4.7 Article

Who should pay for renewable energy? Comparing the household impacts of different policy mechanisms in Ireland

期刊

ENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 31-42

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2015.02.006

关键词

Renewable energy policy cost; Distributional impacts; Renewable energy support schemes

资金

  1. Programme for Research inThird-Level Institutions (PRTLI) Cycle 5
  2. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
  3. ESRI Energy Policy Research Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Along with environmental impacts, renewable energy affects societal welfare through subsidy costs and electricity price changes. Identifying the distribution of both these impacts is of increasing importance as deployment grows. Subsidies are commonly financed by consumption-based Public Service Obligation (PSO) levies. We compare the distributional impact of different PSO levy structures using the example of a market with high and rising renewables penetration: Ireland. A flate-rate charge is more regressive than a unit-based charge. The regressive impacts of a fixed per-unit charge are greater for a subgroup of heavy electricity users, some with low incomes. Incremental Block Pricing (IBP) exaggerates these effects. A hybrid fixed/variable structure reduces regressivity for heavy users but lessens overall regressivity reduction. Redistributive mechanisms structured like Ireland's Household Benefits Package imperfectly target poorer households, with income and household size-based measures more effective. Including electricity price reductions due to renewables deployment, fixed per-unit charges have a neutral effect while flat charges redistribute some burden from rich to poor. IBP shifts cost to heavy electricity users, predominantly large households. IBP yields a negative net burden for most households across all income groups. These findings are generalised to inform equitable renewable energy subsidy mechanisms both in Ireland and elsewhere. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据