| 摘要 | ABSTRACT
A preliminary review and assessment was conducted of criteria for energy poverty and methods of estimating it. Four criteria are demonstrated, including ��fuel cost ratio�� and ��minimum energy,�� criteria being used currently, as well as the recently proposed ��affordable cost,�� and ��energy voucher�� criteria.
First, since fuel costs and household incomes are used directly, the ��fuel cost ratio�� criterion is simple to apply in practice and is also easy to compare across regions. In addition, it is a strong advantage that both fuel costs and household incomes can be reflected in domestic circumstances where the residential environment can not be considered. However, overburdened low-income households that must reduce more expenses than necessary due to the extreme burden of fuel costs are excluded from the energy poor. Those excluded households are equivalent to 53.7% of the energy-poor households based on ��fuel cost ratio�� criterion, and nearly half of these are elderly households who need secure energy consumption. Many of the most vulnerable households may rather be excluded from selection as targets of energy poverty measures.
Next, the ��minimum energy�� criterion focuses on fuel expenditures by household. As it only considers fuel costs, this criterion requires extra attention when establishing a baseline for minimum energy cost. On the other hand, in the previous studies, ��Minimum Light and Heat Cost�� using the ��Expenditure Equalization Index�� is used as baselines without additional calibration procedures. The bigger problem comes from using the actual fuel expenses by households. Fuel expenditures are influenced more by the residential environment than by household incomes. The cost of household fuel expenses reflects the residential environment of households, and the more likely a household resides in a good environment, the more favorable the energy consumption, and the higher the probability of being included in the energy poor. Thus, this criterion may not be suitable for use in policies in which the residential environment cannot be considered.
Along with household incomes, the ��energy voucher�� criterion restricts household types such as elderly households and household with infants. However, the households excluded from the energy poor because of their household type also show no significant difference in terms of fuel costs, household incomes, and residential environment, compared to the energy poor in the ��energy voucher�� criterion. Even with similar burdens of fuel costs, many households in the blind spot are left out of the energy poor due to their type of household.
Finally, this study is the first to demonstrate in Korea the ��affordable cost�� criterion proposed by Lee (2001). This criterion is economically the most reasonable in that it takes into account the distinctiveness of energy goods that require fixed expenditures, and reflects the process of determining expenditures in households. However, since the portion of fuel costs is small within total household expenditures, whether or not the household is energy-poor is determined according to household income. The energy poverty group estimated by the ��affordable cost�� criterion can be seen as poor, but not necessarily energy poor.
Despite the advantages of each of the four energy poverty criteria in this study, their limitations are apparent for official use for energy poverty estimation. To develop indicators for energy poverty suitable for the situation in Korea, it is first necessary to obtain social consensus about the definition of energy poverty, and to collect related research and data to support that definition. |
