Skip to main content
Log in

Residential energy consumption: Models of consumer behavior and their implications for rate design

Energieverbrauch privater Haushalte: Modelle des Verbraucherverhaltens und ihre Implikationen für die Tarifgestaltung

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Consumer Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article illustrates the use of bounded rationality concepts in policy analysis. Specifically, we discuss reasons why we expect residential energy consumption to deviate from the utility-maximizing level when multiple-tier rate structures are in use. Then we construct a simple, predictive model of boundedly-rational household behavior which can be tested against a conventional utility-maximization model. Our model predicts that households will over-consume when facing increasing tier rates and under-consume when facing decreasing tier rates.

We then discuss some of the policy consequences of this behavior. One consequence, given the kind of increasing tier structures that are common in the United States, is that the magnitude of the overconsumption for a household is plausibly 10 percent in the short-run and 50 percent in the long-run. Another consequence, if policy is constrained to increasing tier rates with constant total consumer subsidy, is that the most efficient of these is likely to have a lower first-tier price and quantity than would be the case without bounded rationality. Finally, we note that both the bounded-rationality model and the utility-maximizing model support the use of a two-part tariff rate structure over tiered rate structures for residential consumers.

Zusammenfassung

Der vorliegende Beitrag wendet das Konzept eingeschränkter Rationalität auf energiepolitische Zusammenhänge an. Es wird insbesondere erörtert, wie sich der Energieverbrauch privater Haushalte unter der Annahme eingeschränkter Rationalität von dem unterscheidet, wie er sich bei vollständiger Rationalität (Nutzenmaximierung) ergeben würde — vorausgesetzt, es gilt ein mehrfach gestaffelter Tarif. Die Autoren stellen ein einfaches Vorhersagemodell beschränkt rationalen Haushaltsverhaltens vor, das gegen ein konventionelles Nutzen-Maximierungsmodell getestet werden kann. Nach diesem Modell werden Haushalte bei progressiv gestaffelten Tarifen zu Überkonsum und bei degressiv gestaffelten Tarifen zu Unterkonsum tendieren.

Anschließend werden einige politische Konsequenzen dieses Verhaltens diskutiert. Bei der Form progressiv gestaffelter Tarife, die in den USA üblich ist, ist eine Konsequenz, daß die Größenordnung des Mehrverbrauchs eines Haushaltes bei kurzfristiger Betrachtung bei 10%, bei längerfristiger Betrachtung bei 50% liegt. Wenn sich die Tarifpolitik auf progressiv gestaffelte Stufentarife mit konstanter Gesamtversorgung beschränkt, ist eine andere Konsequenz, daß die wirkungsvollste Tarifgestaltung bei beschränkter Rationalität einen niedrigeren Eingangstarif und eine niedrige Eingangsmenge fordert. Schließlich wird ausgeführt, daß sowohl das Modell eingeschränkter Rationalität wie auch das Nutzen-Maximierungs-Modell für einen zweistufigen Tarif anstelle eines mehrfach gestaffelten Tarifs spricht.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akerlof, G., & Yellen, J. (1985). Can small deviations from rationality make significant differences to economic equilibria? American Economic Review, 75, 708–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colantoni, C. S., Davis, O. A., & Swaminuthan, M. (1976). Imperfect consumers and welfare comparisons of policies concerning information and regulation. Bell Journal of Economics, 7, 602–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frieden, B., & Baker, K. (1983). The market needs help: The disappointing record of home energy conservation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2, 432–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L. (1984). Microeconomic policy analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L. (1987). Energy utility pricing: The recent record in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Graduate School of Public Policy. Working Paper No. 125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grether, D., & Plott, C. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 69, 623–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempton, W., & Montgomery, L. (1982). Folk qualification of energy. Energy, 7, 817–827.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H. (1976). Limited knowledge and insurance protection. Public Policy, 24, 227–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindman, H. (1971). Inconsistent preferences among gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 390–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, T., & Thaler, R. (1985). The relevance of quasi rationality in competitive markets. American Economic Review, 75, 1071–1082.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. American Economic Review, 49, 223–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. American Economic Review, 69, 493–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1975). Choice between equally valued alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 280–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1983). Preference reversals. American Economic Review, 73, 596–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. (1986). Blind spots in policy analysis: What economics doesn't say about energy use. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5, 200–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Additional information

Lee S. Friedman is Professor of Public Policy in the Graduate School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. Karl Hausker is a staff Economist at the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 358, Washington, D.C. 20510, USA.

The authors are grateful to the University of California Energy Research Group for its support of this research. They would like to thank Suzanne Scotchmer, the Editors, and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Friedman, L.S., Hausker, K. Residential energy consumption: Models of consumer behavior and their implications for rate design. J Consum Policy 11, 287–313 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00411952

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00411952

Keywords

Navigation