Strategic policy packages to deliver energy efficiency in buildings – their international evidence

Panel: 5B. Cutting the energy use of buildings: Policy and programmes

This is a peer-reviewed paper.

Authors:
Stefan Thomas, Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy, Germany
Vera Aydin, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Germany
Dagmar Kiyar, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy
Lena Tholen, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy
Maike Venjakob, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy
Christopher Moore, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Germany

Abstract

The project “bigEE – Bridging the Information Gap on Energy Efficiency in Buildings” presents comprehensive information for energy efficiency in buildings and the related policy on the international internet-based knowledge platform bigee.net.

To develop the evidence-based information required for bigee.net, we addressed in a different and more systematic way than usual the question of how policy can support improved building energy efficiency most effectively: We combined (1) a theoretical, actor-centred analysis of market-inherent barriers and incentives for all actors in the supply and use chain of (energy-efficient) buildings to derive a recommended package combining the types of policies and measures the actors need to overcome all these barriers, with (2) empirical evidence on model examples of good practice policy packages to check if advanced countries have indeed used the combination of policies we derived from the actor-centred analysis.

In this way, we found that the recommendable policy package for new buildings is similar to the well-known one for appliances, but with the objective to mainstream nearly zero energy buildings. By contrast, the task for existing buildings is two-dimensional – increasing the depth of renovation first, to savings of 50 to 80%, and then the rate of energy-efficient renovation to 2% or more p.a. – and so the policy package needs more emphasis on individual advice, incentives, and financing. The paper presents the recommended packages as well as a comparison of existing national policy packages from California (USA), China, Denmark, Germany, and Tunisia and what we learned from it for effective packages and implementation.