Energy Law & Policy eJournal最新文献

{"title":"The Barriers for a Hydrogen Economy","authors":"César O. Pallares","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2060304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2060304","url":null,"abstract":"Today, oil is one of the major energy sources in society, but as it is a nonrenewable resources, it will be over in one moment or another. For this reason, societies must find another energy source, and it must be a renewable source to avoid curren enviromental damage caused by oil. Hydrogen is regarded as one of the most promising resources for the near future, but before it can become an energy paradigm, hydrogen has to overcome some technological, economical and institucional barriers that are common in any paradigm-change process.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"23 4 Pt 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116868195","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":"The Future of Feed-In Tariffs: Capacity Caps, Scheme Closures and Looming Grid Parity","authors":"James Prest","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2104087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2104087","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines recent developments in feed-in tariff (FIT) law for solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity generation in selected jurisdictions. In particular, legal and policy issues surrounding capacity capping and closure of FIT schemes to new entrants are examined at a conceptual level. The need for downward adjustment of FIT rates is discussed. The application of capacity caps in Australia, Spain, France, Czech Republic and the UK is examined. Characteristics and examples of best-practice and worst-practice amendment of FIT laws for solar PV are identified. It is found that caps are a blunt instrument for constraining the impact of FIT on electricity prices. The alternative of tariff degression is discussed.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125037499","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":"Shale Gas vs. Coal","authors":"Steffen Jenner, A. Lamadrid","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2025627","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2025627","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to examine the environmental impacts of shale gas, conventional gas and coal on air, water, and land in the United States. These factors decisively affect the quality of life (public health and safety) as well as local and global environmental protection. Comparing various lifecycle assessments, this paper will suggest that a shift from coal to shale gas would benefit public health, the safety of workers, local environmental protection, water consumption, and the land surface. Most likely, shale gas also comes with a smaller GHG footprint than coal. However, shale gas extraction can affect water safety. This paper also discusses related aspects that exemplify how shale gas can be more beneficial in the short and long term. First, there are technical solutions readily available to fix the most crucial problems of shale gas extraction, such as methane leakages and other geo-hazards. Second, shale gas is best equipped to smoothen the transition to an age of renewable energy. Finally, this paper will recommend tighter regulations.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124418595","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":"Will the PUC’s Latest Efforts Create a More Competitive Market for Retail Electricity in Pennsylvania?","authors":"C. R. Foster","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2018428","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2018428","url":null,"abstract":"When the General Assembly passed the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act (“Competition Act”), it stated “[e]lectric service is essential to the health and well-being of residents, to public safety and to orderly economic development, and electric service should be available to all customers on reasonable terms and conditions.” Additionally, it was recognized that “[t]he cost of electricity is an important factor in decisions made by business concerning locating and retaining facilities in this Commonwealth.” These goals according to the PUC remain “as true today as when the Competition Act was passed.”Out of concern for competition within the retail electric market in Pennsylvania, in April of 2011, the Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) initiated its Investigation of Pennsylvania’s Retail Electricity Market. The commencement of this investigation clearly indicated that the PUC felt the Competition Act was not achieving its goals upon the retail electric market as envisioned by the General Assembly. This sentiment was most notably expressed when the PUC stated its concerns, during meetings pertaining to the FirstEnergy-Allegheny Power merger, that a statewide investigation would be carried out “with the goal of making recommendations for improvements to ensure that a properly function[ing] and workable competitive retail electricity market exists in the state.” In response to the market’s inefficiency, the PUC directed the Office of Competitive Market Oversight (“OCMO”) to address how to resolve issues the PUC identified as being the most relevant to improving the current retail electricity market. The investigation itself has progressed in two phases. This article reviews each phase and attempts to highlight some important changes and recommendations made by the PUC and the OCMO.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116835922","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":"Federalism, Regulatory Lags, and the Political Economy of Energy Production","authors":"D. Spence","doi":"10.15781/T2ZC7RV9V","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15781/T2ZC7RV9V","url":null,"abstract":"The production of natural gas from formerly inaccessible shale formations using hydraulic fracturing has expanded domestic energy supplies, lowered prices, and could stimulate the replacement of dirtier fossil fuels (coal and oil) with cleaner natural gas. At the same time, shale gas production has proven controversial, triggering intense opposition in some parts of the United States. State and local regulators have scrambled to adapt to the boom in natural gas production, raising the question of whether federal regulators should step in to supplant or supplement state regulation. This article takes a policy-neutral approach to the federalism questions at the center of that inquiry, asking which level of government ought to resolve these policy questions, rather than which level of government is likely to produce a particular favored policy outcome. Consequently, this analysis begins with four economic and political rationales that we typically use to justify federal regulation: (i) the presence of interstate “spillover” effects, (ii) the so-called “race to the bottom, (iii) the need for uniform standards for manufacturers, and (iv) the presence of an important national interest in developing and regulating an energy resource. Applying each of these rationales to the regulation of hydraulic fracturing yields several important conclusions. First, while a few of the externalities of shale gas production cross state boundaries, most are experienced locally. Second, existing federal regulatory regimes offer ample authority to address those impacts that have interstate or national scope. Third, the race to the bottom rationale does not justify federal regulation of shale gas production because shale gas states are not competing for quantity- or time-limited capital investment. Fourth, given that the impacts of hydraulic fracturing are still under study and the subject of considerable ongoing debate, there is no overriding national interest supporting the creation of a comprehensive federal licensing/regulatory regime for shale gas production, at least not yet.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128762200","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":"Here Comes the Sun: Solar Power Parity With Fossil Fuels","authors":"Nathan Mee, M. Miller","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1650692","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1650692","url":null,"abstract":"There is wide agreement across the political spectrum that the United States should develop domestic, renewable sources of energy. There are many ways to describe the challenges of a transition from a fossil fuel economy to one fueled by atoms, the sun, or the wind, but in a nutshell, the problem is said to be cost: the basic reason the United States continues overwhelmingly to rely on fossil fuels is that they are comparatively cheap, and alternative energy is relatively expensive. Or so it seems. This Article is intended to encourage more open discussion about real energy costs. To keep the discussion short and focused, we concentrate on solar energy. We look at solar energy through the lens of some simple and conservative assumptions about the cost of one input — water, and the cost of one externality — carbon. Our goal is to illustrate the kind of analysis that would move public discussion and policies towards “truer” energy cost assessments. The bottom line: fundamental shifts in energy sources from fossil fuels (or at least coal and oil) to large-scale commercial solar may be closer than suggested by headlines and widely held popular and political beliefs.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125242559","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":"National Energy Policies and Energy Security in the Context of Climate Change and Global Environmental Risks: A Theoretical Framework for Reconciling Domestic and International Law Through a Multiscalar and Multilevel Approach","authors":"P. Farah, P. Rossi","doi":"10.54648/eelr2011020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eelr2011020","url":null,"abstract":"Energy consumption and energy demand are predicted to grow steadily over the next few decades. The international community confronts two great challenges at once: providing secure and cheap energy supplies to meet ever-expanding needs and responding to climate change. There are a variety of national strategies to answer these needs. The impacts of the diverse national strategies on the greenhouse effect are multilevel; they range from the most state-centred to large-scale ones. The nature of the dual problems provides the basis for a review of the diverse approaches based on hierarchies of principles that entail diagonal regulatory strategies on climate change and energy security. These principles should mark the policy priorities to be followed and make it possible to more effectively integrate public laws with differing objectives, such as economic development and the environment. The globalization discourse has fragmented the traditional framework in which the policy-making role of the nation-state is inserted into the international legal system. The coexistence of national, regional and international decision-making levels can be seen to lead to sets of policies which fail to maintain internal consistency. Accordingly, studies on energy issues and studies on environmental risks need to be held together by means of a methodological integration that is able to encompass the multiscalar effect.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"145 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132885536","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":"Pennsylvania’s Mandatory 'Pollution Diet'","authors":"Brian P. Calabrese","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1967039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1967039","url":null,"abstract":"The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes an overarching environmental goal that requires all waters of the United States be “fishable” and “swimmable.” To ensure that these goals are met, the CWA requires states and the District of Columbia to establish water quality standards and polices that are protective of those uses. Under the CWA, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters that do not meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) water quality standards. Jurisdictions that have waterways designated as impaired must create a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which is essentially a “pollution diet” that identifies the maximum amount of a pollutant the waterway can receive, and still meet EPA water quality standards. This article first explores the voluntary efforts made by states within the Chesapeake Bay (Bay) watershed to restore the quality of the Bay’s waters. Next, the article discusses Fowler v. EPA and Executive Order 13508, which resulted in a federal TMDL for the Bay watershed. Further, the article discusses the TMDL accountability framework and Pennsylvania’s implementation plan required under the TMDL framework. Finally, the article discusses the current status of Pennsylvania’s implementation plan.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124471890","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":"A New Shade of Camouflage: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Helps the Department of Defense Go Green","authors":"Brandon J. Pierce","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1967138","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1967138","url":null,"abstract":"The notion of energy security is not a new one. In modern American history, the United States has recognized since the 1970s the need to develop a sound and comprehensive energy security and conservation policy. While as a country we have in some ways been slow to act, the U.S. has nonetheless begun to craft important legal and policy initiatives. However, there continues to be some resistance to investing in such initiatives. This posits the question: How vital is it to both reduce our energy consumption and find alternative sources of energy in the name of national security? The recent political landscape in Washington, DC has largely made developing a comprehensive national energy policy that would address these issues difficult, but there are signs pointing to progress. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the single largest energy consumer in the United States, has made energy reduction and increased supply of alternative energy high priorities. In 2010, DoD consumed ninety percent (90%) of the energy used by the entire federal government, spending approximately $15 billion on energy. To put that in perspective, if DoD was a country, it would be the fifty-eighth largest energy consumer in the world; if DoD was a state, it would be the thirty-third largest energy consumer in the United States. To DoD’s credit, however, it recognizes that current energy consumption and predominantly traditional fuel source usage are unsustainable, from both a budgetary and security standpoint. This article discusses how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provides DoD with funding for a multi-faceted platform to launch energy-reduction programs while increasing energy security. Specifically, the article highlights four programs central to DoD’s success: 1) the Near Term Energy Efficient Technologies (NTEET) Program; 2) the Environmental Conservation Investment Program (ECIP); 3) the Military Construction (MilCon) Program; and 4) the Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) Program. The article principally concerns NTEET and ECIP, as they place greater emphasis on DoD’s operational energy use (especially NTEET), which, according to DoD’s recently released Operational Energy Strategy (OES) is the OES’s primary focus. The article then provides commentary on how these programs can be effective in supporting DoD’s energy reduction and alternative energy development efforts.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"256 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132482275","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":"The Corporate Responsibility to Remedy (3rd Pillar Ruggie Framework) - Analysis of the Corporate Responses in Three Major Oil Spill Cases: Shell - Nigeria, BP – US (the Gulf), Chevron – Ecuador","authors":"T. Lambooy, M. Varner, Aikaterini Argyrou","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1953190","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1953190","url":null,"abstract":"From 2005-2011, the UN Special Representative for Human Rights and Business, Prof. John Ruggie, has built a governance framework comprising three pillars, i.e., ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy,’ to clarify the complementary roles of governments (public actors) and companies (private actors) in respect to the protection and realisation of human rights. The first pillar of the framework concerns the State’s duty to protect citizens from human rights violations by private actors, such as companies. The second pillar regards the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The third pillar is about the shared responsibility of States and companies to provide legal and non-legal remedies to victims of corporate (mis)conduct. The concepts and ideas contained in this pillar still require sharpening as well as discussion on how to put them into practice. This article centres on the third pillar. First, it discusses the background and content of the third pillar: what does it mean to provide remedies, both from the corporate governance perspective and from a more operational perspective? It analyses what Ruggie’s ‘Guiding Principles’ state on providing effective remedies. Next, three case studies concerning major oil spills will be presented. In each of them, problems with communities escalated resulting in many legal procedures. The first is the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The second and third cases concern the oil spills and environmental pollution in water basins and soil in Ecuador and Nigeria for which, respectively, Chevron and Shell are being held accountable in various legal proceedings. The corporate responses by each of these multinationals towards said proceedings are analysed from the perspective of Remedy (and the prevention of conflicts). Finally, an attempt is made to test the oil companies’ remedies against the effectiveness parameters as contained in Ruggie’s Guiding Principles, meanwhile indicating where possibilities lay for improvement.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126461156","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}