Differential and Distributional Effects of Energy Efficiency Surveys
Evidence from Electricity Consumption
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13037080 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Thomas J Kniesner (0000-0002-9820-4778, Claremont Graduate University, corresponding author), Galib Rustamov (Claremont Graduate University) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 375-406 |
| Publication date | 2018-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2152-2812 • E-ISSN: 2194-5888 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/bca.2018.17 |
| OpenAlex | W3121511173 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 60 |
Our research investigates the effects of residential energy efficiency audit programs on subsequent household electricity consumption. Here there is a one-time interaction between households, which participate voluntarily, and the surveyors. Our research objective is to determine whether and to what extent the surveys lead to behavioral changes. We then examine how persistent the intervention is over time and whether the effects decay or intensify. The main evaluation problem here is survey participants’ self-selection, which we address econometrically via several non-parametric estimators involving kernel-based propensity-score matching. In the first method we use difference-in-differences (DID) estimation. Our second estimator is quantile DID, which produces estimates on distributions. The comparison group consists of households who were not yet participating in the survey but participated later. Our evidence is that the customers who participated in the survey reduced their electricity consumption by about 7%, on average compared to customers who had not yet participated in the survey. Considering the total number of high-usage households participating in the survey in 2009, we estimate that electricity consumption was reduced by an aggregate of 2 million kWh per year, which is approximately equal to the monthly consumption of 3500 typical households in California with an estimated 1527 metric tons less of carbon dioxide emissions. Because the energy audit program is inexpensive ($10–$20 per household) a key issue is that while the program is cost-effective, is it regressive? We find that as the quantiles of the outcome distribution increase, high-use households save proportionally less electricity than do low-use customers. Overall, our results imply that program designers can better target low-use and low-income households, because they are more likely to benefit from the programs through energy savings
Average treatment effect · Consumption (sociology · Difference in differences · Econometrics · Economics · Electricity · Energy consumption · Estimator · Matching (statistics · Propensity score matching · Quantile · Statistics · Survey data collection · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Energy Efficiency and Management · Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies · Engineering · Mathematics
Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences
Some Practical Issues in the Evaluation of Heterogeneous Labour Market Programmes by Matching Methods
Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data
The Short-Run and Long-Run Effects of Behavioral Interventions
Behavior and Energy Policy
Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching
Identification and Inference in Nonlinear Difference-in-Differences Models
Energy Efficiency Economics and Policy
Information strategies and energy conservation behavior
Psychology and Economics
Social norms and energy conservation
A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation
Full Matching in an Observational Study of Coaching for the SAT
The Economics and Econometrics of Active Labor Market Programs
Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity‐score matched samples
Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics
Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care
How robust is the evidence on the effects of college quality? Evidence from matching
Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods That Incorporate the Propensity Score
The economics of “tagging” as applied to the optimal income tax, welfare programs, and manpower planning
Mostly Harmless Econometrics
Natural and Quasi-Experiments in Economics
Propensity Score-Matching Methods for Nonexperimental Causal Studies
Automatic Bill Payment and Salience Effects
Effects of Environmental Regulations on Manufacturing Plant Births
The Demand for Hours of Labor
Perception of Price When Price Information Is Costly
An Evaluation of the Swedish System of Active Labor Market Programs in the 1990s
Matching with Multiple Controls to Estimate Treatment Effects in Observational Studies
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,33 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2023 (4) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |