资源科学 ›› 2020, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (6): 1040-1051.doi: 10.18402/resci.2020.06.03

• 碳排放 • 上一篇    下一篇

中国能源影子价格和能源环境效率省际差异

闫庆友1(), 桂增侃1(), 张文华1, 陈立忠2   

  1. 1.华北电力大学经济与管理学院,北京 102206
    2.国家电网有限公司,北京 100031
  • 收稿日期:2019-09-30 修回日期:2020-02-10 出版日期:2020-06-25 发布日期:2020-08-25
  • 通讯作者: 桂增侃
  • 作者简介:闫庆友,男,山东茌平人,教授,主要从事能源经济与管理研究。E-mail: yanqingyou@263.net
  • 基金资助:
    北京市社会科学基金项目(16JDGLB032);国家电网有限公司科技项目(1300-201957273A-0-0-00)

The heterogeneity of regional energy shadow price and energy environment efficiency in China

YAN Qingyou1(), GUI Zengkan1(), ZHANG Wenhua1, CHEN Lizhong2   

  1. 1. School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China
    2. State Grid Corporation of China, Beijing 100031, China
  • Received:2019-09-30 Revised:2020-02-10 Online:2020-06-25 Published:2020-08-25
  • Contact: GUI Zengkan

摘要:

为响应政府推进能源定价机制改革,充分发挥市场配置资源的决定性作用。本文以能源影子价格为切入点,基于共同前沿下SBM-Undesirable模型,选取2000—2017年中国30个省份数据分别测算群组前沿和共同前沿下能源影子价格和能源环境效率,分析其地区差异性和演变趋势,然后利用面板数据模型对中国地区间能源影子价格影响因素进行回归分析。结果表明:①中国能源环境效率整体偏低,且地区间技术差异性显著,能源环境效率高、中、低3个群组之间技术落差比为1、0.571、0.614,表明高水平组拥有最优的生产技术;②群组前沿下中国能源影子价格呈现上升趋势,表明中国能源要素的经济价值逐年提升,而共同前沿下中国省际能源影子价格潜在提升空间呈现差异性,云南可提升空间最大,北京可提升空间最低;③各影响因素对国家和各地区影响程度和作用方向不同,市场化程度对高水平组省份有显著正向影响,政府干预对中水平组省份有显著负向影响,产业结构对低水平组省份有显著负向影响。据此提出:各地在推进能源市场化改革时,不应简单”一刀切“,应考虑群组技术异质性,制定差别化的能源定价机制。

关键词: 能源影子价格, SBM-Undesirable, 共同前沿, 全要素能源环境效率, 中国

Abstract:

In response to the government’s reform of the energy pricing mechanism, the market should play a fundamental role in allocating resources. Based on the meta-frontier and slacks-based measure (SBM)-undesirable model, provincial data from 2000 to 2017 in 30 selected provinces of China were employed to analyze energy shadow price and energy environment efficiency of group frontier and meta-frontier in this study. Then, a provincial panel data model was used to analyze the influencing factors of shadow energy prices in China. The results indicate that Chinese energy environment efficiency is low, and regional energy environment efficiencies differ. The technology gap ratio of A: B: C group are 1: 0.571: 0.614, which shows clear technological heterogeneity. Second under the group frontier, China’s energy shadow price is rising, indicating that the economic value of China’s energy factors has increased. The potential room for energy shadow price increase in various provinces is different under the meta-frontier,Yunnan has the greatest potential and Beijing has the lowest potential. Third, government intervention, industrial structure, marketization reform, energy endowment, and energy consumption structure all have remarkable impacts on energy shadow price in a country or region, with different influencing mechanisms. Regional marketization reform has significant positive impact on the energy shadow price in A group. Regional government intervention inhibits the promotion of the energy shadow price in B group. Regional industrial structure inhibits the promotion of the energy shadow price in C group. We conclude that a one size fits all approach is inappropriate when promoting energy market reform and that people should consider the heterogeneity of technology when developing different energy pricing mechanism.

Key words: energy shadow price, SBM-Undesirable, meta-frontier, total factor energy environment efficiency, China