pdfco benefits

8/2/2019 PDFco Benefits

1/11

ECEEE 2009 SUMMER STUDY ACT! INNOVATE! DELIVER! REDUCING ENERGY DEMAND SUSTAINABLY 185

Counting good: quantiying theco-benefts o improved efciency in

buildingsDiana rge-VorsatCenter or Climate Change and Sustainable Energy PolicyCentral European University, [email protected]

Aleksandra NovikovaCenter or Climate Change and Sustainable Energy PolicyCentral European University, [email protected]

Maria SharminaDepartment o EconomicsCentral European University, [email protected]

Kywod

buildings, co-benets, non-energy benets, NEBs, cost bene-

t, energy eciency, greenhouse gas mitigation, energy policy,

climate policy

Atact

Many recent major studies, including the IPCCs Fourth As-

sessment Report, have attested that energy eciency is human-

itys prime option to combat climate change in the short- to

mid-term. Te potential to avoid CO2

emissions cost-eectively

has been reported to be signicant through eciency policies.

However, the review o global research ndings on the quanti-

cation o cost-eectiveness o opportunities through improved

eciency has highlighted that there is a major shortcoming in

the vast majority o such calculations. It is common that such

studies normally consider only direct costs in their assess-

ment. Whereas there have been several trans-national eorts to

quantiy external cost, external benets, or co-, ancillary- or

non-energy benets are rarely monetized and included in cost-

benet analyses. Since several studies have attested that these

benets oen amount to more than the direct energy benets,

the omission o these values severely distorts the results o such

assessments and, thereore, it is o utmost importance to con-

sider these or in global and national policy-making and target-

setting. Te aim o the present paper is to assist in laying the

oundations or this process, and demonstrates this on the case

o the building sector. Te paper reviews and synthesises the

granules o research in this eld. It rst provides a taxonomy

o co-benets, and then collates case studies ound in the pub-

lic domain in which certain co-benets have been monetized/quantied. Ten, the paper summarises the various method-

ologies applied or the quantication o these. Finally, it oers

equations on how dierent co-benets could be integrated

into a more holistic cost-benet and/or cost-eectiveness as-

sessment.

Itoductio

It has been long recognised that investment in energy eciency

and zero and low carbon technologies can yield a wide spec-

trum o benets beyond the value o saved energy and reduced

CO2

emissions (e.g., Wyon 1994, Mills et al. 1995, Mills and

Roseneld 1996, Menzies 1997). Tere are indications that such

non-energy and non-climate benets are especially large in the

buildings sector (IPCC 2007). Some studies suggest that the

total value o these non-energy benets may in act exceed the

direct energy benets in many cases related to improve build-

ing energy eciency (see, or instance, Kats 2006, Schweitzer

& onn 2002). However, such benets are rarely, i ever, in-

cluded in the cost-benet analysis1 and other approaches to en-

vironmental policy assessment2 o energy-eciency or climate

change mitigation options (IPCC 2007). Tis is a signicant

omission, since i such benets are incorporated into the CBA

this may substantially change the priority order o options or

the nancial viability o options considered.

Tereore, benets associated with CO2

emission mitigation

may play a crucial role in making GHG emission mitigation

1. Cost-beneft analysis precedes policy preparatory work, even i it is not a

direct monetary appraisal. For instance, when carbon mitigation or energy-

savings potentials are assessed, or carbon mitigation measures are ranked by

cost-efciency, a cost-beneft assessment is perormed. Thus here we reer to abroader group o appraisals than just a classical project-based CBA.

2. Other approaches to environmental valuation include, inter alia, Cost-Eec-tiveness Analysis and Incremental Cost Analysis.

Cott Kywod Autho
http://contents.pdf/http://keywords.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://keywords.pdf/http://contents.pdf/


2/11

1316 RGE-VORSATz ET AL

186 ECEEE 2009 SUMMER STUDY ACT! INNOVATE! DELIVER! REDUCING ENERGY DEMAND SUSTAINABLY

PANEL 1: THE FOUNDATIONS OF FUTURE ENERGY POLICIES

a higher priority i considered because they contribute to and

share the costs with other global and national aims. However,

as mentioned above, these benets are ofen not quantied,

monetized, or perhaps even identied by decision-makers and

other involved stakeholders.

Tereore, the aim o this paper is to contribute to the quan-

titative understanding o non-energy benets in relation to

improved energy-eciency in buildings, especially rom theperspective as they might infuence energy- and climate-related

decision-making. Te paper reviews the existing and publicly

available literature on the quantication o non-energy benets

o improved energy-eciency in buildings. It rst provides a

taxonomy o these benets, and then synthesises the available

case studies that have quantied non-energy benets or certain

energy-eciency improvements worldwide. Ten, it reviews

the existing methods used to quantiy dierent non-energy

benets, and proposes a method how these can be totalled.

Tyoogy o o-gy ft o CO2

mitigatio

i uidigTe literature distinguishes two types o non-energy benets

associated with energy-eciency improvement: co-benets

and ancillary benets. Te IPCC AR4 dened co-benets as the

benets o policies that are implemented or various reasons in-

cluding climate change mitigation as one o them (IPCC 2007).

Tese policies have equally or to some extent other objectives

than mitigation such as economic and social development, sus-

tainability, and equity. Te AR4 denes the ancillary benets as

side eects o policies aimed exclusively at CO2

emission miti-

gation3. For the purposes o this paper, we do not distinguish

between co- and ancillary benets, but aim to catalogue and

quantiy all non-energy benets.Te non-energy benets o CO

2emission mitigation are nu-

merous, and it is useul to identiy and classiy them beore

their detailed assessment. Most o the existing studies do not

give an explicit classication o these benets in the building

sector: typically the researchers ocus on selected country case

studies and list that/those co-benet(s) which seem(s) the most

important. However, there are a ew classications o benets

o CO2

emission reduction in general in the economy which

might be applied to classiy the benets rom CO2

emissions

in energy using sectors. For instance, Davis et al. (2000) sug-

gests the classication o the co-benets into three categories -

health, ecological, and economical co-benets dividing the last

category into the ancillary nancial impacts such as employ-

ment change, energy security, induced technological change,

and avoided costs. Te IPCC AR4 lists non-energy benets in

the buildings sector in a similar way adding improved social

welare and poverty alleviation (IPCC 2007). In able 1 we clas-

siy co-benets and ancillary benets o CO2

emission mitiga-

tion in the buildings sector. We would like to note, however,

3. The defnitions o co-benefts and ancillary benefts o GHG mitigation vary

in literature. For instance, according to the OECD workshop on the benefts o

climate policy (2000), co-benefts are signaling (monetized) eects that are taken

into consideration as an explicit (or intentional) part o the development o GHG

mitigation policies, and ancillary benefts indicate eects that are incidental tomitigation policies, i.e. not explicitly taken into account (Jochem and Madlener

2003). At the same time, some researchers do not dierentiate between these twoterms (Krupnick et al. 2000).

that our list is not exhaustive and there might be more benets

which are not included in our classication4.

Wodwid iw o th tudi quatifd th

imact o ft o GHG mitigatio ad gy

fcicy i uidig

Te authors identied over two dozen o pieces o research thatquantiy co-benets and ancillary benets o CO

2mitigation in

buildings. ypically these studies quantiy the physical impacts

o CO2

emission reduction in buildings and then monetize

them. able 2 presents the worldwide review o the studies; it

details the methodology they used and presents the results o

their calculations. Te table reviews impacts both in terms o

physical indicators as well as monetary ones. It is typically rec-

ommended to consider both o these, since the assumptions

that are used to translate physical benets into monetary ones,

such as the value o lie and health as well as comort, are oen

controversial and extremely variable by research method and

geographic location.

able 2 illustrates that dierent types o benets have been

examined to a dierent extent. Tus, the avoided morbidity and

mortality, the reduction o air pollution, and productivity gains

are intensively studied. Te authors were unable, though, to lo-

cate many pieces o research on quantication o such benets

as improved energy security, avoided costs due to increased

awareness, the induced technological exchange, and a ew oth-

ers.

Another act revealed by the review is that only a ew regions

concentrate and are the subject o research on CO2mitigation

benets. Tus, the USA was the subject o most o the studies,

ollowed by a ew countries o the European Union. Te eects

o benets o CO2 mitigation in the regions, where perhaps theywould attract the largest attention - developing countries and

transition economies, are poorly examined.

Te assessment o able 2, rst, attests that the benets o

GHG emission mitigation in the buildings sector are indeed

numerous or human health, environment, high quality serv-

ices or people. For instance, as Milton et al. (2000), Mendell et

al. (2002), Seiber (1996), Wyon (1994) calculated, advanced en-

ergy services and reduced emissions improve the physical and

mental state o human health. As Aunan et al. (2000), Samet et

al. (2000), and Clinch and Healy (1999) ound, these health e-

ects translate to reduction o the human mortality. Kats (2005)

and SBF (2001) estimated a signicant impact o improved

eciency in buildings through a reduction o construction and

demolition wastes as a part o green building initiative up to

99%, which makes the weatherized buildings not only energy

ecient but environmentally ecient in all respects. Further-

more, Schweitzer and onn (2000) revealed that eciency

improvement and emission reduction may provide a number

o services at a higher quality such as electricity and gas trans-

portation with ewer losses and leaks. able 2 shows that these

and other benets result in signicant nancial revenues (di-

rectly or in terms o saved costs). Milton et al. (2000), Aunan et

al. (2000), National Medical Expenditure Survey (1999), Katz

(2005, 2006), OConor (2004), Paladino and Company (2005),

4. The authors o this paper welcome reader comments along these lines.

Cott Kywod Autho
http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://contents.pdf/http://keywords.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://keywords.pdf/http://contents.pdf/


3/11




Ta 1. Tyoogy o ft o gy fcicy ad ditiutd gy u i th uidig cto ad ctd idicato o thi ottia

quatifcatio

Category Non-energy benefit subcategory Examples of concrete benefits, and potential indicators for its quantification

Reduced mortalityHigher employment, more working days due to reduced mortality. Mortality is reduced through improved indoor and

outdoor air pollution, and through reduced thermal stress in better buildings (hot and cold). Reduced morbidity

Avoided hospital admissions, medicines prescribed, restricted activity days, productivity loss. Morbidity is reduced

through the impacts above, as well as through better lighting, mold abatement, thoughtful ergonomics etc.Health effects

1

Reduced physiological effects Learning and productivity benefits due to better concentration, savings due to avoided sick building syndrome.

Reduction of indoor air pollution

Similar to reduced morbidity. Indoor air quality improves through the reduction of incompletely combusted fossil fuels

and biomass, through better ventilation that eliminates gaseous wastes and toxic fumes from buildings materials and

activities.

Reduction of outdoor air pollution

Similar to reduced morbidity but this category is broader including, for instance, avoided damage to building

constructions. Outdoor air pollution is brought down through reduced fossil fuel burning, the minimization of the heat

island effect in warm periods through reduced local energy consumption, etc.

Construction and demolition (C&D)

waste reduction benefits

Waste rate reduced due to such a vital part of green buildings initiative as C&D waste management that includes

carefully planned reduction, reusing, and recycling waste generated from building construction, renovation,

deconstruction, and demolition as defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Ecological

effects2

Increased urban vegetation In the case of green roofs and walls.

Lower energy prices3 Decrease in fuel and energy prices due to reduced energy demand driven by energy efficient measures

implemented.

Decreased energy bill payments Lower energy consumption, on average, results in decreased payments for consumed energy.

Higher lifetime earnings4

Higher salaries and, as a consequence, higher living standards.

New business opportunities New market niches for energy service companies (ESCOs) resulting in higher GDP growth.

Employment creation Reduced unemployment through hiring workers for ESCOs (as a consequence, reduced dole payments).

Rate subsidies avoided5 Decrease in the number of subsidized units of energy sold. In most developing countries energy for the population is

subsidized heavily. If energy is used more efficiently, substantial subsidies can be avoided.

Lower bad debt write-off6 A decrease in the average size of bad debt written off and a decline in the number of such accounts due to reduced

energy bills that become affordable for more households.

Enhanced ability to rent out or sell

energy-efficient space, higher price of

real estate.

Higher real estate and rental prices due to the fact that a weatherized unit becomes more appealing with regard to its

environmental and economic performance.

Improved energy security Reduced dependence on imported energy; reduced military spendings related to the securing of energy import

sources.

Avoided costs to support the human

health, working environment, and

building facilities7

Avoided costs of mortality, hospital admissions, medicines prescribed, restricted activity days, insurance costs,

productivity loss, building maintenance.

Economic

effects

Improved productivity GDP/income/profit generated as a consequence of new business opportunities and employment creation (see

above).

Transmission and distribution loss

reduction8

Lower energy consumption caused by energy efficiency measures results in a smaller amount of energy (e.g,

electricity, gas) transported to the household; hence the elimination of energy losses.

Fewer emergency (gas) service callsSaving staff time and resources necessary for attending the emergency calls due to installation newer and more

energy-efficient and reliable gas appliances.

Service

provision

benefits

Utilities insurance savings9

Decrease in the insurance costs of utility companies as a result of fewer gas leakages and faulty appliances

(Schweitzer and Tonn 2002).Improved social welfare and fuel

poverty alleviation10

Reduced expenditures on fuel and electricity; level of reduced fuel / electricity debt; changed number of inadequate

energy service level related damages such as excess winter (or summer) deaths.

Safety increase: fewer firesReduced number of fires and fire calls due to the renovation of HVAC heating, ventilation and air-conditioning

systems (fewer gas leaks, short circuits, etc.).

Increased comfortNormalizing of humidity and temperature indicators; air purity; reduced heat stress through reduced heat islands

(less local energy consumption and evapotranspiration from urban greenery in case of green walls and roofs)

Increased awareness

(Conscious) reductions in energy consumption resulting from installation of real-time pricing meters as a part of a

green building; higher demand for energy efficiency measures due to a possible keeping-up-with-the-Joneses

effect.

Increased political popularityPolitical leadership introducing wide-scale energy-efficiency measures benefiting the population have reportedly

gained popularity and votes

Social /

political

effects

Benefits to disadvantaged social

groups

With high-efficiency and clean cooking, African women and children can save the average of 8 km walking and

several hours a day that they spend on firewood collection (Goldemberg 2000). Instead, children can go to school or

women enter the workforce

Notes to Table 1:

1. May translate to economic savings and be classified in economic effects.

2. Some of indoor and outdoor air pollution effects could refer to health effects.

3. Indirect secondary impact from reduced overall market demand.

4. Better environmental conditions lead to the improved learning ability which, in its turn, is directly related to lifetime earnings.

5. Rate subsidies can be defined as lower, subsidized rates provided by utilities for their low-income customers (Schweitzer and Tonn 2002).

6. Writing off the portion of a bad debt which is not paid by customers to the utilities (Schweitzer and Tonn 2002).

7. The impacts could be partially also in health effects.8. As weatherization programs reduce the amount of consumed (and transmitted) energy, it results in transmission and distribution loss decrease.

9. Reducing gas leaks and repair of faulty appliances (as a part of weatherization programs) decreases the insurance costs of utility companies.

10. Fuel poverty is the inability to provide adequate levels of basic energy services such as heating (DSDNI 2008).

Cott Kywod Autho
http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://contents.pdf/http://keywords.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://keywords.pdf/http://contents.pdf/


4/11




Clinch and Healy (2001, 2003)), Schweitzer and onn (2002),

Fisk (1999, 2000a, 2000b) and other researchers monetized

non-energy benets in the range o several thousand to several

Million/Billion Euro per year in dierent countries that cor-

responds to as high as 0.003-0.029 percent o their national

GDP.

HeAlTH eeCTs

Perhaps the most important non-energy benet o providing

a more energy-ecient solution is the large number o lives

potentially saved through the provision o sae and energy-

ecient cooking (as sometimes heating and lighting) equip-

ment in developing countries or population segments not

having access to clean energy sources. Substituting traditional

biomass, charcoal, kerosene and wood burning with high e-

ciency electric and gas cooking stoves and electric lighting

makes a signicant improvement o in-house air quality and

reduces such household work as gathering rewood. Tis latter

is an important gender co-benet.

Health co-benets include avoided morbidity and mortality

as well as their inuence on productivity and, consequently, on

GDP growth. Tese eects have been intensively studied, which

can be explained by the interdisciplinary nature o the issue: it

is o utmost interest or both medical doctors and environmen-

talists as well as or economists.

Te statistics on the compliance o built environment to

standard specications does not usually include constructions

with less evident but important health related problems such as

inadequate ventilation (Kats 2005). However, the studies on the

correlation between indoor environment and health show that

better ventilation causes most environmental dissatisaction

variables to improve: e.g. according to Mendell et al. (2002),

the eeling o stuy air dropped by 5.3% with a reductiono concentration o the smallest airborne particles by 94%. In

monetary terms, or instance, Milton et al (2000) reported that

net savings o up to US$ 400/employee/yr. may be obtained

through the ventilation increase due to increased productiv-

ity.

Aunan et al. (2000), Samet et al. (2000), and Clinch and Hea-

ly (1999) translated health eects into the reduction o human

mortality. For example, in Ireland a total mortality benet o

a 10-year proposed energy-eciency program is estimated as

US$ 2 Billion undiscounted (Clinch and Healy 2000). It should

be noted that weatherization programs are particularly bene-

cial in the countries with poor housing conditions where the

problem o uel poverty is especially acute (Clinch and Healy

1999).

eCOlOGICAl beneITs

Researches usually break down the ecological benets into sev-

eral categories and consider them separately: cleaner indoor

and/or outdoor air; construction and demolition waste ben-

ets; wastewater and sewage benets; and sh impingement.

Tere are numerous pieces o research that identiy these

ecological benets as very signicant. Tus, or instance, Kats

(2005) and SBF (2001) estimated that building up green and

ecient houses reduces construction and demolition wastes

up to 99%; Schweitzer and onn (2002) ound that net presentvalue o reduction in waste water and sewage over the lietime

o the energy-eciency measures installed is $US 3 657 per

participating household. Tere are also many studies which es-

timate the impact on cleaner indoor and outdoor air which are

inseparable rom health co-benets; these are estimated mainly

rom two perspectives: better ventilation and clean-burning,

more ecient cooking devices (see, e.g., Kats 2005; Kats 2006;

Schweitzer and onn 2002; Gopalan and Saksena 1999).

servICe prOvIsIOn beneITs

Schweitzer and onn (2000) and Stoecklein and Scumatz

(2007) revealed that energy eciency improvement and emis-

sion reduction might provide a number o services at a higher

quality. Service provision benets include, inter alia, transmis-

sion and distribution (&D) loss reduction, ewer emergency

service calls, utilities insurance savings (Schweitzer and onn

2002). For example, &D loss reduction ranges rom US$ 33

to US$ 80 per participating household (ibid.). In addition, bill-

related calls became less requent aer the implementation o

weatherization programs in New Zealand, which amounts to

savings about US$ 21.1/yr. and accounts or around 7% o the

total annual energy savings o (Stoecklein and Scumatz 2007).

sOCIAl eeCTs

Available estimations o such social co-benet as poverty allevi-

ation vary signicantly in their scope and size. For instance, ac-

cording to DEFRA (2005), measures installed through energy-

eciency schemes in the UK in the period January December

2003 resulted in the customers being on average US$ 21.2 bet-

ter o/yr. However, another study shows that cost-eective

improvements in energy eciency could cut utility costs by

US$ 270-1,360 per household/yr. (European Commission

2005). Other social co-benets include higher comort levels

and a saety increase, namely re avoidance. Increased com-

ort is usually calculated through a willingness-to-pay analysis(Ban et al. 2008). Stoecklein and Scumatz (2007) estimate that

aer implementing a weatherization program in New Zealand

comort benet amounted to about US$ 140/household-yr.

accounting or 43% o the total annual energy savings. As to

avoided res, net present value o this co-benet over the lie-

time o the eciency measures installed ranges up to $US 555

per participating household (Schweitzer and onn 2002).

Mthodoogy o th quatifcatio o o-

gy ft o imod gy fcicy i

uidig

able 2 identies the methods and techniques used by research-

ers around the world to quantiy the impacts o non-energy

and non-climate benets o CO2

emission reduction in dier-

ent countries. Te methods used range rom surveys with a

subsequent statistical analysis, through measurements with/

without subsequent statistical analysis and simulation models,

cost-benet analysis, to expert judgements.

Te IPCC AR4 recognized the existing lack o research that

considers a wide range o the benets associated with CO2emis-

sion reduction in buildings. Te previous section mentioned

that a case study typically ocuses on one or several benets;

thereore or aggregation o these impacts the methodologies

o their estimates should be homogeneous. able 2 shows, how-ever, that all these methods are heterogeneous: they approach

Cott Kywod Autho
http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://contents.pdf/http://keywords.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://keywords.pdf/http://contents.pdf/


5/11
http://authors.pdf/http://keywords.pdf/http://contents.pdf/


6/11


7/11


8/11


9/11




the dierent benets using dierent approaches and they ap-

ply dierent assumptions. Te overall aggregated impact o the

benets o CO2emission mitigation in the buildings sector on

the costs o mitigation potential is dicult to estimate. Tere-

ore, to conduct a comprehensive assessment o the impacts o

these benets their physical and monetary estimates or each

o the benets and each o the world region using a common

approach and common assumptions would be crucial.Te impact o benets o CO2

emission reduction in the

buildings sector could be estimated using the ollowing consid-

erations. Te costs o CO2

mitigation o a technological option

are estimated using the supply curve method as:

where

ACit

average costs o energy conserved in year t due to

application o technologyi

Ii

investment costs o technologyi

ai

annuity actor o technologyi

Eit

energy conserved in year tdue to application o tech-

nologyi

Bitj

monetized co-benet j in year tdue to application o

technologyi

Te annuity actor is calculated as:

where

DR discount rate

nj

lietime o technologyi

where

Eit

energy conserved in year tdue to application o tech-

nologyi

ij

energy elasticity o co-benet j due to application o

technologyi

Pjt

a monetary estimate associated with a unit o co-benet

j in year t

Examples o such a calculation are provided below.

Co-benet: saved energy costs (1. ij= 1)

where

PEnergy,t

energy price in year t

Co-benet: avoided CO2.2

where

Ei,CO2

emission actor o uel saved

PCO2,t price o CO2 in year t

Co-benet: reduced mortality3.

where

i,Reduced Mortality

mortality avoided due to application o

technologyi per unit o energy saved

PValue of Statistical Life,t estimated value o statistical lie in year t

It is important to note, however, that the results o such cal-

culations should be used with caution. Te shortcomings o

monetising and adding all non-energy benets include:

Ofen it is not possible to entirely compartmentalise co-

benets. Some o them will inevitably overlap, sometimes

one is the result o another (such as reduced air pollu-

tion and improved health), and thus there might be some

double-counting o certain benets (although i the same

impact results in clearly dierent monetary benets, this

should not be considered as double-counting).

As noted above, monetising certain quantied benets

(such as value o lie and health as well as comort) is ex-

tremely controversial and their translational coecients

are widely variable among methods (e.g., direct computa-

tion vs. sophisticated time-series analysis; questionnaires

vs. environmental measurements, etc.), authors, and even

geographic regions.

While the co-benets are rather universal, their values are

very case- and geographic location-specic. Tereore it is

hard to derive general regional, national or global policy-

related conclusions based on such quantication and syn-

thesis. Substantially more research is needed on establishing

the validity o generalised non-energy benet calculations at

a regional scale, or at least that goes beyond specic cases.

Cocuio

When societal interests are considered, associated co-benets

(along with accompanying indirect costs) related to energy-

eciency measures should be included in cost-benet assess-

ments that support decision-making processes whether cer-

tain measures/actions are justied on a societal basis or not,

or that ranks such measures. Similarly, ancillary benets are

important determinants o private-level decision-making. At

the same time, there are a limited number o potential studies

or other cost/benet assessments related to energy eciency/

aDR DR

DRi

n

n

j

j

=+( )

+( )

1

1 1

B E Pitj ti ij jt =

B E Pi Energy t ti Energy t , , ,=

B E EF Pi CO t ti i CO CO t , , , ,2 2 2=

Bi Reduced Mortality t, , =

Eti i Reduced Mortality, PPReduced Mortality t,

AC

I a B

Eit

i i itj

j

n

it

=

1

Cott Kywod Autho
http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://contents.pdf/http://keywords.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://keywords.pdf/http://contents.pdf/


10/11




CO2

emission mitigation strategy setting that incorporate such

costs/benets into the analysis.

Te purpose o this paper was to take a rst step into the

direction o synthesising existing knowledge on the quanti-

cation o non-energy benets o improved energy-eciency

in buildings, as well as proposing a methodology to add such

benets so that these can enter into the standard cost-benet

assessment-based decision-making rameworks. Te paper rstprovided a taxonomy o non-energy benets, cataloguing them

into health, ecological, economic, service provision, and social/

political benet categories. Next, the paper reviewed the world

literature on available studies quantiying non-energy benets

o improved energy-eciency in buildings. It reported these

results in a comparable ramework as much as the sources al-

lowed.

Te review attested that co-benets indeed comprise a sub-

stantial share o the direct energy benets. Many individual

benets monetised valued as much as 1943% o the saved en-

ergy costs. Te group with the typically largest nancial value

o co-benets as compared to the direct energy benets is eco-

nomic benets estimated over the lietime o a complex weath-

erization measures, although this result is inductive rather than

deductive.

Te paper suggested a generalised methodology or add-

ing monetised co-benets in order to enable them to enter

traditional cost-benet and cost-ecient analyses-based deci-

sion-making rameworks, such as GHG or energy-eciency

potentials assessments, prioritisation o policies or targeted

technologies. Te paper also highlighted the potential caveats

o such additions and indicated that there is need or substan-

tial urther research on the subject.

However, the importance o the issue remains. Cases cov-

ered in this paper suggested that at least 9 groups o researchersmonetized non-energy benets in the range o several thou-

sand to several million Euro per year in dierent countries that

corresponds to as high as 0.003-0.029% o their national GDP.

Tis substantiates the argument that it is time that the inclu-

sion o non-energy benets into high-level decision-making

and priority-setting should be the mainstay o urther research

in this area.

rc

Aunan, K., Aaheim, H., and Seip, H. 2000. Reduced damage

to health and environment rom energy saving in Hun-

gary. Discussion during the workshop on Assessing theAncillary Benets and Costs o Greenhouse Gas Mitiga-

tion Strategies, Washington DC, 27-29 March 2000.

Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. 2005. Fix it and they

will stay: the eects o schools acility quality on teacher

retention in urban school districts. Boston College

supported in Part by the Ford Foundation and the 21st

Century schools und. http://www2.bc.edu/~bucklesj/

retention04.pd

Clinch, J.P., and Healy, J.D. 2001. Cost-benet analysis o

domestic energy eciency. Energy Policy 29, 113-124.

Clinch, J.P., and Healy, J.D. 2003. Valuing improvements in

comort rom domestic energy-eciency retrots usinga trade-o simulation model. Energy Economics 25,

565583.

Clinch, J.P., and Healy, J.D. 1999. Housing standards and

excess winter mortality in Ireland. Environmental Studies

Research Series Working Paper 99/02, Department o

Environmental Studies, University College Dublin. http://

www.ucd.ie/gpep/gpepino/workingpapers/99-02.pd

Department or Environment, Food and Rural Aairs

(DEFRA). 2005. Fuel Poverty Monitoring: Energy Com-

pany Schemes 2003. Annex to UK uel Poverty Strategy.3rd Annual Progress Report 2005.

Federspiel, C.C., Liu, G., Lahi, M., Faulkner, D., Dibartolo-

meo, D.L., Fisk, W.J., Price, P.N., and Sullivan, D.P. 2002.

Worker perormance and ventilation: Analyses o indi-

vidual data or call-center workers. Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, LBNL-50124. http://

eetd.lbl.gov/ied/viaq/pubs/LBNL-50124.pd

Fisk, W.J. 2000a. Health and productivity gains rom better

indoor environments and their relationship with building

energy eciency. Annual Review o Energy and the En-

vironment, 25(1), 537-566. http://www.rand.org/scitech/

stpi/Evision/Supplement/sk.pd

Fisk, W.J. 2000b. Review o Health and Productivity Gains

From Better IEQ. Environmental Energy echnologies

Division. http://eetd.lbl.gov/IED/pd/LBNL-48218.pd

Goldemberg, J. (ed.). 2000. World Energy Assessment. Energy

and the Challenge o Sustainability. United Nations De-

velopment Programme. New York: UNDP.

Gopalan, H.N.B., and Saksena, S., eds. 1999. Domestic

Environment and Health o Women and Children. New

Delhi: ata Energy Research Institute and United Nations

Environmental Program.

Hanushek, E. 2005. Why Quality Matters in education.,

Finance And Development, International Monetary

Fund, June 2005. http://www.im.org/external/pubs//andd/2005/06/hanushek.htm

Heschong Mahone Group. 1999. Daylighting in schools: an

investigation into the relationship between daylighting

and human perormance. Report submitted to Pacic Gas

& Electric.

Hsueh, L., and Gerner, J.L. 1993. Eect o thermal improve-

ments in housing on residential energy demand. Journal

o Consumer Aairs. 27(1), 87-105.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007).

Summary or Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007:

Mitigation. Contribution o Working Group III to the

Fourth Assessment Report o the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R.

Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,

USA.

Kats, G. 2003. Te Costs and Financial Benets o Green

Buildings. A Report to Caliornias Sustainable Building

ask Force. http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/News477.

pd

Kats, G. 2005. National Review o Green Schools: Costs,

Benets, and Implications or Massachusetts. A Report

or the Massachusetts echnology Collaborative. http://

www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F7707.pd

Cott Kywod Autho
http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://contents.pdf/http://keywords.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://keywords.pdf/http://contents.pdf/


11/11




Programs Report or DOE and EPA. http://www.ornl.

gov/~webworks/cppr/y(2001/pres/111104.pd

OConnor, D. 2004. Energy Eciency Activities Report by

the Division o Energy Resources. Oce o Consumer

and Business Aairs, Commonwealth o Massachusetts:

Summer 2004.

Pape, W. 1998. Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise. Inc, No.2, 25-26.

http://www.inc.com/articles/ops/oce_management/oce_design/1075-print.html

Platts Research &Consulting. 2004. Hedging energy price risk

with renewables and energy eciency.

Samet, J., Zeger, S., Dominici, F., Curriero, F., Coursac, I.,

Dockery, D.W., Schwartz, J., and Zanobetti, A. 2000. Te

National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study

Part II: Morbidity and Mortality rom Air Pollution In the

United States. Health Eects Institute, 94.

Schweitzer, M., and onn, B. 2002. Nonenergy benets rom

the weatherization assistance program: A summary o

ndings rom the recent literature. Oak Ridge National

Laboratory.

Shades o Green. 2002. Report o the Pittsburgh Green Build-

ing Alliance. http://www.gbapgh.org.

Stoecklein, A., and Scumatz, L.A. 2007. Zero and low energy

homes in New Zealand: Te value o non-energy benets

and their use in attracting homeowners. In Proceedings

o the American Council or an Energy Ecient Economy

(ACEEE) Summer Study 2007.

Sustainable Building ask Force (SBF). 2001. Building Better

Buildings: A Blueprint or Sustainable State Facilities.

Caliornia State and Consumer Services Agency and

Sustainable Building ask Force.

US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1999).

Benets and Costs o the Clean Air Act 1990 to 2010, U.S.EPA-410-R-99-001. http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.

ns/vwRepNumLookup/EE-0295A?OpenDocument

Wiser, R., Bolinger, M., and St. Clair, M. 2005. Easing the

Natural Gas Crisis: Reducing Natural Gas Prices through

Increased Deployment o Renewable Energy and Energy

Eciency. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. http://

eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMP

Wyon, D. 1994. Te Economic Benets o a Healthy Indoor

Environment. Copenhagen, Denmark: National Institute

o Occupational Health. http://www.rand.org/pubs/con_

proceedings/CF170.1-1/CF170.1.wyon.pd

Kats, G. 2006. Greening Americas Schools: Costs

and Benets. https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.

aspx?DocumentID=2908

Krupnick, A., Burtraw, D., Markandya, A. 2000. Te ancil-

lary benets and costs o climate change mitigation: a

conceptual ramework. In: OECD (ed.): Ancillary benets

and costs o GHG mitigation. Paris: OECD. http://www.

observatory.ph/co-benets_asia/images/stories/overview/OV7.pd

Lovins, A.B. 2005. Energy End-Use Eciency. A part o its

200506 study ransitions to Sustainable Energy Sys-

tems. Inter Academy Council, Amsterdam. http://www.

rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-16_EnergyEndUseE.

pd

Mendell, M.J., Fisk, W.J., Petersen, M.R., Hines, C.J., Dong,

M., Faulkner, D., Deddens, J.A., Ruder, A.M., Sullivan, D.,

and Boeniger, M.F. 2002. Indoor Particles and Symptoms

Among Oce Workers: Results rom a Double-Blind

Cross-Over Study. Indoor Environment Department,

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA,

LBNL-48217. http://eetd.lbl.gov/ied/viaq/pubs/

LBNL-48217.pd

Menzies, D., Pasztor, J., Nunes, F., Leduc, J., and Chan, C-H.

1997. Eect o a new ventilation system on health and

well-being o oce workers. Archives o Environmental

Health, 52(5), 360-368.

Mills, E., J. White, and . Schafauser. 1995. Cutting Govern-

ment Programs to Save Energy Overlooks Benets. Los

Angeles imes, Business Section, September 10, p. 2. Re-

printed in Energy Eciency News, 1(7):2-3 and Lighting

Maintenance and Management.

Mills, E. and A. Roseneld. 1996. Consumer Non-Energy

Benets as a Motivation or Making Energy-EciencyImprovements. EnergyTe International Journal, 21

(7/8):707-720. (Also in Proceedings o the 1994 ACEEE

Summer Study on Energy Eciency in Buildings, pp.

4.201-4.213.)

Milton, D., Glencross, P.M., and Walters, M.D. 2000. Risk

o sick leave associated with outdoor ventilation level,

humidication, and building related complaints. Indoor

Air, 10(4), 212-21.

National Medical Expenditure Survey. 1999. Te Economic

Burden o Asthma in US Children. Journal o Allergy,

Clinical Immunology, 104, 957-963. .

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 2001. Improving the

methods used to evaluate voluntary energy eciency.
http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/http://authors.pdf/

pdfco benefits

Documents