Chile 99
Chile is a net importer of natural gas prices determined in the global market,
this will definitely improve or deteriorate the consequences in energy poverty.
Nevertheless, there are some policy options in the context of the estimations
that depend on the willingness of policymakers to incentivise the penetration of
other technologies, like big hydropower in the south, resulting in a minor
impact in the monetary loss for households.
In the qualitative dimension, according to the suggested energy poverty indicators, a definition of poverty in terms of energy satisfaction, or the ability to
maintain a comfortable indoor temperature, is associated with the last perceptions of each individual in the previous season, according of the panel of stakeholders at Red de la Pobreza. For example, a measure suggested by the
stakeholders are questions such as, ‘How cold for you was the last winter?” or
“How hot was the last summer?” The huge variance in possible answers will
relate to the observed average temperature and is expected to be both high and
not easily comparable.
However, stakeholders consider that these kinds of definitions must be collected in some way in order to introduce them into the design of the policy,
mainly because of its negative impact on health and in extreme as a cause of
death.
Additionally, different climatic regions in Chile will require different adjustments in indoor temperature. In the southern region, biomass (direct combustion) is traditionally used as heating in the winter. The biomass is readily
available and low cost compared with the cleaner heating sources including
solar power and hydropower. However, hydropower is not yet fully developed in
the south and there are divided views on the development of hydro due to
climate change and irregular rainfalls. The potential switch to cleaner energy
would increase the cost of heating in these homes but may impact different families in different regions in Chile.
Beyond the two dimensions explained before, one means to reduce the consequential risk would be to recycle revenues from the carbon tax to support the
families that are at risk of energy poverty. However, this must be carried out
carefully as there are different energy poverty indicators that consider different
parameters. For instance, some energy poverty indicators stipulate households
are in energy poverty if they spend more than 10% if their income on fuel, but
these indicators do not consider household make- up and their energy needs, nor
energy infrastructure. Other indicators such as the minimum income standard
(MIS) based indicator, will categorise a household as at risk of energy poverty if,
after covering its housing requirements, its residual income cannot meet the
household’s energy costs and other living costs as well as maintain a decent
living standard. Another indicator, the low- income–high- cost (LIHC) indicator, considers households to be in energy poverty if they have energy costs
that are above the median level.
Different indicators will tell a different story related to the negative outcome
of a certain electricity mix and the impact on energy poverty. The first two indicators could show a high risk of energy poverty for the poorest in the country,
Chile is a net importer of natural gas prices determined in the global market,
this will definitely improve or deteriorate the consequences in energy poverty.
Nevertheless, there are some policy options in the context of the estimations
that depend on the willingness of policymakers to incentivise the penetration of
other technologies, like big hydropower in the south, resulting in a minor
impact in the monetary loss for households.
In the qualitative dimension, according to the suggested energy poverty indicators, a definition of poverty in terms of energy satisfaction, or the ability to
maintain a comfortable indoor temperature, is associated with the last perceptions of each individual in the previous season, according of the panel of stakeholders at Red de la Pobreza. For example, a measure suggested by the
stakeholders are questions such as, ‘How cold for you was the last winter?” or
“How hot was the last summer?” The huge variance in possible answers will
relate to the observed average temperature and is expected to be both high and
not easily comparable.
However, stakeholders consider that these kinds of definitions must be collected in some way in order to introduce them into the design of the policy,
mainly because of its negative impact on health and in extreme as a cause of
death.
Additionally, different climatic regions in Chile will require different adjustments in indoor temperature. In the southern region, biomass (direct combustion) is traditionally used as heating in the winter. The biomass is readily
available and low cost compared with the cleaner heating sources including
solar power and hydropower. However, hydropower is not yet fully developed in
the south and there are divided views on the development of hydro due to
climate change and irregular rainfalls. The potential switch to cleaner energy
would increase the cost of heating in these homes but may impact different families in different regions in Chile.
Beyond the two dimensions explained before, one means to reduce the consequential risk would be to recycle revenues from the carbon tax to support the
families that are at risk of energy poverty. However, this must be carried out
carefully as there are different energy poverty indicators that consider different
parameters. For instance, some energy poverty indicators stipulate households
are in energy poverty if they spend more than 10% if their income on fuel, but
these indicators do not consider household make- up and their energy needs, nor
energy infrastructure. Other indicators such as the minimum income standard
(MIS) based indicator, will categorise a household as at risk of energy poverty if,
after covering its housing requirements, its residual income cannot meet the
household’s energy costs and other living costs as well as maintain a decent
living standard. Another indicator, the low- income–high- cost (LIHC) indicator, considers households to be in energy poverty if they have energy costs
that are above the median level.
Different indicators will tell a different story related to the negative outcome
of a certain electricity mix and the impact on energy poverty. The first two indicators could show a high risk of energy poverty for the poorest in the country,