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.
Energy sufficiency has recently gained increasing attention as a way to limit and reduce total energy consumption of households and overall. This paper presents both the partly new methods and the results of a comprehensive analysis of a micro- and meso-level energy sufficiency policy package to make electricity use in the home more sufficient and reduce at least the growth in per-capita dwelling size. The objective is to find out how policy can support households and their members, as individuals or as caregivers, but also manufacturers and local authorities in practicing energy sufficiency. This analysis needed an adapted and partly new set of methods we developed. Energy sufficiency does not only face barriers like energy efficiency, but also potential restrictions for certain household members or characteristics, and sometimes, preconditions have to be met to make more energy-sufficient routines and practices possible. All of this was analysed in detail to derive recommendations for which policy instruments need to be combined to an effective policy package for energy sufficiency. Energy efficiency and energy sufficiency should not be seen as opposed to each other but work in the same direction - saving energy. Therefore, some energy sufficiency policy instruments may be the same as for energy efficiency, such as energy pricing policies. Some may simply adapt technology-specific energy efficiency policy instruments. Examples include progressive appliance efficiency standards, standards based on absolute consumption, or providing energy advice. However, sufficiency may also require new policy approaches. They may range from promotion of completely different services for food and clothes cleaning, to instruments for limiting average dwelling floor area per person, or to a cap-and-trade system for the total electricity sales of a supplier to its customers, instead of an energy efficiency obligation.
Energiesuffizienz ist neben Energieeffizienz ein zweiter Weg, den Energieverbrauch zu reduzieren. Während Energieeffizienz bei unverändertem Nutzen den Energieinput senkt, ist Energiesuffizienz eine Strategie mit dem Ziel, die Menge an technisch bereitgestellter Energie durch Veränderungen der Quantität oder Qualität des Nutzens aus Energie auf ein nachhaltiges Maß zu begrenzen oder zu reduzieren. Das kann durch Reduktion, Substitution oder Anpassung des Nutzens an den Bedarf im Alltag geschehen. Viele Haushalte praktizieren schon Energiesuffizienz, aber die Hemmnisse für eine stärkere Nutzung sind groß. Auch die Energiesuffizienz im Haushalt benötigt daher eine Flankierung durch die Politik. Im BMBF-Projekt "Energiesuffizienz" wurde daher erstmals eine integrierte Energiesuffizienzpolitik untersucht, die insbesondere den Stromverbrauch in den privaten Haushalten adressiert.
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.
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.