Designing two-part Greywater fees: Conceptual framework and empirical evidence from Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The wastewater sector in Germany -fragmented local natural monopolies under cost regulation and vulnerable to political intervention -comprises roughly 6.900 fee models. Unlike pricing schemes in other network economies, the prevalent fee models are quite simple as customers pay a single fee per cbm. Such a fee results in high incentives to reduce water consumption and greywater discharge simultaneously, which complies with the Water Framework Directive (WFD). However, the fee lacks financial, economic and social sustainability. Implementing an additional fixed fee seems to be a reasonable measure to remedy these shortcomings, although the fixed fee share in overall revenue remains an important control parameter to guarantee compliance with the WFD. Having argued for a two-part fee, two parameters for the fixed fee component must be defined: First, the fee base and second, the fee rate. Out of a wide range of possible fee bases, the 'Number of dwelling units in a residential building' is not just stable but also corresponds to the costs-by-cause principle and generates manageable transaction costs. However, transaction costs also depend on the extent to which gains and losses among customers due to the fee model switch occur. Testing different fee models with household data in three German cities of different population size, the authors find evidence that the number of dwelling units combined with a digressive rate structure results in less absolute gains/losses for customers. This finding is model-inherent and can be used to rethink fee models just based on the cbm. The authors recommend the fee model switch when (1) water consumption per capita is decreasing, (2) migration of water consumption is high and (3) resource costs are low.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".