オーストラリアとカリフォルニアにおける公平な建物電化のガバナンス
Governing Fair Building Electrification in Australia and California (原題)
Glen Currie
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
豪州とカリフォルニアを比較し、ガスから電力への転換における制度的枠組みが公平性にどう影響するかを分析。35件の政策・規制・学術文書レビューと14件のステークホルダー協議に基づく。豪州は配電ガス網の廃止・費用配分の枠組みが未整備、加州は規制が分断され連邦制約も存在。インフラ計画への公平性組込み、縮小するガス網の能動的管理、機関間調整の3点を政策課題として提示する。
English
This paper compares Australia and California to examine how institutional arrangements shape the equity of the gas-to-electricity transition in buildings. Drawing on 35 policy, regulatory and academic documents plus 14 stakeholder consultations (2023–2025), it finds Australia lacks an explicit framework for retiring distribution gas networks and allocating costs, while California faces fragmented regulation and federal constraints. It recommends embedding equity in infrastructure planning, actively managing declining gas networks, and improving institutional coordination.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本の都市ガス網縮小・電化推進と家庭のエネルギー負担を考える上で示唆的。SSBJ開示やエネルギー政策の公平性議論にも接続しうる。
In the global GX context
Adds to global transition-finance and just-transition scholarship by showing how network-stranding costs and affordability are governed, relevant to CSRD/ISSB social-disclosure debates and to regulators designing gas-network retirement.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:比較制度分析の枠組みと公平性評価の視点を、建物電化研究に応用できる。
🏢実務担当者:ガス網縮小に伴う費用配分と顧客負担リスクを、自社の電化戦略・開示に織り込む材料になる。
🏛政策担当者:配電ガス網の廃止・費用配分と機関間調整の枠組み設計を検討する際の参照事例となる。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Building electrification can reduce emissions by replacing fossil gas, but its effects on households depend on how the transition is managed. This paper compares Australia and California to examine how institutional arrangements affect the equity of the gas-to-electricity transition. The analysis draws on a review of 35 policy, regulatory and academic documents, supplemented by 14 stakeholder consultations undertaken between 2023 and 2025. The consultations were used to test interpretation of the documentary evidence and clarify institutional and implementation issues rather than to provide a representative qualitative dataset. Three areas are examined: planning and institutional coordination, management of declining gas infrastructure, and impacts on household energy costs and participation. Australia’s electricity planning framework provides a basis for least-cost planning, but does not yet provide an explicit framework for retiring distribution gas networks or allocating associated costs. California has substantial climate and energy policy capacity but a more fragmented regulatory system, including federal constraints on local action. The review identifies distributional differences and affordability pressures in both jurisdictions, including higher energy expenditure among Australian renters and substantial electricity tariff increases in California. The comparison suggests three areas for policy attention: considering equity in infrastructure planning, actively managing declining gas networks, and improving coordination between institutions. Building electrification is therefore not only a technology and investment issue but also a question of how infrastructure costs, network decline and household participation are governed.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.53941/ubs.2026.100027first seen 2026-11-01 04:40:07 · last seen 2026-11-06 04:36:06
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。