Refine
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Conference Object (59)
- Report (48)
- Peer-Reviewed Article (16)
- Working Paper (8)
- Part of a Book (7)
- Contribution to Periodical (2)
Language
- English (140) (remove)
The electric utility sector in Australia, Germany and the U.S. are all going through major changes driven by declining sales, increasing use of distributed energy sources and policy responses to global climate change. This paper discusses efforts in each of these countries to reform their electric industries, address climate change and promote energy efficiency. Going forward, we see a role for government, utilities and private market energy efficiency efforts in all three countries, although the emphasis will vary by country and will evolve over time. Where all three parties can work together with a common vision, reform efforts are likely to be more successful and more sustained. In all three countries the future is uncertain. In the face of this uncertainty, energy efficiency supporters need to keep abreast of these changes, and find more flexible and nimble policy strategies for energy efficiency to prosper, as the future is likely to unfold in unexpected ways.
Energy efficiency activities are high on the current EU energy policy agenda. Key policy instruments like the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED), the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) and the Energy Labelling Directive are under revision.
In a project for the German government, we therefore analysed the effectiveness and consistency of existing sectoral policy packages anew, to open the discussion on which policy changes to the EU's energy efficiency policy packages are crucial to reach the targets.
This comprehensive review addressed the industrial, buildings, and transport sectors plus the overarching governance framework (targets and roadmaps, EED, energy taxation and EU ETS). For each of these, the first step was a gap analysis of the main deficits in the sectoral policy packages, against effective model packages.
At first glance, the combination of energy efficiency policies at EU level seems already quite comprehensive. However, their design and implementation often lack a consistent and ambitious approach to leverage their full potential.
To give some examples of the many shortcomings identified, the governance framework suffers from exceptions and the transport sector being only marginally considered in the EED; an outdated Energy Tax Directive has very low minimum rates and several exception clauses; there is a lack of commitment to implement energy management systems and investment projects in large companies; a clear EU-wide definition of nearly zero energy buildings (nZEB) is missing; and the labelling of energy-using products is still confusing for consumers. Subsequently, we elaborated comprehensive policy recommendations to increase the effectiveness of all these policies, and to bridge some gaps with new policies. A list of priorities was established to sort them by their relevance.
Concretely defined targets are guiding policy efforts and the measures required to achieve national energy and low-carbon transformations in order to reach the maximum 2 degree climate change mitigation target agreed at the COP in Paris in 2015. Reducing energy consumption by harnessing the potential of energy efficiency, expanding the use of renewable energy resources, and transforming all sectors into low-energy and low-carbon structures is crucial. Among the G20 states, most states have set targets for renewable energies, energy efficiency, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. Yet, it seems that starting points and target units differ a lot between the G20, and hence comparability is difficult. This topical paper presents a synopsis on the current targets within the G20. The relative lack of energy efficiency targets shows that this pillar needs much greater efforts in current and future energy policy.
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.
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.