Estimating home energy decision parameters for a hybrid energy—economy policy model
Hybrid energy–economy models combine the advantages of a technologically explicit bottom–up model with the behavioral realism sought after by top–down models in order to help policymakers assess the likely technology-specific response and economy-wide impact of policies to induce technological change. We use a discrete choice survey to estimate key technology choice parameters for a hybrid model. Two choice experiments are conducted for household energy-related decisions about retrofitting home building structures and choosing a space heating and conditioning system. Based on a discrete choice survey of 625 householders, we estimate a discrete choice model and then demonstrate how its parameters translate into the behavioral parameters of a hybrid model. We then simulate household energy policies, including, individual subsidies and increased regulations.
Keywords
discrete choice survey household energy demand hybrid energy model bottom-up energy modelPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.C. Bohringer, The synthesis of bottom–up and top–down in energy policy modeling, Energy Econ. 20(3) (1998) 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.D. Gately, Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables: comment, Bell J. Econ. 11(1) (1980) 372–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.J.A. Hausman, Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables, Bell J. Econ. 10(1) (1979) 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.R.B. Hutton and W.L. Wilkie, Life cycle cost: a new form of consumer information, J. Consum. Res. 6(March) (1980) 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.M. Jaccard, A. Bailie, J. Nyboer, CO2 emission reductions costs in the residential sector: behavioral parameters in a bottom–up simulation model, Energy J. 17(4) (1996) 107–134.Google Scholar
- 6.M. Jaccard, J. Nyboer, C. Bataille and B. Sadownik, Modeling the cost of climate policy: distinguishing between alternative cost definitions and long-run cost dynamics, Energy J. 24(1) (2003) 49–73.Google Scholar
- 7.H.K. Jacobsen, Integrating the bottom–up and top–down approach to energy–economy modeling: the case of Denmark, Energy Econ. 20(4) (1998) 443–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.C.C. Koopmans and D.W. te Velde, Bridging the energy efficiency gap: Using bottom–up information in a top–down energy demand model, Energy Econ. 23(1) (2001) 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.A. Loschel, Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: a survey, Ecol. Econ. 43 (2002) 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Marbek Resource Consultants, Building Table Options Report: Residential Sector, Ottawa, National Climate Change Process, 1999.Google Scholar
- 11.J. Nyboer, Simulating evolution of technology: a case study of strategies to control greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, 1997.Google Scholar
- 12.D. Revelt and K. Train, Mixed logit with repeated choices: household’s choices of appliance efficiency level, Rev. Econ. Stat. LXXX(4) (1998) 647–657.Google Scholar
- 13.K. Train, Discount rates in consumers’ energy-related decisions: a review of the literature, Energy: Int. J. 10(12) (1985) 1243–1253.Google Scholar
- 14.K. Train, Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002).Google Scholar