Since the UK first took the lead in restructuring the power industry in the late 1980s, power market reform has become a major trend in the development of the world's power industry. In the 1990s, after the United Kingdom, some European countries, as well as Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Mexico, the United States and other countries have successively implemented market-oriented reforms in their power industries. According to the statistics of the World Bank, nearly one-half of the world's countries are currently mulling a market-oriented reform of the traditional monopoly power system. Countries that started earlier have achieved remarkable results: lower electricity prices and improved service quality have been welcomed by society. The core of power market reform is to introduce competition and build a competitive power market. Judging from the current situation of power market reforms in China, the power restructuring model, electricity price, the establishment of electricity trading market, market supervision, etc. have become the primary decision-makers of reform, improving efficiency, selecting good and poor, and optimizing industrial resources. Configuration. 5. Vigorously promote the industrialization development model such as 'order agriculture', establish a stable economic contract relationship between raw material producers and purchasers, and directly benefit farmers; at the same time, explore the production of crude alcohol by farmers individually or collectively, by technology Advanced enterprises acquire and process into the final product model, further increase farmers' income, promote township enterprises and rural economic development. The issue of concern is also a hot issue of public concern; and terminal power is extremely important for sustainable development of electricity. The issue of energy efficiency has been neglected to varying degrees, at least not receiving enough attention and attention. In order to achieve sustainable development of electric power, one of the major challenges facing China's power reform is how to integrate the terminal power energy efficiency into the power reform process, and adopt appropriate countermeasures to promote the continuous improvement of terminal power energy efficiency. Sustainable development provides important support and protection. Second, the terminal power energy efficiency problem in the domestic power market reform The domestic power market reform began in 1998 and is currently underway. The main content of the reform is the separation of government and enterprises and the establishment of a power market. Objectively, the current focus of power reform is on the corporate restructuring of power companies, electricity price reforms, the establishment of competitive power markets, market regulation, etc. The issue of terminal power energy efficiency has not received due attention in the process of power reform. To a large extent it is even ignored. In particular, current power reforms have had a certain negative impact on terminal power energy efficiency. This is mainly manifested in two aspects: the government terminal power-saving operation function is gradually weakened. With the gradual progress of the reform of the power industry and enterprises in the local area, most of the local power bureaus have been revoked, and their government functions have been transferred to the local economic and trade commissions. The three power offices across the country have been gradually phased out; the three power offices in some places have been Restructured into the marketing department of the power supply company (original power supply bureau), its business changed from the original power-saving operation to power marketing. The function of power-saving operation of government terminals has therefore been greatly weakened. Terminal power saving investment incentives are weakened. Before the separate reform of the power industry and enterprises in 1998, as a power-saving incentive measure, the three power offices around the country “provided financial subsidies for some energy-saving projects. The funds used to finance terminal power conservation mainly come from enterprise power users' products and equipment, power consumption exceeding the fixed penalty, and enterprise power users exceeding the planned power penalty. After the reform of the power industry and the administrative and enterprise separation, the central and local governments have not yet established a terminal power-saving fund-raising channel suitable for the market economy system, and the power company has also lost the funds to receive funds for financing through the three power offices. Sources, it is difficult to use financial incentives to promote terminal power saving. The terminal energy-saving investment incentives have been greatly weakened. The domestic power industry is catching up with the mainstream of sustainable development of the world's electricity. However, considering its current level of development, future development prospects, internal structural problems and the external environment, the sustainable development of the domestic power industry will face many constraints in terms of resources and environment. In order to achieve sustainable development of power, it is necessary to adjust the development strategy of China's power industry, including: adjusting power supply structure, strengthening power grid construction, improving terminal power energy efficiency, etc., and realizing the fundamental development mode of power industry from quantity speed to quality efficiency. change. From the perspective of resources and environment, improving terminal power energy efficiency will provide important support and guarantee for the sustainable development of domestic power. Therefore, how to implement appropriate adjustments to the power industry development strategy in the reform process and adopt appropriate countermeasures to promote the continuous improvement of terminal power energy efficiency will be a major challenge for reform decision makers. 3. Incentives for Terminal Power Energy Efficiency in UK and US Power Restructuring Before the UK began to implement power restructuring in 1989, the UK implemented end-use energy efficiency projects that were limited and funded by the UK government, not the power company. Therefore, in the case of power reorganization, there is basically no pressure and requirement for the power company to continue to invest in terminal efficiency after reorganization. Although energy conservation advocates such as the British Energy Conservation Association (ACE) urged the British government to integrate terminal efficiency into the process of power restructuring from the perspective of resource conservation and environmental protection, the Office of Electricity Regulatory Authority (OFFER) believes that if users have energy-saving needs, The market will respond automatically, so there is no need to specify the terminal efficiency. However, it is not. By 1992, the situation was already clear: in terms of terminal efficiency, the market did not respond as expected by OFFER. Due to the lack of clear regulations and requirements for terminal efficiency, the 15 local power companies (RECs, engaged in power distribution and power supply) have not implemented energy efficiency projects for end users. A major turning point in terminal efficiency was after the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. As a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the British government decided to honor its commitment to reduce C2 and set specific emission reduction targets. Terminal efficiency has been valued by the government as one of the few low-cost methods to reduce C2 emissions. The UK government requires the power industry to complete the government-determined C2 emission reduction targets mainly through terminal energy efficiency projects. The pressure of C2 has become the main driving force for the power industry to carry out terminal energy efficiency projects. In other words, the UK's power industry's end-use energy efficiency program is designed to meet the C2 emission reduction targets set by the government, rather than proactively developing end-use energy efficiency projects with terminal efficiency as an alternative resource for power generation. In order to promote terminal power energy efficiency, the UK government has adopted the following three main measures: In November 1992, the British government instructed the establishment of an independent, non-profit energy-saving trust agency “institutions to specialize in terminal power efficiency issues. EST's responsibilities Including: providing terminal energy efficiency decision-making consultation for OFFER; designing and supervising terminal energy efficiency projects; setting terminal energy efficiency targets for each REC. Establish a “wirescharge†collection system. OFFER decides to charge 1 pound/year for each resident user and small industrial and commercial users (capacity <100kW). The funds collected through the line fee are specially used to support the terminal power energy efficiency. . The essence of the line fee is a power surcharge; for the average power user, the line charge of 1 pound per year is equivalent to a 0.3% increase in the price of electricity. The fund (about 25 million pounds per year) is managed by EST, and each RECs Apply for this funding from EST to support its energy-saving projects for residential users and small business users to meet the ATA's defined power-saving goals. The price of electricity is decoupled from the amount of electricity sold. At the beginning of the formation of RECs, their income and profits were directly linked to electricity sales, which led to the negative attitude of RECs to saving electricity. In order to mobilize the enthusiasm of the terminal power-saving project for RECs, OFFER revised the electricity price calculation formula to decouple the power supply price and the distribution price from the electricity sales. According to the new electricity price calculation formula, only 25 of the RECs' electricity supply revenue is based on electricity sales, while 75% is based on the number of residential users and small industrial and commercial users served by RECs; only 50 of the RECs' distribution revenue is based on electricity sales. . Prior to the restructuring of the US power industry, power companies were regulated by the government and were obligated to invest in terminal energy efficiency. Government power regulators require power companies to develop and implement Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) to treat terminal efficiency as an alternative resource for power generation, investing in and implementing end-use energy efficiency projects on an economically sound basis to reduce electricity service costs and improve power services. Reliability. After the implementation of power restructuring, the power company will no longer have the obligation to invest in terminal power energy efficiency, and the terminal energy efficiency project will lose its main source of investment. Since the efficiency of the terminal is related to the interests of the whole society, the government has paid attention to and considered the efficiency of the terminal in the process of restructuring the US power industry. Some countermeasures have been taken, mainly to establish a system benefit charging system to solve the terminal. The source of investment in efficiency projects. California was the first state in the United States to implement a restructuring of the power industry. The California government signed the major power restructuring law, AB1890, in September 1996. This law allows the state's power industry to be converted into a competitive industry, while primarily supporting the state. A power surcharge, a system benefit fee (SBC), is set for terminal power energy efficiency and is managed by the State Public Utilities Commission. The SBC is similar to the British money tolls. It is a small fee charged to all power users in addition to the normal electricity bill. The fee is kWh. The SBC has two basic characteristics: the SBC is unavoidable. All power users All must pay the SBC, which means that regardless of the type of user, as long as the power transmitted by the grid must be paid to the SBC. Large industrial electric households using high-voltage power, users who buy electricity from the partners or users who generate electricity by themselves The SBC must be paid by SBC. The self-generating users are also required to pay the SBC because most of them are connected to the grid system to obtain supplemental/standby power. SBC is neutral in competition. The SBC treats all power suppliers involved in power generation competition equally. No matter which power supplier uses the power provided by the user, the user must pay the same SBC. Therefore, the standard for the user to avoid the California system benefit fee by selecting the power supplier is 0.3 ~ 0.45 cents / kWh, equivalent to 3% of the average electricity bill. The California government will raise 872 million US dollars for terminal power energy efficiency in the four years from 1998 to 2001 by collecting system efficiency fees. The funds will be used to support the state's power companies to carry out terminal power-saving projects, support research and development of energy-saving technologies, and promote the development of new markets for energy-saving products and energy-saving services. At present, most states in the United States follow the example of California, establishing and implementing a system efficiency charging system. In the summer of 2000, a serious power crisis in California caused a huge impact on the California economy, seriously affecting the daily lives of California residents. There are many complicated factors in the formation of the California power crisis. One of the important reasons is that although California has established a system efficiency charging system, California’s investment in terminal efficiency is much weaker than before the reorganization, which is to a large extent. This has led to a rapid increase in California's electricity demand. The California power crisis has made the California government more aware of the importance of improving the efficiency of terminal power energy. One of the state government's remedies for the power crisis is that the state legislature passed a bill to extend the implementation period of the SBC for 10 years. Electricity, energy efficiency, etc. raised more than $5.5 billion in funding. IV. The Enlightenment of British and American Experiences to China In the Early Stage of Restructuring of the British Power Industry, the terminal power energy efficiency was interviewed by academicians. Nuclear power is still the mainstream of the world. The academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, Zhu Keqiang, journalist Lin Lun entered the 21st century, and countries around the world have adjusted their energy policies. The changes in nuclear power policy are very compelling. The United States, Britain, Russia and other countries are considering continuing to develop nuclear power, while Germany, Italy and other countries have advocated abandoning nuclear power. The adjustment background of nuclear power policies of all countries in the world can be used for China's energy development road. This is undoubtedly a big issue related to the future of China's nuclear power. Academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, Qi Keqiang, is also the chief scientist of the third expert committee of the National 863 Program in the energy field. In an interview with reporters, he stressed that the development of nuclear power in the international are still the mainstream. China must adhere to the development of nuclear power, especially the independent nuclear power technology. Reporter: At present, the nuclear power policies of countries all over the world have a trend of polarization. Some advocates are completely banned, and some have to accelerate development. Why is this situation so strong: countries do have differences on nuclear power, but it should be noted that the development of nuclear power is a major trend and the mainstream of the world's nuclear power policy. The United States is a typical representative. After the new US president took office, the vice president took the lead in adjusting the new energy policy, affirming that nuclear power is safe and still needs to develop. At the annual meeting of the US nuclear industry held in May this year, the US industry plans to increase the installed capacity of nuclear power by 50,000 MW by 2020, equivalent to the construction of 50 nuclear power plants of the million-kilowatt class. Since the 1979 San Francisco nuclear accident and the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986, the United States has stopped building new nuclear power for more than 20 years. It shows that because energy-saving investment is a highly fragmented investment activity, even in countries with developed market economies, The energy-saving market may not always be able to operate effectively. Without the pressure of the British government to reduce C2, it is difficult to imagine that the restructured UK local power companies (RECs) will actively provide terminal users with energy efficiency services for terminals. China is still in a period of economic transformation, and the establishment of a sound market economic order will take time. The establishment of a self-sustaining and sustainable energy-saving market will take longer and tremendous efforts. Before the market forces finally play a leading role in energy conservation, especially during the transition period of power restructuring, the government needs to play an active guiding role in promoting the improvement of terminal power energy efficiency, and also requires a strong government department/institution to be responsible. The situation in the United Kingdom and the United States shows that there are two main challenges for decision makers trying to integrate terminal power energy efficiency into the domestic electricity market reform process. First, some appropriate financing channels must be established. Support the improvement of terminal power energy efficiency to raise the necessary funds. In this respect, the practice of the United Kingdom and the United States coincides. The United Kingdom implements a system of “levy system for money and tolls, and most states in the United States have established system efficiency charges.†Both are essentially a kind of electricity surcharge. The practice of the United Kingdom and the United States is a useful revelation in our country. Second, we must properly respond to the negative attitude of power companies to the efficiency of terminal power. Because the terminal power-saving project will reduce power demand and put downward pressure on electricity prices, the power company's revenue and profits will be reduced. In this regard, the UK Electricity Regulatory Office (OFFER) can decouple the distribution price and the price of electricity sold from the electricity sales. Rayon Twill Printed,Custom Fabric Printing,Printed Rayon Fabric,Textile Fabric Printing SHAOXING YINGSIPE TEXTILE CO.,LTD , https://www.chinayingsipei.com