As analysed by Dalen & Halvorsen (2022), the budget shares for electricity costs varied from 2–3 percent for the highest income decile, to 11 percent for the lowest decile, during the winter months of the 2021/22 period. The corresponding shares during the 2019/20 and 2020/21 periods were well below 0.5 percent for the highest decile, and 2–3 percent for the lowest. This indicates that the spread of income shares across income groups has increased substantially during the electricity crisis, and that the price increases in the last period were a particularly heavy burden for the lowest income households. The electricity support did, during the winter of 2021/22, move the budget shares spent on electricity from around 11 percent to 7.7 percent in the lowest income decile. For the highest income decile, the budget share decreased from between 2–3 percent to below 2 percent. Note that Dalen and Halvorsen (2022) end their analysis in the third month of 2022, so it does not capture later changes in the scheme or its effect. However, the most pronounced effects were the highest the first winter, where prices were at their highest compared to previous years.
The numbers above illustrate the immediate effect of the electricity support among income groups but does not give a complete picture. This is because we have not factored in how households can change their behaviour and reduce electricity costs, e.g., by saving electricity in response to high prices. Such an analysis requires, as noted in Chapter 2, some view of the counterfactual without electricity support. Dalen & Halvorsen (2022) make a rough assessment and find that households across all income groups likely conduct some electricity savings in response to the price increases, which is likely dampened somewhat due to the support. They also find that households tend to reduce consumption of other goods and services more to account for increases in electricity prices, since electricity is a necessary good, and hence costs are difficult to reduce in the short run. The support is relatively more important for the lower income groups.
6.1.2 Climate and environmental impacts
As noted previously, it is a highly complex task to assess the impacts of the support scheme on electricity consumption, and ultimately emissions. This is further complicated by all the adjustments made in the scheme. Theoretically, a price support scheme like the one implemented will disincentivize energy savings, all other things equal. Since the support scheme was announced in a staggered way, paid out ex-post, relatively complicated and not fully transparent for everybody, it is likely that the behavioural response was far from what could be expected by fully rational economic agents. However, it is also likely that once the scheme had been communicated and experienced by consumers, they would gradually learn and adjust their behaviour more according to standard demand models when prices change. Unfortunately, none of the studies we have found have tried to estimate the likely effect.
Based on theory and anecdotal evidence, the measure, especially in its initial phase when support was based on an average monthly electricity price, had some clear boosting effects on electricity consumption. For example, the initial design had the perverse effect that households could gain increased support by consuming more electricity during low price periods during the month, especially if they had a fixed price agreement. There were high profile media cases showing people inviting neighbours around for free electric vehicle charging, and examples of wasting electricity (e.g., keeping hot tubs on max temperature etc). For this reason, a later change to the measure linked the support to spot prices. All in all, it is likely that the support increased electricity consumption compared to a situation without the support, but the size of this increase is uncertain. How this change has, in turn, impacted emissions is even more uncertain. Electricity production is part of the EU ETS, so emissions are capped through that system. However, this CAP allows for some temporal storage, weakening such direct effects.
As electricity is important for heating in Norway, the electricity price increase resulted in hoarding and increased use of firewood, an important substitute for heating purposes. The burning of firewood is not covered by the EU ETS, but changes in the carbon stock in forests due to potentially reduced stock captured in the LULUCF accounting. Furthermore, as mentioned in Chapter 4.3.2, the net climate change effect of increased biofuel use is debated, and small-scale household use of biofuels is associated with relatively large emissions of fine particulate matter with associated health impacts (Gustafsson et al., 2022 and Savolahti et al., 2019).
6.1.3 Coherence with existing policies
The support measure is coherent with other distributional policies, except that it, in an absolute sense, benefits higher income groups more than lower income groups. The measure is not explicitly designed to impact people’s energy consumption behaviour, so in this sense it is not coherent with the aims of saving energy and the need to speed up the green transition.
6.2 Electricity support for businesses
The Norwegian government introduced an energy support measure (“Energitilskuddsordningen”) as a temporary arrangement to help companies with extraordinary electricity costs. The arrangement was designed, in cooperation with various employee and employer organisations, to help around 20 000 electricity intensive companies. Companies with at least 3 percent electricity intensity could apply for support (grant) to pay electricity bills and to invest in energy saving measures. “Electricity intensity” was defined as the share of electricity costs as a proportion of the company’s ordinary turnover for the first half of 2022. The scheme was administered through ENOVA, the Norwegian government owned institution to support a green energy transition. Companies that underwent energy use mapping could get 25 percent of the electricity price above 70 NOK øre/kWh for the months from October to December 2022. Companies that also invest in energy saving measures could get 45 percent covered, and up to 50 percent of the investment in energy savings. District heating would also be covered by the scheme. The deadline for proposals was 11 November 2022 and around 2.8 billion NOK was paid out in 2022 to ca. 3200 companies. This measure was one of four measures designed to support business. The three others were better fixed price agreements, a loan guarantee arrangement, and commitment to the faster development of green energy production.
6.2.1 Distributional impacts
According to ENOVA’s own statistics, around 16.5 percent of the support went to covering a share of electricity bills, and 83.1 percent to investment in energy saving measures. Less than half a percent of spend was on admin costs (e.g., auditing). This demonstrates that an overwhelming majority have utilised the scheme to invest in energy saving. Furthermore, out of the 2.8 NOK billion, 933 million was paid to companies renting out properties, 237 million to hotels and restaurants, 93 million to companies developing and selling property, and 63 million each to running of sports facilities and property management. Almost all of the support was paid to companies in South-Eastern Norway (Figure 7).