We estimate the welfare implications of reforming residential electricity network tariffs to incorporate cost-reflective “Coasian” principles. For an Irish case study, we find that current Distribution Use of System (DUoS) tariffs deviate considerably from those that incorporate cost-reflective principles. In aggregate, positive welfare effects are largely canceled out by negative welfare effects. This results in a relatively small net welfare impact of up to around €33 million. However, there is a regressive distribution of incidence at the household level. Households in the lowest income decile incur losses of up to around €40 per annum, on average, while households in the highest income decile benefit by up to €63 per annum, on average. We show that inefficient DUoS tariffs represent a costly redistribution policy. We demonstrate that it is more efficient to counter the regressive effects through the tax-benefit system.
AnsarinM.Ghiassi-FarrokhfalY.KetterW.CollinsJ.2022. “A Review of Equity in Electricity Tariffs in the Renewable Energy Era.”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews161: 112333.
BatlleC.MastropietroP.RodillaP.2020. “Redesigning Residual Cost Allocation in Electricity Tariffs: A Proposal to Balance Efficiency, Equity and Cost Recovery.”Renewable Energy155: 257–66.
7.
BorensteinS.2012. “The Redistributional Impact of Nonlinear Electricity Pricing.”American Economic Journal: Economic Policy4 (3): 56–90.
8.
BorensteinS.DavisL.2012. “The Equity and Efficiency of Two-Part Tariffs in US Natural Gas Markets.”The Journal of Law and Economics55 (1): 75–128.
9.
BurgerS. P.KnittelC. R.Perez-ArriagaI. J.SchneiderI.Vom ScheidtF.2020. “The Efficiency and Distributional Effects of Alternative Residential Electricity Rate Designs.”The Energy Journal41 (1): 199–240.
10.
Central Statistics Office. 2017. “Household Budget Survey (HBS), 2015-2016.” [Dataset] 1st ed. Irish Social Science Data Archive. SN: 0022-06. https://www.ucd.ie/issda/hbs.
Commission for Regulation of Utilities. 2015a. “Distribution System Operator (DSO) Revenue for 2016-2020.” Technical Report, Commission for Regulation of Utilities, Dublin.
Commission for Regulation of Utilities.2015c. “Schedule of Distribution Use of System Charges 1st October 2015 - 30th September 2016.” Report, ESB Networks Ltd, Dublin.
18.
Commission for Regulation of Utilities. 2021. “Distribution System Operator (DSO) Revenue for 2021-2025.” Technical Report, Commission for Regulation of Utilities, Dublin.
CovingtonH.Woo-ShemB.WangC.RothT.NguyenC.LiuY.FangY.LeeH.2024. “Method for Evaluating Fairness of Electricity Tariffs with Regard to Income Level of Residential Buildings.”Applied Energy353: 122130.
22.
de VillenaM. M.GautierA.ErnstD.GlavicM.FonteneauR.2021. “Modelling and Assessing the Impact of the DSO Remuneration Strategy on its Interaction with Electricity Users.”International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems126: 106585.
23.
EspeyJ. A.EspeyM.2004. “Turning on the Lights: A Meta-analysis of Residential Electricity Demand Elasticities.”Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics36 (1): 65–81.
FarrellN.2021. “The Increasing Cost of Ignoring Coase: Inefficient Electricity Tariffs, Welfare Loss and Welfare-reducing Technological Change.”Energy Economics97: 104848.
FarrellN.LyonsS.2015. “Who Should Pay for Renewable Energy? Comparing the Household Impacts of Different Policy Mechanisms in Ireland.”Energy Research & Social Science7: 31–42.
28.
FrondelM.KusselG.SommerS.2019. “Heterogeneity in the Price Response of Residential Electricity Demand: A Dynamic Approach for Germany.”Resource and Energy Economics57: 119–34.
29.
GarciaS.ReynaudA.2004. “Estimating the Benefits of Efficient Water Pricing in France.”Resource and Energy Economics26 (1): 1–25.
30.
Garcia-ValinasM. A.2005. “Efficiency and Equity in Natural Resources Pricing: A Proposal for Urban Water Distribution Service.”Environmental & Resource Economics32 (2): 183–204.
31.
GormanW.JarvisS.CallawayD.2020. “Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Importance of Electricity Rate Design for Household Defection from the Power Grid.”Applied Energy262: 114494.
32.
HumesH.FarrellN.2025. “The Equity and Efficiency Effects of Energy Subsidy Cost-recovery.”The Journal of Economic Inequality1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-024-09655-4
ItoK.2014. “Do Consumers Respond to Marginal or Average Price? Evidence from Nonlinear Electricity Pricing.”American Economic Review104 (2): 537–63.
35.
ItoK.ZhangS.2020. “Willingness to Pay for Clean Air: Evidence from Air Purifier Markets in China.”Journal of Political Economy128 (5): 1627–72.
36.
LabandeiraX.LabeagaJ. M.López-OteroX.2017. “A Meta-analysis on the Price Elasticity of Energy Demand.”Energy Policy102: 549–68.
37.
LiddleB.HuntingtonH.2021. “How Prices, Income, and Weather Shape Household Electricity Demand in High-income and Middle-income Countries.”Energy Economics95: 104995.
38.
Lo SchiavoL.RegaliniE.2018. “Capacity-based Network Tariffs for Italian Electricity Households.” Report, Australian Energy Market Commission. COAG Energy Council Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW, Sydney.
PeersmanG.WautersJ.2024. “Heterogeneous Household Responses to Energy Price Shocks.”Energy Economics132: 107421.
42.
PeffleyT. B.PearceJ. M.2020. “The Potential for Grid Defection of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises Using Solar Photovoltaic, Battery and Generator Hybrid Systems.”Renewable Energy148: 193–204.
43.
Pérez-ArriagaI. J.JenkinsJ. D.BatlleC.2017. “A Regulatory Framework for an Evolving Electricity Sector: Highlights of the MIT Utility of the Future Study.”Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy6 (1): 71–92.
44.
PollittM. G.AnayaK. L.2016. “Can Current Electricity Markets Cope with High Shares of Renewables? A Comparison of Approaches in Germany, the UK and the State of New York.”The Energy Journal37 (2 suppl): 69–88.
45.
PorcherS.2014. “Efficiency and Equity in Two-part Tariffs: The Case of Residential Water Rates.”Applied Economics46 (5): 539–55.
46.
ReañosM. A. T.WölfingN. M.2018. “Household Energy Prices and Inequality: Evidence from German Microdata Based on the EASI Demand System.”Energy Economics70: 84–97.
47.
RosA. J.2017. “An Econometric Assessment of Electricity Demand in the United States Using Utility-specific Panel Data and the Impact of Retail Competition on Prices.”The Energy Journal38 (4): 73–100.
48.
SabadiniF.MadlenerR.2021. “The Economic Potential of Grid Defection of Energy Prosumer Households in Germany.”Advances in Applied Energy4: 100075.
49.
SchittekatteT.MeeusL.2020. “Least-cost Distribution Network Tariff Design in Theory and Practice.”The Energy Journal41 (5): 119–56.
50.
SchittekatteT.MomberI.MeeusL.2018. “Future-proof Tariff Design: Recovering Sunk Grid Costs in a World Where Consumers are Pushing Back.”Energy Economics70: 484–98.
51.
StewartF.2022. “Friends with Benefits: How Income and Peer Diffusion Combine to Create an Inequality “Trap” in the Uptake of Low-carbon Technologies.”Energy Policy163: 112832.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
