energy efficiency potentials in cee buildings: how can we harvest them?
DESCRIPTION
Energy Efficiency Potentials in CEE buildings: How can we harvest them?. Diana Ü rge-Vorsatz Director 8th Inter-Parliamentary Meeting on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. Outline. Buildings in CEE: EU’s goldmine Energy efficiency potentials Co-benefits - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Energy Efficiency Potentials in CEE buildings:
How can we harvest them?
Diana Ürge-VorsatzDirector
8th Inter-Parliamentary Meeting
on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
3CSEP
OutlineBuildings in CEE: EU’s goldmine
Energy efficiency potentialsCo-benefits
GHG mitigation policy opportunities in buildings: the other goldmine
Why it is difficult to harvest the gold: challenges in CEE
Selected solutions: recommendations
Buildings in CEE: EU’s goldmine
EU buildings – a goldmine for CO2 reductions, energy security, job creation and
addressing low income population problems
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Before SOLANOVA
kWh
/m2a
Renewable Energy
Fossile Energy
-84%
Source: Claude Turmes, MEP, presented at the Amsterdam Forum, 2006
3CSEP
Estimated potential for GHG mitigation at a sectoral level in 2030 in different cost
categories , transition economies
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Buidlings Industry Agriculture Energy supply Forestry Waste Transport
Gton CO2eq.
<20 <0 0-20 20-100
Cost categories* (US$/tCO2eq)
* For the buildings, forestry, waste and transport sectors, the potential is split into three cost categories: at net negative costs, at 0-20US$/tCO2, and 20-100 US$/tCO2. For the industrial, forestry, and energy suppy sectors, the potential is split into two categories: at costsbelow 20 US$/tCO2 and at 20-100 US$/tCO2.
Source: CEU research for IPCC AR4, Ch6
Investment needs to unlock building efficiency potentials in Hungary, versus saved energy costs
Cost categories of CO2
mitigation costs, EUR/tCO2
Cumulative CO2
mitigation potential
Investments over 2008-2025, billion
EUR
Saved energy costs 2008 – 2025,
billion EUR
Baseline share
Million tCO2/yr. Total
By cost category
Total By cost category
< 0 29.4% 5.1 9.6 9.6 17.1 17.1
0 – 20 33.4% 5.8 13.6 3.9 19.0 1.8
20-50 35.3% 6.1 15.0 1.4 19.8 0.8
20 – 100 41.6% 7.2 18.1 3.1 21.9 2.1
>100 50.5% 8.7 29.0 10.9 25.7 3.8
Source: Novikova 2008, Novikova and Urge-Vorsatz, KVVM report, 2007
3CSEP
Co-benefits of improved energy efficiency in CEE
buildings (selection)
Co-benefits are often not quantified, monetized, or identified
Overall value of co-benefits may be higher than value of energy savings
A wide range of co-benefits, including: Improved social welfare
Energy-efficient household equipment and low-energy building design helps households cope with increasing energy tariffs
Fuel poverty: In the UK, about 20% of all households live in fuel poverty. The number of annual excess winter deaths is estimated at around 40 thousand annually in the UK alone.
3CSEP
Fuel poverty in Hungary Share of energy spending in total household
expenditures
0 5 10 15 20 25
2003
2020
Household energy expenditures, % of total household expenditures
Income decile 10 (richest)Income decile 9Income decile 8Income decile 7Income decile 6Income decile 5Income decile 4Income decile 3Income decile 2Income decile 1 (poorest)Total
Calculated based on Eurostat (2008), LABORSTA (2007), Commission of the European Communities, (2008)
3CSEP
The key co-benefits for new EU MSs (continued)
Employment creation “producing” energy through energy efficiency or renewables is more
employment intensive than through traditional ways a 20% reduction in EU energy consumption by 2020 can potentially create 1
mln new jobs in Europe new business opportunities
for developed countries a market opportunity of € 5–10 billion in energy service markets in Europe
Increased comfort E.g. Solanova project, Hu: noise reduction, sing. Reduction in indoor
pollution –> reduced need for cleaning and improved health; property values increased
Reduced energy costs will make businesses more competitive Others:
Improved energy security, reduced burden of constrained generation capacities, Increased value for real estate, Improved energy services (lighting, thermal comfort, etc) can improve productivity, Improved outdoor air quality
Policies to foster GHG mitigation in buildings
3CSEP
Policy
instrument
Country examples
Effec-tiveness
Energy or emission reductions for selected best practices
Cost-effectiveness
Cost of GHG emission reduction for selected best practices
Appliance standards
EU, US, JP, AUS, Br, Cn
High
Jp: 31 M tCO2 in 2010;
Cn: 250 Mt CO2 in 10 yrs
US: 1990-1997: 108 Mt CO2eq, in 2000: 65MtCO2 = 2.5% of el.use,
Can: 8 MtCO2 in total by 2010,
Br: 0.38 MtCO2/year
AUS: 7.9 MtCO2 by 2010
High
AUS: -52 $/tCO2 in
2020,US: -65 $/tCO2 in 2020;
EU: -194 $/tCO2 in
2020Mar: 0.008 $/kWh
Building codes
SG, Phil, Alg, Egy, US, UK, Cn, EU
High
HkG: 1% of total el.saved;US: 79.6 M tCO2 in 2000;
EU: 35-45 MtCO2, up to 60% savings for new
bdgsUK: 2.88 MtCO2 by 2010, 7% less en use in
houses 14% with grants& labellingCn: 15-20% of energy saved in urban regions
Medium
NL: from -189 $/tCO2 to
-5 $/tCO2 for end-users,
46-109 $/tCO2 for
Society
Procurement regulations
US, EU, Cn, Mex, Kor, Jp
High
Mex: 4 cities saved 3.3 ktCO2eq. in 1year
Ch: 3.6Mt CO2 expected
EU: 20-44MtCO2 potential
US:9-31Mt CO2 in 2010
High/ Medium
Mex: $1Million in purchases saves $726,000/year; EU: <21$/tCO2
Energy efficiency obligations and quotas
UK, Be, Fr, I, Dk, Ir
High UK: 2.6 M tCO2/yr High
Flanders: -216$/tCO2
for households, -60 $/tCO2 for other sector
in 2003.UK: -139 $ /tCO2
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments Part 1: Control and regulatory mechanisms- normative instruments
3CSEP
Policy
instrumentCountry examples
Effec-tiveness
Energy or emission reductions for selected best practices
Cost-effectiveness
Cost of GHG emission reduction for selected best practices
Mandatory labelling and certification programs
US, Jp, CAN, Cn, AUS, Cr, EU, Mex, SA
High
AUS: 5 Mt CO2 savings 1992-
2000, 81Mt CO2 2000-2015,
SA: 480kt/yrDk: 3.568Mt CO2
High AUS:-30$/t CO2 abated
Mandatory audit programs
US; Fr,
NZL,
Egy,
AUS, Cz
High,variable
US: Weatherisation program: 22% saved in weatherized households after audits (30%according to IEA)
Medium/High
US Weatherisationprogram: BC-ratio:2.4
Utility demand-side management programs
US, Sw, Dk, Nl, De, Aut
High
US : 36.7 MtCO2in 2000,Jamaica: 13 GWh/ year,4.9% less el use = 10.8 ktCO2Dk: 0.8 MtCO2Tha: 5.2 % of annual el sales 1996-2006
High
EU: - 255$/tCO2Dk: -209.3 $/tCO2US: Average costsapp. -35 $/tCO2Tha: 0.013 $/kWh
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments Part 2: Regulatory- informative instruments
3CSEP
Policy
instrumentCountry examples
Effec-tiveness
Energy or emission reductions for selected best practices
Cost-effectiveness
Cost of GHG emission reduction for selected best practices
Energy
performance
contracting/ ESCO support
De, Aut,Fr, Swe,Fi, US,Jp, Hu
High
Fr, S, US, Fi: 20-40% ofbuildings energy saved;EU:40-55MtCO2 by 2010
US: 3.2 MtCO2/yr
Cn: 34 MtCO2
Medium/ High
EU: mostly at no cost,
rest at <22$/tCO2;
US: Public sector:
B/C ratio 1.6,
Priv. sector: 2.1
Cooperative/
technology
procurement
De, It, Sk,
UK, Swe,
Aut, Ir,
US,Jp
High/Medium
US: 96 ktCO2
German telecom company:
up to 60% energy savings
for specific units
Medium/High
US: - 118 $/ tCO2
Swe: 0.11$/kWh
(BELOK)
Energy efficiency certificate schemes
It, Fr High
I: 1.3 MtCO2 in 2006,
3.64 Mt CO2 eq by 2009
expectedHigh
Fr: 0.011 $/tCO2
estimated
Kyoto Protocol flexible mechanisms
Cn, Tha, CEE (JI &AIJ)
Low
CEE: 220 K tCO2 in 2000
Estonia: 3.8-4.6 kt CO2 (3
projects)
Latvia: 830-1430 tCO2
Low
CEE: 63 $/tCO2
Estonia: 41-57$/tCO2
Latvia: -10$/tCO2
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments Part 3: Economic and market-based instruments
3CSEP
Policy
instrumentCountry examples
Effec-tiveness
Energy or emission reductions for selected best practices
Cost-effectiveness
Cost of GHG emission reduction for selected best practices
Taxation (on CO2 or household fuels)
Nor, De UK, NL, Dk, Sw
Low/Medium
De: household consumptionreduced by 0.9 % 2003: 1.5 MtCO2 in totalNor: 0.1-0.5% 1987-1991NL:0.5-0.7 MtCO2 in 2000Swe: 5% 1991-2005, 3MtCO2
Low
Tax exemptions/ reductions
US, Fr, Nl, Kor
HighUS: 88 MtCO2 in 2006FR: 1Mt CO2 in 2002
High
US: B/C ratio commercialbuildings: 5.4New homes: 1.6
Public benefit charges
BE, Dk, Fr, Nl, US states
Medium/ Low
US: 0.1-0.8% of total el. sales saved /yr, 1.3 ktCO2 savings in 12 statesNL: 7.4TWh in 1996 = 2.5 MtCO2Br: 1954 GWh
High in reported cases
US: From -53$/tCO2
to - 17$/tCO2
Capital subsidies, grants, subsidised loans
Jp, Svn, NL, De, Sw, US, Cn, UK, Ro
High/Medium
Svn: up to 24% energy savings for buildings,
BR: 169ktCO2
UK: 6.48 MtCO2 /year, 100.8 MtCO2 in total
Ro: 126 ktCO2/yr
Low sometimes High
Dk: – 20$/ tCO2
UK:29$/tCO2 for soc,
NL: 41-105$/tCO2 for
society
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments Part 4: Fiscal instruments and incentives
3CSEP
Policy
instrumentCountry examples
Effec-tiveness
Energy or emission reductions for selected best practices
Cost-effectiveness
Cost of GHG emission reduction for selected best practices
Awareness, education, information
Dk, US,
UK, Fr,
CAN, Br,
Jp, Swe
Low/ Medium
UK: 10.4ktCO2 annually
Arg: 25% in 04/05, 355 ktep
Fr: 40tCO2/ year
Br: 2.23kt/yr, 6.5-12.2
MtCO2/ year with voluntary
labeling 1986-2005
Swe: 3ktCO2/ year
Medium/ High
Br: -66$/tCO2;
UK: 8$/tCO2
(for all
programs of Energy
Trust)/
Swe: 0.018$/kWh
Detailed billing & disclosure programs
Ontario,
It, Swe,
Fin, Jp,
Nor, Aus,
Cal, Can
Medium
Max.20% energy savings
in households concerned,
usually app. 5-10% savings
UK: 3%
Nor: 8-10 %
Medium
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments Part 5: Support, information and voluntary action (cont.)
Country name abbreviations: Alg - Algeria, Arg- Argentina, AUS - Australia, Aut - Austria, Be - Belgium, Br - Brazil, Cal - California, Can - Canada, CEE - Central and Eastern Europe, Cn - China, Cr - Costa Rica, Cz - Czech Republic, De - Germany, Ecu - Ecuador, Egy - Egypt, EU - European Union, Fin - Finland, GB-Great Britain, Hkg -Hong Kong, Hu - Hungary, Ind - India, Irl - Ireland, It - Italy, JP - Japan, Kor - Korea (South), Mar- Morocco, Mex - Mexiko, NL - Netherlands, Nor - Norway, Nzl – New Zealand, Phil - Philippines, Pol - Poland, Ro- Romania, SA- South Africa, SG - Singapore, Sk - Slovakia, Svn - Slovenia, Sw - Switzerland, Swe - Sweden, Tha - Thailand, US - United States.
3CSEP
Why it is difficult to harvest the gold: CEE challenges to harvesting the potentials
While cost-effective, long payback times Substantial capital investment needs
But very limited liquidity of population and institutions
Perverse govt incentives (eg procurement, support schemes)
Millions of stakeholders to be mobilised Huge transaction costs Markets, businesses, experts and and public
awareness not ready others
3CSEP
Recommendations:selected policy options to be considered
What not: direct price subsidies; caution with investment subsidies
Exemplary role of the public sector: leadership programs E.g. German and Austrian govt commitments
PPP solutions to be preferred E.g. ESCO arrangements in Germany
Establishing the financial markets that are motivated in lending for efficiency (if no crisis…)
Mandatory low-E (~passive bldg) standards for social housing (perhaps all publicly financed bldgs?)
Preferential mortgage schemes for low-E housing&offices “feebate” schemes in mortgages
Green Investment Schemes – huge opportunity; Hungary front-runner
3CSEP
Thank you for your attention
Diana Ürge-VorsatzCenter for Climate
Change and Sustainable Energy Policy (3CSEP)
CEU
3csep.ceu.hu
They keep promising this global warming, they keep promising – but trust me, they won’t keep this promise either!
With permission from HVG
Acknowledgements: authors of Chapter 6
Coordinating Lead Authors: Mark Levine (USA), Diana Ürge-Vorsatz (Hungary)
Lead Authors: Kornelis Blok (The Netherlands), Luis Geng (Peru), Danny Harvey
(Canada), Siwei Lang (China), Geoffrey Levermore (UK), Anthony Mongameli Mehlwana (South Africa), Sevastian Mirasgedis (Greece), Aleksandra Novikova (Russia), Jacques Rilling (France), Hiroshi Yoshino (Japan)
Contributing Authors: Paolo Bertoldi (Italy), Brenda Boardman (UK), Marilyn Brown (USA),
Suzanne Joosen (The Netherlands), Phillipe Haves (USA), Jeff Harris (USA), Mithra Moezzi (USA)
Review Editors: Eberhard Jochem (Germany), Huaqing Xu (PR China)
Supplementary slides
3CSEP
Sectoral CO2 emissions projected in the reference case, 2008 - 2025
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Million tonnes CO2
Space heating, buildings constructed using industrialized technology
Space heating, traditional multi-residential buildings
Space heating, old single-family houses (constructed before 1992)
Water heating (including electric)
Space heating, buildings constructed in 1993 - 2008 Space heating, buildings constructed from 2008
Cooking (non-electric)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Million tonnes CO2
Space heating, buildings constructed using industrialized technology
Space heating, traditional multi-residential buildings
Space heating, old single-family houses (constructed before 1992)
Water heating (including electric)
Space heating, buildings constructed in 1993 - 2008 Space heating, buildings constructed from 2008
Appliances (including electric cooking) and lighting
3CSEP
If so attractive, why is it not happening?
The market barriers to energy-efficiency are perhaps the most numerous and strongest in the buildings sector
These include:imperfect informationLimitations of the traditional building design processEnergy subsidies, non-payment and energy theftMisplaced incentives (agent/principal barrier)Small project size, high transaction costsothers
3CSEP
Conclusion Climate change is unequivocal Stabilisation is possible, but requires major reductions in
emissions, as much 50 – 85% of 2000 emissions by 2050 Improved energy-efficiency could contribute the largest share in
our mitigation task in the short- and mid-term Capturing the economic potential in buildings alone can contribute
app. 38% of reduction needs in 2030 for a 3˚C-capped emission trajectory
While HPs can play an important role, many factors determine the net climate impact of heat-pumps vs. the alternatives, the LCCP potential of the refrigerants also needs to be considered.
In addition to climate change benefits, improved energy-efficiency can advance several development goals as well as strategic economic targets
However, each new building (HVAC system) constructed in an energy-wasting manner will lock us into high climate-footprint future buildings for decades (centuries?) to come – action now is important
3CSEP
Typical lifetime of capital stock Structures with influence > 100 years
less than 30 years 30-60 years 60-100 years
Domestic appliancesWater heating and HVAC systemsLightingVehicles
AgricultureMiningConstructionFoodPaperBulk chemicalsPrimary aluminiumOther manufacturing
Glass manufacturingCement manufacturingSteel manufacturingMetals-based durables
RoadsUrban infrastructureSome buildings
Early investment are important
Table 11.17: Observed and estimated lifetimes of major GHG-related capital stock
3CSEP
Mitigation in the buildings sector: global significance
Capturing only the cost-effective potential in buildings can supply app. 38% of total reduction needed in 2030 to keep us on a trajectory capping warming at 3˚C
New buildings can achieve the largest savings As much as 80% of the operational costs of standard new buildings can
be saved through integrated design principles Often at no or little extra cost Hi-efficiency renovation is more costly, but possible
The majority of technologies and know-how are widely available A large share of these options have “negative costs” – i.e.
represent profitable investment opportunities
3CSEP
Supply curves of conserved CO2 for buildings in 2020 for different world regions
Source: Figure 6/4. Notes: a) Except for the UK, Thailand and Greece, for which the supply curves are for the residential sector only. b) Except for EU-15 and Greece, for which the target year is 2010 and Hungary, for which the target year is 2030. Each step on the curve represents a type of measure, such as improved lighting or added insulation. The length of a step on the ‘X’ axis shows the abatement potential represented by the measure, while the cost of themeasure is indicated by the value of the step on the ‘Y’ axis.
3CSEP
Although EE is often profitable, investments are hindered by barriers
Although there are large cost-effective investments to be made, market barriers often hinder that they are captured by market forces Including misplaced incentives, distorted energy price/tax
regimes, fragmented industry and building design process, limited access to financing, lack of information and awareness (of the benefits), regulatory failures, etc.
These barriers are perhaps the most numerous and strongest in the buildings sector
Therefore, strong policies are needed to overcome them to kick-start and catalise markets in capturing the potentially cost-effective investments
3CSEP
Background: case studies reviewed
Over 80 ex-ante policy evaluation studies were reviewed from over 52 countries
3CSEP
Conclusion Improved energy-efficiency could contribute the largest share in our
mitigation task in the short- and mid-term Capturing the economic potential in buildings alone can contribute
app. 38% of reduction needs in 2030 for a 3˚C-capped emission trajectory
In addition to climate change benefits, improved energy-efficiency can advance several development goals as well as strategic economic targets E.g. improving social welfare, employment, energy security
However, due to the numerous barriers public policies are needed to unlock the potentials and to kick-start or catalise markets
Several instruments have already been achieving large emission reductions at large net societal benefits, often at double or triple negative digit cost figures all over the world
However, each new building constructed in an energy-wasting manner will lock us into high climate-footprint future buildings – action now is important
3CSEP
Why is immediate action important?
3CSEP
Sectoral economic potential for global mitigation for different regions as a function
of carbon price, 2030
IPCC AR4 WGIII Figure SPM.6.
3CSEP
Supply curve of CO2 mitigation in the Hungarian residential sector, 2025
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
thousand tons CO 2
EUR/tCO 2
Lights
Standby
Water saving fixtures
Freezers
Window exchange
Thermostats
Condensing central building gas boilers
Wall insulation
TRVs
Passive energy design
Base
Roof insulation
Clothes washing Refrigerators
Water heating systems
Pellet boilers
Heat pumps
…Roof insulation…Weather stripping of windows…Base insulation...Individual metering of heat…Condensing gas dwelling boilers
Condensing central dwelling gas boilers
Solar thermal backed-up with pellet boilers
Window exchangeBase
Wall insulation
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
thousand tons CO 2
EUR/tCO 2
Lights
Standby
Water saving fixtures
Freezers
Window exchange
Thermostats
Condensing central building gas boilers
Wall insulation
TRVs
Passive energy design
Base
Roof insulation
Clothes washing Refrigerators
Water heating systems
Pellet boilers
Heat pumps
…Roof insulation…Weather stripping of windows…Base insulation...Individual metering of heat…Condensing gas dwelling boilers
Condensing central dwelling gas boilers
Solar thermal backed-up with pellet boilers
Window exchangeBase
Wall insulation
App. 29.4% of baseline CO 2 emissions
Source: Novikova 2008, Novikova and Urge-Vorsatz, KVVM report, 2007
Policies to foster GHG mitigation in buildings
3CSEP
Policy
instrument
Country examples
Effec-tiveness
Energy or emission reductions for selected best practices
Cost-effectiveness
Cost of GHG emission reduction for selected best practices
Appliance standards
EU, US, JP, AUS, Br, Cn
High
Jp: 31 M tCO2 in 2010;
Cn: 250 Mt CO2 in 10 yrs
US: 1990-1997: 108 Mt CO2eq, in 2000: 65MtCO2 = 2.5% of el.use,
Can: 8 MtCO2 in total by 2010,
Br: 0.38 MtCO2/year
AUS: 7.9 MtCO2 by 2010
High
AUS: -52 $/tCO2 in
2020,US: -65 $/tCO2 in 2020;
EU: -194 $/tCO2 in
2020Mar: 0.008 $/kWh
Building codes
SG, Phil, Alg, Egy, US, UK, Cn, EU
High
HkG: 1% of total el.saved;US: 79.6 M tCO2 in 2000;
EU: 35-45 MtCO2, up to 60% savings for new
bdgsUK: 2.88 MtCO2 by 2010, 7% less en use in
houses 14% with grants& labellingCn: 15-20% of energy saved in urban regions
Medium
NL: from -189 $/tCO2 to
-5 $/tCO2 for end-users,
46-109 $/tCO2 for
Society
Procurement regulations
US, EU, Cn, Mex, Kor, Jp
High
Mex: 4 cities saved 3.3 ktCO2eq. in 1year
Ch: 3.6Mt CO2 expected
EU: 20-44MtCO2 potential
US:9-31Mt CO2 in 2010
High/ Medium
Mex: $1Million in purchases saves $726,000/year; EU: <21$/tCO2
Energy efficiency obligations and quotas
UK, Be, Fr, I, Dk, Ir
High UK: 2.6 M tCO2/yr High
Flanders: -216$/tCO2
for households, -60 $/tCO2 for other sector
in 2003.UK: -139 $ /tCO2
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments Part 1: Control and regulatory mechanisms- normative instruments
3CSEP
Policy
instrumentCountry examples
Effec-tiveness
Energy or emission reductions for selected best practices
Cost-effectiveness
Cost of GHG emission reduction for selected best practices
Mandatory labelling and certification programs
US, Jp, CAN, Cn, AUS, Cr, EU, Mex, SA
High
AUS: 5 Mt CO2 savings 1992-
2000, 81Mt CO2 2000-2015,
SA: 480kt/yrDk: 3.568Mt CO2
High AUS:-30$/t CO2 abated
Mandatory audit programs
US; Fr,
NZL,
Egy,
AUS, Cz
High,variable
US: Weatherisation program: 22% saved in weatherized households after audits (30%according to IEA)
Medium/High
US Weatherisationprogram: BC-ratio:2.4
Utility demand-side management programs
US, Sw, Dk, Nl, De, Aut
High
US : 36.7 MtCO2in 2000,Jamaica: 13 GWh/ year,4.9% less el use = 10.8 ktCO2Dk: 0.8 MtCO2Tha: 5.2 % of annual el sales 1996-2006
High
EU: - 255$/tCO2Dk: -209.3 $/tCO2US: Average costsapp. -35 $/tCO2Tha: 0.013 $/kWh
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments Part 2: Regulatory- informative instruments
3CSEP
Policy
instrumentCountry examples
Effec-tiveness
Energy or emission reductions for selected best practices
Cost-effectiveness
Cost of GHG emission reduction for selected best practices
Energy
performance
contracting/ ESCO support
De, Aut,Fr, Swe,Fi, US,Jp, Hu
High
Fr, S, US, Fi: 20-40% ofbuildings energy saved;EU:40-55MtCO2 by 2010
US: 3.2 MtCO2/yr
Cn: 34 MtCO2
Medium/ High
EU: mostly at no cost,
rest at <22$/tCO2;
US: Public sector:
B/C ratio 1.6,
Priv. sector: 2.1
Cooperative/
technology
procurement
De, It, Sk,
UK, Swe,
Aut, Ir,
US,Jp
High/Medium
US: 96 ktCO2
German telecom company:
up to 60% energy savings
for specific units
Medium/High
US: - 118 $/ tCO2
Swe: 0.11$/kWh
(BELOK)
Energy efficiency certificate schemes
It, Fr High
I: 1.3 MtCO2 in 2006,
3.64 Mt CO2 eq by 2009
expectedHigh
Fr: 0.011 $/tCO2
estimated
Kyoto Protocol flexible mechanisms
Cn, Tha, CEE (JI &AIJ)
Low
CEE: 220 K tCO2 in 2000
Estonia: 3.8-4.6 kt CO2 (3
projects)
Latvia: 830-1430 tCO2
Low
CEE: 63 $/tCO2
Estonia: 41-57$/tCO2
Latvia: -10$/tCO2
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments Part 3: Economic and market-based instruments
3CSEP
Policy
instrumentCountry examples
Effec-tiveness
Energy or emission reductions for selected best practices
Cost-effectiveness
Cost of GHG emission reduction for selected best practices
Taxation (on CO2 or household fuels)
Nor, De UK, NL, Dk, Sw
Low/Medium
De: household consumptionreduced by 0.9 % 2003: 1.5 MtCO2 in totalNor: 0.1-0.5% 1987-1991NL:0.5-0.7 MtCO2 in 2000Swe: 5% 1991-2005, 3MtCO2
Low
Tax exemptions/ reductions
US, Fr, Nl, Kor
HighUS: 88 MtCO2 in 2006FR: 1Mt CO2 in 2002
High
US: B/C ratio commercialbuildings: 5.4New homes: 1.6
Public benefit charges
BE, Dk, Fr, Nl, US states
Medium/ Low
US: 0.1-0.8% of total el. sales saved /yr, 1.3 ktCO2 savings in 12 statesNL: 7.4TWh in 1996 = 2.5 MtCO2Br: 1954 GWh
High in reported cases
US: From -53$/tCO2
to - 17$/tCO2
Capital subsidies, grants, subsidised loans
Jp, Svn, NL, De, Sw, US, Cn, UK, Ro
High/Medium
Svn: up to 24% energy savings for buildings,
BR: 169ktCO2
UK: 6.48 MtCO2 /year, 100.8 MtCO2 in total
Ro: 126 ktCO2/yr
Low sometimes High
Dk: – 20$/ tCO2
UK:29$/tCO2 for soc,
NL: 41-105$/tCO2 for
society
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments Part 4: Fiscal instruments and incentives
3CSEP
Policy
instrumentCountry examples
Effec-tiveness
Energy or emission reductions for selected best practices
Cost-effectiveness
Cost of GHG emission reduction for selected best practices
Awareness, education, information
Dk, US,
UK, Fr,
CAN, Br,
Jp, Swe
Low/ Medium
UK: 10.4ktCO2 annually
Arg: 25% in 04/05, 355 ktep
Fr: 40tCO2/ year
Br: 2.23kt/yr, 6.5-12.2
MtCO2/ year with voluntary
labeling 1986-2005
Swe: 3ktCO2/ year
Medium/ High
Br: -66$/tCO2;
UK: 8$/tCO2
(for all
programs of Energy
Trust)/
Swe: 0.018$/kWh
Detailed billing & disclosure programs
Ontario,
It, Swe,
Fin, Jp,
Nor, Aus,
Cal, Can
Medium
Max.20% energy savings
in households concerned,
usually app. 5-10% savings
UK: 3%
Nor: 8-10 %
Medium
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments Part 5: Support, information and voluntary action (cont.)
Country name abbreviations: Alg - Algeria, Arg- Argentina, AUS - Australia, Aut - Austria, Be - Belgium, Br - Brazil, Cal - California, Can - Canada, CEE - Central and Eastern Europe, Cn - China, Cr - Costa Rica, Cz - Czech Republic, De - Germany, Ecu - Ecuador, Egy - Egypt, EU - European Union, Fin - Finland, GB-Great Britain, Hkg -Hong Kong, Hu - Hungary, Ind - India, Irl - Ireland, It - Italy, JP - Japan, Kor - Korea (South), Mar- Morocco, Mex - Mexiko, NL - Netherlands, Nor - Norway, Nzl – New Zealand, Phil - Philippines, Pol - Poland, Ro- Romania, SA- South Africa, SG - Singapore, Sk - Slovakia, Svn - Slovenia, Sw - Switzerland, Swe - Sweden, Tha - Thailand, US - United States.
3CSEP
Cumulative potential CO2 emission reductions in Hungarian residences, 2008 - 2025
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Million tonnes CO2
Space heating, old single-family houses (constructed before 1992)
Space heating, traditional multi-residential buildings
Space heating, buildings constructed using industialized technology
Space heating, buildings constructed after 2008
Electric appliances (inc. freezers, fridges, clothes
washers, LOPOMO of PC- and TV-related peripheries) and
lights
Water heating (including electric)
Source: Novikova 2008, Novikova and Urge-Vorsatz, KVVM report, 2007