Scholarlink

<p>The increasing-block-pricing (IBP) is thought to promote energy efficiency and carbon emission reduction through nonlinear pricing of residential energy. This study examines the possible negative impacts of IBP. In particular, the paper investigates the impact of the experimental introduction of IBP on the purchase of dirty fuels, using panel household data from Russia. Results reveal that IBP negatively affects households with higher energy consumption,&#xa0;those receiving utility subsidies, and those in vulnerable social positions, deviating from its intended pro-social design. These findings highlight a significant challenge for policymakers, indicating that, while IBP aims to encourage sustainable energy practices, it may inadvertently harm certain segments of the population. The results of this paper suggest that there is further room for policymakers to refine the implementation of IBP to mitigate its adverse effects, ensuring it achieves its environmental goals without disproportionately impacting vulnerable households. The findings of this study hold relevance for policymakers in developing and emerging economies implementing energy reforms, including nonlinear energy pricing such as IBP, and stress the importance of tailoring such policies to address socio-economic disparities effectively.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Exploring the dirty side: the heterogeneous impact of increasing block pricing on the propensity to purchase dirty fuels

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月20日

查看全文
  • Salim Turdaliev

摘要

The increasing-block-pricing (IBP) is thought to promote energy efficiency and carbon emission reduction through nonlinear pricing of residential energy. This study examines the possible negative impacts of IBP. In particular, the paper investigates the impact of the experimental introduction of IBP on the purchase of dirty fuels, using panel household data from Russia. Results reveal that IBP negatively affects households with higher energy consumption, those receiving utility subsidies, and those in vulnerable social positions, deviating from its intended pro-social design. These findings highlight a significant challenge for policymakers, indicating that, while IBP aims to encourage sustainable energy practices, it may inadvertently harm certain segments of the population. The results of this paper suggest that there is further room for policymakers to refine the implementation of IBP to mitigate its adverse effects, ensuring it achieves its environmental goals without disproportionately impacting vulnerable households. The findings of this study hold relevance for policymakers in developing and emerging economies implementing energy reforms, including nonlinear energy pricing such as IBP, and stress the importance of tailoring such policies to address socio-economic disparities effectively.