progressive tariffs on domestic energy 2013?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

progressive tariffs on domestic energy 2013?




by Christophe » 05/09/12, 15:13

Principle of the bonus malus applied to domestic energies:

ENERGY - The bill presented this Wednesday in the National Assembly is a first draft that will have to be refined ...

A proposal "ambitious and urgent" but which will still need to be clarified by the parliamentary debate. The bill on the creation of progressive energy tariffs for households, presented this Wednesday to the press and tabled in Parliament, outlines what could be a flagship measure to trigger the energy transition.

According to the text presented to the press, a basic package will be personalized using three criteria: the number of people occupying the dwelling, the climatic zone and the heating method. Three levels of bonus-penalties will be applied: a bonus for the level of consumption "basic", then two penalties for the levels of "comfort" and "waste". The amount of these bonuses will be defined each year by the Ministry of Energy.
First 2013 end invoices

The device should concern network energies, namely electricity, gas and heat, only for private residences. The extension of the system to other energies, water and businesses will come after the first experiments. "We need a year to collect the information, since we must have a complete collection of tax sheets, says François Brottes, PS MP and President of the Assembly's Economic Affairs Committee. The first bills with the bonus-malus could arrive late 2013. "

The fight against energy poverty will require the implementation of "concrete financial support measures", which will be defined within a year. Their objective will be to not penalize low-income households living in energy-intensive homes who spend a large part of their budget on electricity or gas. Thus, the number of beneficiaries of social tariffs for energy would increase from 600.000 to 4 million households, while the ban on cutting electricity, gas and heat during the winter would be widespread. The bill will be debated on September 26 in the National Assembly, and its implementation is likely to occupy the deputies for a few months.

Audrey Chauvet


Source: http://www.20minutes.fr/article/997303/ ... -penalises
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 05/09/12, 20:21

Ah, that's something simple to apply.

It could be that the thousands of public servants needed to handle such complexity are more expensive than the energy savings ... if there are any!

Because it's been a long time since Mr. Dupont turns the button on the right side, especially if it's him who pays.
0 x
Image
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 05/09/12, 20:48

It is difficult to assess today the scope of such a measure that will depend on its exact application.
I do not think that it is, in essence, complex: after all, merchants all apply tariffs without degressive without that poses big problems, why, beforehand would not it be the same for the opposite?
OK, the initial parameters are a little more numerous, but IT can solve that ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 05/09/12, 21:24

Remundo wrote:Ah, that's something simple to apply.

It could be that the thousands of public servants needed to handle such complexity are more expensive than the energy savings ... if there are any!

Because it's been a long time since Mr. Dupont turns the button on the right side, especially if it's him who pays.



ah like:

.... "Gas plant" according to NKM
"The idea has the appearance of generosity and defends itself", comments Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, the former Minister of Ecology, "but I dread the gas plant, an over-administered device that may miss its target ".


read here: http://www.lefigaro.fr/conso/2012/09/05 ... nergie.php
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 06/09/12, 08:51

In the digital age, I don't really see how this will be difficult to apply once the parameters have been established ... after obviously if friends are invited to your home during the 2 summer months, this will distort the gives and this will be difficult to take into account in the calculation of the inhabitants ... Just like his own holidays (some leave others not ...) but nothing is perfect and all this is going in the right direction since it will encourage not to exceed the threshold "malus" ...

I can not wait to see the results of the first tests ...

The opinion of NKM is only an opinion of the opposition systematically criticizing each proposal of the majority ... (it works in 2 meaning whatever the political color ...)
0 x
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88




by Gaston » 06/09/12, 09:47

Christophe wrote:At the digital time, I do not really see how it will be difficult to apply once the parameters established ...
The problem is precisely to establish the parameters which will necessarily be either unfair or "gas works" ...

Christophe wrote:I can not wait to see the results of the first tests ...
It would be interesting if it started with a year of simulation ...
As far as I'm concerned, I do not really want my bank account to serve as a guinea pig :frown:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 06/09/12, 10:01

Gaston wrote:The problem is precisely to establish the parameters which will necessarily be either unfair or "gas works" ...


It seems to me that they are indicated above ... there are "only" 3 ...

three criteria: the number of people occupying the dwelling, the climatic zone and the heating mode


Now see the weighting of each ...

And knowing how a "household" electric kWh would weigh heavier than an electric "heating" kWh because that will certainly be the case ...
0 x
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88




by Gaston » 06/09/12, 11:25

Christophe wrote:
Gaston wrote:The problem is precisely to establish the parameters which will necessarily be either unfair or "gas works" ...


It seems to me that they are indicated above ... there are "only" 3 ...
So it will be unfair :?

Christophe wrote:
three criteria: the number of people occupying the dwelling, the climatic zone and the heating mode


Now see the weighting of each ...

And knowing how a "household" electric kWh would weigh heavier than an electric "heating" kWh because that will certainly be the case ...
For example, the "Climate zone" doesn't mean much when you see that in the same building, the need for heating between an apartment facing south or north can go from single to double ...
And in the same town, between the houses at the bottom of the valley and those on the top of the hill ...

And we do not take into account the hot water (which can be common in some buildings or energetically free for those who have a solar water heater) :?:

As for the occupancy of the dwelling, the one who has a second home (or who goes on holiday) 3 months in the year can consume more at a reduced rate when he is present than the one who has to stay at home all the time. year :?:

...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 06/09/12, 11:36

Nothing is perfect (nor easy, except for somemy dear Gaston!

But if you are conversely: it is at present that there are inequalities. Since we are consuming more energy in the North in France, why is the energy in the North at the same price as the energy in the South?

I still think that the energy penalty is a good method that will raise people's awareness ... and be more efficient level of primary energy savings than the penalty bonus cars ...
0 x
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88




by Gaston » 06/09/12, 11:57

Christophe wrote:But if you are conversely: it is at present that there are inequalities. Since we are consuming more energy in the North in France, why is the energy in the North at the same price as the energy in the South?
Because we pay for the energy consumed ... and not its use declared "normal" or "abnormal".

Christophe wrote:I still think that the energy penalty is a good method that will raise people's awareness ... and be more efficient level of primary energy savings than the penalty bonus cars ...
I think it is a good method in theory, but I remain very skeptical about its application, and in particular when we start to put variable "thresholds" according to vague criteria.

And we have not yet addressed the issue of the deduction of rent penalty for tenants : Twisted:
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 307 guests