Dynamic properties of energy affordability measures

Abstract

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. Dynamic Properties of Energy Affordability MeasuresPeter Heindl* Department of Environmental and Resource Economics Centre for European Economic Research, Mannheim (Germany) and Rudolf Schüssler** Department of Philosophy University of Bayreuth (Germany) -Abstract -Measures of affordability are applied in practice, e.g., to assess the affordability of energy services, water or housing. They can be interpreted as measures of deprivation in a specific domain of consumption. The large body of literature on affordability measure has little overlap with the existing literature on poverty measurement. A comprehensive assessment of the response of affordability measures as a result of changes in the distribution of income or expenditure is missing. This paper aims to fill this gap by providing a conceptual discussion on the 'dynamics' of energy affordability measures. Several types of measures are examined in a microsimulation framework to assess their dynamic properties. Our results indicate that some measures exhibit odd dynamic behavior. This includes measures used in practice, such as the low income/high cost measure and the double median of expenditure share indicator. Odd dynamic behavior is attributed to definitions made with respect to higher moments of the expenditure distribution. Definitions that rely on a percentage share of expenditure relative to income or an absolute or relative income poverty line fare well from a dynamic perspective.

Same but different: On the applicability of fuel poverty indicators across countries—Insights from France

“…In the wake of recent transformations in European energy markets, fuel poverty has become a topic of increasing social and political interest to many member states (Bafoil et al 2014;Boardman 2012;Bouzarovski et al 2012;Heindl 2015;Heindl and Schuessler 2015;Kopatz et al 2013;Tews 2013). Conventionally, fuel poverty is defined as the difficulty that households experience in coping with the cost of domestic energy.…”

“…In recent years, there has been increasing concern about the 10% indicator"s 2 adequacy in correctly depicting the fuel poverty phenomenon (Boardman 2012;Hills 2011Hills , 2012Moore 2012;ONPE, 2014). Alternative approaches are being discussed, including modifications to the 10% indicator (Gawel and Bretschneider 2014;Heindl 2015;Heindl and Schuessler 2015;Hills 2011;Liddell et al 2012;ONPE, 2014;RAPPEL, 2012) and subjective indicators (Devalière et al 2011;Hills 2011;Waddams Price et al 2012) as well as an approach based on a minimum income standard (Moore 2012) or yet a consensual measure (Healy and Clinch 3 2002; Thomson and Snell 2013). Furthermore, qualitative approaches, mainly based on interviews with affected households, have been proposed as a way of assessing fuel poverty (Brunner et al 2011;Harrington et al 2005;Middlemiss and Gillard 2015).…”

Energy Affordability in the EU: The Risks of Metric Driven Policies

“…This analysis complements the work of Heindl and Schuessler (2015), by extending fuel poverty simulations to additional MS and highlighting the factors affecting the ability to improve recorded fuel poverty.…”

“…ENEX10 is analysed due to its intuitive behaviour when income and expenditure change, as noted byHeindl and Schuessler (2015) Deller and Waddams (2015b). report the results of identical simulations using the UK data for the alternative twice median ENEXShr and LIHC metrics Deller and Waddams (2015b).…”

Distribución de la pobreza energética en la ciudad de Madrid (España)

“…El trabajo de Bradshaw y Hutton (1983) que establece el límite de los gastos asociados a consumos energéticos en el 10% de la renta, marca el origen de los indicadores objetivos basados en la dupla ingreso-gasto energético, actualizado posteriormente mediante el indicador de Hills (2012), el cual propone la definición Low Income-High Cost que incorpora el dato medio de la población (Sánchez-Guevara, Sanz Fernández & Hernández Aja, 2015). Sin embargo, en Europa se ha desarrollado otro tipo de indicadores, por ejemplo indicadores subjetivos (Healy & Clinch, 2004) o que incluyen el estado de conservación de la vivienda (Romero, Linares, López Otero, Lavandeira & Pérez Alonso, 2014), que completan con información valiosa los estudios de pobreza energética (Heindl & Schuessler, 2015). Resulta a su vez interesante el acercamiento de Moore (2012), que refiere problemas a la hora de definir la pobreza energética solamente a partir del porcentaje de los ingresos que suponen las facturas energéticas y el aumento del riesgo de mortalidad en condiciones climáticas extremas.…”