Electric Power ›› 2026, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (4): 114-126.DOI: 10.11930/j.issn.1004-9649.202508025
• New Energy and Energy Storage • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:2025-08-12
Online:2026-04-20
Published:2026-04-28
Supported by:LI Lulu, HE Jiao. Assessment of China's power sector green and low-carbon transformation efficiency from the perspective of time lag effect: based on a three-stage super-efficiency SBM-Malmquist model considering output lag[J]. Electric Power, 2026, 59(4): 114-126.
| 指标类型 | 具体指标 | 数据来源 | |
| 投入变量 | 电力投资 | 电源与电网投资额 | 《中国电力工业统计资料汇编》《中国电力统计年鉴》 |
| 绿色投入 | 清洁能源装机容量; | 《中国电力统计年鉴》 | |
| 35 kV及以上输电线路 回路长度; | |||
| 35 kV及以上变压器容量 | |||
| 能源投入 | 发电消耗标煤量 | 《中国电力工业统计资料汇编》《中国电力统计年鉴》 | |
| 人员投入 | 电力、热力生产和供 应行业平均用工人数 | 《中国工业统计年鉴》 《中国经济普查年鉴》 | |
| 产出变量 | 降碳 | 火力发电与电网供 电碳减排量之和; | 《中国电力统计年鉴》 |
| 单位发电量碳排放 强度降低值 | EDGAR数据库、 《中国电力统计年鉴》 | ||
| 减污 | SO2、NOx等污染物 减排量 | 《中国电力工业统计资料汇编》《中国环境统计年鉴》 | |
| 扩绿 | 清洁能源发电量; | 《中国电力工业统计资料汇编》《中国能源统计年鉴》 | |
| 可再生能源电力消纳量 | 《全国可再生能源电力发展监测评价报告》 | ||
| 增长 | 电能占终端能源消费比重 | 《中国能源统计年鉴》 | |
| 环境因素 | 经济发 展水平 | GDP | 《中国统计年鉴》 |
| 产业结构 | 第二产业占比 | ||
| 能源价格 | 原材料、燃料和动力 购进价格指数 | ||
| 城镇化 水平 | 城镇化率 | ||
Table 1 Indicator system for measuring the efficiency of green and low-carbon transformation of China's power sector
| 指标类型 | 具体指标 | 数据来源 | |
| 投入变量 | 电力投资 | 电源与电网投资额 | 《中国电力工业统计资料汇编》《中国电力统计年鉴》 |
| 绿色投入 | 清洁能源装机容量; | 《中国电力统计年鉴》 | |
| 35 kV及以上输电线路 回路长度; | |||
| 35 kV及以上变压器容量 | |||
| 能源投入 | 发电消耗标煤量 | 《中国电力工业统计资料汇编》《中国电力统计年鉴》 | |
| 人员投入 | 电力、热力生产和供 应行业平均用工人数 | 《中国工业统计年鉴》 《中国经济普查年鉴》 | |
| 产出变量 | 降碳 | 火力发电与电网供 电碳减排量之和; | 《中国电力统计年鉴》 |
| 单位发电量碳排放 强度降低值 | EDGAR数据库、 《中国电力统计年鉴》 | ||
| 减污 | SO2、NOx等污染物 减排量 | 《中国电力工业统计资料汇编》《中国环境统计年鉴》 | |
| 扩绿 | 清洁能源发电量; | 《中国电力工业统计资料汇编》《中国能源统计年鉴》 | |
| 可再生能源电力消纳量 | 《全国可再生能源电力发展监测评价报告》 | ||
| 增长 | 电能占终端能源消费比重 | 《中国能源统计年鉴》 | |
| 环境因素 | 经济发 展水平 | GDP | 《中国统计年鉴》 |
| 产业结构 | 第二产业占比 | ||
| 能源价格 | 原材料、燃料和动力 购进价格指数 | ||
| 城镇化 水平 | 城镇化率 | ||
| 年份 | lag 0 | lag 1 | lag 2 | lag 3 | lag 4 | lag 5 |
| 2015年 | 0.817 | 0.829 | 0.847 | 0.850 | 0.844 | 0.855 |
| 2016年 | 0.845 | 0.850 | 0.851 | 0.851 | 0.859 | 0.871 |
| 2017年 | 0.799 | 0.808 | 0.803 | 0.827 | 0.864 | 0.889 |
| 2018年 | 0.804 | 0.804 | 0.825 | 0.867 | 0.888 | 0.888 |
| 2019年 | 0.881 | 0.876 | 0.899 | 0.936 | 0.936 | |
| 2020年 | 0.856 | 0.895 | 0.931 | 0.931 | ||
| 2021年 | 0.904 | 0.941 | 0.941 | |||
| 2022年 | 0.848 | 0.848 | ||||
| 2023年 | 0.837 |
Table 2 The correlation coefficient between renewable energy power consumption and current investment
| 年份 | lag 0 | lag 1 | lag 2 | lag 3 | lag 4 | lag 5 |
| 2015年 | 0.817 | 0.829 | 0.847 | 0.850 | 0.844 | 0.855 |
| 2016年 | 0.845 | 0.850 | 0.851 | 0.851 | 0.859 | 0.871 |
| 2017年 | 0.799 | 0.808 | 0.803 | 0.827 | 0.864 | 0.889 |
| 2018年 | 0.804 | 0.804 | 0.825 | 0.867 | 0.888 | 0.888 |
| 2019年 | 0.881 | 0.876 | 0.899 | 0.936 | 0.936 | |
| 2020年 | 0.856 | 0.895 | 0.931 | 0.931 | ||
| 2021年 | 0.904 | 0.941 | 0.941 | |||
| 2022年 | 0.848 | 0.848 | ||||
| 2023年 | 0.837 |
| 配对组 | 滞后期之差 | 均值 | 双侧检验 |
| Pair 1 | lag 0-lag 1 | –0.012 | 0.081* |
| Pair 2 | lag 0-lag 2 | –0.027 | 0.024** |
| Pair 3 | lag 0-lag 3 | –0.043 | 0.009*** |
| Pair 4 | lag 0-lag 4 | –0.049 | 0.018** |
| Pair 5 | lag 0-lag 5 | –0.060 | 0.034** |
Table 3 Paired samples t-test for correlation coefficients
| 配对组 | 滞后期之差 | 均值 | 双侧检验 |
| Pair 1 | lag 0-lag 1 | –0.012 | 0.081* |
| Pair 2 | lag 0-lag 2 | –0.027 | 0.024** |
| Pair 3 | lag 0-lag 3 | –0.043 | 0.009*** |
| Pair 4 | lag 0-lag 4 | –0.049 | 0.018** |
| Pair 5 | lag 0-lag 5 | –0.060 | 0.034** |
| 年份 | a1 | a2 | 可再生能源电力消纳量实际产出值 |
| 2015年 | 0.503 | 0.497 | YS2015=0.503(Y)2015+0.497(Y)2016 |
| 2016年 | 0.576 | 0.424 | YS2016=0.576(Y)2016+0.424(Y)2017 |
| 2017年 | 0.500 | 0.500 | YS2017=0.500(Y)2017+0.500(Y)2018 |
| 2018年 | 0.536 | 0.464 | YS2018=0.536(Y)2018+0.464(Y)2019 |
| 2019年 | 0.564 | 0.436 | YS2019=0.564(Y)2019+0.436(Y)2020 |
| 2020年 | 0.608 | 0.392 | YS2020=0.608(Y)2020+0.392(Y)2021 |
| 2021年 | 0.671 | 0.329 | YS2021=0.671(Y)2021+0.329(Y)2022 |
| 2022年 | 0.509 | 0.491 | YS2022=0.509(Y)2022+0.491(Y)2023 |
Table 4 Renewable electricity consumption lag impact factor
| 年份 | a1 | a2 | 可再生能源电力消纳量实际产出值 |
| 2015年 | 0.503 | 0.497 | YS2015=0.503(Y)2015+0.497(Y)2016 |
| 2016年 | 0.576 | 0.424 | YS2016=0.576(Y)2016+0.424(Y)2017 |
| 2017年 | 0.500 | 0.500 | YS2017=0.500(Y)2017+0.500(Y)2018 |
| 2018年 | 0.536 | 0.464 | YS2018=0.536(Y)2018+0.464(Y)2019 |
| 2019年 | 0.564 | 0.436 | YS2019=0.564(Y)2019+0.436(Y)2020 |
| 2020年 | 0.608 | 0.392 | YS2020=0.608(Y)2020+0.392(Y)2021 |
| 2021年 | 0.671 | 0.329 | YS2021=0.671(Y)2021+0.329(Y)2022 |
| 2022年 | 0.509 | 0.491 | YS2022=0.509(Y)2022+0.491(Y)2023 |
| 区域 | DMU | 2015年 | 2016年 | 2017年 | 2018年 | 2019年 | 2020年 | 均值 |
| 东部 | 北京 | 1.019 | 1.080 | 1.026 | 0.886 | 1.002 | 1.142 | 1.023 |
| 天津 | 1.190 | 1.049 | 1.129 | 1.035 | 1.028 | 1.046 | 1.078 | |
| 河北 | 0.290 | 0.520 | 0.647 | 1.009 | 1.015 | 1.041 | 0.686 | |
| 上海 | 1.049 | 1.029 | 1.100 | 1.006 | 1.048 | 1.037 | 1.045 | |
| 江苏 | 1.013 | 1.050 | 1.005 | 1.004 | 1.032 | 1.113 | 1.036 | |
| 浙江 | 1.003 | 1.012 | 0.635 | 0.635 | 0.691 | 0.500 | 0.722 | |
| 福建 | 0.276 | 1.317 | 0.476 | 0.446 | 1.010 | 1.000 | 0.653 | |
| 山东 | 0.460 | 0.605 | 0.625 | 1.026 | 1.012 | 1.123 | 0.767 | |
| 广东 | 1.012 | 1.045 | 1.009 | 1.004 | 1.026 | 1.073 | 1.028 | |
| 海南 | 1.137 | 1.078 | 1.081 | 1.001 | 1.037 | 1.118 | 1.074 | |
| 辽宁 | 0.379 | 0.721 | 0.699 | 0.656 | 0.748 | 1.052 | 0.680 | |
| 中部 | 山西 | 0.324 | 1.011 | 1.012 | 1.042 | 1.013 | 1.018 | 0.842 |
| 安徽 | 0.392 | 0.617 | 0.525 | 0.500 | 0.566 | 0.696 | 0.541 | |
| 江西 | 0.333 | 0.799 | 1.000 | 0.673 | 1.001 | 1.065 | 0.759 | |
| 河南 | 1.028 | 1.074 | 1.032 | 1.027 | 1.025 | 1.015 | 1.033 | |
| 湖北 | 0.400 | 0.548 | 0.640 | 0.644 | 0.671 | 0.752 | 0.598 | |
| 湖南 | 0.295 | 1.004 | 0.406 | 0.494 | 0.509 | 0.710 | 0.527 | |
| 吉林 | 0.210 | 0.487 | 1.008 | 1.007 | 1.031 | 1.016 | 0.691 | |
| 黑龙江 | 0.446 | 0.660 | 1.017 | 0.882 | 1.055 | 1.025 | 0.812 | |
| 西部 | 四川 | 0.468 | 1.006 | 1.018 | 1.002 | 1.019 | 1.090 | 0.900 |
| 重庆 | 0.465 | 1.016 | 1.000 | 0.811 | 1.018 | 1.065 | 0.864 | |
| 贵州 | 0.578 | 0.624 | 0.655 | 0.696 | 1.011 | 0.805 | 0.715 | |
| 云南 | 0.578 | 0.785 | 1.082 | 1.102 | 1.061 | 1.077 | 0.923 | |
| 陕西 | 0.297 | 1.001 | 1.063 | 1.023 | 0.848 | 0.829 | 0.781 | |
| 甘肃 | 0.232 | 0.366 | 0.685 | 1.032 | 0.591 | 1.043 | 0.578 | |
| 青海 | 1.014 | 0.706 | 1.036 | 1.104 | 1.086 | 1.078 | 0.993 | |
| 宁夏 | 1.012 | 0.711 | 0.807 | 1.124 | 1.016 | 1.057 | 0.942 | |
| 新疆 | 1.013 | 1.004 | 1.041 | 1.014 | 1.053 | 1.016 | 1.023 | |
| 广西 | 1.015 | 1.001 | 1.001 | 1.002 | 1.002 | 1.002 | 1.004 | |
| 内蒙古 | 0.469 | 1.005 | 1.012 | 1.012 | 1.015 | 1.046 | 0.895 | |
| 东部均值 | 0.703 | 0.924 | 0.824 | 0.855 | 0.960 | 1.001 | 0.872 | |
| 中部均值 | 0.385 | 0.745 | 0.786 | 0.752 | 0.827 | 0.899 | 0.708 | |
| 西部均值 | 0.580 | 0.806 | 0.933 | 0.984 | 0.963 | 1.005 | 0.864 | |
| 总体均值 | 0.558 | 0.830 | 0.852 | 0.870 | 0.923 | 0.974 | 0.822 | |
Table 5 The efficiency of the first phase of the green and low-carbon transformation of the power sector
| 区域 | DMU | 2015年 | 2016年 | 2017年 | 2018年 | 2019年 | 2020年 | 均值 |
| 东部 | 北京 | 1.019 | 1.080 | 1.026 | 0.886 | 1.002 | 1.142 | 1.023 |
| 天津 | 1.190 | 1.049 | 1.129 | 1.035 | 1.028 | 1.046 | 1.078 | |
| 河北 | 0.290 | 0.520 | 0.647 | 1.009 | 1.015 | 1.041 | 0.686 | |
| 上海 | 1.049 | 1.029 | 1.100 | 1.006 | 1.048 | 1.037 | 1.045 | |
| 江苏 | 1.013 | 1.050 | 1.005 | 1.004 | 1.032 | 1.113 | 1.036 | |
| 浙江 | 1.003 | 1.012 | 0.635 | 0.635 | 0.691 | 0.500 | 0.722 | |
| 福建 | 0.276 | 1.317 | 0.476 | 0.446 | 1.010 | 1.000 | 0.653 | |
| 山东 | 0.460 | 0.605 | 0.625 | 1.026 | 1.012 | 1.123 | 0.767 | |
| 广东 | 1.012 | 1.045 | 1.009 | 1.004 | 1.026 | 1.073 | 1.028 | |
| 海南 | 1.137 | 1.078 | 1.081 | 1.001 | 1.037 | 1.118 | 1.074 | |
| 辽宁 | 0.379 | 0.721 | 0.699 | 0.656 | 0.748 | 1.052 | 0.680 | |
| 中部 | 山西 | 0.324 | 1.011 | 1.012 | 1.042 | 1.013 | 1.018 | 0.842 |
| 安徽 | 0.392 | 0.617 | 0.525 | 0.500 | 0.566 | 0.696 | 0.541 | |
| 江西 | 0.333 | 0.799 | 1.000 | 0.673 | 1.001 | 1.065 | 0.759 | |
| 河南 | 1.028 | 1.074 | 1.032 | 1.027 | 1.025 | 1.015 | 1.033 | |
| 湖北 | 0.400 | 0.548 | 0.640 | 0.644 | 0.671 | 0.752 | 0.598 | |
| 湖南 | 0.295 | 1.004 | 0.406 | 0.494 | 0.509 | 0.710 | 0.527 | |
| 吉林 | 0.210 | 0.487 | 1.008 | 1.007 | 1.031 | 1.016 | 0.691 | |
| 黑龙江 | 0.446 | 0.660 | 1.017 | 0.882 | 1.055 | 1.025 | 0.812 | |
| 西部 | 四川 | 0.468 | 1.006 | 1.018 | 1.002 | 1.019 | 1.090 | 0.900 |
| 重庆 | 0.465 | 1.016 | 1.000 | 0.811 | 1.018 | 1.065 | 0.864 | |
| 贵州 | 0.578 | 0.624 | 0.655 | 0.696 | 1.011 | 0.805 | 0.715 | |
| 云南 | 0.578 | 0.785 | 1.082 | 1.102 | 1.061 | 1.077 | 0.923 | |
| 陕西 | 0.297 | 1.001 | 1.063 | 1.023 | 0.848 | 0.829 | 0.781 | |
| 甘肃 | 0.232 | 0.366 | 0.685 | 1.032 | 0.591 | 1.043 | 0.578 | |
| 青海 | 1.014 | 0.706 | 1.036 | 1.104 | 1.086 | 1.078 | 0.993 | |
| 宁夏 | 1.012 | 0.711 | 0.807 | 1.124 | 1.016 | 1.057 | 0.942 | |
| 新疆 | 1.013 | 1.004 | 1.041 | 1.014 | 1.053 | 1.016 | 1.023 | |
| 广西 | 1.015 | 1.001 | 1.001 | 1.002 | 1.002 | 1.002 | 1.004 | |
| 内蒙古 | 0.469 | 1.005 | 1.012 | 1.012 | 1.015 | 1.046 | 0.895 | |
| 东部均值 | 0.703 | 0.924 | 0.824 | 0.855 | 0.960 | 1.001 | 0.872 | |
| 中部均值 | 0.385 | 0.745 | 0.786 | 0.752 | 0.827 | 0.899 | 0.708 | |
| 西部均值 | 0.580 | 0.806 | 0.933 | 0.984 | 0.963 | 1.005 | 0.864 | |
| 总体均值 | 0.558 | 0.830 | 0.852 | 0.870 | 0.923 | 0.974 | 0.822 | |
| 变量 | 电力投资 | 清洁能源装机容量投入 | 输电线路回路长度 | 变压器容量 | 能源投入 | 人员投入 |
| 常数项 | 1.03×105*** | 256.530*** | –2 959.656*** | –5 266.815*** | –1 407.817*** | 23 400.015*** |
| 经济发展水平 | 2.256** | 0.001*** | –0.117** | –0.002 | 0.005** | 0.108*** |
| 产业结构 | 8 563.350*** | –1.422 | 139.059*** | 129.312*** | 16.633*** | –14.075*** |
| 能源价格 | –2 881.220*** | –1.579** | 28.730* | –17.022*** | 4.160** | –262.921*** |
| 城镇化水平 | –5 820.615*** | –1.924** | –79.355*** | 20.543*** | –3.512** | –125.367*** |
| 混合误差方差 | 1.75×1011*** | 37 707.041*** | 8.09×107*** | 3.25×107*** | 9.95×105*** | 1.67×108*** |
| 方差比 | 1.000*** | 1.000*** | 1.000*** | 1.000*** | 1.000*** | 1.000*** |
| 对数似然值 | –406.943 | –173.290 | –293.131 | –275.443 | 226.681 | –303.381 |
| 似然比检验值 | 20.035*** | 27.786*** | 18.231*** | 27.684*** | 18.243*** | 19.915*** |
Table 6 SFA regression results
| 变量 | 电力投资 | 清洁能源装机容量投入 | 输电线路回路长度 | 变压器容量 | 能源投入 | 人员投入 |
| 常数项 | 1.03×105*** | 256.530*** | –2 959.656*** | –5 266.815*** | –1 407.817*** | 23 400.015*** |
| 经济发展水平 | 2.256** | 0.001*** | –0.117** | –0.002 | 0.005** | 0.108*** |
| 产业结构 | 8 563.350*** | –1.422 | 139.059*** | 129.312*** | 16.633*** | –14.075*** |
| 能源价格 | –2 881.220*** | –1.579** | 28.730* | –17.022*** | 4.160** | –262.921*** |
| 城镇化水平 | –5 820.615*** | –1.924** | –79.355*** | 20.543*** | –3.512** | –125.367*** |
| 混合误差方差 | 1.75×1011*** | 37 707.041*** | 8.09×107*** | 3.25×107*** | 9.95×105*** | 1.67×108*** |
| 方差比 | 1.000*** | 1.000*** | 1.000*** | 1.000*** | 1.000*** | 1.000*** |
| 对数似然值 | –406.943 | –173.290 | –293.131 | –275.443 | 226.681 | –303.381 |
| 似然比检验值 | 20.035*** | 27.786*** | 18.231*** | 27.684*** | 18.243*** | 19.915*** |
| 区域 | DMU | 2015年 | 2016年 | 2017年 | 2018年 | 2019年 | 2020年 | 均值 |
| 东部 | 北京 | 0.140 | 1.035 | 1.002 | 1.023 | 1.129 | 1.123 | 0.757 |
| 天津 | 0.656 | 1.165 | 1.073 | 1.091 | 1.062 | 1.040 | 0.998 | |
| 河北 | 0.339 | 0.467 | 0.686 | 1.013 | 1.012 | 1.047 | 0.699 | |
| 上海 | 0.273 | 0.247 | 1.037 | 1.033 | 1.179 | 1.138 | 0.678 | |
| 江苏 | 0.712 | 1.218 | 1.055 | 1.006 | 1.034 | 1.162 | 1.017 | |
| 浙江 | 0.514 | 1.232 | 0.640 | 0.653 | 0.727 | 0.500 | 0.677 | |
| 福建 | 0.283 | 0.585 | 0.516 | 0.480 | 1.007 | 0.901 | 0.578 | |
| 山东 | 0.515 | 0.490 | 0.645 | 1.017 | 1.001 | 1.122 | 0.756 | |
| 广东 | 1.021 | 1.010 | 1.023 | 1.007 | 1.040 | 1.061 | 1.027 | |
| 海南 | 0.106 | 1.056 | 1.043 | 0.475 | 1.027 | 1.357 | 0.653 | |
| 辽宁 | 0.387 | 0.594 | 0.668 | 0.657 | 0.746 | 1.053 | 0.655 | |
| 中部 | 山西 | 0.323 | 0.513 | 1.024 | 1.022 | 1.032 | 1.038 | 0.755 |
| 安徽 | 0.495 | 0.462 | 0.555 | 0.523 | 0.610 | 0.746 | 0.558 | |
| 江西 | 1.013 | 0.677 | 0.772 | 0.707 | 1.015 | 1.091 | 0.863 | |
| 河南 | 1.067 | 0.553 | 1.054 | 1.027 | 1.024 | 1.018 | 0.934 | |
| 湖北 | 0.388 | 0.528 | 0.602 | 0.680 | 0.747 | 1.001 | 0.630 | |
| 湖南 | 0.211 | 0.322 | 0.329 | 0.466 | 0.523 | 0.738 | 0.399 | |
| 吉林 | 0.235 | 0.325 | 0.428 | 1.000 | 1.052 | 1.054 | 0.575 | |
| 黑龙江 | 0.349 | 0.408 | 0.653 | 0.637 | 1.067 | 1.059 | 0.637 | |
| 西部 | 四川 | 0.444 | 1.024 | 0.782 | 1.002 | 1.049 | 1.081 | 0.860 |
| 重庆 | 0.310 | 0.466 | 1.005 | 0.678 | 1.034 | 1.104 | 0.694 | |
| 贵州 | 0.524 | 0.635 | 0.609 | 0.613 | 1.003 | 0.873 | 0.691 | |
| 云南 | 0.377 | 0.646 | 1.036 | 1.105 | 1.012 | 1.099 | 0.823 | |
| 陕西 | 0.345 | 0.388 | 1.051 | 1.019 | 0.847 | 1.014 | 0.706 | |
| 甘肃 | 0.228 | 0.334 | 0.475 | 0.501 | 0.729 | 1.061 | 0.491 | |
| 青海 | 1.032 | 0.462 | 1.013 | 1.028 | 1.371 | 1.032 | 0.943 | |
| 宁夏 | 1.004 | 0.584 | 1.009 | 1.045 | 1.029 | 1.049 | 0.935 | |
| 新疆 | 1.035 | 0.679 | 1.030 | 1.012 | 1.099 | 1.030 | 0.969 | |
| 广西 | 1.006 | 0.243 | 1.006 | 0.613 | 0.688 | 0.791 | 0.659 | |
| 内蒙古 | 0.486 | 1.011 | 1.004 | 1.008 | 1.017 | 1.056 | 0.901 | |
| 东部均值 | 0.372 | 0.743 | 0.826 | 0.823 | 0.987 | 1.020 | 0.758 | |
| 中部均值 | 0.429 | 0.460 | 0.632 | 0.727 | 0.855 | 0.958 | 0.649 | |
| 西部均值 | 0.539 | 0.540 | 0.886 | 0.846 | 0.973 | 1.013 | 0.774 | |
| 总体均值 | 0.443 | 0.581 | 0.789 | 0.804 | 0.945 | 1.000 | 0.733 | |
Table 7 The efficiency of the third phase of the green and low-carbon transformation of the power sector
| 区域 | DMU | 2015年 | 2016年 | 2017年 | 2018年 | 2019年 | 2020年 | 均值 |
| 东部 | 北京 | 0.140 | 1.035 | 1.002 | 1.023 | 1.129 | 1.123 | 0.757 |
| 天津 | 0.656 | 1.165 | 1.073 | 1.091 | 1.062 | 1.040 | 0.998 | |
| 河北 | 0.339 | 0.467 | 0.686 | 1.013 | 1.012 | 1.047 | 0.699 | |
| 上海 | 0.273 | 0.247 | 1.037 | 1.033 | 1.179 | 1.138 | 0.678 | |
| 江苏 | 0.712 | 1.218 | 1.055 | 1.006 | 1.034 | 1.162 | 1.017 | |
| 浙江 | 0.514 | 1.232 | 0.640 | 0.653 | 0.727 | 0.500 | 0.677 | |
| 福建 | 0.283 | 0.585 | 0.516 | 0.480 | 1.007 | 0.901 | 0.578 | |
| 山东 | 0.515 | 0.490 | 0.645 | 1.017 | 1.001 | 1.122 | 0.756 | |
| 广东 | 1.021 | 1.010 | 1.023 | 1.007 | 1.040 | 1.061 | 1.027 | |
| 海南 | 0.106 | 1.056 | 1.043 | 0.475 | 1.027 | 1.357 | 0.653 | |
| 辽宁 | 0.387 | 0.594 | 0.668 | 0.657 | 0.746 | 1.053 | 0.655 | |
| 中部 | 山西 | 0.323 | 0.513 | 1.024 | 1.022 | 1.032 | 1.038 | 0.755 |
| 安徽 | 0.495 | 0.462 | 0.555 | 0.523 | 0.610 | 0.746 | 0.558 | |
| 江西 | 1.013 | 0.677 | 0.772 | 0.707 | 1.015 | 1.091 | 0.863 | |
| 河南 | 1.067 | 0.553 | 1.054 | 1.027 | 1.024 | 1.018 | 0.934 | |
| 湖北 | 0.388 | 0.528 | 0.602 | 0.680 | 0.747 | 1.001 | 0.630 | |
| 湖南 | 0.211 | 0.322 | 0.329 | 0.466 | 0.523 | 0.738 | 0.399 | |
| 吉林 | 0.235 | 0.325 | 0.428 | 1.000 | 1.052 | 1.054 | 0.575 | |
| 黑龙江 | 0.349 | 0.408 | 0.653 | 0.637 | 1.067 | 1.059 | 0.637 | |
| 西部 | 四川 | 0.444 | 1.024 | 0.782 | 1.002 | 1.049 | 1.081 | 0.860 |
| 重庆 | 0.310 | 0.466 | 1.005 | 0.678 | 1.034 | 1.104 | 0.694 | |
| 贵州 | 0.524 | 0.635 | 0.609 | 0.613 | 1.003 | 0.873 | 0.691 | |
| 云南 | 0.377 | 0.646 | 1.036 | 1.105 | 1.012 | 1.099 | 0.823 | |
| 陕西 | 0.345 | 0.388 | 1.051 | 1.019 | 0.847 | 1.014 | 0.706 | |
| 甘肃 | 0.228 | 0.334 | 0.475 | 0.501 | 0.729 | 1.061 | 0.491 | |
| 青海 | 1.032 | 0.462 | 1.013 | 1.028 | 1.371 | 1.032 | 0.943 | |
| 宁夏 | 1.004 | 0.584 | 1.009 | 1.045 | 1.029 | 1.049 | 0.935 | |
| 新疆 | 1.035 | 0.679 | 1.030 | 1.012 | 1.099 | 1.030 | 0.969 | |
| 广西 | 1.006 | 0.243 | 1.006 | 0.613 | 0.688 | 0.791 | 0.659 | |
| 内蒙古 | 0.486 | 1.011 | 1.004 | 1.008 | 1.017 | 1.056 | 0.901 | |
| 东部均值 | 0.372 | 0.743 | 0.826 | 0.823 | 0.987 | 1.020 | 0.758 | |
| 中部均值 | 0.429 | 0.460 | 0.632 | 0.727 | 0.855 | 0.958 | 0.649 | |
| 西部均值 | 0.539 | 0.540 | 0.886 | 0.846 | 0.973 | 1.013 | 0.774 | |
| 总体均值 | 0.443 | 0.581 | 0.789 | 0.804 | 0.945 | 1.000 | 0.733 | |
| 1 |
舒印彪, 赵勇, 赵良, 等. “双碳”目标下我国能源电力低碳转型路径[J]. 中国电机工程学报, 2023, 43 (5): 1663- 1672.
|
|
SHU Yinbiao, ZHAO Yong, ZHAO Liang, et al. Study on low carbon energy transition path toward carbon peak and carbon neutrality[J]. Proceedings of the CSEE, 2023, 43 (5): 1663- 1672.
|
|
| 2 | 郭树华, 方鹏飞, 毕福芳. 基于SFA方法的企业绿色创新效率分析[J]. 工业技术经济, 2024, 43 (7): 112- 119. |
| GUO Shuhua, FANG Pengfei, BI Fufang. Analysis of enterprise green innovation efficiency based on SFA method[J]. Journal of Industrial Technology and Economy, 2024, 43 (7): 112- 119. | |
| 3 |
李成顺. 我国工业企业绿色创新效率评价—基于面板时变随机前沿模型的分析[J]. 技术经济, 2020, 39 (9): 119- 125.
|
|
LI Chengshun. Evaluation of green innovation efficiency of industrial enterprises in China: analysis of stochastic frontier model based on panel time-varying[J]. Journal of Technology Economics, 2020, 39 (9): 119- 125.
|
|
| 4 |
ZHU R M, ZHAO R Q, SUN J, et al. Temporospatial pattern of carbon emission efficiency of China's energy-intensive industries and its policy implications[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 286, 125507.
|
| 5 |
LI Y, CHEN Y Y. Development of an SBM-ML model for the measurement of green total factor productivity: The case of Pearl River Delta urban agglomeration[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021, 145, 111131.
|
| 6 | 姜明栋, 白杨, 王奇. 我国制造业低碳发展的省际差异及其驱动因素研究[J]. 经济体制改革, 2023, (2): 77- 85. |
| JIANG Mingdong, BAI Yang, WANG Qi. The spatial differences and its driving factors of low-carbon development efficiency of manufacturing industry in China[J]. Reform of Economic System, 2023, (2): 77- 85. | |
| 7 | 黄德春, 沈雪梅, 竺运. 长江经济带制造业碳排放效率的时空演变及影响因素研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2023, 32 (6): 1113- 1126. |
| HUANG Dechun, SHEN Xuemei, ZHU Yun. Spatio-temporal evolution and influencing factors of carbon emission efficiency of manufacturing industry in Yangtze River Economic Belt[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2023, 32 (6): 1113- 1126. | |
| 8 | 张丽琨, 张亚萍, 梁远. 中国工业企业绿色技术创新效率的测度与评价: 基于超效率网络SBM-Malmquist模型分析[J]. 技术经济, 2022, 41 (7): 13- 22. |
| ZHANG Likun, ZHANG Yaping, LIANG Yuan. The measurement and evaluation of green technology innovation efficiency of industrial enterprises in China: analysis based on network super SBM-Malmquist model[J]. Journal of Technology Economics, 2022, 41 (7): 13- 22. | |
| 9 | 孙燕铭, 张智鸿, 周凌寒. 长三角区域工业污染治理效率的时空演化及其空间关联网络[J]. 地理研究, 2025, 44 (9): 2509- 2533. |
| SUN Yanming, ZHANG Zhihong, ZHOU Linghan. The spatio-temporal evolution of industrial pollution control efficiency and its spatial network in the Yangtze River Delta region[J]. Geographical Research, 2025, 44 (9): 2509- 2533. | |
| 10 | 潘建均, 侯光明, 顾基发, 等. 技术进步对中国电力行业环境效率提升影响的实证研究: 基于SBM超效率-ML-Tobit三阶段分析法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2023, 31 (12): 215- 227. |
| PAN Jianjun, HOU Guangming, GU Jifa, et al. Empirical study on the impact of technological progress on the environmental efficiency of China's power industry: based on SBM super efficiency-ML-Tobit[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2023, 31 (12): 215- 227. | |
| 11 |
田鑫, 靳晓凌, 韩新阳, 等. 基于机器学习算法的新型电力系统中电网投资成效评价及投资推演[J]. 中国电力, 2025, 58 (7): 197- 206.
|
|
TIAN Xin, JIN Xiaoling, HAN Xinyang, et al. Evaluation of grid investment effectiveness and investment simulation for new-type power systems based on machine learning algorithm[J]. Electric Power, 2025, 58 (7): 197- 206.
|
|
| 12 | 周原冰, 张士宁, 侯方心, 等. 电力行业碳达峰及促进全社会碳减排影响分析[J]. 中国电力, 2024, 57 (9): 1- 9. |
| ZHOU Yuanbing, ZHANG Shining, HOU Fangxin, et al. Analysis of carbon peaking in power sector and its impact on promoting whole-society carbon emissions reduction[J]. Electric Power, 2024, 57 (9): 1- 9. | |
| 13 |
SUN K, HAN J M, SUN W D, et al. The efficiency evaluation and the spatiotemporal differences of CO2 emissions in China's construction industry[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2023, 426, 139205.
|
| 14 |
廖小菲, 申雨瑶. 数字经济对中国城市低碳转型的影响机理及效应[J]. 经济地理, 2024, 44 (6): 31- 41.
|
|
LIAO Xiaofei, SHEN Yuyao. Impact mechanism and effect of digital economy on China's urban low-carbon transformation[J]. Economic Geography, 2024, 44 (6): 31- 41.
|
|
| 15 |
张济建, 刘清, 丁绪辉. 长江经济带碳解锁效率研究: 基于SE-DEA-Malmquist指数[J]. 华东经济管理, 2021, 35 (6): 1- 10.
|
|
ZHANG Jijian, LIU Qing, DING Xuhui. Research on carbon unlocking efficiency of the Yangtze River economic belt: based on SE-DEA-Malmquist model[J]. East China Economic Management, 2021, 35 (6): 1- 10.
|
|
| 16 |
JIANG P, GONG X J, YANG Y R, et al. Research on spatial and temporal differences of carbon emissions and influencing factors in eight economic regions of China based on LMDI model[J]. Scientific Reports, 2023, 13, 7965.
|
| 17 |
马文斌, 朱欢. 绿色低碳企业创新效率测度及影响因素研究: 基于三阶段DEA与Tobit模型[J]. 软科学, 2024, 38 (6): 61- 66, 74.
|
|
MA Wenbin, ZHU Huan. Innovation efficiency measurements and influencing factors of green and low-carbon enterprises: Based on three-stage DEA and Tobit panel model[J]. Soft Science, 2024, 38 (6): 61- 66, 74.
|
|
| 18 | 周兵, 刘婷婷. 区域环境治理压力、经济发展水平与碳中和绩效[J]. 数量经济技术经济研究, 2022, 39 (8): 100- 118. |
| ZHOU Bing, LIU Tingting. Regional environmental governance pressure, economic development level and carbon neutral performance[J]. The Journal of Quantitative & Technical Economics, 2022, 39 (8): 100- 118. | |
| 19 |
张平淡, 屠西伟. 制造业集聚、技术进步与企业全要素能源效率[J]. 中国工业经济, 2022, (7): 103- 121.
|
|
ZHANG Pingdan, TU Xiwei. Manufacturing agglomeration, technological progress and enterprise total factor energy efficiency[J]. China Industrial Economics, 2022, (7): 103- 121.
|
|
| 20 |
MIAO C L, CHEN Z Y, ZHANG A X. Green technology innovation and carbon emission efficiency: The moderating role of environmental uncertainty[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2024, 938, 173551.
|
| 21 | 汪龙, 邱巍, 许欣宇, 等. 低碳园区综合能源系统捕碳-储能优化配置[J]. 电力工程技术, 2024, 43 (6): 235- 246. |
| WANG Long, QIU Wei, XU Xinyu, et al. Optimal planning of the carbon capture-energy storage joint system for integrated energy system in a low-carbon park[J]. Electric Power Engineering Technology, 2024, 43 (6): 235- 246. | |
| 22 | 汲国强, 段金辉, 吴姗姗, 等. 2026年及“十五五”全国电力供需形势分析展望[J]. 中国电力, 2026, 59 (2): 13- 23. |
| JI Guoqiang, DUAN Jinhui, WU Shanshan, et al. Analysis and outlook on national power supply-demand situation for 2026 and the 15th Five-Year Plan period[J]. Electric Power, 2026, 59 (2): 13- 23. | |
| 23 | 王耀华, 李晓纯, 杨宇, 等. 全球能源转型与地缘环境的交互关系[J]. 中国电力, 2025, 58 (12): 1- 13. |
| WANG Yaohua, LI Xiaochun, YANG Yu, et al. Interactions Between Global Energy Transition and Geopolitical Environment[J]. Electric Power, 2025, 58 (12): 1- 13. | |
| 24 |
江深哲, 杜浩锋, 徐铭梽. “双碳”目标下能源与产业双重结构转型[J]. 数量经济技术经济研究, 2024, 41 (2): 109- 130.
|
|
JIANG Shenzhe, DU Haofeng, XU Mingzhi. Dual transition of energy and industrial structure under the carbon peaking and neutrality goals[J]. Journal of Quantitative & Technological Economics, 2024, 41 (2): 109- 130.
|
|
| 25 | 谢品杰, 王梁洪, 王绵斌. 碳排放约束对我国电力需求的影响研究[J]. 生态经济, 2017, 33 (12): 34- 40. |
| XIE Pinjie, WANG Lianghong, WANG Mianbin. Research on the demand for electric power under the regulation of carbon dioxide emission[J]. Ecological Economy, 2017, 33 (12): 34- 40. | |
| 26 |
武汉大学国家发展战略研究院课题组. 中国实施绿色低碳转型和实现碳中和目标的路径选择[J]. 中国软科学, 2022, (10): 1- 12.
|
|
Research Group of National Institute of Development Strategy at Wuhan University. Path choice for China to implement green low-carbon transformation and achieve carbon neutrality[J]. China Soft Science, 2022, (10): 1- 12.
|
|
| 27 |
黄松涛, 董金星, 赵雪楠, 等. 考虑多主体碳交易成本分摊的综合能源系统低碳经济调度[J]. 电力工程技术, 2025, 44 (3): 120- 130.
|
|
HUANG Songtao, DONG Jinxing, ZHAO Xuenan, et al. Low-carbon economic dispatch of an integrated energy system considering carbon trading cost-sharing among multiple principals[J]. Electric Power Engineering Technology, 2025, 44 (3): 120- 130.
|
|
| 28 | 苏雅亨, 李雨佳, 赵启新, 等. 碳排放权交易市场对区域电网投资成本的影响研究: 来自中国准自然试验的证据[J]. 投资研究, 2024, 43 (10): 144- 159. |
| SU Yaheng, LI Yujia, ZHAO Qixin, et al. The impact of carbon emission trading markets on regional grid investment costs: evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China[J]. Review of Investment Studies, 2024, 43 (10): 144- 159. | |
| 29 | 常鹏, 薛飞, 陈伟伟, 等. 我国省域电力高质量发展效率的时空分异及驱动因素研究[J]. 价格理论与实践, 2024, (8): 35- 40, 220. |
| CHANG Peng, XUE Fei, CHEN Weiwei, et al. Research on the spatiotemporal differentiation and driving factors of the high-quality development efficiency of provincial-level electric power in China[J]. Price (Theory & Practice), 2024, (8): 35- 40, 220. | |
| 30 | FARE R, GROSSKOPF S, NORRIS M, et al. Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries[J]. American Economic Review, 1994, 84 (1): 66- 83. |
| 31 |
TONE K. A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2001, 130 (3): 498- 509.
|
| 32 | 李昌陵, 梁磊, 程倩, 等. 输配电价改革背景下省级电网投资效率评价研究: 考虑产出滞后的超效率SBM—Malmquist模型[J]. 价格理论与实践, 2024, (10): 146- 152. |
| LI Changling, LIANG Lei, CHENG Qian, et al. Evaluation of Provincial Power Grid Investment Efficiency under the Background of Transmission and Distribution Price Reform: Superefficiency SBM-Malmquist model considering output lag[J]. Price (Theory & Practice), 2024, (10): 146- 152. | |
| 33 | 郑思雨, 周苏洋, 邱玥, 等. 基于改进三阶段数据包络分析法的省域全要素能效评价方法[J]. 中国电机工程学报, 2023, 43 (14): 5329- 5342. |
| ZHENG Siyu, ZHOU Suyang, QIU Yue, et al. Provincial total-factor energy efficiency evaluation based on improved three-stage DEA model[J]. Proceedings of the CSEE, 2023, 43 (14): 5329- 5342. | |
| 34 | 吴江, 谭涛, 杨珂, 等. 中国全要素能源效率评价研究: 基于不可分的三阶段DEA模型[J]. 数理统计与管理, 2019, 38 (3): 418- 432. |
| WU Jiang, TAN Tao, YANG Ke, et al. China's total factor energy efficiency evaluation: based on nonseparable three-stage DEA model[J]. Journal of Applied Statistics and Management, 2019, 38 (3): 418- 432. | |
| 35 |
李根忠, 朱洪亮. 基于三阶段SM-DEA-Malmquist指数的长江经济带碳排放效率研究[J]. 运筹与管理, 2022, 31 (6): 161- 167.
|
|
LI Genzhong, ZHU Hongliang. Research on the performance of industrial carbon emission in the Yangtze River economic belt based on three-stage SM-DEA-Malmquist[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2022, 31 (6): 161- 167.
|
| No related articles found! |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||

