瑞典可再生电力政策的再审视

S. Fridolfsson, Thomas P. Tangerås
{"title":"瑞典可再生电力政策的再审视","authors":"S. Fridolfsson, Thomas P. Tangerås","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2094159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Green certificates are the main instrument for promoting renewable electricity (RES-E) in Sweden. But certificates cover only a limited share of total RES-E production. Under partial coverage, crowding out may arise whereby costly new RES-E replaces inexpensive old RES-E. Granting certificates to all of RES-E production improves efficiency, but leaves windfall rent to otherwise profitable facilities. We also analyze transaction costs in the permit process for new RES-E in Sweden. Municipalities veto socially desirable projects because of asymmetrically distributed investment costs and benefits. We propose market-based permit fees rather than limited veto rights as a solution to this NIMBY problem.","PeriodicalId":250628,"journal":{"name":"INTL: Social & Cultural Issues (Topic)","volume":"535 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Reexamination of Renewable Electricity Policy in Sweden\",\"authors\":\"S. Fridolfsson, Thomas P. Tangerås\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2094159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Green certificates are the main instrument for promoting renewable electricity (RES-E) in Sweden. But certificates cover only a limited share of total RES-E production. Under partial coverage, crowding out may arise whereby costly new RES-E replaces inexpensive old RES-E. Granting certificates to all of RES-E production improves efficiency, but leaves windfall rent to otherwise profitable facilities. We also analyze transaction costs in the permit process for new RES-E in Sweden. Municipalities veto socially desirable projects because of asymmetrically distributed investment costs and benefits. We propose market-based permit fees rather than limited veto rights as a solution to this NIMBY problem.\",\"PeriodicalId\":250628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"INTL: Social & Cultural Issues (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"535 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"INTL: Social & Cultural Issues (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2094159\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTL: Social & Cultural Issues (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2094159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

绿色证书是瑞典推广可再生电力(RES-E)的主要工具。但证书只覆盖了RES-E总生产的有限份额。在部分覆盖下,昂贵的新RES-E取代廉价的旧RES-E可能会出现挤出现象。向所有的RES-E产品颁发证书可以提高效率,但却给其他有利可图的设施留下了意外的租金。我们还分析了瑞典新RES-E许可过程中的交易成本。由于投资成本和收益分配不对称,市政当局否决了社会期望的项目。我们建议以市场为基础的许可费而不是有限的否决权来解决邻避问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Reexamination of Renewable Electricity Policy in Sweden
Green certificates are the main instrument for promoting renewable electricity (RES-E) in Sweden. But certificates cover only a limited share of total RES-E production. Under partial coverage, crowding out may arise whereby costly new RES-E replaces inexpensive old RES-E. Granting certificates to all of RES-E production improves efficiency, but leaves windfall rent to otherwise profitable facilities. We also analyze transaction costs in the permit process for new RES-E in Sweden. Municipalities veto socially desirable projects because of asymmetrically distributed investment costs and benefits. We propose market-based permit fees rather than limited veto rights as a solution to this NIMBY problem.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cultural and Heritage Tourism Development in Postwar Regions: Concerns for Sustainability from Northern Sri Lankan Capital Jaffna Asset Financing: A Micro-Credit–Subsidization Hybrid Model $1.90 Per Day: What Does it Say? Investment Choice in Defined-Contribution Pension Schemes: International Experience and Policy Issues Timing of Childhood Immigration and Children's Life Chances
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1