Electricity demand has not become more price-responsive despite ninety years of technological change
電力需要は90年にわたる技術変化にもかかわらず価格感応性を高めていない (AI 翻訳)
Peter Kudela, Tomas Havranek, Zuzana Irsova, Anna Kudelova, Vojtech Sikl
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、1934年から2024年までの462研究から得られた4,720の自己価格弾力性推定値をメタ分析し、電力需要の価格感応性に関する3つの知見を提示する。第一に、最も識別品質の高い研究では弾力性が小さい（短期で約-0.09、統計的にゼロと区別不能）。第二に、長期弾力性は短期の約2倍だが、そのパターンは数十年安定している。第三に、価格感応性に経時的上昇傾向は見られず、むしろ技術集約的な環境では総消費の感応性が低い。
English
This meta-analysis of 4,720 price-elasticity estimates from 462 studies (1934-2024) finds that electricity demand has not become more price-responsive over time. Best-identified studies show smaller responses (short-run elasticity -0.16, publication-bias-adjusted) and no upward trend. Technology-rich settings like time-of-use pricing do not increase total consumption responsiveness. Demand flexibility requires deliberate engineering and incentives, not just price signals.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本の電力市場自由化やスマートメーター普及の文脈で、価格シグナルだけでは需要の柔軟性が自動的に高まらないことを示唆。日本でも需要応答プログラムや容量市場の設計に重要なエビデンスを提供する。
In the global GX context
This paper challenges a key assumption in global decarbonization plans that electricity demand will become more price-responsive with technology. For countries relying on demand-side flexibility for renewable integration, the finding implies that explicit incentives, contracts, and program design are necessary beyond time-varying prices.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Methodological lesson: identification quality matters; publication bias inflates naive estimates.
🏢実務担当者:Utilities and grid operators should not assume smart meters alone increase demand response; need complementary programs.
🏛政策担当者:Decarbonization planning should incorporate lower price responsiveness; invest in enabling technologies and contracts for flexibility.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Energy planners have long assumed that electricity demand will grow more price-responsive as metering, automation, and storage spread, an assumption now embedded in decarbonization plans. We test it against the empirical record: 4,720 own-price elasticity estimates from 462 studies, with data spanning 1934-2024, ranked on a single ladder of identification quality from naive regressions to randomized experiments. Three findings emerge. First, the best-identified studies find smaller responses than naive ones: the publication-bias-corrected short-run elasticity is about -0.16 (a 10% rise in the electricity price cuts consumption by under 2%), and only -0.09 among the best-identified studies, whose adjusted value is statistically indistinguishable from zero. Second, responsiveness grows with time to adjust, roughly doubling from -0.16 in the short run to -0.38 in the long run as the capital stock turns over, but this pattern has itself been stable for decades. Third, and most important, responsiveness shows no upward trend across nine decades of data; if anything, the most technology-rich settings, including time-of-use pricing, are the least price-responsive in total consumption. Prices alone have not made total electricity consumption more responsive; broader demand flexibility will have to be engineered and paid for, through enabling technology, contracts, and program design.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.21285first seen 2026-07-24 04:12:03
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。