報告書番号

Y11017

タイトル（和文）

イギリスの全面自由化後の低所得者向け電気料金 ～2008 年-2011 年の「社会福祉料金」の経験～

タイトル（英文）

The Electricity Market Liberalisation and the Discounted Electricity Rate for Low Income Households: The U.K. Experience of Social Tariffs in 2008-2011

概要 （図表や脚注は「報告書全文」に掲載しております）

日本で全面自由化実施後に，低所得者等を対象とした割引電気料金の提供を事業者に義務付けることとなった場合の課題や問題点をさぐるために，イギリスで燃料貧困対策として2008年から2011年に実施された社会福祉料金の経験をレビューした。その結果，以下を明らかにした。①燃料貧困世帯以外も当該料金の適用対象になっており，反対に，燃料貧困世帯が対象から漏れることがあった。②料金割引の効果は一次的であり，省エネ工事補助などの効果が永続する支援策のほうが，より費用効果的である。③費用が需要家から回収されるので結果的に需要家の負担を増大させる。また，費用を電気・ガス料金から回収されたため，逆進的であった。④社会福祉料金の義務化と小売自由化はやはり相容れない。翻って，イギリスでは，家庭用の自由化の効果を疑問視する声も挙がっている。イギリスの経験に照らすと，日本においても，同様の料金を自由化後に導入することは適切ではない。

概要 （英文）

Japan will be considering whether or not to liberalise the retail energy markets. After the liberalisation, arguments for the introduction of social tariffs, i.e. the discounted gas and electricity tariffs for socially vulnerable consumers such as households with low income, are likely to arise. This report surveyed the current status of fuel poverty in the UK, and gas and electricity social tariffs offered by gas and electric utilities. Our major findings are as follows.
1) The fuel poverty in the UK has three major causes, i.e. the low income of households, energy inefficiency of their homes and heating appliances, and the increasing gas and electricity bills, first and second of which are fundamental root causes.
2) Social tariffs are offered by "big 6" energy utilities, through the political request by the government. While consumer groups and advocates support the introduction of mandatory social tariff by legislation, energy utilities and economists strongly oppose the idea.
3) Social tariffs have some shortcomings as a solution to fuel poverty. First, the target of such tariffs may not be a household in fuel poverty, and not all fuel poor households are the targets of such tariffs. Second, the effect of social tariffs is only temporary and does not last for future years, and thus, support for energy efficiency measures are more cost-efficient. Third, if the costs of social tariff programmes are recovered through energy bills, the burden is going to be regressive, i.e., poor consumers also bear the cost. On the contrary, if they are compensated through general treasury, poor consumers do not pay that much. Forth, if social tariffs become mandatory to energy suppliers, it is incompatible with the liberalisation of retail energy markets.
Based on these findings, this report proposes that after liberalisation of household energy market, the support for the socially vulnerable consumers should be dealt with tax and welfare systems, and not by energy bills.

報告者

キーワード