IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i21p7973-d954809.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Preference Analysis for a Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Electricity Trading Platform in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Dmitriy Li

    (Department of Economics, Business Administration College, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Korea)

  • Jeong-Hwan Bae

    (Department of Economics, Business Administration College, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Korea)

  • Meenakshi Rishi

    (Albers School of Business and Economics, Seattle University, 901 12th Ave, Seattle, WA 98122, USA)

Abstract

The Korean government is committed to advance the country’s energy transition to greener energy by increasing the share of renewable electricity to 20 percent by 2030 and to 30–35 percent by 2040. Achieving these goals will necessitate flexibility in energy markets as well as innovative business models and technological solutions. Peer-to-peer (P2P) electricity trading platforms (ETPs) are rapidly gaining traction, as they enable the integration of distributed energy sources into power systems. This study explores whether South Koreans are willing to participate in a hypothetical P2P ETP, which allows prosumers (who both consume and produce electricity) to trade electricity surpluses with their neighbours or with KEPCO (Korea Electric Power Corporation). We employ a choice experiment (CE) to examine respondent heterogeneous preferences and their willingness to pay (WTP) for a hypothetical P2P ETP in South Korea. Our findings indicate that two-thirds of total respondents in our CE are in favour of a P2P ETP if available. Cost savings and security play an essential role in respondent preferences for a P2P ETP business model. Respondents also prefer to trade renewable electricity with KEPCO rather than with other individuals. Per our statistical estimations, respondent WTP for a P2P ETP was estimated at USD 55.68/per month. Our analysis strongly recommends increasing consumer awareness of P2P ETPs to spur adoption. Energy trading platforms that are anchored in secure block chain technology can generate cost savings as well as support the country’s policy tilt toward green energy.

Suggested Citation

  • Dmitriy Li & Jeong-Hwan Bae & Meenakshi Rishi, 2022. "A Preference Analysis for a Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Electricity Trading Platform in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:21:p:7973-:d:954809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/21/7973/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/21/7973/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mengelkamp, Esther & Gärttner, Johannes & Rock, Kerstin & Kessler, Scott & Orsini, Lawrence & Weinhardt, Christof, 2018. "Designing microgrid energy markets," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 870-880.
    2. Yoo, James & Ready, Richard C., 2014. "Preference heterogeneity for renewable energy technology," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 101-114.
    3. Bae, Jeong Hwan & Rishi, Meenakshi & Li, Dmitriy, 2021. "Consumer preferences for a green certificate program in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    4. Asma Khatoon & Piyush Verma & Jo Southernwood & Beth Massey & Peter Corcoran, 2019. "Blockchain in Energy Efficiency: Potential Applications and Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-14, August.
    5. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena & Braga, Ana Cristina, 2014. "Public opinion on renewable energy technologies in Portugal," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 39-50.
    6. Johannes Sedlmeir & Hans Ulrich Buhl & Gilbert Fridgen & Robert Keller, 2020. "The Energy Consumption of Blockchain Technology: Beyond Myth," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(6), pages 599-608, December.
    7. Ephraim Bonah Agyekum & Ernest Baba Ali & Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar, 2021. "Clean Energies for Ghana—An Empirical Study on the Level of Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Development and Utilization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, March.
    8. Junyi Shen, 2009. "Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(22), pages 2915-2924.
    9. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, January.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    11. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    12. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2020. "Estimation of the usage fee for peer-to-peer electricity trading platform: The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    13. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    14. Lurian Pires Klein & Aleksandra Krivoglazova & Luisa Matos & Jorge Landeck & Manuel de Azevedo, 2019. "A Novel Peer-To-Peer Energy Sharing Business Model for the Portuguese Energy Market," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    15. Zografakis, Nikolaos & Sifaki, Elli & Pagalou, Maria & Nikitaki, Georgia & Psarakis, Vasilios & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2010. "Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy sources in Crete," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 1088-1095, April.
    16. Zhang, Chenghua & Wu, Jianzhong & Zhou, Yue & Cheng, Meng & Long, Chao, 2018. "Peer-to-Peer energy trading in a Microgrid," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 1-12.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Georgia K. Roberts & Dominique J. Pride & Joseph M. Little & Julie M. Mueller, 2023. "Willingness to Pay for Renewably-Sourced Home Heating in the Fairbanks North Star Borough," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Mousa Mohammed Khubrani & Shadab Alam, 2023. "Blockchain-Based Microgrid for Safe and Reliable Power Generation and Distribution: A Case Study of Saudi Arabia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-34, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    2. Kotu, Bekele Hundie & Oyinbo, Oyakhilomen & Hoeschle-Zeledon, Irmgard & Nurudeen, Abdul Rahman & Kizito, Fred & Boyubie, Benedict, 2022. "Smallholder farmers’ preferences for sustainable intensification attributes in maize production: Evidence from Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    3. Faical Akaichi & Klaus Glenk & Cesar Revoredo‐Giha, 2022. "Bundling food labels: What role could the labels “Organic,” “Local” and “Low Fat” play in fostering the demand for animal‐friendly meat," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 349-370, April.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Jia, Wenjian & Chen, T. Donna, 2023. "Investigating heterogeneous preferences for plug-in electric vehicles: Policy implications from different choice models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Misal, Haleema & Varela, Elsa & Voulgarakis, Apostolos & Rovithakis, Anastasios & Grillakis, Manolis & Kountouris, Yiannis, 2023. "Assessing public preferences for a wildfire mitigation policy in Crete, Greece," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    8. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    9. Domanski, Adam, 2009. "Estimating Mixed Logit Recreation Demand Models With Large Choice Sets," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Ju-Hee Kim & Younggew Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Using a choice experiment to explore the public willingness to pay for the impacts of improving energy efficiency of an apartment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1775-1793, October.
    11. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    12. Daniele Pacifico, 2013. "On the role of unobserved preference heterogeneity in discrete choice models of labour supply," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 929-963, October.
    13. Manhique, Henrique & Wätzold, Frank, 2023. "Effects of Institutional Setting on Value Estimates of Stated Preference Surveys in Developing Economies: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Conserving Biodiversity in The Cape Floristic Region," MPRA Paper 118750, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Kanberger, Elke D. & Ziegler, Andreas, 2023. "On the preferences for an environmentally friendly and fair energy transition: A stated choice experiment for Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    15. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    16. Richartz, P. Christoph & Abdulai, Awudu & Kornher, Lukas, 2020. "Attribute Non Attendance and Consumer Preferences for Online Food Products in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(1), March.
    17. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    18. Olsthoorn, Mark & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Durand, Antoine & Faure, Corinne, 2023. "Beyond energy efficiency: Do consumers care about life-cycle properties of household appliances?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    19. Vásquez Lavin, Felipe & Barrientos, Manuel & Castillo, Álvaro & Herrera, Iván & Ponce Oliva, Roberto D., 2020. "Firewood certification programs: Key attributes and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    20. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:21:p:7973-:d:954809. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.