Lin, B., Jiang, Z, 2012. Designation and influence of household increasing block electricity tariffs in China. Energy Policy 42, pp. 164–173: How biased is the measurement of household’s loss?

Salies, Evens (2012): Lin, B., Jiang, Z, 2012. Designation and influence of household increasing block electricity tariffs in China. Energy Policy 42, pp. 164–173: How biased is the measurement of household’s loss? Published in: Energy policy , Vol. 48, No. Special Section: Frontiers of Sustainability : pp. 843-845.

Abstract

The three-tier inclining block tariff (‘‘IBT’’) issued by the Chinese government in 2010 is focusing attention of energy economists, among whom Lin and Jiang (2012. Designation and influence of household increasing block electricity tariffs in China. Energy Policy 42, 164–173) who assert that the issued tariff is unsuited to meet the social and environmental objectives it was designed for. These authors offer an alternative four-tiered IBT, the performance of which they show by evaluating its welfare and income distribution effects taking the current uniform tariff as reference. To measure the surplus loss to a representative household in a given block the authors use the trapezoid approach. But, because of the limited data on demand, they calculate the household’s response by using a constant point estimate of the own-price elasticity of electricity demand. In this note I show there is an incompatibility between these two modeling assumptions. Combining them is causing an upward bias in the surplus loss, which is of significance given the large price change associated with the IBT. I then offer a correction to this bias.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Increasing block tariffs, Electricity demand, Welfare measurement
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics > D11 - Consumer Economics: Theory; D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q4 - Energy > Q41 - Demand and Supply ; Prices; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q4 - Energy > Q48 - Government Policy

References

Espey, J.A., Espey, M., 2004. Turning on the lights: a meta-analysis of residential electricity demand elasticities. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 36, 65–81.

Freund, C., Wallich, C., 1997. Public-sector price reforms in transition economies: who gains? Who loses? The case of household energy prices in Poland. Economic Development and Cultural Change 46, 35–59.

Lin, B., Jiang, Z., 2012. Designation and influence of household increasing block electricity tariffs in China. Energy Policy 42, 164–173.

Ruijs, A., 2009. Welfare and distribution effects of water pricing policies. Environment and Resource Economics 43, 161–182.

Vazquez, A., 1998. An alternative definition of the arc elasticity of demand. Journal of Economic Studies 25, 553–562.

Wang, Z., Zhang, B., Zhang, Y., 2012. Determinants of public acceptance of tiered electricity price reform in China: evidence from four urban cities. Applied Energy 91, 235–244.