Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Gauging Citizen Perspectives on Energy Policy Outcomes
September 2015
Mark Peterson,Professor of Marketing, University of Wyoming
David FeldmanSDR Consulting, Atlanta, GA
2
Goal: Gauging Citizen Perspectives on Energy Policy Outcomes
Current energy policy research
• Highly politicized• Does not uncover citizen’s underlying
importance• Often biased by survey sponsor
Need for a different type of research• Cannot use current energy policies –
already politicized• Need to focus on trade offs associated with
energy policies• Predict level of support• Understand different citizen’s perspectives
3
Current Study
Discrete-choice conjoint administered online
Survey conducted in the following states: (final sample size)
KY (173)MA (162)MN (166)NV (168)WY (116)
4
Example Traditional Research
• Current study included 5 traditional questions.
• Traditional research findings show many issues are very polarizing.
• Republicans and Democrats have significant differences in their perspectives on global warming.
• As will be seen, differences are not as great when considering trade-offs.
Independent
Democratic
Republican
40%
10%
52%
Climate change/Global warming is not a prob-lem
I am concerned about maintaining traditional energy jobs due to new energy policies
5
Component Description Description Option 1 Option 2 Option 3Impact policy has on your energy costs
Financial costs would include energy costs associated with your home and transportation
20% increase in my energy
costs
No change to my energy
costs
20% decrease in my energy
costs
Impact policy has on greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions
GHG emissions trap heat in the atmosphere. The two main sources of GHG emissions are carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and oil). Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil, and emissions from livestock and other agricultural practices, and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.
Increase GHG emissions by
20%
No change to GHG
emissions
Decrease GHG emissions by
20%
Impact policy has on job creation in your state due to expanding new energy technologies
The development of new energy technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal and batteries, has the potential to create new jobs.
State’s unemployment
rate goes down 1 %
No change in state’s
unemployment rate
Impact policy has on traditional energy related industries (such as coal, oil and natural gas) in your state
Energy policy could impact traditional energy related industries such as coal, oil and natural gas, and restrict or expand its use (e.g. reduction in coal for electricity generation, or increase in natural gas for electricity generation).
Reduces jobs by 10% in traditional
energy industries like coal, oil and natural gas
No Impact on jobs in
traditional energy
industries
Increases jobs by 10% in traditional
energy industries like coal, oil and natural gas
Level for no change
Components and Levels of Energy Policy Used in the study
6
Component Description Description Option 1 Option 2 Option 3Impact policy has on environmental quality (land, water and air resources) in your state.
Energy policy has a major impact on our land, water and air resources. This impact can be either positive or negative based on the particular policy.
Negatively impacts quality
by 2%
No impact on the
environment
Positively impacts quality
by 2%
Impact policy has on the amount of renewable energy used in your state for electricity generation
Mandating the amount of renewable energy that a state generates can significantly reduce greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. Given that the available renewable energy resources vary significantly by state, the renewable amount is more effectively decided on a state by state basis.
By 2025, 25% of electricity generated by
renewable energy
No mandatory percent for electricity
generated by renewable
energy
Impact policy has on your state's cost of implementing energy policy
Energy policies, such as reduction in coal electricity generation, can have varying financial impacts across the country. In order to more fully implement these policies, cost might need to be shared by region or country-wide.
Each state carries full cost
for its implementatio
n
States in a region share costs for a
state’s implementatio
n
Implementation costs shared across all US
Impact policy has on your energy consumption
Energy policies can impact your energy consumption through efficiency standards for heating, air conditioning, appliances, vehicle mileage, and building codes.
10% reduction in your energy consumption
5% reduction in your energy consumption
No reduction in your energy consumption
Level for no change
Components and Levels of Energy Policy Used in the study
Trade off Methodology
7
• Screen shot of actual survey
8
Key Findings – Massachusetts
• When faced with trade-offs, energy costs, GHG emissions, and environment were the most important components of energy policy for Massachusetts
State's costs
Job creation RE
RE Standards
Your energy consumption
Job creation traditional energy
Environment
GHG Emmisions
Energy Costs
8%
8%
9%
10%
11%
16%
18%
20%
9
Key Findings – Massachusetts Differences Republican vs Democrat
• There are differences between Republicans and Democrats but the relative order of importance is almost identical.
State's costs
Job creation RE
RE Standards
Your energy consumption
Job creation traditional energy
Environment
GHG Emmisions
Energy Costs
8%
7%
9%
13%
12%
14%
18%
19%
6%
7%
6%
10%
9%
20%
20%
23%
RepublicansDemocrats
10
Energy Costs
GHG EmissionsJob creation RE
Job creation traditional energy
EnvironmentRE Standards
State's costs
Your energy consumption
Kentucky
Massachusetts
MinnesotaNevadaWyomin
g
Difference in Importances by State
11
Prospect Theory
• Behavioral Economists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky won the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics for their work developing Prospect Theory. One of the key assertions in this theory is that “losses loom larger than gains” for most persons.
• Results for the Top 4 Energy Policy Outcomes reflect this loss aversion.
12
Support for combinations of policy outcomes – Massachusetts
• Only 41% of MA citizens would support a policy that DOES NOT change current levels for the 8 components below
10% Reduction in traditional energy jobs
20% increase in GHG Emissions
2% Negative impact on Environment
20% Increase in my energy cost
-9.2%
-14.7%
-13.3%
-17.3%
0.5%
2.4%
5.3%
8.2%
1.8%
8.8%
10.2%
10.5%
Support for no change to current levels 41%
20% decrease in energy cost
2% improvement in environment
20% decrease in GHG
10% increase trad. energy jobs
Lower state unemployment by 1% through new RE related jobs
10% lower energy consumption
RE standards mandated
Cost shared with region/all US
Potential Loss in support Potential
Gain in support
13
Hypothetical Policy Example• Slightly increase energy costs
• Decrease GHG emissions
• Increase renewable energy jobs
• No impact on traditional energy jobs.
• Positive impact on the environment
Hypothetical Policy would raise level of support from 41% to 59% Policy Component Potential Range in Market Perceptions
Energy CostsIncrease in energy cost No change Decrease in energy cost-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
GHG emissionsIncrease in GHG No change Decrease in GHG-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Renewable energy jobsNo Change Reduce unemployment0 1 2 3 4 5
Protecting traditional energy jobsLose jobs No Change Protect jobs-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
EnvironmentNeg. impact on environment No Change Pos. impact on environment-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Gauging Citizen Perspectives on Energy Policy Outcomes
September 2015
Mark Peterson,Professor of Marketing, University of Wyoming
David FeldmanSDR Consulting, Atlanta, GA
