The future electricity price still needs a one-time reduction of 5-8 cents
Benefiting from the sharp decline in coal prices from the end of 2011, the benchmark on-grid tariffs in most provinces have recently achieved a downward adjustment of around 1.5 cents, but this corresponds to an increase in renewable energy subsidies and other environmental protection measures. The sales price remains unchanged. In other words, the reduction in on-grid tariffs has not benefited the real economy from energy costs. For the coal industry in the upper reaches of electricity prices, the potential demand from the drop in electricity prices has not yet been fulfilled. The new coal-electricity linkage method that was implemented at the beginning of 2013 will use the 5% change in coal price as the trigger for price adjustment, and the annual cycle is also interpreted as a natural year cycle, that is, adjustment is made throughout the year. This long price adjustment cycle may face more and more challenges in the future. In terms of changes in coal prices in 2013, from the beginning of the year to the present, the decline in coal prices in all regions is generally between 20% and 30%, considering that coal accounts for about 80% of the cost of electricity and about 300 grams of standard coal. At the efficiency level, electricity prices need to be reduced by 6 cents to 1 cents. After deducting the already-implemented price adjustment rate, the future electricity price still needs a one-time reduction of 5-8 cents. This downward adjustment should be fully reflected in the terminal sales price. Lowering the price of electricity is the proper action of the price mechanism. The price cut is necessary At present, the level of electricity prices in our country is not low, and the burden of expenditures on residents and enterprises needs to be reduced. The basic logic of this fact is that price is a signal of benchmark value, and its level is meaningful only if it is relative level. In terms of consumer's burden, comparing the level of energy prices requires a reference to the level of income. The income of Chinese consumers is only a fraction or even one-tenth of that of Europe and the United States, and the price of electricity is already in the same order of magnitude as that of Europe and the United States. As a result, energy expenditures have squeezed other consumer expenditures and become a rising level of welfare for residents in China. Big burden. In terms of the energy burden of industry and commerce, the tradable sector needs to participate in global competition. From the perspective of exchange rate conversion, China’s current industrial and commercial electricity prices are already 30% to 40% higher than those in the United States, and they are also much higher than Asian neighboring countries, South Korea. The resulting decline in competitiveness is evident. The level of the tax rate included in the selling price of the terminal can be used to compare the degree of taxation of energy consumption by different governments, reflecting the policy intentions or goals of each government. In Europe, most countries implement tax rates as high as 30%-50%. In terms of the efficiency of the producer, the tax-exempt price to a certain extent represents the income available to the producer. If the corresponding cost is comparable, the tax-exempt price reflects the design elements and producers of the market. s efficiency. The reduction in electricity prices is an immediate improvement in reducing the electricity consumption of electricity companies and residents. If the government believes that China's implementation of a low electricity price level is in contradiction with energy conservation and environmental protection, this opportunity can be corrected by raising the taxation level, establishing a green support account for this part of the tax revenue, and achieving a double dividend of improving competitiveness and supporting green development. Taboo high energy consumption rebound is misleading The high-energy-consuming industries commonly referred to as steel, chemical, and non-ferrous metals have always been the focus of various public policy restrictions. Fundamentally, the restrictions on high energy-consuming industries are based on the negative externalities of their environment. The solution to this problem depends on the improvement of environmental standards and the rigidity of implementation. In fact, high energy consumption does not have original sin. To say the least, even if the restriction of high energy consumption is a good policy goal, the idea of ​​opposing the downward adjustment of electricity prices based on the avoidance of high energy consumption rebounds is still misleading, which confuses the mechanisms and measures. The price of electricity should be a mechanism that changes in the costs and other factors inherent in the upstream coal. If high energy consumption is judged to have negative development externalities, it needs to be raised by raising the price of electricity it faces. Therefore, raising taxes to raise the cost of energy belongs to the scope of local policy measures, and should not be used to limit generality. The overall economic mechanism plays a role. In the past, the electricity price policy that restricted the development of high energy consumption was called punitive electricity price. There was no effective distinction between the electricity price mechanism and the policy Tools. Whether the overcharged electricity expense account had subsidized the groups that were damaged due to high energy consumption, It needs further transparency. These are urgent practical issues. Electricity price cross subsidies can be cancelled together In the past, the electricity price of residents in our country was lower than that of commercial and commercial electricity. The rate of this cross-subsidy decreased after the introduction of a ladder-type electricity price. This kind of institutional arrangement does not reduce the total burden of the residents’ actual expenditure, because the high electricity prices of the business sector must be transmitted to the various consumer goods of the residents. At the same time, it misled the resident consumer's power consumption behavior and did not help the residents save electricity. The only benefit of this system is the substantial subsidy to the lowest income class. This part of the user needs to change from implicit compensation to clear compensation to ensure that the overall effect of the policy is progressive. But overall, the elimination of cross-subsidization is a requirement for building a unified market. If the overall electricity price of residents rises by 50%, the electricity price for industry and commerce can be further reduced by 10%. In this way, the electricity and electricity prices in China will generally be at the level of the United States. This policy change will be of symbolic significance to the residents' power consumption signal guidance and will be of substantive significance to the industrial and commercial competitiveness. Refrigerator Evaporator,Cold Room Evaporator,Fridge Evaporator,Cooler Evaporator LONG TERM ELEC. CO., LTD , https://www.longterm-hvac.com