{"word_count": 814, "character_count": 5593}
‘Split incentive(s)’ et rénovation énergétique des logements / Sandrine Meyer et Kevin Maréchal. Bruxelles : Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Centre Emile Bernheim, octobre 2016, 12 p. (CEB Policy Paper ; N° 16/001) http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:sol:ppaper:2013/239157Les logements présents sur le marché locatif résidentiel sont globalement de moins bonne qualité que celle des logements occupés par leurs propriétaires. Une des principales raisons invoquées pour expliquer ce phénomène repose sur la notion de ‘split incentive’ (ou non-alignement des intérêts) entre le propriétaire et le locataire. Or, non seulement sur les plans stratégique (moindre dépendance à l’importation de sources d’énergie d’origine fossile) et économique (création d’emploi et d’activités au niveau local), mais surtout sur les plans environnemental (lutte contre le changement climatique) et sociétal (dont lutte contre la précarité énergétique), la rénovation énergétique de l’ensemble du parc de logements existants est reconnue comme une pierre angulaire des politiques à mettre en oeuvre pour atteindre les différents objectifs visés, notamment au niveau de l’Union Européenne. Si, pour ces diverses raisons, l’on cherche à promouvoir la rénovation énergétique des logements loués, tant en nombre qu’en niveau d’ambition, résoudre le ‘split incentive’ est essentiel. Ce document propose donc de faire le point à la fois sur cette thématique particulière du ‘split incentive’ dans le marché locatif résidentiel, et sur les différentes pistes évoquées pour tenter de le solutionner. Nous verrons par ailleurs que certaines réflexions ne s’arrêtent pas uniquement au secteur résidentiel locatif et pourraient également améliorer l’efficience énergétique de logements occupés par leurs propriétaire(s).On the Role of Maximum Demand Charges in the Presence of Distributed Generation Resources / David P. Brown and David E. M. Sappington. University of Alberta, 2016, 43 p. (Department of Economics Working Paper No. 2016-16) https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/albaec/2016_016.htmlWe examine the role that maximum demand charges (MDCs) can play in avoiding the death spiral that some utilities may otherwise face as the distributed generation (DG) of electricity proliferates. We nd that MDCs generally secure gains for consumers that do not undertake DG, and often secure gains for consumers that undertake DG. However, the welfare gains tend to be modest in plausible settings. Furthermore, time-of-use pricing often secures larger welfare gains than do MDCs.Has Ukraine scored an own-goal with its transit fee proposal ? / Thierry Bros, Senior Research Fellow. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Nov. 2016, 5 p. (Oxford energy comment) https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/ukraine-scored-goal-transit-fee-proposal/The issue of gas transit through Ukraine remains a crucial commercial and political concern, given the current debate over the future of Nord Stream 2 and the gradual approach of 2019, when the current contract between Gazprom and Naftogaz will expire. In this short note we examine Naftogaz’s latest tactic, which has been to increase the Ukraine transit tariff in the short-term while promising a more competitive fee once its pipeline system has been amortised. We question whether this is the best way for Ukraine to promote the use of its pipeline infrastructure over the long-term, especially given the increasingly competitive nature of the European gas market. We note that Gazprom has adjusted its own marketing strategy to take account of the changing market environment, and we ask whether it might not be logical for Naftogaz to adopt a more commercial, and less political, stance in its transit negotiations if it really wants to reduce the chance of Nord Stream 2 being built...Floating Liquefaction (FLNG) : Potential for Wider Deployment / Brian Songhurst. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Nov. 2016, 38 p. (OIES paper : NG 107) https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/floating-liquefaction-flng-potential-wider-deployment/The softening of European hub prices and Asian LNG spot prices in early 2014, followed by the plunge in oil prices later that year has created an extremely challenging business environment for the LNG industry.  Current prices – whether spot or oil-indexed LNG contract prices – are well below levels recently regarded as necessary for projects to achieve FID.  Against this background, it is a testament to the resilience and adaptability of the LNG industry that it is embarking on an ‘experiment’ to test the hypothesis that FLNG provides a means by which stranded gas discoveries can be monetised and, perhaps more fundamentally, that with its shorter lead times, lower fabrication execution risk and the entrepreneurial vibrancy which comes from competing providers and approaches, FLNG could prove more generally to be more viable than conventional onshore liquefaction plant.  Following from his 2014 paper on LNG plant cost escalation, Brian Songhurst provides a comprehensive review of the state of play of FLNG, the competing approaches and the advantages and disadvantages compared with conventional onshore liquefaction.  Brian also hints of further potential technology step-out in FLNG once the first wave of projects is successfully commissioned.  The lessons of the post-2009 period have, it can be argued, demonstrated the need for the LNG industry to address both cost base and contractual price formation mechanisms if it is to remain a viable channel for the delivery of gas in the world’s fast growing markets.