Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 1–23 | Cite as

The Effect of Mail-in Utility Rebates on Willingness-to-Pay for ENERGY STAR\(^{\textregistered }\) Certified Refrigerators

  • Xiaogu Li
  • Christopher D. Clark
  • Kimberly L. Jensen
  • Steven T. Yen


The number and variety of governmental programs designed to promote energy efficiency have increased over time. Examples include mandatory minimum efficiency standards, subsidies for more energy efficient goods and services, and consumer labels, such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR\(^{\textregistered }\). While there has been considerable research on the effects of these programs in isolation, there has been less of a focus on joint effects or interactions between programs. This study examines how the offer of a mail-in rebate influences consumer willingness-to-pay for an ENERGY STAR-certified refrigerator. Data used for this study were collected from an online survey containing a hypothetical choice experiment conducted in the United States in 2009. Results suggest that the offer of a rebate induces uncertainty about the quality of ENERGY STAR-certified refrigerators and, thus, could actually reduce willingness-to-pay for such refrigerators.


ENERGY STAR Energy efficiency Rebate Refrigerator Willingness-to-pay 


  1. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M et al (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80(1):64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amacher G, Koskela E, Ollikanen M (2004) Environmental quality competition and eco-labeling. J Environ Econ Manag 47:284–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aydin G, Porteus E (2009) Manufacturer-to-retailer versus manufacturer-to-consumer rebates in a supply chain. Retail Supply Chain Manag Int Ser Oper Res Manag Sci 122:1–34Google Scholar
  4. Banerjee A, Solomon B (2003) Eco-labeling for energy efficiency and sustainability: a meta evaluation of U.S. programs. Energy Policy 31(2):109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernabou R, Tirole J (2006) Incentives and prosocial behavior. Am Econ Rev 96(5):1652–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjørner T, Hansen L, Russell C (2004) Environmental labeling and consumers’ choice—an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan. J Environ Econ Manag 47(3):411–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2002) Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ Res Econ 23(4):421–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brekke K, Kipperberg G, Nyborg K (2007) Reluctant recyclers: social interaction in responsibility ascription. In: Working paper, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. SSRN 1116149Google Scholar
  9. Brown R, Webber C, Koomey J (2002) Status and future directions of the ENERGY STAR program. Energy 27(5):505–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Res Econ 37(1):181–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cason T, Gangadharan L (2002) Environmental labeling and incomplete consumer information in laboratory markets. J Environ Econ Manag 43(1):113–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark C, Jensen K, Russell C et al (2011) Environmental labeling and motivation crowding-out: final report. In: Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis L (2010) Evaluating the slow adoption of energy efficient investments: are renters less likely to have energy efficient appliances? In: NBER working paper 16114. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Datta S, Gulati S (2010) Utility rebates for energy star appliances: are they effective? In: Working paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  15. Dennis J (2009) Field report: refrigerator labeling conjoint survey, March–April 2009. Knowledge Networks, Menlo Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  16. DSIRE (2011) Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, North Carolina State University. Cited 01 August 2012
  17. Fiebig DG, Keane M, Louviere J et al (2010) The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark Sci 29(3):393–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Folkes V, Wheat RD (1995) Consumers’ price perceptions of promoted products. J Retail 71(3):317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geller H, Harrington P, Rosenfeld AH et al (2006) Polices for increasing energy efficiency: thirty years of experience in OECD countries. Energy Policy 34(5):556–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Golberg M, Goepfirch V, Spielman J (2005) National awareness of energy stars for 2004: analysis of CEE household survey. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  22. Greene WH, Hensher DA (2010) Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models. Transportation 37:413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greene WH, Hensher DA (2013) Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model. Appl Econ 45(14):1897–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hensher DA (2010) Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. Transp Res Part B Methodol 44(6):735–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hensher DA, Greene WH (2011) Valuation of travel time savings in WTP and preference space in the presence of taste and scale heterogeneity. J Transp Econ Policy 45(3):505–525Google Scholar
  26. Hess S, Rose JM (2012) Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficient models? Transportation 39(6):1225–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horowitz MJ (2001) Economic indicators of market transformation: energy efficient lighting and EPA’s green lights. Energy J 22(4):95–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howarth RB, Haddad BM, Paton B (2000) The economics of energy efficiency: insights from voluntary participation programs. Energy Policy 28(6–7):477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johansson-Stenman O, Martinsson P (2006) Honestly, why are you driving a BMW? J Econ Behav Organ 60(2):129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jolson M, Wiener J, Rosecky R (1987) Correlates of rebate proneness. J Advert Res 27(1):33–43Google Scholar
  31. Kennedy P, Laplante B, Maxwell J (1994) Pollution policy: the role for publicly provided information. J Environ Econ Manag 26:31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim H (2006) Consumers’ responses to price presentation formats in rebate advertisements. J Retail 82(4):309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lancaster K (1972) Consumer demand: a new approach. Columbia University Press, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  34. Loureiro M, McCluskey J, Mittelhammer R (2001) Assessing consumer preferences for organic, eco-labeled, and regular apples. J Agric Res Econ 26(2):404–416Google Scholar
  35. Louviere J (1988) Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. J Transp Econ Policy 22(1):93–119Google Scholar
  36. MacRae L, Jacobsohn E, Cloutier C (2010) The state energy efficient appliance rebate program: an assessment. 2010 ACEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Cited 10 August 2012
  37. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice analysis. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. McNeil M (2010) Progress towards managing residential electricity demand: impacts of standards and labeling for refrigerators and air conditioners in India. LBNL Paper LBNL-2322E, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. Cited 01 August 2012
  39. Mitchell R, Carson R (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resource for the Future, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Orme B (2009) Fine-tuning CBC and adaptive CBC Questionnaires. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. Sawtooth Solutions, Sequim, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  41. Pechmann C, Silk T (2013) Policy and research related to consumer rebates: a comprehensive review. J Pub Policy Mark 32(2):255–270Google Scholar
  42. Revelt D, Train K (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat 80(4):647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rose J, Scarpa R (2011) The role and estimation of scale heterogeneity in choice models. In: AERE 2011 pre-conference workshop: recent developments in the design and implementation of discrete choice experiments. Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  44. Sammer K, Wustenhagen R (2006) The influence of eco-labeling on consumer behavior: results of a discrete choice analysis for washing machines. Bus Strategy Environ 15:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sawtooth Software (1998) On interaction effects and CBC designs. Sawtooth Solutions, Sequim, WA. Cited 05 March 2014
  46. Silk T, Janiszewski C (2008) Managing mail-in rebate promotion. In: Warrington college of business administration working paper series, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Cited 01 July 2012
  47. Soman D, Gourville J (2005) The consumer psychology of mail-in rebates: a model of anchoring and adjustment. In: HBS marketing research papers. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Cited 01 July 2012
  48. Tat P (1994) Rebate redemption: a motivational perspective. Psychol Mark 11:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tat P, Cunningham W III, Babakus E (1988) Consumer perceptions of rebates. J Advert Res 28:45–50Google Scholar
  50. Torres CM, Henley N, Colombo S (2011) Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: does it really matter for welfare measurement? Stirling Economics Discussion Paper 2011–2002. Cited 01 July 2012
  51. Train K, Atherton T (1995) Rebates, loans, and customers’ choice of appliance efficiency level: combining stated- and revealed-preference data. Energy J 16:55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Train K, Weeks M (2005) Discrete choice models in preference space and willing-to-pay space. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) (2010) State energy efficient appliance rebate program: an assessment. Washington DC. Cited 01 January 2011
  55. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2007) ENERGY STAR and Other Climate Protection Partnerships 2006: Annual Report. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  56. U.S. EPA (2007b) National awareness of ENERGY STAR for 2006: analysis of 2006 CEE household survey staff report. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  57. U.S. EPA (2010) Marketing and rebate opportunities for appliances. Washington DC. Cited 01 January 2011
  58. U.S. EPA (2011) Energy star program official website. Cited 01 January 2011
  59. United States Federal Trade Commission (USFTC) (2011) Appliance energy data. Cited 01 August 2012
  60. Vermeulen B, Goos P, Vanderbroek M (2008) Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option. Int J Res Mark 25(2):94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vossler CA, Doyon M, Rondeau D (2012) Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am Econ J Microecon 4(4):145–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wallander S (2008) Price impacts of the energy star label: the power of redundant information. In: Yale environmental economics seminar, Yale University, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  63. Ward D, Clark C, Jensen K et al (2011) Factors influencing willingness-to-pay for the \(\text{ ENERGY } \text{ STAR }^{{\textregistered }}\) label. Energy Policy 39:1450–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Webber CA, Brown RE, Koomey J (2000) Savings estimates for the \(\text{ ENERGY } \text{ STAR }^{\textregistered }\) voluntary labeling program. Energy Policy 28(15):1137–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaogu Li
    • 1
  • Christopher D. Clark
    • 1
  • Kimberly L. Jensen
    • 1
  • Steven T. Yen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations