EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Three Biases in Cost-Efficiency Tests of Utility Energy Efficiency Programs

Steven Braithwait and Douglas Caves

The Energy Journal, 1994, vol. Volume15, issue Number 1, 95-120

Abstract: Electric utilities in a number of American states devote significant portions of their resources to demand-side management (DSM) programs designed to reduce their customers' electricity consumption. As other jurisdictions consider similar programs, the public policy cost-efficiency criteria for determining how much utilities should pay for DSM remain controversial. This paper develops the appropriate measure of the economic benefits and costs of DSM, using a conventional economic welfare framework, and compares it to the standard cost-effectiveness tests used in most jurisdictions today. The standard tests are found to be incomplete, suffering from three potential biases. Modifications to the standard tests are suggested to address each of the biases. A numerical example is used to illustrate the nature and potential magnitude of the bias in the current tests.

JEL-codes: F0 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1994
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations View citations in EconPapers (5) Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/ejarticle.aspx?id=1148 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to IAEE members and subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:aen:journl:1994v15-01-a06

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/ejsearch.aspx

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Energy Journal from International Association for Energy Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by David Williams ().

 
Page updated 2018-10-27
Handle: RePEc:aen:journl:1994v15-01-a06