Energy Law & Policy eJournal最新文献

{"title":"Temporal Spillovers","authors":"Bruce R. Huber","doi":"10.1007/978-3-319-50932-7_2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50932-7_2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"41 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123728220","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comma but Differentiated Responsibilities: Punctuation and 30 Other Ways Negotiators Have Resolved Issues in the International Climate Change Regime","authors":"Susan Biniaz","doi":"10.7916/D8XS5VJR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8XS5VJR","url":null,"abstract":"International climate change negotiations have a long history of being contentious, and much has been written about the grand trade-offs that have allowed countries to reach agreements. Issues have often involved, for example, the level of ambition, differentiated treatment of Parties, and various forms of financial assistance to developing countries. This compendium of textual examples focuses on smaller, language-based tools negotiators have used to resolve differences. Presented in roughly chronological order, these examples are drawn from my personal involvement in international climate negotiations ― and are by no means exhaustive. It is hoped that the examples may be of interest to those who follow climate change in particular, as well as of potential use to those who work in other international fields.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134563947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Coordination of Renewable Energy Remuneration Schemes Through Information Exchange","authors":"T. Grau, K. Neuhoff","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2779457","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2779457","url":null,"abstract":"The increasing scale and dynamics of the global market for renewable energy technologies has often resulted in unexpected high deployment volumes in EU Member States. These deployment peaks were particularly strong for solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies in countries using feed-in tariff remuneration mechanisms. In this paper, we develop an analytic model to capture the interactions of national remuneration schemes with the global market. The model covers two countries and one global technology market. We calibrate the model for the impact of coordinated tariff adjustments based on the experience with PV in Germany and the UK. We then use the model to measure the impact of different global module supply functions, national installation price reductions, and specific shocks on deployment effectiveness in terms of reaching national or aggregated target corridors for separate and coordinated feed-in tariff adjustment mechanisms. The relevance of the insights for wind energy technologies is evaluated. Based on the results, we discuss the implications for the coordination of remuneration schemes.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125066808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Gas-to-Power Market in Nigeria: A Regulatory and Economic Assessment","authors":"T. Oyewunmi, A. Iwayemi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2774412","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2774412","url":null,"abstract":"Nigeria has been noted to hold the largest proven natural gas reserves in Africa as well as being one of the top ten LNG exporting countries globally for several years. It is however paradoxical that natural gas currently accounts for only about 6% of the nation’s total primary energy supply. Most of the projected capacity and efficiency gains of the power sector reforms initiated from 2001-2013 has been hinged on the secured, affordable and reliable gas supply to about 75% of power generation plants in Nigeria. Nevertheless, the outlook and trends depict fundamental regulatory and institutional misalignments between the domestic gas supply industry and the electric power market. The major challenges relate to the lack of or the inadequacy or timeliness of infrastructural investments, as well as the security and affordability of gas supply to power generators. These issues have directly or indirectly led to a gas-to-power supply ‘crises.’ Thus, this paper seeks to consider the nexus between the perennial shortages in gas supply for power generation and the perceived inefficiencies evident in relevant institutional and regulatory frameworks which are meant to guide and secure ex ante and ex post investments. In this regard, the economic and regulatory implications of the main trends and outlook for the gas-to-power value chain will be highlighted. The relevant principles of legal and economic regulation applicable to the Nigerian gas-to-power industry will be examined, with the backdrop of ‘how’ and ‘if’ such principles or regulatory approaches have worked efficiently in jurisdictions like the US and UK where liberalised or deregulated energy markets has been relatively entrenched.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133123747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Defining and Closing the Hydraulic Fracturing Governance Gap","authors":"Grace Heusner, Allison Sloto, J. Galperin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2759847","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2759847","url":null,"abstract":"As recent examples in Texas and Colorado have shown, if local governments ban fracking, they risk pushback from state governments. This pushback, in turn, can result in preemption making an outright local ban on fracking self-defeating because it could ultimately result in less local control over the impacts of hydraulic fracturing. Given this potentially self-defeating nature of local fracking bans, local governments should address the impacts of fracking through more traditional local governance mechanisms that do not pose as great a risk to local authority. On this premise, this Article seeks to make the case for the importance of, and authority for, local leadership of fracking governance. We present an overview of the federal and state laws that address fracking and describe the traditional scope of local land use authority. We next present a list of the most salient local impacts of hydraulic fracturing, including a description of the methods we employed to catalogue these local impacts. Finally, this Article concludes with a series of case studies that demonstrate different local governance mechanisms.Because of significant gaps in the state and federal regulatory apparatus, opportunity exists for local governments to craft regulatory and non-regulatory structures that meet their communities’ needs. We believe that with more comprehensive information about the impacts of fracking, as well as regulatory and non-regulatory tools that local governments can employ, municipalities will be better able to enact policies that withstand legal scrutiny and reflect local interests.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125680528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Does the United States Need a Coordinated National Energy Policy?","authors":"Robert Ongom Cwinya-ai","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2751731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2751731","url":null,"abstract":"The question this work attempts to answer is, whether a single, Unified and Coordinated National Energy Policy would serve a better purpose or, having every state in the United States regulating its own regional energy policy, is the best economic and environmental way to regulate energy? The North Carolina Energy Policy Act created the Energy Policy Council, within Their Department of Commerce, to advise and make recommendations on Energy Policy to the State Governor and the North Carolina General Assembly and to serve as the state's central energy policy planning body. Here we see that the State of North Carolina regulating its own. Many states in the country are doing the same. This is not unusual as this work will show. Cases have been made for, and against a single, unified, nationally coordinated energy policy, as this work will show. What are the challenges we face in this quest for a nationally unified energy policy? What is the place for renewable energy sources? Does the United States give fossil fuel energy sources and industry preferential treatment, as we have seen here during the George W. Bush Administration, at the expense of the renewable energy sources? This work attempts to answer the above questions. This work can be of interest to Energy Lawyers, Oil & Gas Lawyers, Renewable energy industry management and personnel, Energy Law and Management students, Energy Law Professors, and Energy Law Students alike.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133796726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Learning from Mistakes: Improving Governance in the Ontario Electricity Sector","authors":"George Vegh","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2737581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2737581","url":null,"abstract":"The government of Ontario should move away from controlling electricity planning, according to a new C.D. Howe Institute Report. In “Learning from Mistakes: Improving Governance in the Ontario Electricity Sector,�? author George Vegh argues that the government should face more checks and balances when spending electricity ratepayer money. The government should only set broad policy objectives and not make choices on which technologies and which suppliers should receive government contracts.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125385764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"L’Europe de L’énergie: de la concurrence à la solidarité? (The European Energy Policy: From Competition to Solidarity?)","authors":"Frédéric M. Marty","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2723209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2723209","url":null,"abstract":"French Abstract: L’article 194 du TFUE a confere de bouveaux pouvoirs aux instances europeennes notamment dans le domaine de l’energie. Une politique energetique peut etre menee dans une logique de solidarite afin de garantir des objectifs communs, tels la securite d’approvisionnement. Ce faisant le Traite de Lisbonne semble donner de nouveaux leviers a la Commission dans le domaine de l’energie en addition des politiques de concurrence et environnementale. Cependant, ces possibilites semblent entravees par leur subordination aux Etats membres qui demeurent libres de determiner leur mix energetique et leur politique d’approvisionnement exterieur. Ce faisant, la politique de concurrence semble s’averer le seul levier de mettre en œuvre une politique energetique europeenne. Cependant, dans le meme temps, la capacite de l’outil concurrentiel a creer des marches dans le secteur de l’energie reste questionnable. Notre article montre sous quelles conditions une action publique europeenne basee sur les principes de solidarite et de subsidiarite pourrait repondre aux limites des « energy only markets ». A cette fin, nous nous penchons plus en detail sur la question des contrats de long terme et nous mobilisons le cadre theorique de l’economie des conventions.English Abstract: The Art. 194 TFEU has offered new powers to European Union to coordinate Member States policies in the field of energy policy according to a logic of solidarity in order to achieve common goods, as the security of supply. This article, introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, seems to offer to the Commission new levy to play in the energy policy field additionally to competition and environmental policies. However, this levy seems to be hindered by its subordination to Member States choices in terms of energy mix and external policy. The competition policy might appear as the only way to implement a European energy policy. However, the capacity of competition law enforcement to build energy market remains questionable. Our paper investigates to what extent a European policy based on solidarity and subsidiarity principles might address the difficulties of “energy only markets” to provide these commons goods. To this end, we particularly investigate the case of long-term contracts and we rely on an economics of conventions theoretical framework.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124950206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"FPA Preemption in the 21st Century","authors":"M. Christiansen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2705217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2705217","url":null,"abstract":"On February 24, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing. In deciding this case, the Court must determine whether an effort by the State of Maryland to incentivize the construction of new power plants is field preempted by the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) — that is, whether the Maryland law intrudes on an area that is exclusively the federal government’s to regulate. This Comment urges the Court to evaluate Maryland’s regulation under a conflict-preemption, as opposed to a field-preemption, standard. In particular, the Court should clarify that field preemption — a doctrine that prohibits any state regulation in a particular area of the law — applies only when a State targets the core aspects of federal jurisdiction under the FPA, namely the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC”) ability to determine whether a wholesale rate is just and reasonable. Conflict preemption — which provides that state laws are preempted only when they interfere with or frustrate the federal regulatory regime — provides a far superior framework for evaluating the type of law at issue in Hughes. It conforms more closely to the FPA’s core objectives, furthers important state policies, and somewhat paradoxically, enhances FERC’s ability to regulate effectively the aspects of the electricity sector under its jurisdiction. Not only is a conflict-preemption approach good policy, it is also entirely consistent with the Court’s FPA preemption jurisprudence. In particular, the Court’s prior decisions can be read to support a less intrusive field-preemption inquiry — a reading which, this Comment argues, should be applied the facts before the Court in Hughes.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130596625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Marketable Product: What Did Kuntz Say? What Did Merrill Say?","authors":"O. L. Anderson","doi":"10.15781/T2Q10X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15781/T2Q10X","url":null,"abstract":"I have written extensively about the marketable-product approach to royalty valuation, first articulated by the late Professor Maurice Merrill in his volume dealing with implied covenants and subsequently by the late Professor Eugene Kuntz in his seminal legal treatise on oil and gas law. Two companion articles contained a thorough - some might say exhausting - discussion of royalty valuation commentary and case law, including a discussion of the views of Kuntz and Merrill. My limited purpose today is to focus on the views of Kuntz and Merrill without discussing the full myriad of case law on this divisive topic.In my opinion, the Kuntz marketable-product approach represents the appropriate default rule for royalty valuation. Unfortunately, Kuntz’s logical and sensible view has been rejected by lawyers for royalty owners and lawyers for lessees because neither group is happy with what would be the resulting outcome. Lawyers for lessees believe that Kuntz’s and Merrill’s views go too far in protecting the interests of royalty owners. Lawyers for royalty owners believe that Kuntz’s and Merrill’s views do not go far enough in protecting the interests of royalty owners. Thus, when making royalty valuation arguments, both groups of lawyers take an “all or nothing” approach. As a result, and even more unfortunately, some courts have adopted this “all or nothing” approach to royalty valuation - some ruling in favor of royalty owners and some ruling in favor of lessees. At one extreme are the Alberta courts, where royalty valuation occurs at the mouth of the well. When calculating royalty in Alberta, lessees are allowed to deduct the costs of separating the oil and gas stream from associated saltwater as well as the costs associated with saltwater disposal. Even Texas has not gone this far - at least not yet, holding, under a common bifurcated royalty clause providing from proceeds of sale at the well or market value at the well for sales off the premises, that royalty must be valued on the leased premises, not strictly at the mouth of the well. The Texas court is so attached to its view that it even held that language expressly disallowing post-lease deductions was “surplusage” where the basic royalty clause called for royalty valuation “at the well.”The fact that some courts, including Texas, have rejected the Kuntz and Merrill approaches outright is puzzling since none of Kuntz’s contemporary scholars, including A. W. Walker, Jr., Howard Williams, or Charles Meyers, ever expressly disagreed with them about royalty-valuation. Kuntz’s immediate successor at the University of Oklahoma, Richard Hemingway, supported the marketable-product approach as the better one.At the other extreme is West Virginia, where the court essentially held that royalty is payable at the ultimate point of an actual arm’s-length sale, no matter how far downstream of the well that such a sale might occur - apparently even if the actual sale occurs at a location beyond an establis","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132149939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}