Cost-reflective electricity pricing: Consumer preferences and perceptions

Hall, NL; Jeanneret, TD; Rai, A

Cost-reflective electricity pricing: Consumer preferences and perceptions

Hall, NL Jeanneret, TD Rai, A

Permalink

Publisher:: Elsevier BV
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Energy Policy, 2016, 95, (C), pp. 62-72
Issue Date:: 2016-08-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	EP - Cost-reflective electricity pricing - Aug 2016.pdf	Published version	485.19 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Hall, NL
dc.contributor.author	Jeanneret, TD
dc.contributor.author	Rai, A https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6965-3830
dc.date.accessioned	2020-12-07T05:47:34Z
dc.date.available	2020-12-07T05:47:34Z
dc.date.issued	2016-08-01
dc.identifier.citation	Energy Policy, 2016, 95, (C), pp. 62-72
dc.identifier.issn	0301-4215
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/144521
dc.description.abstract	© 2016. In Australia, residential electricity peak demand has risen steeply in recent decades, leading to higher prices as new infrastructure was needed to satisfy demand. One way of limiting further infrastructure-induced retail price rises is via 'cost-reflective' electricity network pricing that incentivises users to shift their demand to non-peak periods. Empowering consumers with knowledge of their energy usage is critical to maximise the potential benefits of cost-reflective pricing. This research consulted residential electricity consumers in three Australian states on their perceptions and acceptance of two cost-reflective pricing scenarios (Time-of-Use and Peak Capacity pricing) and associated technologies to support such pricing (smart meters, in-home displays and direct load control devices). An energy economist presented information to focus groups on the merits and limitations of each scenario, and participants' views were captured. Almost half of the 53 participants were agreeable to Time-of-Use pricing, but did not have a clear preference for Peak Capacity pricing, where the price was based on the daily maximum demand. Participants recommended further information to both understand and justify the potential benefits, and for technologies to be introduced to enhance the pricing options. The results have implications for utilities and providers who seek to reduce peak demand.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Elsevier BV
dc.relation.ispartof	Energy Policy
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.042
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.subject.classification	Energy
dc.title	Cost-reflective electricity pricing: Consumer preferences and perceptions
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	95
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2020-12-07T05:47:30Z
pubs.issue	C
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	95
utslib.citation.issue	C

Abstract:

© 2016. In Australia, residential electricity peak demand has risen steeply in recent decades, leading to higher prices as new infrastructure was needed to satisfy demand. One way of limiting further infrastructure-induced retail price rises is via 'cost-reflective' electricity network pricing that incentivises users to shift their demand to non-peak periods. Empowering consumers with knowledge of their energy usage is critical to maximise the potential benefits of cost-reflective pricing. This research consulted residential electricity consumers in three Australian states on their perceptions and acceptance of two cost-reflective pricing scenarios (Time-of-Use and Peak Capacity pricing) and associated technologies to support such pricing (smart meters, in-home displays and direct load control devices). An energy economist presented information to focus groups on the merits and limitations of each scenario, and participants' views were captured. Almost half of the 53 participants were agreeable to Time-of-Use pricing, but did not have a clear preference for Peak Capacity pricing, where the price was based on the daily maximum demand. Participants recommended further information to both understand and justify the potential benefits, and for technologies to be introduced to enhance the pricing options. The results have implications for utilities and providers who seek to reduce peak demand.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/144521