2-12-1 Graduate School of Economics, Kyoto University, Yoshida, Sakyo, Kyoto, Japan Chikushi Jogakuen University, 2-12-1 Ishizaka, Dazaifu, Fukuoka, Japan E-mail: ida@econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp 1. 2000 3 2016 4 1 8 ( 7800 700 ( 2015 1) )) 2000 15 Faruqui and Sergici (2010) 2) 3 6% SMUD (2014) 3) (smart grids) (electricity deregulation) (dynamic pricing) (demand side management) (choice experiment) JL 0007/16/5507 0598 C 2016 SICE 20% ( ) 90% ( ) ( ) (e.g. Pepermans, 2011 4),Abdullah and Mariel, 2010 5), Carlsson and Martinsson, 2008 6), Goett et al., 2000 7) ) (e.g. Murakami et al., 2015 8), Cicia et al., 2012 9) ) Buryk et al. (2015) 10) Buryk et al. (2015) 10) 160 598 55 7 2016 7
100 500 200 5% 30% 70% 2. 20 11,000 2016 1 5 13 ( 27 1 ) 2.1 17 3 8 1 2 2 0% 20% 3 0% 20% 3 1 10% 10% ( ) 2.2 3 1 (5,500) 2 4 1 (2,750) 1 1 55 7 2016 7 599
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) 3 4 1 (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) 3. 3.1 4 600 7 5 3 9,200 9,400 7 10,000 15% 10% 5 (25%) (66 68%) 9 (70% ( 2014 4 11) ) 81% ( 2014 9 12) ) 85% ( 2015 600 55 7 2016 7
4 6 5 7 *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 2 3 3.2 (1) 8 R 0.28 0.30 1% 8 1 (1 ) ( ) 9 100 1 2 3 55 7 2016 7 601
8 10 5% 9 500 3 200 1 2 3 1% 22 25 (10% 220 250 ) 1% 40 46 (10% 400 460 ) 1% 13 54 1% -72 (Murakami et al. 2015 8) ) 3.3 (3) 8 10 5% % 1 27.2% 52.9% 73.0% 2 1 3 602 55 7 2016 7
7 4. 200 2016 3 30 1 (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) 55 7 2016 7 603