Suchergebnisse

This is an Open Access Article. It is published by Scientific Research Publishing under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0). Full details of this licence are available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ; This research highlights an interesting finding comparing energy use in the residential sector in the United Kingdom and Australia. Energy consumed per capita is largely similar, however the energy available is manifestly different. Australia is blessed with a greater abundance of energy than the United Kingdom. Particularly, in the main area of study in Australia, Victoria state, Brown coal is easy and cheap to access. It is therefore politically more difficult to argue that the population affords more expensive sustainable energy resources even though Australia is one of the countries that can readily produce this type of energy. Britain, however, is a net importer of energy. A large proportion of this energy is natural gas which is a fossil fuel, and therefore contributes to the negative effects of climate change. The findings of this research focus on what motivates residential users of energy to use energy more sustainably. It presents the conclusions of previous research as a backdrop, and reveals the complexity of occupant behaviour. Key drivers are financial incentives and the role of large organisations such as governments in influ-encing behaviour. This may take significant time.

ABSTRACTThe paper develops a cost frontier model of electricity distribution and estimates it on data for the 12 regional electricity companies of England and Wales. It is found that some significant cost drivers in cross‐section estimation are insignificant when the model is estimated on panel data, highlighting the well‐known drawbacks of cross‐section estimation. Panel data estimation suggests that the main determinants of distribution operating costs are the number of customers in the area and simultaneous maximum demand. These results and the efficiency rankings of the companies are not sensitive to changes in error distribution assumptions and sample size. There is also significant evidence of economies of scale. There is a small but significant effect on cost efficiency from privatization, but this is as likely to be due to the changes in accounting policies at the time of privatization as any real effect.

Abstract
Fuel subsidies distort end-use prices below cost, resulting in overconsumption and huge environmental cost. On the other hand, the mark-up over cost due to the exercise of market power results in the social loss of consumer surplus. We open a new line of inquiry into the potential for a market-based solution from these two countervailing forces: can the two offsetting distortions conceivably achieve a second- best optimum? Relying on dynamic panel techniques and gasoline market data for 68 developing countries, we uncover an excessive second-best subsidy offset to market power mark-up on the order of 4.5. Our results indicate that the potential for policy failure strongly exceeds the potential for market failure in our model, and gasoline prices across our sample may not be aligned with vigorous anti-climate change policy.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ; This paper investigates residential energy consumption in the UK by using a novel and topical approach based on behavioural analysis. A key lesson from recent advances in behavioural economics is that the responses of individuals to both policy incentives and uncertainty may differ from the predictions of classical rational optimising behaviour. By employing a focused case study approach using both quantitative and qualitative response analysis, it considers the motivations of residential householders in the UK to reduce fossil fuel use, with additional perspectives from UK landlords, a global environmental NGO, a senior politician, and two senior stakeholder strategy managers from a large energy company. Our interpretative behavioural analysis shows that a variety of incentives are necessary to encourage behaviour change. However, case study participants largely agree on the beneficial role of government regulation and efforts to "nudge" them in the right direction with regard to their energy use. As a means of more effectively reducing carbon dioxide emissions, we conclude that policy should focus on sustainable energy use. The findings allow us to understand why important recent policy initiatives such as the UK Green Deal failed to achieve their objectives and they suggest lessons for more effective incentive based policy making in the field of residential energy consumption.

We review the case for intermediate power incentive regulation such as sliding scale when the regulator is badly informed and the firm's profits have a shadow resource cost. We then evaluate a number of different regulatory regimes including sliding scale in terms of productive and allocative efficiency. We find that the sliding scale principle can be applied quite generally—to dividends, profits or rate of return and that it has attractive economic properties.