wiser,et al.  Supporting solar power in renewables portfolio standards: Experience from the United States , 2010 .

[29]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence , 2000 .