Refine
Document Type
- Conference Object (5)
- Peer-Reviewed Article (4)
- Report (3)
- Contribution to Periodical (1)
- Working Paper (1)
In diesem Gutachten wurde untersucht, welche Optionen zur Gestaltung eines marktbasierten haushaltsunabhängigen Verpflichtungsansatzes zur CO2-Minderung im deutschen Gebäudebestand bestehen. Die Analyse erfolgte technologieoffen und berücksichtigte neben Sanierungsmaßnahmen zur Steigerung der Energieeffizienz auch einen verstärkten Einsatz CO2-armer/erneuerbarer Energien. Das Verpflichtungssystem soll in der Lage sein, die bestehenden Treibhausgas (THG)-Minderungsziele im Gebäudebestand möglichst kostengünstig auf kurz- und langfristig sinnvolle Weise zu erreichen und sich gut in das bestehende Förderinstrumentarium integrieren lassen.
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.
Dieses Wuppertal Paper dient dazu, a) die mögliche Klimaschutzwirkung eines CO2-Preises zu analysieren, allein und im Gesamtpaket von Instrumenten zum Klimaschutz, b) die Möglichkeiten der Mittelverwendung zu analysieren und zu bewerten, c) dadurch den Dschungel der Argumente und Motivationen in den bestehenden Vorschlägen zu lichten und d) aus der Analyse ein Modell zu skizzieren, das den Anforderungen von Klimaschutz und sozialer Gerechtigkeit sowie Erhalt der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit am besten gerecht wird und damit der Bundesregierung als Anregung bei der Entscheidung über Einführung und Ausgestaltung eines CO2-Preises dienen kann.
In dem Papier werden diese Fragen anhand von neun Thesen mit einem abschließenden Fazit ergründet. Daraus wird deutlich:
Ein CO2-Preis kann sektorale Ziele und Instrumente nicht ersetzen. Seine volle Wirkung kann er nur entfalten, wenn er komplementär zu sektorspezifischen Klimaschutzinstrumenten eingeführt wird. Nur wenn für diese Instrumente ein guter Teil der Einnahmen aus der CO2-Steuer eingesetzt wird, sind die Klimaziele erreichbar. Die Ziele werden dadurch mit weitaus geringerem CO2-Preis bei gleichzeitig höheren Kostenentlastungen für Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher, Unternehmen und sogar die öffentlichen Haushalte erreichbar, als wenn die Politik allein auf einen CO2-Preis setzen würde.
Mit Dienstleistungen zur Steigerung der Energieeffizienz und zum Energiesparen Geld zu verdienen, ist oft nicht einfach. Die Produkt- und Geschäftsfeldentwicklung ist spannend - aber auch extrem fordernd. Das im Rahmen des Programms "Intelligent Energy Europe" von der Europäischen Kommission geförderte Projekt Change Best hat in den Jahren 2009 bis 2012 insgesamt 38 Unternehmen aus 16 EU-Mitgliedsstaaten dabei unterstützt, mögliche Schwierigkeiten bei der Entwicklung und Markteinführung neuer Energieeffizienzdienstleistungen zu bewältigen.
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.
Energy efficiency improvements have numerous benefits/impacts additional to energy and greenhouse gas savings, as has been shown and analysed e.g. in the 2014 IEA Report on "Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency". This paper presents the Horizon 2020-project COMBI ("Calculating and Operationalising the Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency in Europe"), aiming at calculating the energy and non-energy impacts that a realisation of the EU energy efficiency potential would have in 2030. The project covers the most relevant technical energy efficiency improvement actions and estimates impacts of reduced air pollution (and its effects on human health, eco-systems/crops, buildings), improved social welfare (incl. disposable income, comfort, health, productivity), saved biotic and abiotic resources, and energy system, energy security, and the macroeconomy (employment, economic growth and public budget). This paper explains how the COMBI energy savings potential in the EU 2030 is being modelled and how multiple impacts are assessed. We outline main challenges with the quantification (choice of baseline scenario, additionality of savings and impacts, context dependency and distributional issues) as well as with the aggregation of impacts (e.g. interactions and overlaps) and how the project deals with them. As research is still ongoing, this paper only gives a first impression of the order of magnitude for additional multiple impacts of energy efficiency improvements may have in Europe, where this is available to date. The paper is intended to stimulate discussion and receive feedback from the academic community on quantification approaches followed by the project.
The COMBI project aimed at quantifying the multiple non-energy benefits of energy efficiency in the EU-28 area and incorporate those multiple impacts into decision-support frameworks for policy-making. Therefore, all multiple impacts of energy efficiency are analysed from an overall societal view in the project. The COMBI policy recommendations resulting from the evaluation outcomes are presented in this report.
COMBI draws on a reference scenario until the year 2030 including existing policies. By modelling 21 sets of "energy efficiency improvement" (EEI) actions, a second efficiency scenario was modelled amounting to additional energy savings of around 8% p.a. in 2030, and that is comparable to the EUCO+33 to EUCO+35 scenario. All figures quantified by COMBI relate to additional values, i.e. additional impacts resulting from additional EEI actions beyond the reference scenario as a consequence of additional policies. The project quantified in total 31 individual impact indicators with appropriate state-of-the-art models.
The European electricity market is linked to a carbon market with a fixed cap that limits greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, a number of energy efficiency policy instruments in the EU aim at reducing the electricity consumption. This article explores the interactions between the EU's carbon market on the one hand and instruments specifically targeted towards energy end-use efficiency on the other hand. Our theoretical analysis shows how electricity demand reduction triggered by energy efficiency policy instruments affects the emission trading scheme. Without adjustments of the fixed cap, decreasing electricity demand (relative to business-as-usual) reduces the carbon price without reducing total emissions. With lower carbon prices, costly low emission processes will be substituted by cheaper high emitting processes. Possible electricity and carbon price effects of electricity demand reduction scenarios under various carbon caps are quantified with a long-term electricity market simulation model. The results show that electricity efficiency policies allow for a significant reduction of the carbon cap. Compared to the 2005 emission level, 30% emission reductions can be achieved by 2020 within the emission trading scheme with similar or even lower costs for the industrial sector than were expected when the cap was initially set for a 21% emission reduction.