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)
Expenditure-based indicators of energy poverty : an analysis of income and expenditure elasticities
(2021)
Energy poverty is high up on national and European Union policy agendas. A number of possible indicators to measure the issue have been identified in the literature, but comparable data with European coverage is scarce. The EU Commission thus proposes four independent indicators on the "EU Energy Poverty Observatory" based on self-reported items from the pan-European surveys on income and living conditions (SILC) and household budgets (HBS). It is of increasing public interest to analyse social impacts of energy policies, and quantify energy poverty indicators also from modelling. This paper first shortly outlines how the expenditure-based indicators using HBS micro data may be directly linked to existing macroeconomic models through their defining variables (energy expenditure and income). As endogenous modelling based on micro data is difficult, the link may be country-specific elasticities. The main contribution of the paper is a systematic in-depth sensitivity analysis of the two indicators to changes in income and energy expenditure following varying patterns in the underlying distributions of the micro data. The results may be used by future soft links to models. The results display sometimes counterintuitive effects. We find that whether these indicators increase/decrease after a change of income or energy expenditure largely depends on the specific country-wise income and energy expenditure distribution between households on a micro-level. Due to their definition, the examined indicators are especially sensitive, when income changes alter the indicator threshold values, which in these cases are the median values in underlying distributions. We discuss these findings and relate them to several indicator shortcomings and potential remedies through changes in indicator definition.
In der öffentlichen Diskussion rücken die Konsequenzen der notwenigen Klimaschutzmaßnahmen sowie damit verbundene Kosten in den Fokus und entfalten ihre Sprengkraft. Ökologische, ökonomische und soziale Nachhaltigkeit werden zunehmend gegeneinander in Stellung gebracht. Häufig wird Klimaschutz gegen Wohlstand, wirtschaftliche Entwicklung und Arbeitsplätze ausgespielt.
Mit der von der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung beim Wuppertal Institut in Auftrag gegebenen Studie entlarven die Autorinnen und Autoren "unheilige Allianzen", verbreitete Mythen und interessensgesteuerte Desinformation. Anhand von zehn konkreten Fragestellungen liefern sie eine faktenbasierte Analyse und zeigen, dass eine zukunftsorientierte Energie- und Klimapolitik im Einklang mit Wohlstand und sozialem Fortschritt sehr wohl möglich ist.
Any energy efficiency impact evaluation can be done from different analytical perspectives, e.g. the investor/end-user perspective, program administrator perspective or the societal perspective. COMBI applies the "societal perspective", as this is most relevant for policy-making. COMBI draws on a reference scenario until the year 2030 including existing (partially already ambitious) 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, that is comparable to the EUCO+33 to EUCO+35 scenario. This D2.7 quantification report summarises the quantification approaches applied in the COMBI project and main project findings. It therefore draws on other COMBI reports that contain this information in greater detail in order to summarise quantifications.
The report is structured in three main sections: 1. The COMBI approach and methods, explaining key methodological approaches both for individual impact quantifications and for the aggregation of impacts 2. Quantification results, giving an overview on main figures of quantified indicators and 3. Insights from cross-impact analysis, which gives a comparison between monetised impacts and presents their use for Cost-Benefit calculations in the COMBI online tool.
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.
Eine Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse ist ein bewährtes Mittel, um die Rentabilität einer Energieeffizienzmaßnahme zu bewerten: Die Investitionskosten werden mit den eingesparten Energiekosten verglichen. Investitionsentscheidungen für Energieeffizienzmaßnahmen erfolgen allerdings häufig nicht nach einer reinen Erwägung der direkten Kosten und Nutzen. Gründe hierfür sind unter anderem "versteckte" Kosten und Risiken (z. B. Kosten für die Beschaffung von Informationen, Unsicherheiten über zukünftige Energiepreise und Einsparungen), aber auch nicht-monetäre Hemmnisse, die bei Entscheidungen eine Rolle spielen (z. B. beschränkte Rationalität, Präferenzen, Zeitverfügbarkeit). Vor diesem Hintergrund verfolgt der Bericht das Ziel, ein besseres Verständnis der Kosten-Nutzen-Erwägungen von Investoren und deren Entscheidungswirklichkeit zu erlangen.
Die Untersuchung zeigt, dass Energieeffizienzdienstleistungen (EEDL) generell die versteckten Kosten - Transaktionskosten - reduzieren können. Das setzt aber voraus, dass EEDL sachgerecht durchgeführt werden. Transaktionskosten werden allerdings im Zusammenhang mit Energieeffizienzmaßnahmen von den Akteuren kaum wahrgenommen und entsprechend nicht quantifiziert. Des Weiteren zeigt sich, dass insbesondere bei Unternehmen die EEDL-Kosten für bestimmte Maßnahmen hoch sein können. Doch werden gerade in diesen Fällen die Transaktionskosten reduziert. Grundsätzlich erscheinen kostenaufwendigere EEDL, wie umfassendere Vor-Ort-Beratungen, im Gegensatz zu den preiswerteren Vor-Ort-Checks besser geeignet, um Transaktionskosten zu reduzieren.
In 2016, the European Commission presented the Clean Energy for all Europeans Package , comprising legislative proposals to facilitate the clean energy transition within the EU, such as the revised EPBD 2010/31/EU and EED 2012/27/EU.Besides putting energy efficiency first and achieving global leadership in renewable energy, a third goal of the package was to provide a "fair deal to consumers" with "no one left behind"., While in some Member States the issue of energy poverty already was on the political agenda, enabling affordable access to basic energy services for all households and thus reducing energy poverty is now an explicit policy target of the revised EU Directives.
In order to assess and monitor the extent of the issue across the EU and address it by suitable measures, the concept of energy poverty needs to be defined, operationalised and measured. The paper aims to investigate the role of energy poverty indicators for policy making. To do so, it provides an overview on existing measurement approaches.Furthermore, the paper presents the development and current state of energy poverty across the EU using a set of four complementary indicators used by the EU Energy Poverty Observatory. These consensual and expenditure-based indicators are calculated using data from the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions and the Household Budget Survey.
In addition, the paper highlights peculiarities of results on the different indicators, describes persisting issues with regard to their calculation and interpretation against the background of the underlying data base.
Based on the results of this analysis, further necessities of data collection and research are pointed out.
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.
Impact chains are used in many different fields of research to depict the various impacts of an activity and to visualize the system in which this activity is embedded. Research has not yet conceptualized impact chains specifically for energy sufficiency policies. We develop such a concept based on current evaluation approaches and extend these by adding qualitative elements such as success factors and barriers. Furthermore, we offer two case studies in which we test this concept with the responsible climate action managers. We also describe options for integrating these impact chains into different types of energy models, which are key tools in policy consulting.
Sufficiency measures are potentially decisive for the decarbonisation of energy systems but rarely considered in energy policy and modelling. Just as efficiency and renewable energies, the diffusion of demand-side solutions to climate change also relies on policy-making. Our extensive literature review of European and national sufficiency policies fills a gap in existing databases. We present almost 300 policy instruments clustered into relevant categories and publish them as "Energy Sufficiency Policy Database". This paper provides a description of the data clustering, the set-up of the database and an analysis of the policy instruments. A key insight is that sufficiency policy includes much more than bans of products or information tools leaving the responsibility to individuals. It is a comprehensive instrument mix of all policy types, not only enabling sufficiency action, but also reducing currently existing barriers. A policy database can serve as a good starting point for policy recommendations and modelling, further research is needed on barriers and demand-reduction potentials of sufficiency policy instruments.
On the pathway to climate neutrality, EU member states are obliged to submit national energy and climate plans (NECPs) with planned policies and measures for decarbonization until 2030 and long-term strategies (LTSs) for further decarbonization until 2050. We analysed the 27 NECPs and 15 LTSs submitted by October 2020 using an interrater method. This paper focuses on energy sufficiency policies and measures in the transport sector.
We found a total of 236 sufficiency policy measures with more than half of them (53 %) in the transport/mobility sector. Additionally, we found 41 measures that address two or more sectors (cross-sectoral measures). From the explicit sufficiency measures within the transport sector, 82 % aim at modal shift. A reduction of transport volumes is much less addressed. Countries plan to use mainly fiscal and economic instruments. Those are in many cases investments in infrastructure of low-carbon transport modes and taxation instruments. Plans on decarbonisation measures are also frequently mentioned. The majority of cross-sectoral measures are carbon taxes or tax reforms, also economic instruments.
On the one hand it is encouraging that Member States strongly emphasize the transport sector in their NECPs and LTSs - at least quantitatively and concerning sufficiency measures - because this sector has been the worst-performing in climate mitigation so far. On the other hand, the measures described seem not sufficient to reach ambitious climate targets, and we doubt that the presented set of policy instruments will get the transport sector on track to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in the necessary extent.