IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/enejou/v43y2022i1p1-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Green is Good—The Impact of Information Nudges on the Selection of Voluntary Green-Power Plans

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Cardella
  • Bradley T. Ewing
  • Ryan B. Williams

Abstract

A recent trend has been a move toward greater reliance on renewable or “green†energy sources, especially in the residential sector. Using a choice experiment, this paper examines how providing information regarding the efficiency, cost, and environmental impacts of different power-generating sources impact consumers’ stated preferences for selecting voluntary green-power plans. Based on 21,000 plan choices from two different samples totaling over 1,800 respondents, our results indicate that information nudges significantly impact respondents’ choice of plan. Promoting the advantages of the green plan or the disadvantages of the “gray†plan increase green plan selection. The magnitudes of these estimated effects are economically significant being roughly equivalent to a change in the monthly green price premium of $4/month. We also find that promoting the advantages of the green plan is more effective when the green plan premium is relatively small, while highlighting the drawbacks of the gray plan is more effective when the green plan premium is relatively large. Our results suggest that information nudges have the potential to be a plausible, economical, and effective mechanism to increase adoption of voluntary green-power plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Cardella & Bradley T. Ewing & Ryan B. Williams, 2022. "Green is Good—The Impact of Information Nudges on the Selection of Voluntary Green-Power Plans," The Energy Journal, , vol. 43(1), pages 1-42, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:enejou:v:43:y:2022:i:1:p:1-42
    DOI: 10.5547/01956574.43.1.ecar
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5547/01956574.43.1.ecar
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5547/01956574.43.1.ecar?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dora L. Costa & Matthew E. Kahn, 2013. "Energy Conservation “Nudges” And Environmentalist Ideology: Evidence From A Randomized Residential Electricity Field Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 680-702, June.
    2. Brigitte C. Madrian, 2014. "Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 663-688, August.
    3. Katrina Jessoe & David Rapson, 2014. "Knowledge Is (Less) Power: Experimental Evidence from Residential Energy Use," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(4), pages 1417-1438, April.
    4. Carlo Andrea Bollino, 2009. "The Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy Sources: The Case of Italy with Socio-demographic Determinants," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 81-96.
    5. Tabi, Andrea & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2014. "What makes people seal the green power deal? — Customer segmentation based on choice experiment in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 206-215.
    6. Ma, Chunbo & Rogers, Abbie A. & Kragt, Marit E. & Zhang, Fan & Polyakov, Maksym & Gibson, Fiona & Chalak, Morteza & Pandit, Ram & Tapsuwan, Sorada, 2015. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for renewable energy: A meta-regression analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 93-109.
    7. Sundt, Swantje & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity: A meta-analysis of the literature," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    8. Wiser, Ryan H., 2007. "Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 419-432, May.
    9. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    10. Daniel A. Brent & Joseph H. Cook & Skylar Olsen, 2015. "Social Comparisons, Household Water Use, and Participation in Utility Conservation Programs: Evidence from Three Randomized Trials," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(4), pages 597-627.
    11. Hunt Allcott & Todd Rogers, 2014. "The Short-Run and Long-Run Effects of Behavioral Interventions: Experimental Evidence from Energy Conservation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(10), pages 3003-3037, October.
    12. Benjamin Ho & John Taber & Gregory Poe & Antonio Bento, 2016. "The Effects of Moral Licensing and Moral Cleansing in Contingent Valuation and Laboratory Experiments on the Demand to Reduce Externalities," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(2), pages 317-340, June.
    13. Paul J. Ferraro & Juan Jose Miranda & Michael K. Price, 2011. "The Persistence of Treatment Effects with Norm-Based Policy Instruments: Evidence from a Randomized Environmental Policy Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 318-322, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cardella, Eric & Ewing, Brad & Williams, Ryan Blake, 2018. "Green is Good – The Impact of Information Nudges on the Adoption of Voluntary Green Power Plans," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266583, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    2. Tonke, Sebastian, 2020. "Imperfect Procedural Knowledge: Evidence from a Field Experiment to Encourage Water Conservation," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224536, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    3. Hailey Hayeon Joo & Jungmin Lee & Sangkon Park, 2018. "Every Drop Counts: A Water Conservation Experiment With Hotel Guests," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(3), pages 1788-1808, July.
    4. Jessoe, Katrina & Lade, Gabriel E. & Loge, Frank & Spang, Edward, 2021. "Residential water conservation during drought: Experimental evidence from three behavioral interventions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    5. Andor, Mark A. & Gerster, Andreas & Peters, Jörg & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2020. "Social Norms and Energy Conservation Beyond the US," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    6. Cattaneo, Cristina & D’Adda, Giovanna & Tavoni, Massimo & Bonan, Jacopo, 2019. "Can We Make Social Information Programs More Effective? The Role of Identity and Values," RFF Working Paper Series 19-21, Resources for the Future.
    7. Uddin, Main & Wang, Liang Choon & Smyth, Russell, 2021. "Do government-initiated energy comparison sites encourage consumer search and lower prices? Evidence from an online randomized controlled experiment in Australia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 167-182.
    8. Holladay, Scott & LaRiviere, Jacob & Novgorodsky, David & Price, Michael, 2019. "Prices versus nudges: What matters for search versus purchase of energy investments?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 151-173.
    9. Ahsanuzzaman, & Eskander, Shaikh & Islam, Asad & Wang, Liang Choon, 2024. "Non-price energy conservation information and household energy consumption in a developing country: Evidence from an RCT," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    10. Daniel A. Brent & Corey Lott & Michael Taylor & Joseph Cook & Kimberly Rollins & Shawn Stoddard, 2020. "What Causes Heterogeneous Responses to Social Comparison Messages for Water Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 503-537, November.
    11. Kandul, Serhiy & Lanz, Bruno, 2021. "Public good provision, in-group cooperation and out-group descriptive norms: A lab experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    12. Cardella, Eric & Ewing, Bradley T. & Williams, Ryan B., 2017. "Price volatility and residential electricity decisions: Experimental evidence on the convergence of energy generating source," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 428-437.
    13. Goette, Lorenz & Tiefenbeck, Verena & Degen, Kathrin & Fleisch, Elgar & Tasic, Vojkan & Lalive, Rafael & Staake, Thorsten, 2016. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," CEPR Discussion Papers 11480, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2016. "Editor's Choice The Use of Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 206-225.
    15. Kayo Murakami & Hideki Shimada & Yoshiaki Ushifusa & Takanori Ida, 2022. "Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Of Nudge And Rebate: Causal Machine Learning In A Field Experiment On Electricity Conservation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(4), pages 1779-1803, November.
    16. Oliver R. Browne & Ludovica Gazze & Michael Greenstone, 2021. "Do Conservation Policies Work? Evidence from Residential Water Use," Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(1), pages 190-225.
    17. Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Ilona Alisauskaite-Seskiene & Gintare Stankuniene & Zaneta Simanaviciene, 2019. "A Review of Willingness to Pay Studies for Climate Change Mitigation in the Energy Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-38, April.
    18. Verena Tiefenbeck & Lorenz Goette & Kathrin Degen & Vojkan Tasic & Elgar Fleisch & Rafael Lalive & Thorsten Staake, 2018. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1458-1476, March.
    19. Werner, Peter & Riedl, Arno, 2018. "The role of experiments for policy design," Research Memorandum 022, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    20. Jakob Enlund & David Andersson & Fredrik Carlsson, 2023. "Individual Carbon Footprint Reduction: Evidence from Pro-environmental Users of a Carbon Calculator," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(3), pages 433-467, November.

    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:sae:enejou:v:43:y:2022:i:1:p:1-42. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.