Search eceee proceedings

How to calculate energy savings and costs of energy saving obligations in a harmonized way?

Panel: 7. Monitoring and evaluation

This is a peer-reviewed paper.

Authors:
Demet Suna, Vienna University of Technolgy, Institute of Energy Systems and Electrical Drives, Energy Economics Group (EEG), Austria
Reinhard Haas, Institute of Energy Systems and Electrical Drives, Energy Economics Group, Vienna University of Technology
, Austria

Abstract

The relevance of energy saving obligations (ESOs) as a key policy tool for the achievement of energy efficiency targets is increasing throughout last years. At European level this is confirmed by the European Commission’s proposal for a new energy efficiency directive (COM (2011) 370 final) where nationally implemented mandatory ESOs imposed on supplier are one of the key measures.

Within the EU the utility ESOs are currently implemented in the United Kingdom,, France, Italy, Denmark and the Flemish region of Belgium. However, design features of programs differ from country to country fundamentally. A comparative analysis of achieved savings and related costs becomes a challenging exercise since implemented ESOs generally differ in (sector, time etc.) coverage as well as in the approach used for calculation and measuring of savings.

Several studies exist that analyze ESO experiences, identify the differences between country-specific implementations and that allow to draw tentative conclusions on likely advantages or disadvantages arising from them. Nevertheless the authors of this abstract are not familiar with a study comparing the achieved energy savings and costs in different ESO implementing countries using a harmonized approach.

Thus, this paper attempts to define and apply a consistent methodology (e.g. related to discount rates, lifetime of saving etc.) to compare two country examples, United Kingdom and Italy by means of achieved energy savings and related costs, whereby attention will be given to transform quantitative targets and measured progress into comparable units (e.g. converting targets in toe vs. kWh) and to derive valuable indicators.

The main conclusion of this work is that a quantitative comparison of different ESO implementations appears feasible but data requirements are significant. Thus, standardized documentations of the progress achieved in energy efficiency programme, and in particular in ESO schemes, should be facilitated.

Downloads

Download this presentation as pdf: 7-425-13_Suna_pre.pdf

Download this paper as pdf: 7-425-13_Suna.pdf