The effects of energy efficiency measures on GDP are determined analogously to the employment effects using an input-output analysis. The input data to the analysis is the same as to the analysis of employment effects. The individual policies (bottom-up ap-proach), whose effects on GDP are presented, are the same as those considered for the employment effects. For the top-down approach savings regarding space heating in residential buildings is used as an input. To calculate the GDP from the I-O tables, the total GVA and taxes less subsidies on products in final and intermediate consumption are summed up (income approach).
Detailed information (PDF)
Download data (Excel)
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI et al., 2016
The study provides a comprehensive assessment of the entire H/C sector in the EU including Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. It analyses the current state of the sector as well as its evolution up to the year 2030 using a bottom-up modelling approach. The assessments include detailed analyses of residential and non-residential buildings, industrial processes and district heating. It compares a current policy scenario with two more ambitious policy scenarios. The results are analysed with regard to final, useful and primary energy, CO2 emissions, import shares, induced investments and RES-H/C shares. Moreover, the macroeconomic impacts in terms of economic growth and induced employment are assessed. Both quota scenarios show a positive impact on GDP and on employment. However, the change is relatively small, mainly due to the fact that the two quota scenarios are only little more ambitious than the current policy scenario. Therefore, GDP is expected to be 0.07% - 0.12% higher in 2030. Accordingly, full-time equivalent employment increases marginally by 0.02-0.04%.
Ryan, Lisa; Campbell, Nina, 2014
Increasingly, research is showing that energy savings from energy efficiency improvements can deliver wider benefits across the whole economy such as increases in employment, GDP, trade balances, energy security etc. Given the complexity of the interactions throughout the economy, and the high level of interest by governments in understanding and predicting them, it is important to have a robust methodological framework for carrying out energy efficiency policy assessments. There is also the question of how the macroeconomic benefits impact energy consumption and whether these indirect rebound effects offset much of the initial energy savings from the energy efficiency measures. This paper investigates these interactions and provides guidance to policy makers on how to measure the macroeconomic impacts of energy efficiency measures. It also provides an overview of estimates in the literature how macroeconomic indicators are affected. However, one must be aware that impacts on these indicators are dependent on the structure and nature of the economy, the scale and substance of realised energy efficiency outcomes, and the distribution of outcomes across consumers and producers. Moreover, there are difficulties when comparing studies due to different methods used etc. According to GDP increase, estimates range from 0.1% to 1.26%. The number of net job years created per million euros invested ranges from 7 to 22. Trade is positively affected as well, albeit only slightly (0.2 – 0.5%). Energy prices are also expected to decline as a consequence of energy efficiency measures.
Næss-Schmidt, Helge Sigurd; Bo Hansen, Martin; von Utfall Danielsson, Carl, 2012
Energy savings through the renovation of the existing building stock is one of the most attractive and low cost options to reduce the emissions of CO2 and potentially improve energy security by reducing imports of fossil fuels. Indeed, there is wide evidence that undertaking energy efficient renovations at current energy prices often pay for themselves. In addition to the energy savings that renovation of the existing buildings stock will bring, there are a range of co-benefits, which can also be harvested. By reducing energy consumption and focusing on indoor climate issues when renovating, co-benefits can be achieved such as reduced outlay on government subsidies, and improved health due to less air pollution and a better indoor climate, both of which also lead to fewer hospitalisations and improved worker productivity. Harvesting renovation opportunities could bring huge benefits to the EU economy over the coming decades. Based on available estimates of the potential for energy savings from renovation of buildings, this study suggests a monetised permanent annual benefit to society of €104-175 billion in 2020 depending on the level of investments made from 2012 to 2020, €52-75 billion from lower energy bills, and at least €9-12 billion from the co-benefits of reduced outlay on subsidies and reduced air pollution from energy production. If the health benefits from improved indoor climate are included, the benefits are increased by an additional €42-88 billion per year. These health benefits are evident, but very uncertain to estimate, and should be interpreted accordingly. If investments are continued after 2020, these annual benefits can be doubled by 2030.
Malone, Leslie; Howland, Jamie, 2014
This modelling study helps to better understand the economy-wide benefits and costs from investing in energy efficiency as a resource in Canada. It examines the macroeconomic impacts – dollars of GDP and jobs created – from investments in cost-effective energy efficiency that reduce demand for electricity, natural gas, and liquid fossil fuel. The results show that reducing demand for energy has a significant, positive impact on economic growth and job creation beyond those commonly acknowledged or measured. Regarding Canada, a total net increase in national GDP of $230 billion to $580 billion over the study period (2012 - 2040) can be achieved. Every $1 spent on energy efficiency programs results in an increase in GDP of $5 to $8. Moreover, the total net increase in national employment ranges from 1.5 to 4.0 million job-years. Every $1 million invested in efficiency programs generates 30 to 52 job-years. Across Canada, the peak annual increase in GDP is $19 billion to $48 billion, and the maximum annual increase in employment is 121,000 to 304,000 jobs. Since it is a net benefit analysis, the results also include negative ratepayer effects, or costs to fund programs and losses from avoided electricity generation. The study applies the Regional Economic Models Inc. (REMI) PI+ model which estimates the net economic impact of a new policy scenario by comparing a base case annual economic forecast to an alternate forecast that includes new dollars of investment in energy efficiency, the resulting dollars of savings that are realized and reinvested, and any negative offsets. Efficiency resources contribute to economic growth and job creation because on the one hand saving energy starts with smart spending. Saving energy requires investment in energy efficiency products as well as community labour like hiring contractors to install insulation or new windows, generating increased local spending and jobs. On the other hand, saving energy is less expensive relative to other energy options. On average, efficiency programs costs 2 - 4 cents to save a lifetime kilowatt-hour of electricity. By comparison, coal-fired generation can cost 10 cents/kWh. Thus, investing in energy efficiency lowers the cost of the energy system and saves all ratepayers money. In addition, improving the energy efficiency of homes and businesses lowers consumer energy bills. Nationally, the scenarios modelled in this study save $94 - $220 billion in avoided energy costs from 2012 to 2040. Lower energy bills reduce the cost of living and of doing business, leading to increased discretionary spending (dining out, renovations, travel) and improved industrial competitiveness, which drives new economic output.
Cambridge Econometrics, 2015
The study assesses the direct and indirect linkages between energy efficiency, labour markets and social welfare, at both the micro and the macro levels, using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches to carry out the analysis. The study includes a detailed literature review. It found that energy efficiency can have a range of benefits to households, businesses and wider society. The literature has identified positive effects on GDP and employment of investment in energy efficiency. With only a few exceptions, the studies report a positive effect on GDP ranging from 0.3% to 1.3% depending on time periods, geography and the scale of the programme being assessed. For comparison, the modelling carried out for the present study examined a range of alternative scenarios for the ambition for the intensity of energy efficiency achievements and used models from the two main theoretical traditions (a CGE model and a macro-econometric model) that have been used in the literature to assess economic impacts. The modelling found that setting a fairly ambitious energy efficiency target for Europe would have a modest impact on GDP (-0.2% in the CGE model and +1.1% in the macroeconometric model) compared to a baseline scenario by 2030. The main reason for the difference is that the CGE model assumed that the investment to implement energy efficiency measures would crowd out other investment, whereas the macro-econometric model allowed the energy efficiency investment to be additional. Regarding employment, the literature review found that the manufacture and installation of energy efficient equipment and materials is a relatively labour-intensive activity that has the potential to boost local labour markets. However, the skills requirements are often quite specific, so there could be a role for active intervention in providing training to local workforces. Because of their relatively high levels of labour intensity, energy efficiency measures are widely seen as creating more jobs than new energy generation, which tends to be much more capital intensive. Per million euros of spend, investment in energy efficiency could create up to twice as many jobs as investment in new energy generation. A stimulus to employment may also arise as a result of the export potential of energy efficiency activities and/or the substitution of imported energy. Both models applied in this study predict an increase in EU employment when more ambitious energy efficiency programmes are implemented. In E3ME this reflects the higher level of GDP; in GEM-E3 it arises because of substitution of labour for capital, which outweighs the effect of lower GDP. The range of impacts in the 30% saving scenario is 0.3% to 1.9% of EU employment by 2030. In absolute terms, this amounts to a potential increase in EU employment of 0.7-4.2m in 2030.
Association for the Conservation of Energy, 2000
Improving energy efficiency in buildings is a particularly effective way to stimulate employment in the places where it is needed most, and to employ people who have the greatest trouble in finding jobs. In terms of direct employment, energy efficiency in buildings is a labour intensive sector, engaging many small, geographically dispersed installation companies. Furthermore, lower fuel bills mean more money to spend on non-energy items (and the labour intensity in sectors stimulated by general consumption exceeds that in the energy supply sector). Thus indirect employment is stimulated by the energy savings, for years after the work is completed. Ultimately, energy efficiency contributes to economic efficiency and growth, which creates more wealth and employment opportunities. Seven energy efficiency investment programmes were studied to identify the jobs created. Direct employment was calculated by interviewing implementing agencies, using published reports, and where necessary by extrapolation from the amount spent in each sector. The indirect employment was calculated using an input-output modelling approach. Further modelling using the same data assessed the long term impacts on the economy as a whole. The core of the report is the discussion in the case studies, relating to how businesses and individuals responded to the new employment opportunities arising from energy efficiency programmes. The studies show the benefits of energy efficiency investment in terms of employment gains, increased training, and opportunities for people who have been in long-term unemployment. The case studies also make an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the programmes in terms of energy savings. This cost-effectiveness varied, but was generally good. Where training and addressing long-term unemployment were priorities the total cost prohibited cost-effectiveness, if measured only in terms of energy savings. Energy efficiency programmes in the UK have multiple aims, such as assisting low income families afford to heat their homes, reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and avoiding investment in new supply capacity. In general creating employment is not the aim, but the study demonstrates that investing in energy efficiency has created jobs and, where schemes were designed to include quality training, increased skill levels for the workers involved. This is a very desirable side benefit, particularly considering that many of the jobs were created in manual occupations in areas of high unemployment.
Hartwig, Johannes; Kockat, Judith; Schade, Wolfgang; Braungardt, Sibylle , 2017
Energy efficiency is one of the fastest and most cost-effective contributions to a sustainable, secure and affordable energy system. Furthermore, the so-called “non-energy benefits”, “co-benefits” or “multiple benefits” of energy efficiency are receiving increased interest from policy makers and the scientific community. Among the various non-energy benefits of energy efficiency initiatives, the macroeconomic benefits play an important role. The study presents a detailed analysis of the long-term macroeconomic effects of German energy efficiency policy including the industry and service sectors as well as residential energy demand. It quantifies the macroeconomic effects of an ambitious energy efficiency scenario by combining bottom-up models with an extended dynamic input-output model. It also studies sectoral shifts within the economy regarding value added and employment compared to the baseline scenario. An in-depth analysis of the effects of energy efficiency policy on consumers, individual industry sectors, and the economy as a whole is provided. The study identifies significant positive macroeconomic effects resulting from energy efficiency initiatives, with growth effects for both GDP and employment ranging between 0.88% and 3.38% within the time span considered until 2050. Differences in sectoral gains lead to a shift in the economy. The study’s methodological approach provides a comprehensive framework for analysing the macroeconomic benefits of energy efficiency and hence contributes to improving the basis for policy decision-makers towards ambitious and cost-effective energy efficiency policy.
Holmes, Ingrid; Mohanty, Rohan, 2012
In response to the Euro crisis, more expansionary macroeconomic policies will be vital to supporting demand. Such stimulus should focus on the most beneficial investments in terms of providing resilience against systemic macroeconomic risks and provide a foundation for future productivity and growth. An energy efficiency-focused stimulus is a strong candidate on both counts. A study looking at US data estimated that a 1 % improvement in total useful work in the economy − a proxy for energy efficiency − results in a 0.18 % increase in long‐run GDP. Quantitative analysis undertaken by Cambridge Econometrics found that the UK’s energy efficiency policies between 2000 and 2010 increased real annual GDP by 0.1 %. Also, increased energy efficiency investment can act as a key ‘hedge’ against fossil fuel price spikes, delivering increased energy security and economic resilience. Further compelling macroeconomic arguments for focusing on energy efficiency include the creation of employment opportunities to utilise spare capacity in the labour market, reduce several direct costs on the European economy and enhance living standards. Moreover there is a clear need for governments to help kick‐start scaled energy efficiency markets. Of the $260 billion spent globally on clean energy in 2011, less than 7 % went to energy efficiency. Realising the investment potential will require enhanced efforts both from Europe and from Member State governments to create the incentive frameworks to overcome market inertia, secure demand and facilitate private capital provision. At EU level the focus should be on securing the ambition of the European market; removing conflicting energy price signals; requiring Member States to scale up their institutional response; and kick‐starting Member State markets with EU public financing. At Member State level the focus should be on the design of long‐term regulatory frameworks focused where possible on outcomes rather prescription to enable innovation. Additional institutional capacity will undoubtedly be needed − and should be focused on addressing the specific needs of each sector. Energy efficient upgrade of the EU’s infrastructure − kick‐started by targeted fiscal stimulus and set up to complement wider structural reforms − could provide a convincing route map to European recovery. However it is only likely to happen if the EU and Member State governments start to regard identification and delivery of energy efficient projects as being on a par with delivery of other major infrastructure projects − and provide fair and equivalent treatment to supply and demand side solutions.
Sauter, Robert; Volkery, Axel, 2013
There is a lot of empirical evidence that energy savings measures often provide an effective, cost-efficient approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while generating co-benefits on employment and competiveness. This report presents the empirical evidence on costs and benefits reported in ex-post evaluations for the residential/buildings sector, the industrial sector, transport sector and energy infrastructure as well as cross-sectoral results. It also points to the opportunities of export markets for European energy efficiency technologies. The evaluations presented strongly suggest that the benefits outweigh the costs of energy efficiency measures both from the perspective of the beneficiaries and the public authorities providing financing for the relevant measures or programmes. For example, for the KfW energy efficiency programme in Germany it is estimated that in 2011 alone public authorities at the regional and federal have enjoyed a net benefit of EUR 3 billion based on conservative assumptions covering investments directly supported by the KfW programme. The total net benefits could be as high as EUR 10 billion if all induced investments are taken into account. The highest benefits arise from the VAT income on the goods and services delivered and the additional income tax and social security contributions. Avoided unemployment costs are also an important component in the overall benefits. These benefits by far outweigh the total programme costs of EUR 952 million. However, it is important to note that these benefits occur at the time of programme implementation and can only be maintained if the programme is continued. As soon as the loan repayments are higher than new investments the overall picture changes and net impact on GDP becomes negative. The evaluation of the Swedish programme for improving energy efficiency in energy-intensive industries estimated that between 2005 and 2009 companies invested EUR 70.8 million in electricity savings measures leading to net annual energy savings of between 689 and 1015 GWh. It is further estimated that each MWh of saved electricity cost between EUR 9.30 and 13.60 compared to an average annual wholesale price of EUR 29 and 51 in the same period. Similarly the evaluation of the Irish energy savings programme in SME estimated costs of between 1.8c (to 2020) and 0.7c (to 2030) for energy savings measures compared to average electricity cost of 8.2c per kWh.
Whelan, Robert; Krebs, Tessa; Morgan, Tina, 2015
The report describes the economic effects of energy conservation work done in Oregon. It addresses the macroeconomic effects qualitatively, as there is no credible macroeconomic model of Oregon that reliably predicts how improving energy efficiency over the long run would play out. Therefore, the report begins with a logical, albeit largely qualitative discussion of the macroeconomic benefits of improving energy efficiency in Oregon. An economic impact analysis is applied, which returns what effects an average year of investment in Oregon on energy efficiency products and services has on the state’s economy. It then looks at the useful, though less common perspective, of how one year of investment saves consumers money on their utility bills. Specifically, how they spend those savings and what the economic impacts of that spending are. The analysis considers an average year and provides data for 2008 through 2012. That is five years of spending by utilities and utility customers on energy efficiency products and services. In the average year, over a quarter of a billion dollars is invested in energy efficiency products and services within Oregon State. Had no money been spent on efficiency measures, some of that money would have been spent elsewhere on other goods and services, and that spending would have had economic impacts. Subtracting this alternative from the gross impacts returns net impacts, i.e. the net difference energy efficiency spending had in the average year. In the average recent year, there were on net 2,433 more jobs in Oregon because of energy efficiency investments. They had a net impact of $153.3 million in additional labour income. The state’s gross regional product GRP was $128.7 million higher as a result. The net impacts of installation are positive since nearly all installation spending occurs inside Oregon and is local-labour intensive. The subsequent rounds of spending and employment stay mostly within Oregon. In comparison, general spending, especially by businesses, is more likely to involve out-of-state purchases. The second impact arises from the savings on utility bills in the years after 2012 due to energy efficiency. In turn, this frees up money, which utility customers spend elsewhere. They do most of that spending in Oregon, so it triggers new economic impacts. Alternatively, if no installations had been put in place in 2012, future utility bills would have been higher. Therefore, utility providers would have higher output, employ more people, and buy more supplies and services. Subtracting this alternative from the gross impacts, on a net basis Oregon would see 468 more jobs, $11.2 million more in labour income, and $8.1 million in additional GRP each year past 2012, until the energy efficiency measures reach the end of their useful lives. In this effect, the analysis finds that although general spending of savings has leakage, the alternative of paying higher utility bills instead has an even higher leakage rate because utilities spend primarily on capital equipment and fuel, both of which are mostly non-local. Thus, the net effect of future energy savings on the economy of Oregon is positive.
Pehnt, Martin; Lutz, Christian; Seefeldt, Friedrich; Schlomann, Barbara; Wünsch, Marco; Lehr, Ulrike; Lambrecht, Udo; Fleiter, Tobias, 2009
The subject of this study is the importance of additional measures to increase energy efficiency by 2020 for the achievement of national climate and energy targets in Germany as well as the macroeconomic effects of such an efficiency strategy. For 33 particular energy efficiency and energy saving measures, the potentials and required differential investments until 2020 are determined. The study outlines the cost-effective potential and investment needed to be developed compared to a reference scenario, in the private households, business/commerce/services, industrial and transport sectors. The necessary investments concern energy-saving buildings, efficient appliances, heating systems, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, processes and drives, as well as low-cost measures such as training on energy-efficient behavior. In sum, the additional energy-saving potential of the measures identified is around 10% of the final energy demand in 2007. Compared to the reference scenario, the electricity savings of the measures amount to around 260 PJ in 2020, which corresponds to a saving of 14% of electricity demand in 2005 or the power generation in about ten large power plants. Through these measures, energy productivity increases by more than 90%, i.e. tapping the identified savings potential would contribute significantly to the national goal of doubling energy productivity by 2020. The CO2 emissions saved amount to 77 million tons in 2020 compared to the reference development. This represents a reduction of 9% of the emissions in 2008. The investments made in efficiency measures, the energy costs saved and the increased productivity lead to a conservative estimate of net employment growth of around 260,000 employees compared to the reference. Gross domestic product will increase by 0.9% in 2020 as a result of additional demand. Natural gas imports in 2020 will be reduced by 320 PJ of natural gas (10.6%) and crude oil imports by around 290 PJ of crude oil (6.5%). In monetary terms, this corresponds to savings of between 6 and 12 billion euros, depending on the future oil price. In total, energy costs of € 19 billion can be saved in 2020, with transport and households accounting for the largest share (40% and 35%, respectively). To tap these potentials, a set of different and ambitious political instruments is needed. The efficiency strategy considered here requires instruments tailored to the respective sector, which combine regulatory law, transparent information and labeling as well as additional funding for highly efficient technologies.
Pehnt, Martin et al., 2011
The climate protection and efficiency measures in the National Climate Initiative (NKI) in Germany not only lead to an immediate reduction of environmental impacts and energy imports, but also have many direct and, above all, indirect macroeconomic effects. Initially, the study identifies additional potentials for energy efficiency, primarily in the end customer sector, which need to be tapped for ambitious climate protection. According to this report, up to 24% of the final energy demand of 2009 can be saved by 2030, compared with a "frozen efficiency" scenario, in which no further efficiency measures are taken. Compared to a reference scenario that basically extrapolates past increases in efficiency, 9% of final energy consumption can be saved by 2030. Particularly high savings potential exists in the building-related fields of action as well as in the introduction of efficient cars. In a second step, the necessary investments and energy savings are determined. Compared to the reference, cumulative additional investment of € 300 billion is therefore required by 2030, which, however, pays for itself on account of the energy savings over the lifetime of the measures. More than a third of these investments are taken up by private households. Based on the investments and savings, the environmental economic model PANTA RHEI determines which economic effects could relate to exploiting this potential for Germany by the year 2030. The model concludes that, compared to the reference, which already includes efficiency gains, final energy savings of 11.7%, employment effects of 127,000 and a price-adjusted GDP increase of 0.85% can be achieved. The latter are mainly attributable to the high share of domestic added value and, in the long term, higher household disposable income. Another important factor is improved export opportunities for German companies in the field of energy efficiency. In addition, GHG emissions decrease by 14.8%. The exploitation of efficiency potentials should be promoted through policy instruments. Exploiting these potentials is predominantly economically viable. However, the different sectors and segments display different degrees of restraints and difficulties. Therefore, the respective sectors should continue to be addressed individually. In general, this requires a bundle of instruments of regulatory, market and implementation-oriented instruments, measures for information, motivation, qualification as well as for promotion and financing. When formulating efficiency policy, clarity and transparency should be taken into account at the same time. Continuity and predictability of politics are the most important prerequisites for successful market impulses. Finally, the report includes concrete proposals for new funding areas and innovative support mechanisms. These relate to building renovation, energy consulting, retail, waste heat, business parks, industrial cross-sectional technologies, waste and wastewater, zero-emission communities and several others.
Lehr, Ulrike et al., 2011
The paper presents results of the implementation of an efficiency strategy in Germany until 2020 which is focused on cost-effective measures. The efficiency measures are calculated in bottom-up models and translated into a top-down macro-economic model. The comparison to a business as usual simulation shows some economy-wide rebound effects of about 17% of the overall energy savings. Given that an efficiency strategy is a long-term strategy, this puts the results on the rather conservative side. The sum of the economy-wide net effects is positive. Gross production, GDP and its components consumption, investment and trade are higher in the efficiency scenario due to the efficiency measures over the whole simulation period (2009 – 2020). Obviously, higher production does not directly translate into higher value added, because it is partly imported and also increases imported inputs according to the German trade structure. A considerable share of the additional GDP stems from private consumption (18.3 billion Euros). The direct effect comes from consumption of energy efficient goods, but there is a large indirect effect from additional consumption due to energy savings. The reallocation of funds from energy expenditure to consumption leads to more employment in all sectors. Employment also rises in the construction sector and in production, adding to the consumption effect.
European Commission, 2016
This analysis shows that a higher level of energy efficiency in 2030 would have a positive impact on economic growth, employment, competitiveness, a strong impact on security of supply and the level of gas imports in particular. In the period 2021-2030, a target of 30 % energy efficiency would save €69.6 bn in fossil fuels import bills compared to a €4 274 bn cost under a 27 % energy efficiency target, would create between 395 000 and 435 000 jobs by 2030 on a net basis and would increase GDP by between 0.25 % and 0.4 % in the central scenarios. On the contrary, in the period 2021-2030 and with the discount rates used, a target of 30 % would lead to energy system costs that were 0.46 % (€9 bn) higher compared to 27 % target. However, in the long term, a 30 % energy efficiency target for 2030 would lead to energy system costs that are €9 bn lower compared to 27 % target in 2021-2050. SMEs are key actors for upscaling energy efficiency especially in households (70 % of energy efficiency improvement measures are carried out by SMEs, in particular in building renovation) and will benefit from increased business opportunities, as well as reduced energy bills resulting from reducing consumption. Although Member States may need to increase their spending in the short term to finance the up-front energy efficiency investments, in the long term they will benefit from a decrease in fuels import bills, energy consumption bills (e.g. of public buildings) and positive budget impacts due to higher employment and economic growth.
Kerr, Niall; Gouldson, Andy; Barrett, John, 2017
The rationale for energy efficiency policy can be framed in terms of a variety of different benefits. This paper considers how different benefits have been used within the overall rationale for energy efficient retrofit policy in different contexts. It posits that different rationales may be used for the same policy response, and that the form of rationale used may affect the design, delivery or the level of policy support, with different rationales making it easier to account for different results. Considering retrofit policy in the contexts of the UK, Germany, New Zealand and Ireland, the study characterises policy rationale in each case, assessing what the key perceived benefits have been, and whether they have changed over time. The analysis identifies some marked differences between cases with the recognition of benefits and the ensuing policy rationale resulting from a complex mix of political, social and economic influences. We find that recognition of multiple benefits may not equate with multiplied policy support, and instead it is more likely that different rationales will have relevance at different times, for different audiences. The findings highlight that, alongside evidence for policy, it is important to also consider how the overall rationale for policy is eventually framed.
Rosenow, Jan; Bayer, Edith, 2017
The economics of energy efficiency programmes have been subject to considerable academic debate lasting well over three decades now. This paper contributes to this debate by reviewing the costs and benefits of a specific type of policy instrument that recently gained significant traction in Europe – Energy Efficiency Obligations - EEOs. Following the introduction of the EU Energy Efficiency Directive in 2012 the number of EEOs in Europe has grown from five schemes to now 16 EEOs in operation or planned across the EU. There is an emerging body of evidence on the costs and benefits of Energy Efficiency Obligations covering a wider range of EU countries, which offers an opportunity to improve our understanding of the economics of Energy Efficiency Obligations. This paper draws on this new data and provides a) a comparative analysis of the costs and benefits of EEOs in a number of European countries, b) discusses the uncertainties and challenges around calculating the costs of Energy Efficiency Obligations, and c) provides a categorisation of the multiple benefits often overlooked in cost-benefit-analyses.
Liu, Hongxun; Lin, Boqiang, 2017
As buildings are constructed to be more energy-efficient and environmental friendly, the building construction industry, which is a basic and leading industry of the national economy development, has become one of the key sectors for energy conservation and emission reduction in China. This paper aims at quantifying both inter-factor and inter-energy substitution for China's building construction industry and investigates the main driving forces behind energy efficiency changes as well as the CO2 abatement effect of a uniform carbon tax in this sector. The model is established employing provincial pooled data over 2003-2012 in China by regions; hence, results between different regions are compared. The main findings indicate that a) energy and non-energy are substitutes whereas individual energy inputs are complementary in China's building construction industry. The substitution effect varies across regions due to different factor endowments and marketisation levels. b) Energy price increase and construction scale expansion leads to energy efficiency improvement while substitution and technology present negative influences on energy efficiency. c) Approximately 3 % of the CO2 emissions in China's building construction industry can be reduced by carbon taxation based on the integrated own- and cross-price elasticities of each type of energy.
Gamtessa, Samuel, 2009
This study analyses the roles that energy and other input prices play in reducing the energy intensity of manufacturing industries in Canada. It finds that the average energy price elasticity of energy intensity is about −0.39 for the manufacturing sector, with a 95 percent CI of −0.43 to −0.34. The calculated average elasticities of substitutions indicate that both capital and labour are complementary with energy while both materials and services inputs are substitutes. The industry-specific estimates, however, reveal widespread differences in terms of both the magnitude of the elasticities and the patterns of the relationships among the inputs.
DianaÜrge-Vorsatz, Agnes Kelemen, Sergio Tirado-Herrero, StefanThomas, Johannes Thema, Nora Mzavanadze, Dorothea Hauptstock, Felix Suerkemper, Jens Teubler, Mukesh Gupta, Souran Chatterjee, 2016
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.