Refine
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (16)
- Conference Object (12)
- Report (12)
- Working Paper (8)
- Book (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Contribution to Periodical (1)
The European Horizon 2020-project COMBI ("Calculating and Operationalising the Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency in Europe") aims at estimating the energy and non-energy impacts that a realisation of the EU energy efficiency potential would have in the year 2030. The project goal is to cover the most important technical potentials identified for the EU27 by 2030 and to come up with consistent estimates for the most relevant impacts: air pollution (and its effects on human health, eco-systems/crops, buildings), social welfare (including disposable income, comfort, health and productivity), biotic and abiotic resources, the energy system and energy security and the macro economy (employment, economic growth and the public budget). This paper describes the overall project research design, envisaged methodologies, the most critical methodological challenges with such an ex-ante evaluation and with aggregating the multiple impacts. The project collects data for a set of 30 energy efficiency improvement actions grouped by energy services covering all sectors and EU countries. Based on this, multiple impacts will be quantified with separate methodological approaches, following methods used in the respective literature and developing them where necessary. The paper outlines the approaches taken by COMBI: socio-economic modelling for air pollution and social welfare, resource modelling for biotic/abiotic and economically unused resources, General Equilibrium modelling for long-run macroeconomic effects and other models for short-run effects, and the LEAP model for energy system modelling. Finally, impacts will be aggregated, where possible in monetary terms. Specific challenges of this step include double-counting issues, metrics, within and cross-country/regional variability of effects and context-specificity.
What role do transaction costs play in energy efficiency improvements and how can they be reduced?
(2019)
Ex-ante policy evaluation requires a detailed understanding of how the subjects addressed by the policy react to its implementation. In the context of energy efficiency, policy measures typically aim at influencing investment decisions towards more efficient options.
As has been discussed widely in the context of the "energy efficiency gap", investments in energy efficiency improvements are frequently not conducted even though they seem cost-effective from a simple cost-benefit perspective, where transaction costs have been identified as one important barrier.
While transaction costs have been discussed widely from a conceptional perspective, empirical studies quantifying transaction costs and measures to reduce them are rare. This paper presents approaches, results and insights from a recently completed research project funded by the German Federal Energy Efficiency Center (BfEE), addressing transaction costs in various energy efficiency measures and the role of energy efficiency services to overcome the barrier.
We analyse a set of 11 energy efficiency investments covering private households, public institutions and the industry sector. We gather data on direct investment costs and energy cost savings and provide a detailed analysis of the various barriers and transaction costs associated with the implementation. We then analyse the costs of existing energy efficiency services using data provided by the BfEE. We compare the different cost elements and analyze the potential of energy efficiency services to reduce transaction costs.
We find that the role of transaction costs differs substantially between households, public institutions and companies and that the impact of energy efficiency services on transaction costs needs to be evaluated using different methodological approaches. We conclude that while data availability on disaggregated transaction costs is a major challenge, energy services can reduce transaction costs considerably.
In order to calculate the financial return of energy efficiency measures, a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a proven tool for investors. Generally, however, most CBAs for investors have a narrow focus, which is - simply speaking - on investment costs compared with energy cost savings over the life span of the investment. This only provides part of the full picture. Ideally, a comprehensive or extended CBA would take additional benefits as well as additional costs into account. The objective of this paper is to reflect upon integrating into a CBA two important cost components: transaction costs and energy efficiency services - and how they interact. Even though this concept has not been carried out to the knowledge of the authors, we even go a step further to try to apply this idea. In so doing, we carried out a meta-analysis on relevant literature and existing data and interviewed a limited number of energy experts with comprehensive experience in carrying out energy services. Even though data is hardly available, we succeeded in constructing three real-world cases and applied an extended CBA making use of information gathered on transaction costs and energy services costs. We were able to show that, despite these additional cost components, the energy efficiency measures are economically viable. Quantitative data was not available on how energy services reduce transaction costs; more information on this aspect could render our results even more positive. Even though empirical and conceptual research must intensify efforts to design an even more comprehensive CBA, these first-of-its-kind findings can counterargue those that believe energy efficiency is not worth it (in monetary terms) due to transaction costs or energy services costs. In fact, this is good news for energy efficiency and for those that seek to make use of our findings to argue in favor of taking up energy efficiency investments in businesses.
Improvements in energy efficiency have numerous impacts additional to energy and greenhouse gas savings. This paper presents key findings and policy recommendations of the COMBI project ("Calculating and Operationalising the Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency in Europe").
This project aimed at quantifying the energy and non-energy impacts that a realisation of the EU energy efficiency potential would have in 2030. It covered the most relevant technical energy efficiency improvement actions in buildings, transport and industry.
Quantified impacts include reduced air pollution (and its effects on human health, eco-systems), improved social welfare (health, productivity), saved biotic and abiotic resources, effects on the energy system and energy security, and the economy (employment, GDP, public budgets and energy/EU-ETS prices). The paper shows that a more ambitious energy efficiency policy in Europe would lead to substantial impacts: overall, in 2030 alone, monetized multiple impacts (MI) would amount to 61 bn Euros per year in 2030, i.e. corresponding to approx. 50% of energy cost savings (131 bn Euros).
Consequently, the conservative CBA approach of COMBI yields that including MI quantifications to energy efficiency impact assessments would increase the benefit side by at least 50-70%. As this analysis excludes numerous impacts that could either not be quantified or monetized or where any double-counting potential exists, actual benefits may be much larger.
Based on these findings, the paper formulates several recommendations for EU policy making:
(1) the inclusion of MI into the assessment of policy instruments and scenarios,
(2) the need of reliable MI quantifications for policy design and target setting,
(3) the use of MI for encouraging inter-departmental and cross-sectoral cooperation in policy making to pursue common goals, and
(4) the importance of MI evaluations for their communication and promotion to decision-makers, stakeholders, investors and the general public.
The implementation of energy efficiency improvement actions not only yields energy and greenhouse gas emission savings, but also leads to other multiple impacts such as air pollution reductions and subsequent health and eco-system effects, resource impacts, economic effects on labour markets, aggregate demand and energy prices or on energy security. While many of these impacts have been studied in previous research, this work quantifies them in one consistent framework based on a common underlying bottom-up funded energy efficiency scenario across the EU. These scenario data are used to quantify multiple impacts by energy efficiency improvement action and for all EU28 member states using existing approaches and partially further developing methodologies. Where possible, impacts are integrated into cost-benefit analyses. We find that with a conservative estimate, multiple impacts sum up to a size of at least 50% of energy cost savings, with substantial impacts coming from e.g., air pollution, energy poverty reduction and economic impacts.
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.
This Wuppertal Paper analyses the energy transition models of Colombia and Germany. The emphasis of the exercise is on an analysis of options for the complete decarbonization of the energy system in Colombia as a Global South country. To this end, it analyses the current situation, projections, public policy and narratives, and contrasts it with Germany as one of the countries of the Global North with which Colombia has historically maintained energy trade relations and is currently collaborating in the exploration of energy alternatives for decarbonization.
Detailed analysis of sectoral energy consumption in Colombia shows the sectors with the highest fossil energy consumption (in this order): transport (fuels), industry (gas, coal), electricity generation (gas, coal) and residential (gas). We show the projected increase in demand for fuels and electricity, and calculate the amount of electricity theoretically needed to substitute fossil sources in each sector. We estimate the total electricity required for decarbonization via sector coupling and derive a first estimation of the range of additional renewable energy capacities needed to supply this demand. We find that required capacities are expectedly large (56-110 GW), depending on decarbonization pathways, and that export capacity beyond national demand may be limited.
Our analysis of the policy and scenario arena in both countries finds that Colombia is still lacking both sector-specific decarbonization strategies and an embedding in a systemic vision of a systemic energy transition. Germany has more advanced sector strategies and (national) systemic visions, but lacks embedding assumptions on energy imports in a global-system analysis, i.e. in the analysis of an energy transition in potential exporting countries like Colombia. We formulate requirements to close these gaps in our conclusions.
"400,000 new homes per year are needed in German cities." This figure has been cited repeatedly in political discussions, media, and statements of different groups for a couple of years now. Living space is needed to mitigate the (further) inordinate increase of rents in some cities and regions and to ease finding appropriate flats at affordable prices for low- and medium-income households. But how to activate investors and the real estate market?
Having the triangle of sustainability in mind with its ecologic, social and economic cornerstones the discussion - metaphorically spoken - currently pulls the three corners: Which should have the highest priority?
The economically driven most favourable solution is lowering the requirements for new buildings such as the energy performance to make building cheaper. The social perspective prefers an increase of public social housing investments regardless of efficiency standards. And the ecological side argues that a high performance is needed to reach energy and climate targets in the buildings sector.
Starting at this point of discussion, firstly, the paper reflects the assumptions behind the numbers of new homes needed against a sufficiency background.
Secondly, it presents current changes in German building policies: a new legislation for energy supply and efficiency is currently in preparation.
It discusses the potential to integrate sufficiency aspects in building policies, focussing specifically on the new regulation, financial incentives, and energy advice.
The paper analyses if and to what extent it is likely to balance the three cornerstones of sustainability by integrating sufficiency aspects into efficiency policies. Household experiences with prepayment meters are used as an example to illustrate the potential for tapping efficiency and sufficiency potentials in low-income households considering social, economic, and ecological aspects. Based on the identified (in)consistencies, thirdly, it suggests further development in German policies to make better use of synergies between the ecologic, social and economic demands on buildings.