Global warming concerns have emphasized the need for carbon neutrality. Improving the efficiency of the electricity industry is one method of reducing CO2 emissions. There is a demand response policy that trades the saved electricity through voluntary adjustment of consumption patterns. The introduction of real-time pricing (RTP) based on advanced power supply systems is a method of transitioning to a demand-oriented power system. However, as Korea's power supply system is a relatively less efficient single-rate system, it is necessary to improve the efficiency of demand management. To transition to a demand-oriented power system in Korea, consumer preference is first investigated. This study evaluates the willingness to pay (WTP) for the introduction of RTP in Korea. Based on a survey of 500 households using the contingent valuation method, the monthly average WTP was found to be 2465 Korean won per household ($2.18 per household), which is approximately 7.8% of the electricity rate. Several additional factors influencing WTP were analyzed. Further analysis indicated that it is more effective to establish infrastructure for introducing RTP in local areas with low average electricity rates. These findings are beneficial for the development of future demand response policies.
SinevicieneLSotnykIKubatkoO. Determinants of energy efficiency and energy consumption of Eastern Europe post-communist economies. Energy Environ2017; 28: 870–884.
5.
YuanGGaoYYeB. Optimal dispatching strategy and real-time pricing for multi-regional integrated energy systems based on demand response. Renew Energy2021; 179: 1424–1446.
6.
KimHJSonHSKimIS,et al.Survey for the trend of demand response program. Korean Inst Electr Eng2004; Summer A: 671–673.
7.
ShenBGhatikarGLeiZ,et al.The role of regulatory reforms, market changes, and technology development to make demand response a viable resource in meeting energy challenges. Appl Energy2014; 130: 814–823.
PanagiotidisPEffraimisAXydisGA. An R-based forecasting approach for efficient demand response strategies in autonomous micro-grids. Energy Environ2019; 30: 63–80.
12.
AllcottH. Rethinking real-time electricity pricing. Resour Energy Econ2011; 33: 820–842.
13.
EidCKoliouEVallesM,et al.Time-based pricing and electricity demand response: existing barriers and next steps. Util Policy2016; 40: 15–25.
14.
SunMJiJAmpimahBC. How to implement real-time pricing in China? A solution based on power credit mechanism. Appl Energy2018; 231: 1007–1018.
15.
AhnH. Efficiency and supply stability in Korean electricity market: lessons from the foreign experiences. J Korean Econ Dev2007; 13: 45–81.
16.
GerpottTJPaukertM. Determinants of willingness to pay for smart meters: an empirical analysis of household customers in Germany. Energy Policy2013; 61: 483–495.
17.
ChawlaYKowalska-PyzalskaAWidayatW. Consumer willingness and acceptance of smart meters in Indonesia. Resources2019; 8: 177.
18.
DuttaGMitraK. A literature review on dynamic pricing of electricity. J Oper Res Soc2017; 68: 1131–1145.
19.
SchleichJFaureCKlobasaM. Persistence of the effects providing feedback alongside smart metering devices on household electricity demand. Energy Policy2017; 107: 225–233.
ShimDYKimSWAltmannJ. Strategic management of residential electric services in the competitive market: demand-oriented perspective. Energy Environ2017; 29: 49–66.
22.
AbdullahSMarielP. Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services. Energy Policy2010; 38: 4570–4581.
23.
GillBSalujaSPalitD. Electricity Pricing and the Willingness to Pay for Electricity in India. The Energy and Resources Institute2017.
24.
HopperNGoldmanCBharvirkarR,et al.Customer response to day-ahead market hourly pricing: choices and performance. Util Policy2006; 14: 126–134.
25.
LimSYKimHYYooSH. Households’ willingness to pay for the residential electricity use. J Energy Eng2013; 22: 141–147.
KimIH. How to improve international viability of electricity industry by electricity restructuring based on reasonable pricing. Int Trade Law2015; 121: 12–50.
28.
Mohsenian-RadALeon-GarciaA. Optimal residential load control with price prediction in real-time electricity pricing environments. IEEE Trans Smart Grid2010; 1: 13–25.
29.
HuangWH. The determinants of household electricity consumption in Taiwan: evidence from quantile regression. Energy2015; 87: 120–133.
30.
ParkJM. A comparison of factors affecting household electricity consumption by regional types. J Korean Reg Dev Assoc2018; 30: 193–219.
31.
Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI). 2019 Yearbook of regional energy statistics. https://www.kesis.net/sub/sub_0003.jsp (2019, accessed 24 Aug 2022).
32.
LeeSJ. Communication strategies for improving public acceptability of changing electricity prices following new environment and energy policies. J Environ Policy Adm2018; 26: 223–245.
33.
KimJHSeoSJYooSH. South Koreans’ willingness to pay price premium for electricity generated using domestic solar power facilities over that from imported ones. Sol Energy2021; 224: 125–133.
34.
KimJHLeeSMJangHS. Lessons from residential electricity demand analysis on the time of use pricing experiment in South Korea. Energy Econ2022; 113: 106224.
35.
KooISLeeSHSonJC,et al.Analysis of domestic and foreign electricity rates based on electricity usage patterns of AMI applied apartments. J Korea Acad-Ind Coop Soc2020; 21: 52–59.
36.
ZhouS. The effect of smart meter penetration on dynamic electricity pricing: evidence from the United States. Electr J2021; 34: 106919.
ClarksonBRAusseilAGEGerbeauxP. Wetland Ecosystem Services. Ecosystem Services in New Zealand: Conditions and Trends. Lincoln: Manaaki Whenua Press, 2013, pp. 192–202.
39.
GreenPESrinivasanV. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res1978; 5: 103–123.
40.
NdebeleTForgieV. Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: a contingent valuation approach. Econ Anal Policy2017; 55: 75–89.
41.
VenkatachalamL. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ Impact Assess Rev2004; 24: 89–124.
HanemannWMLoomisJKannienenBJ. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ1991; 73: 1255–1263.
44.
HanemannWM. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ1984; 66: 332–341.
45.
KristromB. Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ1997; 79: 1013–1023.
46.
JeongDEHyunMH. A study on the valuation of museum using CVM and its determinants: a case of “national museum of Korea”. Int J Tourism Hosp Res2015; 29: 165–180.
47.
KotchenMJTurkZMLeiserowitzA. Public willingness to pay for a US carbon tax and preferences for spending the revenue. Environ Res Lett2017; 12: 094012.
KnappLO’ShaughnessyEHeeterJ,et al.Will consumers really pay for green electricity? Comparing stated and revealed preferences for residential programs in the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci2020; 65: 101457.
50.
KimHJLimSYYooSH. Public preferences for district heating system over individual heating system: a view from national energy efficiency. Energy Effic2019; 12: 723–734.
51.
SauterRWatsonJ. Strategies for the deployment of micro-generation: implications for social acceptance. Energy Policy2007; 35: 2770–2779.
AmbecSCrampesC. Real-time electricity pricing to balance green energy intermittency. Energy Econ2021; 94: 105074.
54.
AhammedMKhanI. Ensuring power quality and demand-side management through IoT-based smart meters in a developing country. Energy2022; 250: 123747.
55.
LeeSG. Current status and prospects of electricity system in Korea. J Electr World2014; 454: 42–47.
56.
WstenhagenRBilharzM. Green energy market development in Germany: effective public policy and emerging customer demand. Energy Policy2006; 34: 1681–1696.
