This article presents the findings of a European study on energy efficiency in the public sector, entitled "Public procurement of Energy Saving Technologies in Europe" (PROST), completed in 2003. Energy efficiency in the public sector goes far beyond energy savings and climate protection. Energy efficiency must be seen as a strategy, which deals both with scarce public funds and with profound energy and climate challenges. The gains to be made are substantial. The study assessed the potential for energy and cost savings and the greenhouse gas reductions that are linked to energy efficiency in the European public sector. To the knowledge of the authors, this is the first time such an analysis has been carried out. The study concluded that there are no fundamental legal obstacles that would a priori disable the public sector from procuring energy efficient technologies or applying energy efficiency considerations in its daily building management routines. However, at the level of implementation obstacles can occur. It is therefore of paramount importance that there is sufficient political will and adequate incentive systems at all relevant levels. It appeared to be particularly effective when public procurement is energy-efficiency minded in all its operations and life cycle costing is applied for investments instead of conventional public budgeting procedures. The study demonstrates that consistent and EU-wide application of these principles and instruments can result in rather substantial savings both in terms of energy and in terms of money. With additional annual investments in energy efficiency of 80 million Euro, energy savings in the (EU15) Member States' public sector worth up to 12 billion Euro per year can be achieved. A supplementary analysis was performed for a selection of the new Member States, which indicated that the potential for energy and fiscal savings is substantial in those countries as well.
The Energy End-use Efficiency and Energy Services Directive (ESD) of the European Union requires the member states to define and attain an overall target of at least 9 % annual energy savings between 2008 and 2016. Even if this target is indicative, this is the first international framework mandating countries to report on their energy savings results and prove achievement of their targets. The directive thus also required the development of harmonised calculation methods that can be used by member states for this proof and reporting. Existing literature covers most of the usual issues related to energy savings evaluation, but mostly looking at single, given energy efficiency programmes or policies. The evaluation objective for the ESD implementation is different, as it aims at accounting for the whole energy savings achieved in a country. Moreover, one of the main difficulties is the diversity in history and experience on this topic among the member states. In this context, the European project EMEEES has worked out an integrated system of bottom-up and top-down methods for the measurement of energy savings. The paper presents the overview of its final results. The proposals, inter alia, include 20 bottom-up and 14 top-down case applications of general evaluation methods. They enable more than 90 % of the potential energy savings to be measured and reported. They were used as a starting point by the European Commission to develop the methods recently recommended to the member states. Furthermore, the paper briefly discusses the importance of the quantity to be measured-all or additional energy savings - and the effect of measures implemented before the entering into force of the ESD ("early action"), and what this meant for the methods to be developed. It compares the main elements of calculation needed to ensure consistent results between bottom-up and top-down methods at the overall national level. Finally, general conclusions are drawn about what could be the next steps in developing an evaluation system that enables a high degree of comparability of results between different countries.
This paper presents the evaluation of a regional energy efficiency programme implemented in two "départements" of France. Électricité de France (EDF), a French energy company, provides refurbishment advice and financial incentives to end-users in the residential sector as well as specific training courses and certification to local installation contractors and building firms. Refurbishment measures analysed in this paper are efficient space heating equipment (condensing boilers, heat pumps and wood stoves or boilers), solar water heating systems and the installation of double-glazed windows. A billing analysis based on a survey of programme participants' energy consumption is used to calculate the energy savings attributed to the programme. In order to receive an economic feedback of this demonstration programme, the evaluation of both saved energy and programme costs is of importance. Detailed knowledge of the programme's cost-effectiveness is essential for EDF to achieve the saving obligations imposed by the French White Certificate scheme at the lowest cost. Results of this evaluation can support the development and implementation of further energy efficiency programmes with similar characteristics in other regions of France. The cost-effectiveness is determined from the perspective of the programme participant and the society as well as the energy company in charge of the programme. All cost and benefit components are calculated in Euro per kilowatt-hour, which allows a direct comparison of levelized costs of conserved energy with the avoidable costs of the energy supply system.
Mit Steigerungen der Energie- und Ressourceneffizienz sind gelegentlich sog. Rebound-Effekte verbunden. Die durch die Effizienzsteigerung eingesparten Kosten führen dann durch verstärkte Nutzung oder zusätzlichen Konsum und damit verbundener Produktion zu weiterem Energie- und Ressourcenverbrauch. Obwohl oft und gerne vergessen wird, dass Rebound-Effekte durchaus auch Indikatoren positiver Entwicklungen sind, reduzieren sie unstrittig erzielte Effizienzgewinne. Aber welchen Umfang haben diese Effekte überhaupt? Und gibt es Möglichkeiten, ihren Einfluss zu schmälern?
Die Entscheidung für ein von volatilen Erzeugungsquellen dominiertes Stromsystem stellt an die Stabilisierung des Systems neue Anforderungen. Zugleich bieten sich neue Optionen. Die bisherige Asymmetrie, nach der für die Stabilisierung die Kraftwerksseite verantwortlich sei, ist überkommene Praxis, deswegen auch heute habituell naheliegend, aber vermutlich nicht länger effizient. Die im Titel genannten nachfrageseitigen Ausgleichsoptionen (SE & DSM) bieten sich an. Im Beitrag wird deren Potential abgeschätzt. In vier Gestaltungsfeldern wird zudem gefragt, ob die bislang von der Politik gegebenen rechtlichen Mandate konsequent SE & DSM als Option berücksichtigen. Das Ergebnis ist viermal (weitgehende) Fehlanzeige.
The economic assessment of low-carbon energy options is the primary step towards the design of policy portfolios to foster the green energy economy. However, today these assessments often fall short of including important determinants of the overall cost-benefit balance of such options by not including indirect costs and benefits, even though these can be game-changing. This is often due to the lack of adequate methodologies.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive account of the key methodological challenges to the assessment of the multiple impacts of energy options, and an initial menu of potential solutions to address these challenges.
The paper first provides evidence for the importance of the multiple impacts of energy actions in the assessment of low-carbon options.
The paper identifies a few key challenges to the evaluation of the co-impacts of low-carbon options and demonstrates that these are more complex for co-impacts than for the direct ones. Such challenges include several layers of additionality, high context dependency, and accounting for distributional effects.
The paper continues by identifying the key challenges to the aggregation of multiple impacts including the risks of overcounting while taking into account the multitude of interactions among the various co-impacts. The paper proposes an analytical framework that can help address these and frame a systematic assessment of the multiple impacts.
Staatliche Regulierung ist verpönt. Häufig läuft es dann auf den Appell hinaus: Jeder einzelne Bürger habe es selbst in der Hand. Doch die Alltagsroutinen sind in der Regel mächtiger als das Umweltbewusstsein. Beim Marmor für das Badezimmer spielen Amortisationszeiten keine Rolle. Die solare Warmwasseranlage ist dagegen oftmals "zu teuer". Gesetzliche Standards hingegen verselbstständigen Energieeffizienz und den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien. Sie machen "Öko zur Routine". Dieser Artikel beschreibt die Notwendigkeit für das Schaffen neuer Routinen und zeigt wie dies durch Standards, Limits und faire Umsetzungsbedingungen sowie attraktive Alternativangebote zum gegenwärtigen, häufig nicht nachhaltigen Verhalten auch möglich ist.
The paper presents the results of an ex-ante evaluation of the economy-wide benefits that may be achieved through the implementation of the 20-year Energy Efficiency Action Plan (EEAP) in Thailand. The objective of the EEAP is to reduce energy intensity by 25 % in 2030 compared to 2010. This is to be reached by reducing the projected energy consumption by 20 % or 38 Mtoe until 2030. We have specified an analytical framework, which allows for a calculation of the overall energy cost savings, energy import cost reductions and reduced CO2 emissions. Moreover, we calculated the induced energy efficiency investments, employment effects and impacts on governmental budget. The evaluation shows that an effective implementation of the plan may lead to a reduction in energy expenditure of 37.7 billion EUR by 2030. Moreover, the EEAP-induced energy savings will significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions as well as Thailand’s energy import costs and generate private investment in energy efficiency of about 5 billion EUR annually in 2030, which in turn may lead to about 300,000 new jobs. The size of the net impact of the plan on Thailand’s governmental budget is uncertain due to positive and negative effects on corporate and income tax revenues, expenses for unemployment benefits, governmental energy consumption, expenses for energy subsidies and energy tax income.