% 30% 70% , ( 27 1 ) % 20% 3 0% 20% % 10% ( ) (5,500) (2,750)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "% 30% 70% , ( 27 1 ) % 20% 3 0% 20% % 10% ( ) (5,500) (2,750)"

ことこやまのかみしゃ
5 years ago
Views:

1 Graduate School of Economics, Kyoto University, Yoshida, Sakyo, Kyoto, Japan Chikushi Jogakuen University, Ishizaka, Dazaifu, Fukuoka, Japan ( ( ) )) Faruqui and Sergici (2010) 2) 3 6% SMUD (2014) 3) (smart grids) (electricity deregulation) (dynamic pricing) (demand side management) (choice experiment) JL 0007/16/ C 2016 SICE 20% ( ) 90% ( ) ( ) (e.g. Pepermans, ),Abdullah and Mariel, ), Carlsson and Martinsson, ), Goett et al., ) ) (e.g. Murakami et al., ), Cicia et al., ) ) Buryk et al. (2015) 10) Buryk et al. (2015) 10)

2 % 30% 70% , ( 27 1 ) % 20% 3 0% 20% % 10% ( ) (5,500) (2,750)

3 2 2 Pr[i] =Pr[U i >U k,k i] = nx exp(β it + γm it + δi it ) k nx exp(β kt + γm kt + δi kt ) (2) 3 3 (1) β f(β) 1 β ( ) β n i (3) ( 2) (2,750) ( 3) 2.3 (RPL) U i = β nx it + γm it + δi it + ε i (1) U i i x it t(t =1,2,,8) i m it ( ) I it ( ) 1 β n n 1 γ 1 ( ) δ ( ) ε i i i k(k i) i L i (β) = exp(u i(β)) i exp(u i(β)) (3) β f(β) RPL f(β) L i (β) ,200 9, ,000 15% 10% 5 (25%) (66 68%) 9 (70% ( ) ) 81% ( ) ) 85% (

4 *1 *2 1 13) )) 30% 10% 60% (25%) (30%) (12%) 25% (16%) (14%) (13%) (12%) (11%) (8%) (8%) (7%) 6% 2 3 ( 6) 2 3 ( 7) 10% 20% 90% 10% (1) 8 R % 8 1 (1 ) ( )

5 8 10 5% % (10% ) 1% (10% ) 1% % -72 (Murakami et al ) ) 3.3 (3) % % % 52.9% 73.0%

7 4. 200 2016 3 30 1 (2015) 2 Faruqui, A. and S.

final report on pilot design, implementation, and evaluation of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District s Consumer Behavior Study (2014) 4 G.

6 (2015) 2 Faruqui, A. and S. Sergici: Household response to dynamic pricing of electricity: a survey of 15 experiments, Journal of Regulatory Economics, 38, 193/225 (2010) 3 SMUD: Smart Pricing Options Final Evaluation: The final report on pilot design, implementation, and evaluation of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District s Consumer Behavior Study (2014) 4 G. Pepermans: The value of continuous power supply for Flemish households, Energy Policy, 39 12, 7853/7864 (2011) 5 S. Abdullah and P. Mariel: Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity service, Energy Policy, 38 8, 4570/4581 (2010) 6 F. Carlsson and P. Martinsson: Does it matter when a power utage occurs? a choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to avoid power outage, Energy Economics, 30 3, 1232/1245 (2008) 7 A. Goett, K. Hudson, and K. Train: Customers choice among retail energy suppliers: the willingness-to-pay for service attributes, Energy Journal, 21 4, 1/28 (2000) 8 K. Murakami, T. Ida, M. Tanaka, and L. Friedman: Consumers willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan, Energy Economics, 50, 178/189 (2015) 9 G. Cicia, L. Cembalo, T. Del Giudice, and A. Palladino: Fossil energy versus nuclear, wind, solar and agricultural biomass: Insights from an Italian national survey, Energy Policy, 42, 59/66 (2012) 10 S. Buryk, D. Mead, S. Mourato, and J. Torriti: Investigating preferences for dynamic electricity tariffs: The effect of environmental and system benefit disclosure, Energy Policy, 80, 190/195 (2015) 11 (2014) 12 5 (2014) 13 LABOLIS (2015) 1995 ( ) 6 Tanaka, M. and T. Ida: Voluntary Electricity Conservation of Households after the Great East Japan Earthquake: A Stated Preference Analysis, Energy Economics, 39, 296/304 (2013) 2011 ( ) Murakami, K., T. Ida, M. Tanaka, and L. Friedman: Consumers Willingness to Pay for Renewable and Nuclear Energy: A Comparative Analysis between the US and Japan, Energy Economics, 50, 178/189 (2015)