Deregulation and natural gas trade relationships: lessons from the Alberta-California experience
In 1978 the US government moved to deregulate the American natural gas industry. The market changes that resulted from this initial step took time to ripple their way out to regional and subnational gas trading relationships. This ripple effect required subnational governments (state and provincial regulators) to rethink their gas regulatory policies. This article examines the restructuring of the Alberta-California gas trade. It explores how changes in US policy forced California and Alberta regulators to recast their policies. It concludes with several lessons that can be drawn from this case about the complex challenge of restructuring international gas trading relationships.
Natural Gas in the Internal Market: A Review of Energy Policy
Energy policy for natural gas in the internal market - an overview aims and means of European energy policy in the light of the completion of the internal market the development of European energy policy - from the ECSC-Treaty to the internal market could the energy mix be optimized through competition or regulation? the structure of national gas industries and instruments of regulation - the French gas industry, the British gas industry, the German gas industry, experiences with natural gas regulation and competition in the US Federal System - lessons for Europe models of the organization and accompanying regulation of gas markets in Europe European energy policy in community law the prospects for third party access in European gas markets compulsory open access in the gas industry - the special case of the Mediterranean countries orgnization of supply markets for natural gas in Europe, and" critical review of legal and policy arguments driving the discussion on third party access regional and local distribution systems for natural gas.
The Internet and the Changing Beijing-Taipei Relations: Toward Unification or Fragmentation?
Information and its technologies facilitate the exercise of what has been called “soft power,” a concept that differentiates information from the conventional dimensions of “hard power,” which is mainly associated with military force and economic influence. Soft power, according to Nye, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense of the United States, means that “A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries want to follow it, admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness. In this sense it is just as important to set the agenda in world politics and attract others as it is to force them to change through the threat or use of military or economic weapons.”1