Transcript Slide 1

Energy Efficiency Potentials in
CEE buildings:
How can we harvest them?
Diana Ürge-Vorsatz
Director
8th Inter-Parliamentary Meeting
on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Outline
Buildings in CEE: EU’s goldmine
Energy efficiency potentials
Co-benefits
GHG mitigation policy opportunities in
buildings: the other goldmine
Why it is difficult to harvest the gold: challenges
in CEE
Selected solutions: recommendations
3CSEP
Buildings in CEE: EU’s goldmine
EU buildings – a goldmine
for CO2 reductions, energy security, job creation and
addressing low income population problems
300
250
kWh/m2a
200
-84%
150
100
50
Renewable Energy
Fossile Energy
0
Before
SOLANOVA
Source: Claude Turmes, MEP, presented at the Amsterdam Forum, 2006
Estimated potential for GHG mitigation at a
sectoral level in 2030 in different cost
Gton CO2eq.
categories , transition economies
1
Cost categories* (US$/tCO2eq)
0.9
<20
<0
0-20
20-100
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Source: CEU research for IPCC
AR4, Ch6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Buidlings
Industry
Agriculture
Energy supply
Forestry
Waste
Transport
* For the buildings, forestry, waste and transport sectors, the potential is split into three cost categories: at net negative costs, at 0-20
US$/tCO2, and 20-100 US$/tCO2. For the industrial, forestry, and energy suppy sectors, the potential is split into two categories: at costs
below 20 US$/tCO2 and at 20-100 US$/tCO2.
3CSEP
Investment needs to unlock building efficiency
potentials in Hungary, versus saved energy costs
Cost
categories of
CO2
mitigation
costs,
EUR/tCO2
Cumulative CO2
mitigation
potential
Baseline Million
share
tCO2/yr.
Investments over
2008-2025, billion
EUR
Total
Saved energy
costs 2008 – 2025,
billion EUR
By cost
category
Total
By cost
category
<0
29.4%
5.1
9.6
9.6
17.1
17.1
0 – 20
33.4%
5.8
13.6
3.9
19.0
1.8
20-50
35.3%
6.1
15.0
1.4
19.8
0.8
20 – 100
41.6%
7.2
18.1
3.1
21.9
2.1
>100
50.5%
8.7
29.0
10.9
25.7
3.8
Source: Novikova 2008, Novikova and
Urge-Vorsatz, KVVM report, 2007
Co-benefits of improved
energy efficiency in CEE
buildings (selection)
Co-benefits are often not quantified,
monetized, or identified
Overall value of co-benefits may be higher
than value of energy savings
A wide range of co-benefits, including:
 Improved social welfare
 Energy-efficient household equipment and low-energy building
design helps households cope with increasing energy tariffs
 Fuel poverty: In the UK, about 20% of all households live in fuel
poverty. The number of annual excess winter deaths is estimated
at around 40 thousand annually in the UK alone.
3CSEP
Fuel poverty in Hungary
Share of energy spending in total household
expenditures
Calculated based on Eurostat (2008), LABORSTA (2007),
Commission of the European Communities, (2008)
2020
Income decile 10 (richest)
Income decile 9
Income decile 8
Income decile 7
Income decile 6
Income decile 5
Income decile 4
Income decile 3
Income decile 2
Income decile 1 (poorest)
Total
2003
0
5
10
15
20
Household energy expenditures, % of total household expenditures
25
3CSEP
The key co-benefits for
new EU MSs (continued)
 Employment creation
 “producing” energy through energy efficiency or renewables is more
employment intensive than through traditional ways
 a 20% reduction in EU energy consumption by 2020 can potentially create 1
mln new jobs in Europe
 new business opportunities
 for developed countries a market opportunity of € 5–10 billion in energy
service markets in Europe
 Increased comfort
 E.g. Solanova project, Hu: noise reduction, sing. Reduction in indoor
pollution –> reduced need for cleaning and improved health; property values
increased
 Reduced energy costs will make businesses more competitive
 Others:
 Improved energy security, reduced burden of constrained generation
capacities, Increased value for real estate, Improved energy services
(lighting, thermal comfort, etc) can improve productivity, Improved outdoor air
quality
3CSEP
Policies to foster GHG mitigation
in buildings
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments
Part 1: Control and regulatory mechanisms- normative instruments
Policy
instrument
Appliance
standards
Country
example
s
EU, US,
JP, AUS,
Br, Cn
Building
codes
SG, Phil,
Alg, Egy,
US, UK,
Cn, EU
Procureme
nt
regulations
US, EU,
Cn, Mex,
Kor, Jp
Energy
efficiency
obligations
and quotas
UK, Be,
Fr, I, Dk,
Ir
Effectiven
ess
Energy or emission reductions for
selected best practices
High
Jp: 31 M tCO2 in 2010;
Cn: 250 Mt CO2 in 10 yrs
US: 1990-1997: 108 Mt CO2eq, in 2000:
65MtCO2 = 2.5% of el.use,
Can: 8 MtCO2 in total by 2010,
Br: 0.38 MtCO2/year
AUS: 7.9 MtCO2 by 2010
High
HkG: 1% of total el.saved;
US: 79.6 M tCO2 in 2000;
EU: 35-45 MtCO2, up to 60% savings for new
bdgs
UK: 2.88 MtCO2 by 2010, 7% less en use in
houses 14% with grants& labelling
Cn: 15-20% of energy saved in urban regions
High
Mex: 4 cities saved 3.3 ktCO2eq. in 1year
Ch: 3.6Mt CO2 expected
EU: 20-44MtCO2 potential
US:9-31Mt CO2 in 2010
High
UK: 2.6 M tCO2/yr
Costeffectiv
eness
Cost of GHG emission
reduction for selected
best practices
High
AUS: -52 $/tCO2 in
2020,
US: -65 $/tCO2 in 2020;
EU: -194 $/tCO2 in
2020
Mar: 0.008 $/kWh
Medium
NL: from -189 $/tCO2 to
-5 $/tCO2 for end-users,
46-109 $/tCO2 for
Society
High/
Medium
Mex: $1Million in
purchases saves
$726,000/year;
EU: <21$/tCO2
High
Flanders: -216$/tCO2
for households, -60
$/tCO2 for other sector
in 2003.
UK: -139 $ /tCO2
3CSEP
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments
Part 2: Regulatory- informative instruments
Policy
instrument
Country
examples
Mandatory
labelling and
certification
programs
US, Jp,
CAN, Cn,
AUS, Cr,
EU, Mex,
SA
Mandatory audit
programs
US; Fr,
NZL,
Egy,
AUS, Cz
Utility demandside
management
programs
Effectiveness
Energy or emission
reductions for selected best
practices
Costeffectiv
eness
Cost of GHG emission
reduction for selected
best practices
High
AUS: 5 Mt CO2 savings 19922000, 81Mt CO2 2000-2015,
SA: 480kt/yr
Dk: 3.568Mt CO2
High
AUS:-30$/t CO2 abated
High,
variable
US: Weatherisation program:
22% saved in weatherized
households after audits (30%
according to IEA)
Medium/
High
US Weatherisation
program: BC-ratio:
2.4
High
EU: - 255$/tCO2
Dk: -209.3 $/tCO2
US: Average costs
app. -35 $/tCO2
Tha: 0.013 $/kWh
US, Sw,
Dk, Nl, De, High
Aut
US : 36.7 MtCO2in 2000,
Jamaica: 13 GWh/ year,
4.9% less el use = 10.8 ktCO2
Dk: 0.8 MtCO2
Tha: 5.2 % of annual el sales
1996-2006
3CSEP
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments
Part 3: Economic and market-based instruments
Policy
instrument
Country
examples
Energy
performance
contracting/
ESCO support
De, Aut,
Fr, Swe,
Fi, US,
Jp, Hu
Cooperative/
technology
procurement
De, It, Sk,
UK, Swe,
Aut, Ir,
US,Jp
Energy
efficiency
certificate
schemes
Kyoto Protocol
flexible
mechanisms
It, Fr
Cn, Tha,
CEE (JI
&AIJ)
Effectiveness
Energy or emission
reductions for selected best
practices
Costeffectiv
eness
Cost of GHG emission
reduction for selected
best practices
High
Fr, S, US, Fi: 20-40% of
buildings energy saved;
EU:40-55MtCO2 by 2010
US: 3.2 MtCO2/yr
Cn: 34 MtCO2
Medium
/ High
EU: mostly at no cost,
rest at <22$/tCO2;
US: Public sector:
B/C ratio 1.6,
Priv. sector: 2.1
High/Med
ium
US: 96 ktCO2
German telecom company:
up to 60% energy savings
for specific units
Medium
/High
US: - 118 $/ tCO2
Swe: 0.11$/kWh
(BELOK)
High
Fr: 0.011 $/tCO2
estimated
Low
CEE: 63 $/tCO2
Estonia: 41-57$/tCO2
Latvia: -10$/tCO2
High
Low
I: 1.3 MtCO2 in 2006,
3.64 Mt CO2 eq by 2009
expected
CEE: 220 K tCO2 in 2000
Estonia: 3.8-4.6 kt CO2 (3
projects)
Latvia: 830-1430 tCO2
3CSEP
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments
Part 4: Fiscal instruments and incentives
Policy
instrument
Taxation (on
CO2 or
household
fuels)
Country
examples
Nor, De
UK, NL,
Dk, Sw
Effectiveness
Energy or emission
reductions for selected best
practices
Costeffectiv
eness
Low/
Medium
De: household consumption
reduced by 0.9 % 2003: 1.5
MtCO2 in total
Nor: 0.1-0.5% 1987-1991
NL:0.5-0.7 MtCO2 in 2000
Swe: 5% 1991-2005, 3MtCO2
Low
Cost of GHG emission
reduction for selected
best practices
US, Fr, Nl,
High
Kor
US: 88 MtCO2 in 2006
FR: 1Mt CO2 in 2002
High
US: B/C ratio
commercial
buildings: 5.4
New homes: 1.6
Public benefit
charges
BE, Dk, Fr,
Medium/
Nl, US
Low
states
US: 0.1-0.8% of total el. sales
saved /yr, 1.3 ktCO2 savings in
12 states
NL: 7.4TWh in 1996 = 2.5
MtCO2
Br: 1954 GWh
High in
reporte
d cases
US: From -53$/tCO2
to - 17$/tCO2
Capital
subsidies,
grants,
subsidised
loans
Jp, Svn,
NL, De,
Sw, US,
Cn, UK,
Ro
Svn: up to 24% energy savings
for buildings,
BR: 169ktCO2
UK: 6.48 MtCO2 /year, 100.8
MtCO2 in total
Ro: 126 ktCO2/yr
Low
someti
mes
High
Dk: – 20$/ tCO2
UK:29$/tCO2 for soc,
NL: 41-105$/tCO2 for
society
Tax
exemptions/
reductions
High/
Medium
3CSEP
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments
Part 5: Support, information and voluntary action (cont.)
Policy
instrument
Country
examples
Awareness,
education,
information
Dk, US,
UK, Fr,
CAN, Br,
Jp, Swe
Detailed billing
& disclosure
programs
Ontario,
It, Swe,
Fin, Jp,
Nor, Aus,
Cal, Can
Effectiveness
Energy or emission
reductions for selected best
practices
Costeffectiv
eness
Cost of GHG emission
reduction for selected
best practices
Low/
Medium
UK: 10.4ktCO2 annually
Arg: 25% in 04/05, 355 ktep
Fr: 40tCO2/ year
Br: 2.23kt/yr, 6.5-12.2
MtCO2/ year with voluntary
labeling 1986-2005
Swe: 3ktCO2/ year
Medium
/ High
Br: -66$/tCO2;
UK: 8$/tCO2
(for all
programs of Energy
Trust)/
Swe: 0.018$/kWh
Medium
Max.20% energy savings
in households concerned,
usually app. 5-10% savings
UK: 3%
Nor: 8-10 %
Medium
Country name abbreviations: Alg - Algeria, Arg- Argentina, AUS - Australia, Aut - Austria, Be - Belgium, Br - Brazil, Cal California, Can - Canada, CEE - Central and Eastern Europe, Cn - China, Cr - Costa Rica, Cz - Czech Republic, De Germany, Ecu - Ecuador, Egy - Egypt, EU - European Union, Fin - Finland, GB-Great Britain, Hkg -Hong Kong, Hu Hungary, Ind - India, Irl - Ireland, It - Italy, JP - Japan, Kor - Korea (South), Mar- Morocco, Mex - Mexiko, NL - Netherlands,
Nor - Norway, Nzl – New Zealand, Phil - Philippines, Pol - Poland, Ro- Romania, SA- South Africa, SG - Singapore, Sk 3CSEP
Slovakia, Svn - Slovenia, Sw - Switzerland, Swe - Sweden, Tha - Thailand, US - United
States.
Why it is difficult to harvest the
gold: CEE challenges to
harvesting the potentials
 While cost-effective, long payback times
 Substantial capital investment needs
 But very limited liquidity of population and institutions
 Perverse govt incentives (eg procurement, support
schemes)
 Millions of stakeholders to be mobilised
 Huge transaction costs
 Markets, businesses, experts and and public
awareness not ready
 others
3CSEP
Recommendations:
selected policy options to be considered
 What not: direct price subsidies; caution with investment
subsidies
 Exemplary role of the public sector: leadership programs
 E.g. German and Austrian govt commitments
 PPP solutions to be preferred
 E.g. ESCO arrangements in Germany
 Establishing the financial markets that are motivated in
lending for efficiency (if no crisis…)
 Mandatory low-E (~passive bldg) standards for social
housing (perhaps all publicly financed bldgs?)
 Preferential mortgage schemes for low-E housing&offices
 “feebate” schemes in mortgages
 Green Investment Schemes – huge opportunity; Hungary
front-runner
3CSEP
Thank you for your
attention
Diana Ürge-Vorsatz
Center for Climate
Change and
Sustainable Energy
Policy (3CSEP)
CEU
3csep.ceu.hu
[email protected]
With permission from HVG
They keep promising this global warming,
they keep promising – but trust me, they
won’t keep this promise either!
3CSEP
Acknowledgements:
authors of Chapter 6
 Coordinating Lead Authors:
 Mark Levine (USA), Diana Ürge-Vorsatz (Hungary)
 Lead Authors:
 Kornelis Blok (The Netherlands), Luis Geng (Peru), Danny Harvey
(Canada), Siwei Lang (China), Geoffrey Levermore (UK), Anthony
Mongameli Mehlwana (South Africa), Sevastian Mirasgedis (Greece),
Aleksandra Novikova (Russia), Jacques Rilling (France), Hiroshi
Yoshino (Japan)
 Contributing Authors:
 Paolo Bertoldi (Italy), Brenda Boardman (UK), Marilyn Brown (USA),
Suzanne Joosen (The Netherlands), Phillipe Haves (USA), Jeff Harris
(USA), Mithra Moezzi (USA)
 Review Editors:
 Eberhard Jochem (Germany), Huaqing Xu (PR China)
Supplementary slides
Sectoral CO2 emissions projected in the
Million tonnes CO
reference case, 2008 - 2025
18
2
Cooking (non-electric)
16
Appliances (including electric cooking) and lighting
14
12
Water heating (including electric)
Space heating, buildings constructed in 1993 - 2008
10
8
Space heating, buildings constructed from 2008
Space heating, buildings constructed using industrialized technology
Space heating, traditional multi-residential buildings
6
4
Space heating, old single-family houses (constructed before 1992)
2
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
3CSEP
If so attractive, why is it not
happening?
The market barriers to energy-efficiency are
perhaps the most numerous and strongest in the
buildings sector
These include:
imperfect information
Limitations of the traditional building design process
Energy subsidies, non-payment and energy theft
Misplaced incentives (agent/principal barrier)
Small project size, high transaction costs
others
3CSEP
Conclusion
 Climate change is unequivocal
 Stabilisation is possible, but requires major reductions in
emissions, as much 50 – 85% of 2000 emissions by 2050
 Improved energy-efficiency could contribute the largest share in
our mitigation task in the short- and mid-term
 Capturing the economic potential in buildings alone can contribute
app. 38% of reduction needs in 2030 for a 3˚C-capped emission
trajectory
 While HPs can play an important role, many factors determine the
net climate impact of heat-pumps vs. the alternatives, the LCCP
potential of the refrigerants also needs to be considered.
 In addition to climate change benefits, improved energy-efficiency
can advance several development goals as well as strategic
economic targets
 However, each new building (HVAC system) constructed in an
energy-wasting manner will lock us into high climate-footprint
future buildings for decades (centuries?) to come – action now is
important
3CSEP
Early investment are important
Table 11.17: Observed and estimated lifetimes of major GHG-related capital stock
Typical lifetime of capital stock
Structures
with
influence > 100
years
less than 30 years
30-60 years
60-100 years
Domestic
appliances
Water heating and
HVAC systems
Lighting
Vehicles
Agriculture
Mining
Construction
Food
Paper
Bulk chemicals
Primary aluminium
Other manufacturing
Glass manufacturing Roads
Cement
Urban infrastructure
manufacturing
Some buildings
Steel manufacturing
Metals-based
durables
3CSEP
Mitigation in the buildings sector: global
significance
 Capturing only the cost-effective potential in buildings
can supply app. 38% of total reduction needed in 2030 to
keep us on a trajectory capping warming at 3˚C
 New buildings can achieve the largest savings
 As much as 80% of the operational costs of standard new
buildings can be saved through integrated design principles
 Often at no or little extra cost
 Hi-efficiency renovation is more costly, but possible
 The majority of technologies and know-how are widely
available
 A large share of these options have “negative costs” –
i.e. represent profitable investment opportunities
3CSEP
Supply curves of conserved CO2 for buildings
in 2020 for different world regions
Source: Figure 6/4. Notes: a) Except for the UK, Thailand and Greece, for which
the supply curves are for the residential sector only. b) Except for EU-15 and
Greece, for which the target year is 2010 and Hungary, for which the target year
is 2030. Each step on the curve represents a type of measure, such as improved
lighting or added insulation. The length of a step on the ‘X’ axis shows the
abatement potential represented by the measure, while the cost of the
measure is indicated by the value of the step on the ‘Y’ axis.
3CSEP
Although EE is often profitable,
investments are hindered by barriers
 Although there are large cost-effective investments to be
made, market barriers often hinder that they are
captured by market forces
 Including misplaced incentives, distorted energy price/tax
regimes, fragmented industry and building design process,
limited access to financing, lack of information and awareness
(of the benefits), regulatory failures, etc.
 These barriers are perhaps the most numerous and
strongest in the buildings sector
 Therefore, strong policies are needed to overcome them
to kick-start and catalise markets in capturing the
potentially cost-effective investments
3CSEP
Background: case studies reviewed
 Over 80 ex-ante policy evaluation studies were reviewed
from over 52 countries
3CSEP
Conclusion
 Improved energy-efficiency could contribute the largest share in
our mitigation task in the short- and mid-term
 Capturing the economic potential in buildings alone can contribute
app. 38% of reduction needs in 2030 for a 3˚C-capped emission
trajectory
 In addition to climate change benefits, improved energy-efficiency
can advance several development goals as well as strategic
economic targets
 E.g. improving social welfare, employment, energy security
 However, due to the numerous barriers public policies are needed
to unlock the potentials and to kick-start or catalise markets
 Several instruments have already been achieving large emission
reductions at large net societal benefits, often at double or triple
negative digit cost figures all over the world
 However, each new building constructed in an energy-wasting
manner will lock us into high climate-footprint future buildings –
action now is important
3CSEP
Why is immediate action important?
3CSEP
Sectoral economic potential for global
mitigation for different regions as a function
of carbon price, 2030
IPCC AR4 WGIII Figure SPM.6.
3CSEP
Supply curve of CO2 mitigation in
the Hungarian residential sector, 2025
…Roof insulation
…Weather stripping of windows
…Base insulation
...Individual metering of heat
…Condensing gas dwelling boilers
EUR/tCO 2
500
400
Source: Novikova 2008, Novikova and
Urge-Vorsatz, KVVM report, 2007
Solar thermal backedup with pellet boilers
300
200
Water heating systems
Base
100
0
-100
Window
exchange
Condensing central
dwelling gas boilers
Wall insulation Roof insulation
TRVs
Clothes washing
Refrigerators
-300
-400
Passive
energy design
Wall insulation
Heat
Pellet pumps
boilers
Condensing central
building gas boilers
Thermostats
-200
Base
Window exchange
Freezers
App. 29.4% of baseline CO 2 emissions
-500
thousand tons CO 2
Water saving fixtures
-600 Ligh Standby
0ts
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
3CSEP
9000
10000
Policies to foster GHG mitigation
in buildings
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments
Part 1: Control and regulatory mechanisms- normative instruments
Policy
instrument
Appliance
standards
Country
example
s
EU, US,
JP, AUS,
Br, Cn
Building
codes
SG, Phil,
Alg, Egy,
US, UK,
Cn, EU
Procureme
nt
regulations
US, EU,
Cn, Mex,
Kor, Jp
Energy
efficiency
obligations
and quotas
UK, Be,
Fr, I, Dk,
Ir
Effectiven
ess
Energy or emission reductions for
selected best practices
High
Jp: 31 M tCO2 in 2010;
Cn: 250 Mt CO2 in 10 yrs
US: 1990-1997: 108 Mt CO2eq, in 2000:
65MtCO2 = 2.5% of el.use,
Can: 8 MtCO2 in total by 2010,
Br: 0.38 MtCO2/year
AUS: 7.9 MtCO2 by 2010
High
HkG: 1% of total el.saved;
US: 79.6 M tCO2 in 2000;
EU: 35-45 MtCO2, up to 60% savings for new
bdgs
UK: 2.88 MtCO2 by 2010, 7% less en use in
houses 14% with grants& labelling
Cn: 15-20% of energy saved in urban regions
High
Mex: 4 cities saved 3.3 ktCO2eq. in 1year
Ch: 3.6Mt CO2 expected
EU: 20-44MtCO2 potential
US:9-31Mt CO2 in 2010
High
UK: 2.6 M tCO2/yr
Costeffectiv
eness
Cost of GHG emission
reduction for selected
best practices
High
AUS: -52 $/tCO2 in
2020,
US: -65 $/tCO2 in 2020;
EU: -194 $/tCO2 in
2020
Mar: 0.008 $/kWh
Medium
NL: from -189 $/tCO2 to
-5 $/tCO2 for end-users,
46-109 $/tCO2 for
Society
High/
Medium
Mex: $1Million in
purchases saves
$726,000/year;
EU: <21$/tCO2
High
Flanders: -216$/tCO2
for households, -60
$/tCO2 for other sector
in 2003.
UK: -139 $ /tCO2
3CSEP
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments
Part 2: Regulatory- informative instruments
Policy
instrument
Country
examples
Mandatory
labelling and
certification
programs
US, Jp,
CAN, Cn,
AUS, Cr,
EU, Mex,
SA
Mandatory audit
programs
US; Fr,
NZL,
Egy,
AUS, Cz
Utility demandside
management
programs
Effectiveness
Energy or emission
reductions for selected best
practices
Costeffectiv
eness
Cost of GHG emission
reduction for selected
best practices
High
AUS: 5 Mt CO2 savings 19922000, 81Mt CO2 2000-2015,
SA: 480kt/yr
Dk: 3.568Mt CO2
High
AUS:-30$/t CO2 abated
High,
variable
US: Weatherisation program:
22% saved in weatherized
households after audits (30%
according to IEA)
Medium/
High
US Weatherisation
program: BC-ratio:
2.4
High
EU: - 255$/tCO2
Dk: -209.3 $/tCO2
US: Average costs
app. -35 $/tCO2
Tha: 0.013 $/kWh
US, Sw,
Dk, Nl, De, High
Aut
US : 36.7 MtCO2in 2000,
Jamaica: 13 GWh/ year,
4.9% less el use = 10.8 ktCO2
Dk: 0.8 MtCO2
Tha: 5.2 % of annual el sales
1996-2006
3CSEP
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments
Part 3: Economic and market-based instruments
Policy
instrument
Country
examples
Energy
performance
contracting/
ESCO support
De, Aut,
Fr, Swe,
Fi, US,
Jp, Hu
Cooperative/
technology
procurement
De, It, Sk,
UK, Swe,
Aut, Ir,
US,Jp
Energy
efficiency
certificate
schemes
Kyoto Protocol
flexible
mechanisms
It, Fr
Cn, Tha,
CEE (JI
&AIJ)
Effectiveness
Energy or emission
reductions for selected best
practices
Costeffectiv
eness
Cost of GHG emission
reduction for selected
best practices
High
Fr, S, US, Fi: 20-40% of
buildings energy saved;
EU:40-55MtCO2 by 2010
US: 3.2 MtCO2/yr
Cn: 34 MtCO2
Medium
/ High
EU: mostly at no cost,
rest at <22$/tCO2;
US: Public sector:
B/C ratio 1.6,
Priv. sector: 2.1
High/Med
ium
US: 96 ktCO2
German telecom company:
up to 60% energy savings
for specific units
Medium
/High
US: - 118 $/ tCO2
Swe: 0.11$/kWh
(BELOK)
High
Fr: 0.011 $/tCO2
estimated
Low
CEE: 63 $/tCO2
Estonia: 41-57$/tCO2
Latvia: -10$/tCO2
High
Low
I: 1.3 MtCO2 in 2006,
3.64 Mt CO2 eq by 2009
expected
CEE: 220 K tCO2 in 2000
Estonia: 3.8-4.6 kt CO2 (3
projects)
Latvia: 830-1430 tCO2
3CSEP
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments
Part 4: Fiscal instruments and incentives
Policy
instrument
Taxation (on
CO2 or
household
fuels)
Country
examples
Nor, De
UK, NL,
Dk, Sw
Effectiveness
Energy or emission
reductions for selected best
practices
Costeffectiv
eness
Low/
Medium
De: household consumption
reduced by 0.9 % 2003: 1.5
MtCO2 in total
Nor: 0.1-0.5% 1987-1991
NL:0.5-0.7 MtCO2 in 2000
Swe: 5% 1991-2005, 3MtCO2
Low
Cost of GHG emission
reduction for selected
best practices
US, Fr, Nl,
High
Kor
US: 88 MtCO2 in 2006
FR: 1Mt CO2 in 2002
High
US: B/C ratio
commercial
buildings: 5.4
New homes: 1.6
Public benefit
charges
BE, Dk, Fr,
Medium/
Nl, US
Low
states
US: 0.1-0.8% of total el. sales
saved /yr, 1.3 ktCO2 savings in
12 states
NL: 7.4TWh in 1996 = 2.5
MtCO2
Br: 1954 GWh
High in
reporte
d cases
US: From -53$/tCO2
to - 17$/tCO2
Capital
subsidies,
grants,
subsidised
loans
Jp, Svn,
NL, De,
Sw, US,
Cn, UK,
Ro
Svn: up to 24% energy savings
for buildings,
BR: 169ktCO2
UK: 6.48 MtCO2 /year, 100.8
MtCO2 in total
Ro: 126 ktCO2/yr
Low
someti
mes
High
Dk: – 20$/ tCO2
UK:29$/tCO2 for soc,
NL: 41-105$/tCO2 for
society
Tax
exemptions/
reductions
High/
Medium
3CSEP
The impact and effectiveness of various policy instruments
Part 5: Support, information and voluntary action (cont.)
Policy
instrument
Country
examples
Awareness,
education,
information
Dk, US,
UK, Fr,
CAN, Br,
Jp, Swe
Detailed billing
& disclosure
programs
Ontario,
It, Swe,
Fin, Jp,
Nor, Aus,
Cal, Can
Effectiveness
Energy or emission
reductions for selected best
practices
Costeffectiv
eness
Cost of GHG emission
reduction for selected
best practices
Low/
Medium
UK: 10.4ktCO2 annually
Arg: 25% in 04/05, 355 ktep
Fr: 40tCO2/ year
Br: 2.23kt/yr, 6.5-12.2
MtCO2/ year with voluntary
labeling 1986-2005
Swe: 3ktCO2/ year
Medium
/ High
Br: -66$/tCO2;
UK: 8$/tCO2
(for all
programs of Energy
Trust)/
Swe: 0.018$/kWh
Medium
Max.20% energy savings
in households concerned,
usually app. 5-10% savings
UK: 3%
Nor: 8-10 %
Medium
Country name abbreviations: Alg - Algeria, Arg- Argentina, AUS - Australia, Aut - Austria, Be - Belgium, Br - Brazil, Cal California, Can - Canada, CEE - Central and Eastern Europe, Cn - China, Cr - Costa Rica, Cz - Czech Republic, De Germany, Ecu - Ecuador, Egy - Egypt, EU - European Union, Fin - Finland, GB-Great Britain, Hkg -Hong Kong, Hu Hungary, Ind - India, Irl - Ireland, It - Italy, JP - Japan, Kor - Korea (South), Mar- Morocco, Mex - Mexiko, NL - Netherlands,
Nor - Norway, Nzl – New Zealand, Phil - Philippines, Pol - Poland, Ro- Romania, SA- South Africa, SG - Singapore, Sk 3CSEP
Slovakia, Svn - Slovenia, Sw - Switzerland, Swe - Sweden, Tha - Thailand, US - United
States.
Cumulative potential CO2 emission reductions
in Hungarian residences, 2008 - 2025
9
Million tonnes CO2
8
7
6
5
Electric appliances (inc.
freezers, fridges, clothes
washers, LOPOMO of PC- and
TV-related peripheries) and
Space heating, buildings
lights
constructed after 2008
Water heating
(including electric)
Space heating, buildings constructed
using industialized technology
Space heating, traditional
multi-residential buildings
4
3
Source: Novikova 2008, Novikova and
Urge-Vorsatz, KVVM report, 2007
2
1
Space heating, old single-family houses (constructed before 1992)
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
3CSEP