IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v100y2017icp181-190.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cross subsidy removal in electricity pricing in India

Author

Listed:
  • Bhattacharyya, Ranajoy
  • Ganguly, Amrita

Abstract

In India electricity price for agriculture is cross subsidized by the industries. The Indian government has started a process through which the extent of cross subsidization is gradually being reduced. The idea is to replace the cross subsidization by 2030 and introduce a rate structure that will increase with the amount of electricity usage. This paper uses the Computable General Equilibrium framework to evaluate the ex-ante impact of these policy changes on the Indian economy. The paper finds that removal of cross subsidies will increase inflation particularly food inflation resulting in a decline in household incomes more so in rural areas. Replacing cross subsidies with a progressive rate structure will compensate for only a small part of the negative effects of the removal of cross subsidies. Four other policy options are also investigated targeting household incomes, food inflation and general inflation. Most of these options do not work as the required increase in budget deficit is unlikely to be bearable to the government. The only feasible option appears to be a direct price subsidy to agricultural sector: in this case food prices are held down, inflation is moderate and effect on household incomes is minimal.

Suggested Citation

  • Bhattacharyya, Ranajoy & Ganguly, Amrita, 2017. "Cross subsidy removal in electricity pricing in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 181-190.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:100:y:2017:i:c:p:181-190
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516305699
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.024?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Coupal, Roger H. & Holland, David W., 2002. "Economic Impact Of Electric Power Industry Deregulation On The State Of Washington: A General Equilibrium Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Breisinger, Clemens & Engelke, Wilfried & Ecker, Olivier, 2011. "Petroleum subsidies in Yemen : leveraging reform for development," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5577, The World Bank.
    3. Dartanto, Teguh, 2013. "Reducing fuel subsidies and the implication on fiscal balance and poverty in Indonesia: A simulation analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 117-134.
    4. Edgar F.A. Cooke & Sarah Hague & Luca Tiberti & John Cockburn & Abdel-Rahmen El Lahga, 2016. "Estimating the impact on poverty of Ghana’s fuel subsidy reform and a mitigating response," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 105-128, March.
    5. Sands, Ron & Westcott, Paul & Price, J. Michael & Beckman, Jayson & Leibtag, Ephraim & Lucier, Gary & McBride, William D. & McGranahan, David & Morehart, Mitch & Roeger, Edward & Schaible, Glenn & Woj, 2011. "Impacts of Higher Energy Prices on Agriculture and Rural Economies," Economic Research Report 262236, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    7. Ying Fan & Jian-Ling Jiao & Qiao-Mei Liang & Zhi-Yong Han & Yi-Ming Wei, 2007. "The impact of rising international crude oil price on China's economy: an empirical analysis with CGE model," International Journal of Global Energy Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 27(4), pages 404-424.
    8. Alvarez, Jorge & Valencia, Fabian, 2016. "Made in Mexico: Energy reform and manufacturing growth," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 253-265.
    9. Krugman, Paul R., 1979. "Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 469-479, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Korrakot Phomsoda & Nattapong Puttanapong & Mongkut Piantanakulchai, 2021. "Economic Impacts of Thailand’s Biofuel Subsidy Reallocation Using a Dynamic Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 14(8), pages 1-21, April.
    2. Wong, Jason Chun Yu & Blankenship, Brian & Urpelainen, Johannes & Ganesan, Karthik & Bharadwaj, Kapardhi & Balani, Kanika, 2021. "Perceptions and acceptability of electricity theft: Towards better public service provision," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    3. Стародубцева А. Е., 2020. "Перекрестное Субсидирование Как Мера Социальной Поддержки Населения: Международный Опыт Государственного Управления На Рынке Электроэнергии И Мощности," Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления // Public administration issues, НИУ ВШЭ, issue 2, pages 114-144.
    4. Padmanathan K. & Uma Govindarajan & Vigna K. Ramachandaramurthy & Sudar Oli Selvi T., 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Based Economic Analysis of Solar PV System with Respect to Performance Investigation for Indian Market," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(5), pages 1-19, May.
    5. Proskuryakova, Liliana & Starodubtseva, Alena & Bianco, Vincenzo, 2020. "Modelling a household tariff for reducing sectoral cross-subsidies in the Russian power market," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    6. Erisa Dautaj Şenerdem & K. Ali Akkemik, 2020. "Evaluation of the reform in the Turkish electricity sector: a CGE analysis," International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 389-419, August.
    7. Djoni Hartono & Ahmad Komarulzaman & Tony Irawan & Anda Nugroho, 2020. "Phasing out Energy Subsidies to Improve Energy Mix: A Dead End," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, May.
    8. Pu, Lei & Wang, Xiuhui & Tan, Zhongfu & Wang, Huaqing & Yang, JiaCheng & Wu, Jing, 2020. "Is China's electricity price cross-subsidy policy reasonable? Comparative analysis of eastern, central, and western regions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    9. Safarzadeh, Soroush & Rasti-Barzoki, Morteza & Hejazi, Seyed Reza, 2020. "A review of optimal energy policy instruments on industrial energy efficiency programs, rebound effects, and government policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    10. Jia, Zhijie & Lin, Boqiang, 2021. "The impact of removing cross subsidies in electric power industry in China: Welfare, economy, and CO2 emission," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PB).
    11. Moerenhout, Tom S.H. & Sharma, Shruti & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2019. "Commercial and industrial consumers’ perspectives on electricity pricing reform: Evidence from India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 162-171.
    12. Verma, Mandhir Kumar & Mukherjee, V. & Kumar Yadav, Vinod & Ghosh, Santosh, 2020. "Indian power distribution sector reforms: A critical review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    13. Ghosh, Ranjan & Goyal, Yugank & Rommel, Jens & Sagebiel, Julian, 2017. "Are small firms willing to pay for improved power supply? Evidence from a contingent valuation study in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 659-665.
    14. Roman Mendelevitch, 2018. "Testing supply-side climate policies for the global steam coal market—can they curb coal consumption?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 57-72, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paolo Epifani & Gino Gancia, 2008. "The Skill Bias of World Trade," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(530), pages 927-960, July.
    2. Peter Egger & Douglas Nelson, 2011. "How Bad Is Antidumping? Evidence from Panel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1374-1390, November.
    3. Andrew B. Bernard & Jonathan Eaton & J. Bradford Jensen & Samuel Kortum, 2003. "Plants and Productivity in International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1268-1290, September.
    4. Barbier Edward B & Rauscher Michael, 2007. "Trade and Development in a Labor Surplus Economy," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-36, August.
    5. Igor A. Bykadorov & Alexey A. Gorn & Sergey G. Kokovin & Evgeny V. Zhelobodko, 2014. "Losses From Trade In Krugman’s Model: Almost Impossible," HSE Working papers WP BRP 61/EC/2014, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    6. Shon M. Ferguson, 2015. "Endogenous Product Differentiation, Market Size and Prices," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 45-61, February.
    7. Christian Broda & David E. Weinstein, 2006. "Globalization and the Gains From Variety," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 121(2), pages 541-585.
    8. Crt Kostevc, 2005. "Performance of Exporters: Scale Effects or Continuous Productivity Improvements," LICOS Discussion Papers 15905, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    9. Malik Curuk & Suphi Sen, 2018. "Climate Policy and Resource Extraction with Variable Markups and Imperfect Substitute," ifo Working Paper Series 278, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    10. Ardelean, Adina & Lugovskyy, Volodymyr, 2010. "Domestic productivity and variety gains from trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 280-291, March.
    11. Behrens, Kristian & Murata, Yasusada, 2012. "Trade, competition, and efficiency," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 1-17.
    12. Evgeny Zhelobodko & Sergey Kokovin & Mathieu Parenti & Jacques‐François Thisse, 2012. "Monopolistic Competition: Beyond the Constant Elasticity of Substitution," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(6), pages 2765-2784, November.
    13. Fujita, Masahisa & Thisse, Jacques-François, 2009. "New Economic Geography: An appraisal on the occasion of Paul Krugman's 2008 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 109-119, March.
    14. J.Peter Neary, 2001. "Of Hype and Hyperbolas: Introducing the New Economic Geography," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 536-561, June.
    15. Martin Andersson & Sara Johansson & Hans Lööf, 2012. "Firm Performance and International Trade – Evidence from a Small Open Economy," Chapters, in: Charlie Karlsson & Börje Johansson & Roger R. Stough (ed.), The Regional Economics of Knowledge and Talent, chapter 13, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Etro, Federico, 2017. "The Heckscher–Ohlin model with monopolistic competition and general preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 26-29.
    17. Gali, Jordi, 1995. "Expectations-driven spatial fluctuations," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-19, February.
    18. d’Aspremont, Claude & Dos Santos Ferreira, Rodolphe, 2020. "Exploiting separability in a multisectoral model of oligopolistic competition," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 51-59.
    19. Andreas Haufler & Michael Pflüger, 2004. "International Commodity Taxation under Monopolistic Competition," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 6(3), pages 445-470, August.
    20. Deng-Shing Huang & Yo-Yi Huang & Cheng-Te Lee, 2006. "Technology Advantage and Trade: Home Market Effects Revisited," IEAS Working Paper : academic research 06-A011, Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:100:y:2017:i:c:p:181-190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.