Jump to content

Talk:Electricity pricing/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The term itself

I'd appreciate if an expert added a sentence or two about the term itself. Why is "tariff" the regular term used when it's really a price? (Tariff, to me, implies an additional cost, but not the base cost.) Or do I have my facts wrong? --Pojo (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to discuss the use of this term for the prominent role in this article for some time. Tariff comes from the nature of electricity markets as they developed in most developing countries in the early years of the 20th century. Specifically, for reasons too involved to go into here, those markets were deemed (by the state) to be best run as monopoly (single-provider in any particular geographic area) with "regulation" by the state; thus, regulated monopolies. Thus, the amount that could be charged by the electricity producer/supplier was not free to be priced as in an ordinary market, but could only be priced as per "allowed" by the state. These government-approved price schedules are known as tariffs. If regulated monopolies were ever the best way to organize electricity markets, that likely passed 30 to 60 years ago -- new market forms such as dynamic pricing would facilitate more efficient production, and easier integration of alternative sources such as wind power and stored-power buy-back from large fleets of electric vehicles or residential and commercial customers with onsite storage or generating mechanisms -- but that too is a separate topic.
Net, tariff has historical validity in many electricity markets, but is likely a hindrance to a representative and non-POV article on electricity prices today. Tariff has built within the term a particular structure of an electricity market. Hope this helps you. N2e (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Explanations for variations

I can't make head nor tail of the huge variations in electricity prices. Perhaps some explanations would be helpful. For example, despite being close neighbors and similarly run economies, Denmark and Finland vary hugely with their prices. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.97.228 (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Article has two problems

This article has a couple of major problems, other than incompleteness which is a third.

I would like to see what others think first. After a few weeks have passed, I will suggest a proposal for some changes and see if we can garner a consensus on which way to go, and what to do first, second, and so on. So please add your feedback if you happen by and read this. N2e (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Very inadequate description. What are these prices? Residential, commercial, industrial? In Canada we have scores of electrical utilities, each of whom may have a half-dozen or more rates for different classes of customer. Do these rates include transmission charges, taxes, and any of a number of special costs that get stucck on electrical bills? Just what goes into making an "electricity tarriff" anyway? Can't see the original reference because it needs registration and I'm not registered on the site. A typical half-baked attempta t an article which will never get the expert attention it needs to be a good article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a merge tag to merge Power price forecasting into this article. I think that the title should definitely be changed to Electricity Prices, and then to incorporate historical data (like the graphs in Price of petroleum), as well as current data by country. I do not think that this article should be turned into a list, I think it has much more potential. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Per above, proposal to merge Power price forecasting into this article, Electricity tariff. In order to have a single discussion at a time, and increase the liklihood that we can gain a consensus on going forward or not, I recommend leaving the article name discussion for later. N2e (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

SUPPORT

OPPOSE


OTHER (or comment)

I had another idea about this article while I procrastinated on doing this merge. With the exception of the lead sentience, most of the content relates to electricity demand, a subject where we are lacking an article. (Which would serve to back up many articles such as peak power, baseload, Demand side management, and load shedding) I would recommend moving most of the content to a new stub, and then redirecting this page to Electricity market, which is really what that page is about (Forecasting variable spot prices). Comments on this new idea? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Power price forecasting could be merged with several articles. For example; Electricity pricing and Electricity market. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing the name of the article

I suggest changing the name of the article to Electricity pricing, or Electric rates or something similar. Any other ideas? "Tariff" is too limiting, and is not a well-understood word.

See: http://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml Pacific Gas & Electric - Electric Rates. It says "Current and historic electric rates." Everyone understands the term "electric rates". Few understand "tariff." WP:NAME says names should be simple when possible. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "tariff" is bad for several reasons. "Tariff" comes from the particular and peculiar nature of electricity markets as they developed in most developing countries in the early years of the 20th century. Specifically, for reasons too involved to go into here, those markets were deemed (by the state) to be best run as monopolies (single-provider in any particular geographic area) with "regulation" by the state; thus, regulated monopolies. Therefore, the amount that could be charged by the electricity producer/supplier was not free to be priced as in an ordinary market, but could only be priced as per "allowed" by the state. These government-approved price schedules are known as tariffs. If regulated monopolies were ever the best way to organize electricity markets, that likely passed 30 to 60 years ago -- new market forms such as dynamic pricing would facilitate more efficient production, and easier integration of alternative sources such as wind power and stored-power buy-back from large fleets of electric vehicles or residential and commercial customers with onsite storage or generating mechanisms -- but that too is a separate topic.
Net, "tariff" has historical validity in many electricity markets, but is likely a hindrance to a representative and non-POV article on electricity prices today. "Tariff" has built within the term a particular structure of an electricity market.
I support changing the name of this article to something like Electricity prices, or Electricity pricing. Even the term "rate" in Electricity rates implies a particular form of pricing, one that is so much money per unit of electric energy. That too implies a particular pricing model; other models are possible, and are being implemented in a few locations. So in my view, best not to put "rates" in the article title. N2e (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
One might observe that the regulated monopoly model allowed electric power consumption to increase several hundred-fold between, oh, say, 1890 and 1980. Utility stocks used to be considered 'widow and orphan' funds because they had a guaranteed, regulated rate of return. One might point to the California and Alberta problems with electricity rates rising.
Pricing of electric power is a deep and wide subject and i would be impressed if the Wikipedia editors can collectively pull off a reasonable article about it, no matter what the title. I know just enough about the subject to realize that I know very little about it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like everybody is using the word "pricing" when discussing the topic of electricity prices. "Rates" and "tariffs" seem to be particular to certain pricing structures. How about moving the article name to "Electricity pricing". That title covers the areas of prices worldwide, the history, and the regulatory structures used. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest Price of electricity to conform to other articles like Price of petroleum. Agree with N2e and Timeshifter that "Tariff" is not correct. I know that where I live (U.S. East coast) "tariff" is never used, only "price" or "rates" (But in my opinion, "rate" deals more with a regulated, consumer price point, which does not include all of the aspects such as spot prices ect.) --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Price of petroleum deals mostly with only one price. Electricity pricing varies by country, regulatory framework, region, utility company, time of year, time of day, buyer, market, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Timeshifter's point is valid—the oil price tends to be close to the same in major worldwide markets, just with differences due to transportation and temporary storage costs. Electricity is not easily stored for transport across long distances; nor, for that matter, is it economically stored locally or regionally). Electricity transport requires significant capital infrastructure of lines/towers/switchgear/etc. to carry it across even short to intermediate distances. Therefore it is likely true that electricity trades more in local and (usually national, due to state policy) regional markets while oil does typically trade in a worldwide market. There are exceptions, e.g. Iran, where oil trades at a subsidized price due to state policy.
However, I don't think any of that would make Price of electricity a poor choice of name for an article, just like Price of petroleum. Thus, I will slightly modify my earlier comment and say that I would support changing the name of this article to something like Electricity prices, or Electricity pricing, or Price of electricity. As previously discussed, I don't think tariff or rate are good words to use in the title. N2e (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
"Price" of electricity can change depending on the time of day. Peak power costs versus nighttime costs. Also, in some cases prices are lower if in bulk, or a certain monthly kilowatt-hours are reached. I just talked myself into preferring Electricity prices. That title can include (as the article does now) tables of electricity prices. For various bulk amounts, for various countries, cities, historic rates, and so on. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't really understand your preference for Electricity prices. If you are trying to imply the very real differences in pricing due to geography, time, amount purchased, ect., then I would think that Electricity pricing would work much better to convey the differences. I understand that it is much easier to talk about an price per barrel of oil over a large area than a price per kwh. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy with either one: Electricity pricing or Electricity prices. I really like the list tables for illustrating the variability caused by different pricing, subsidies, taxes, etc. across the world. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
[outdent] -- Seems like we have a consensus of those involved in the recent discussion: Electricity pricing.
Anyone care to actually implement the WP:MOVE? N2e (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done If you think that anything else needs to be done feel free to do it. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Fiftytwo thirty! N2e (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Updated Prices

I'm not sure all of these prices are correct. In particular, the $0.055/kW-hr listed for Spain piqued my interest to search for corroboration.

This EU document shows an average of about 0.095 Euro / kW-hr in 2006. Given the date on that data and the difference in what's already posted, I will wait to edit the article so others can review or find other sources. Iamlucky13 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

--

The prices are definitely out of date... Here is a reference from IEA that contains 2010 prices for a limited selection of countries: http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2011/key_world_energy_stats.pdf , page 43 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.169.5 (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Global electricity price comparison

Solomon Island has its number marked by a "c". What is "c"? Is it saying that the number is 1/100 of the rest of the numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xnamkcor (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Electricity markets are very complicate to compare

I do not know where the 25 cents figure for Australia came from but would like to add some comments and anecdotal evidence.

The whole "pricing structure" or "tariff system" for domestic electricity is too complicated to compare. Firstly, there is more than one type of electricity meter, one has three periods (off-peak, shoulder, and peak) and the other has two (a rate for some first amount consumed followed by a different rate for the next amount consumed, I think it resets every month). There may be others.

Secondly, there are many different companies claiming to compete on prices. I say "claiming" because it is actually very difficult to compare like-for-like prices because each of them have different terms and conditions and offer may different supply contracts (not many people have time to read through all of them and will have chosen non-optimal plans). Usually one has to sign a supply contract for between 6 to 24 months and there are different connection, disconnection, and early termination fees attached as well as "bonuses" for paying on-time or switching suppliers.

Depending on which precise contract one signs up for, the actual price of electricity will vary. It is very difficult to know in advance how much will be used, and so many people will be paying more than they ought to, had they been able to predict at the contract signing stage precisely how much they would have used.

One thing I can say for sure, electricity in NSW is much more expensive than 25 cents. The best peak rate I found was just over 44 cents peak before GST and that does not account for the Carbon Tax which will be payable moving forwards. You can get as low as 20 cents off-peak, but most people are asleep between 2200 and 0700 so that rate does not really matter. The main supplier charges around 50 cents.

I do not believe this difficult-to-calculate tariff system of prices is peculiar to Australia. Comparing electricity prices is a very difficult task. It might be better to calculate the cost of running a 1KW device continuously between 0700 and 1900 averaged over the major suppliers' most popular contracts (say the contracts which cover 70% of the population) in each major population center.

At 50 cents, a 1 KW device will cost $6 to run between 0700 and 1900. A typical oil radiator (which most NSW households I have visited use to heat their rooms) consumes 2.4 KW so it costs $14.40 AUD each day to heat 1 room. For reference, in NSW $15 is the typical "eat-in" price for a main dish in a reasonable restaurant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.155.150 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Prices for Agentina

The price for Argentina is way of.
According to the source linked, it's US$ 0,031 per kW/h. This is consistant with my electric bill as well (I live in Argentina) Is there something I'm missing here? The price in the page seems to be off my about 100x. HuGo_87 (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electricity_pricing/Archives/2012&oldid=696413842"