Energieeffizienznetzwerke – beschleunigte Emissionsminderungen in der mittelständischen Wirtschaft
11 Mar 2010-Vol. 34, Iss: 1, pp 21-28
TL;DR: In this paper, a Netzwerk-Managementsystem erlaubt einen Mindeststandard zum Aufbau und Betrieb derartiger Netzwerke, regelmasigen moderierten Treffen der Energiebeauftragten zum Erfahrungsaustausch sowie einem jahrliche monitoring uberwindet viele dieser Hemmnisse and fuhrt zu einer Verdopplung des energietechnischen Fortschritt
Abstract: Die Verminderung der energiebedingten CO2-Emissionen in der mittelstandischen Wirtschaft durch effizientere Nutzung von Energie ist eine der rentabelsten Optionen. Dennoch werden diese Chancen wegen vielfaltiger Hemmnisse und Marktversagen kaum realisiert. Hierbei spielen hohe Transaktionskosten und Entscheidungsroutinen bei Investitionen und beim Einkauf der Betriebe eine erhebliche Rolle. Ein in der Schweiz entwickeltes Netzwerkkonzept mit Eingangsberatung jedes teilnehmenden Betriebes, Zielsetzungen fur das gesamte Netzwerk, regelmasigen moderierten Treffen der Energiebeauftragten zum Erfahrungsaustausch sowie einem jahrlichem Monitoring uberwindet viele dieser Hemmnisse und fuhrt zu einer Verdopplung des energietechnischen Fortschrittes relativ zum Effizienzfortschritt der Industrie insgesamt. Dieses Netzwerkkonzept kann weitestgehend von der Wirtschaft selbst durchgefuhrt werden. Die jahrliche durchschnittliche Energiekostenersparnis ist rd. 100.000 € je Betrieb und Jahr und die CO2-Emissionsminderung rd. 500 t CO2. Bei einem Gesamtpotential von rd. 700 Netzwerken waren fur 2020 Emissionsminderungen bis zu 10 Mio. t CO2 moglich. Ein Netzwerk-Managementsystem erlaubt einen Mindeststandard zum Aufbau und Betrieb derartiger Netzwerke fur Beratende Ingenieure und Moderatoren.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: LEEN can be indicated as a policy instrument enabling informed decisions on efficiency measures and supporting their implementation and tailoring the programme to different target groups and aiming at dismantling other barriers directly in addition to tackling information deficits could be undertaken to improve the process.
24 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the factors that contribute to the success of EH networks by drawing on unique data from two pilot projects involving 34 energy efficiency networks in Germany and found support for the first, the third, and the fourth explanations, i.e., the audits make profitable potentials visible and networks function as a training course to increase knowledge.
Abstract: Energy efficiency networks have received increasing attention over the last few years, not only from national governments (Austria, China, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland) but also from utilities, consulting engineers, chambers of commerce, and city councils. This paper examines the factors that contribute to the success of such networks by drawing on unique data from two pilot projects involving 34 energy efficiency networks in Germany. The objective is to explain why the companies participating in such networks are much faster at reducing their energy costs than the average in similar businesses. Possible explanations for the success of energy efficiency networks include the following: (1) energy audits make profitable potentials visible; (2) the joint network targets for efficiency and emissions increase the motivation of energy managers, decision-makers, and other staff members; (3) the meetings and site visits of the network participants act like an intensive training course to increase the knowledge of efficient solutions, change decision routines, and lead to trust among the participants; and (4) network participation reduces transaction costs. In our data, we find support for the first, the third, and the fourth explanations, i.e. the audits make profitable potentials visible and networks function as a training course to increase knowledge. And, from the point of view of participants, transaction costs are reduced. The impact of network goals, on the other hand, appears to have both up- and downsides. We conclude that there is the need for further research in order to capture these mechanisms in more detail.
10 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors analyzed monitoring data of 263 enterprises of the Learning Energy Efficiency Networks LEEN in Germany and found that financial barriers are most prevalent, but there was no general correlation with company size, while financial restrictions are not necessarily caused by a lack of money, but also by risk aversion or unlikely payback periods.
Abstract: The improvement of energy efficiency in industrial companies plays a crucial role for the energy transition. Although significant economic potentials have been identified, the concerned actors are still struggling to realize them fully. To support the implementation of energy efficiency measures by passing policies, a deeper understanding of the barriers affecting different kinds of companies is necessary to better match the options to their needs and requirements. This paper considers companies’ characteristics and barriers to draw conclusions on energy efficiency policies and specific recommendations on energy efficiency measures. It recommends compromises for policies between high administrative efforts to design individual solutions for companies and too generic approaches, which are not tackling the specific barriers and companies’ characteristics. Our analysis assesses monitoring data of 263 enterprises of the Learning Energy Efficiency Networks LEEN in Germany. The LEEN support energy audits, company networking and assesses implemented energy efficiency measures. Lack of information combined with unfavourable reasoning in decision-making impedes the adoption of profitable measures. Thus, financial policy instruments should aim at promoting long-term decision-making. Audits turned out to be an effective information tool and are more common in LEs than in SMEs. Accordingly, the number of implemented measures and the choice of specific measures relate to company size. Regarding barriers to energy efficiency measures, we found financial barriers most prevalent, but there was no general correlation with company size. Moreover, financial restrictions are not necessarily caused by a lack of money, but also by risk aversion or unlikely payback periods. LEs are stronger affected by motivational barriers, especially if the expected organizational effort is high. Reducing transaction costs can increase the willingness to invest greater efforts in energy efficiency measures.
8 citations
Cites background from "Energieeffizienznetzwerke – beschle..."
...A large share of companies (about 85%; Schröter et al. 2009) base decisions on short payback rates and therefore often reject profitable measures that would have been adopted if the internal rate of return had been taken as the decision criterion (Jochem et al. 2010)....
[...]
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors show that less than half of the energy savings credited to the networks are additional, implying that more than 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 counted towards national energy efficiency goals would have to be compensated by additional policies.
Abstract: In energy efficiency networks, groups of firms exchange experiences on energy conservation in regular meetings over several years. The companies implement energy efficiency measures in order to reach commonly agreed energy savings and CO2 reduction goals. Existing evaluations of such voluntary regional networks claim that participants improved energy efficiency at twice the speed of the industry average. Based on comprehensive data from the German manufacturing census, this paper shows that this claim is overstated: Likely less than half of energy savings credited to the networks are additional, implying that more than 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 counted towards national energy efficiency goals would have to be compensated by additional policies. However, although statistically insignificant, estimates of the network effects are still substantial, pointing to 1,400 MWh of energy savings and 600 tonnes of CO2 reduction for the average participant. These estimates suggest a high cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency networks compared to similar energy efficiency policies, even if actual energy savings are likely lower than previous research suggested.
3 citations
Cites background or methods from "Energieeffizienznetzwerke – beschle..."
...Energy efficiency networks typically focus on energy savings from cross-cutting technologies such as process heat and process cooling, ventilation or lighting, since these are used in a wide range of industrial sectors (Jochem et al. 2010; Köwener et al. 2014; Rohde et al. 2015)....
[...]
...2 In energy efficiency network types not using the LEEN standard, a participation with annual energy costs above EUR 150,000 is also possible (Jochem et al. 2010)....
[...]
...Moreover, EENs may influence energy conservation through socio-psychological mechanisms (Stern 1992; Jochem et al. 2010): The participation of company representatives in a group structure like an energy efficiency network can lead to a higher intrinsic motivation for participants (Köwener et al.…...
[...]
...2 energy savings compared to a baseline energy consumption) by around two percent each year, or double the speed of the industrial sector as a whole (Jochem et al. 2010; Köwener et al. 2014; Rohde et al. 2015)....
[...]
...Since network participants can trust each other due to the absence of a commercial interest among network peers, this sharing of experiences may be particularly valuable (Jochem et al. 2010; Köwener et al. 2014)....
[...]
01 Dec 2012
TL;DR: Off4Firms as mentioned in this paper is an applied research and innovation project aiming at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption of private households, where firms can evaluate measures aiming at reductions in energy use and CO2 emissions in their employees' private lives.
Abstract: .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Evaluation criteria for reduction activities ...................................................................................................... 7 2. 2.1. Technical reduction potential ................................................................................................................ 8 2.2. Cost efficiency of the reduction activities ........................................................................................... 12 2.3. Verifiability of the CO2 emissions and energy consumption reductions ............................................. 13 2.4. Implementation barriers ..................................................................................................................... 15 2.5. Concluding remarks ............................................................................................................................. 18 Exemplary evaluation of reduction activities in transportation.................................................................... 19 3. 3.1. Purchase of new cars ........................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.1. Baseline definition ........................................................................................................................... 20 3.1.2. Technical reduction potential ......................................................................................................... 21 3.1.3. Cost efficiency ................................................................................................................................. 24 3.1.4. Verifiability ...................................................................................................................................... 27 3.1.5. Implementation barriers ................................................................................................................. 29 3.1.6. Results ............................................................................................................................................. 31 3.2. Choice of transportation means .......................................................................................................... 32 3.2.1. Baseline definition ........................................................................................................................... 32 3.2.2. Technical reduction potential ......................................................................................................... 34 3.2.3. Cost efficiency ................................................................................................................................. 36 3.2.4. Verifiability ...................................................................................................................................... 38 3.2.5. Implementation barriers ................................................................................................................. 40 3.2.6. Results ............................................................................................................................................. 42 3.3. Results and qualitative rating of reduction activities in the transport sector ..................................... 43 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 46 4. Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 47 5. References .................................................................................................................................................... 48 6. Annex .................................................................................................................................................................... 55 Off4Firms Working Paper D1.1. Off4Firms in a Nutshell 4 Off4Firms in a Nutshell Off4Firms – Employer-led incentives for households’ reductions in CO2 emissions and energy consumption Off4Firms is an applied research and innovation project aiming at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption of private households. The project is led by ETH Zurich (Chair of Economics, Prof. Renate Schubert) and involves project partners from academia and business: Wageningen University, South Pole Carbon, Swiss Re, and EWZ. Partially financed by EIT Climate-KIC, the project runs from April 2012 until March 2014. Being one of the world’s largest emitters, households in aggregate bear an enormous potential for reducing emissions and energy consumption. Off4Firms starts from the premise that one effective way of triggering change in households is through household members’ employers. Off4Firms creates a win-win situation for households and firms: both profit from employees saving energy and reducing CO2 in their households. Employees benefit because they change their energy-related behaviour with the support of their employer. This change pays for – for example through lower energy costs. Companies, on the other hand, benefit from reputation gains as employers and in the public. In addition, under specific conditions – they may profit from offsetting their emissions by their employees’ emission reductions. Off4Firms develops a comprehensive programme for firms to use this great potential in an efficient way. This project enables firms to evaluate measures aiming at reductions in energy use and CO2 emissions in their employees’ private lives. Evaluation criteria are the effectiveness, cost efficiency, verifiability and acceptability of measures for the employees. Best practice measures will be identified and a tool kit will be provided, enabling the development of company-tailored CO2 or energy reduction measures. These measures will be brought to scale by a dedicated business unit. In addition, the policy framework making such measures a win-win strategy for households and for firms will be depicted. Off4Firms Working Paper D1.1. Abstract
3 citations
Cites background from "Energieeffizienznetzwerke – beschle..."
...Yet, there seem to be several important barriers such as lacking awareness, large administrative hurdles, and missing information that impede the success of such activities (Epper, Fehr-Duda, & Schubert, 2011; Farsi, 2010; Jaffe & Stavins, 1994; Jakob, 2007; Jochem et al., 2010)....
[...]
...This inertia may at least partially be caused by either a lack of awareness and acceptability of new technologies or by continuing a traditional or common behaviour or habit (Abou-Zeid et al., 2012; Jakob, 2007; Jochem et al., 2010)....
[...]
...The energy-efficiency gap implies that specific implementation barriers exist that hinder private households from realizing cost efficient reduction activities (Eichhammer et al., 2009; Jochem et al., 2010)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors identify the factors that determine the investment behavior of firms, their attitude towards various types of energy policy, and their responsiveness to changes in environmental policy in the Netherlands.
354 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a learning network of companies has been established to motivate management to pay more attention to energy efficiency in Switzerland and Germany, where the main elements of the activities include initial consultation for each company with an experienced engineer, agreement on a common target for energy-efficiency improvement, regular meetings with technical presentations and an exchange of experiences, yearly control of energy consumption and CO2 emissions as well as scientific monitoring and evaluation of the process.
58 citations
Dissertation•
01 Jan 2002
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a framework for the reassessment of no-regret potentials based on the TCE approach and the standard theory of market failure in the context of energy saving measures.
Abstract: I Introduction.- Subject and research questions.- 1 The debate on no-regret potentials - origin, context, issues.- 1.1 The origin: climate change and policy responses.- 1.1.1 International and supranational policy responses.- 1.1.2 German climate policy background.- 1.2 The relevance of no-regret potentials beyond climate policy.- 1.3 Key issues in the debate on no-regret potentials.- 1.4 Focus and structure of the thesis.- 2 The issues of the no-regret controversy.- 2.1 Definition of "no-regret" potentials.- 2.1.1 The micro-level of costs and benefits.- 2.1.2 The level of energy system analysis.- 2.1.3 The level of the national economy.- 2.2 Characterisation of the conflicting views.- 2.2.1 No-regret potentials within the framework of the transformationcurve.- 2.2.2 No-regret potentials within the framework of isoquants.- II Theory-based framework for the reassessment of no-regret potentials.- Preliminary remarks.- 3 The standard theory of market failure.- 3.1 Outline of theoretical concepts.- 3.1.1 Externalities.- 3.1.2 Decreasing average costs and market concentration.- 3.1.3 Information deficiencies.- 3.1.3.1 Quality ignorance and information asymmetries.- 3.1.3.2 Market solutions to information asymmetries.- 3.1.3.3 Ignorance of utility and prices.- 3.1.3.4 Uncertainty.- 3.2 Existing evidence on market failures related to energy saving measures.- 3.2.1 Existing evidence on external effects related to energy saving measures.- 3.2.2 Existing evidence on market failure following decreasingaverage costs.- 3.2.3 Existing evidence on information deficiencies related to energysaving measures.- 3.3 Conclusions on the standard theory of market failure.- Annex to Chapter 3.- A.1 Key questions related to market failure.- A.1.1 Key questions related to externalities as a reason for market failure.- A.1.2 Key questions related to market failure following decreasing average costs.- A.1.3 Key questions on information deficiencies related to energy saving measures.- A.1.3.1 Key questions related to asymmetric quality information.- A.1.3.2 Key questions related to ignorance of utility and prices.- A.1.3.3 Key questions related to the uncertainty of energy saving measures.- A.2 Micro-economic background.- 4 Transaction cost economics.- 4.1 Transaction costs and market failure.- 4.2 Outline of transaction cost economics.- 4.2.1 Outline of the quantitative approach.- 4.2.2 Outline of the heuristic approach.- 4.2.2.1 Asset specificity.- 4.2.2.2 Uncertainty and opportunism.- 4.2.2.3 Frequency.- 4.3 Review of empirical transaction cost research.- 4.3.1 Exemplary empirical TCE research.- 4.3.2 Existing heuristic evidence of transaction costs related to energysaving measures.- 4.3.3 Existing quantitative evidence of transaction costs related toenergy saving measures.- 4.4 Conclusions about transaction costs.- Annex to Chapter 4: Key questions based on the TCE approach.- A.1 Key questions from a market failure perspective.- A.2 Key questions from a heuristic perspective.- A.3 Key questions from a quantitative perspective.- 5 Investment appraisal.- 5.1 Standard theory of investment.- 5.1.1 Data for investment appraisal.- 5.1.2 Net present value and internal rate of return.- 5.1.3 Choosing the appropriate discount rate: the Capital AssetPricing Model.- 5.1.4 Shortcomings of the standard concepts.- 5.2 Real option values.- 5.2.1 Outline of the theoretical concept.- 5.2.2 Alternative modes of operationalisation.- 5.2.3 Strengths and potential biases in real option valuation.- 5.3 Review of investment appraisal methods in "no-regret" studies.- 5.3.1 Underlying data on revenues and expenditures.- 5.3.2 Conventional investment appraisal criteria in no-regret studies.- 5.3.3 Evaluation of energy saving measures as real options.- 5.4 Conclusions on investment appraisal.- Annex to Chapter 5.- A.1 Key questions on investment evaluation.- A.1.1 Verify and re-estimate data on cash flows.- A.1.2 Re-assessment based on conventional investment criteria.- A.1.3 Assessing the no-regret potential on the basis of real option theory.- A.2 Treatment of taxes and depreciation in cash flow estimates.- 6 Complementary perspectives on the no-regret potential.- 6.1 Dynamic aspects of market failure.- 6.1.1 Results from preceding chapters.- 6.1.2 Complementary insights from the theory of diffusion.- 6.1.3 Existing evidence on dynamic market failures related to energysaving measures.- 6.2 Implications for policy evaluation.- 6.2.1 Evaluation of policy benefits and costs.- 6.2.2 Effectiveness of policy instruments.- 6.2.3 Review of policy evaluations related to the no-regret potential.- 6.3 Synopsis of further linkages between principal theoretical elements.- 6.4 Conclusions on complementary aspects.- Annex to Chapter 6: Key questions concerning complementary perspectives.- A.1 Key questions related to dynamic market failure.- A.2 Key questions related to policy evaluation.- 7 Theoretical conclusions - A typology of no-regret potentials.- 7.1 Synopsis of phenomena and causes of no-regret potentials.- 7.2 Conclusions for the empirical re-assessment of no-regret potentials.- III Empirical analyses.- Preliminary methodological remarks.- 8 Case study of electric motors.- 8.1 Review of an engineering study about electric motors.- 8.1.1 Motor electricity consumption patterns and determinants.- 8.1.2 Technical energy saving potentials.- 8.1.3 Economic energy saving potentials.- 8.1.4 Summary with respect to our typology.- 8.2 Re-evaluation at the level of phenomena of no-regret potentials.- 8.2.1 Verification and re-estimation of the data on cash-flows.- 8.2.2 Investment appraisal criteria.- 8.2.2.1 Re-assessment of the conventional NPV.- 8.2.2.2 Assessment of the sequential NPV.- 8.2.3 (Re-) Evaluation of transaction costs.- 8.2.4 Interim results regarding the level of phenomena.- 8.3 Re-evaluation at the level of causes.- 8.3.1 Market failure related to information deficiencies.- 8.3.2 Diffusion failure.- 8.4 Policy initiatives for the promotion of HEMs.- 8.4.1 Policy design and effectiveness.- 8.4.2 Policy costs.- 8.5 Summary of the re-evaluation results.- Annex to Chapter 8.- A.1 Case study on motor use in firm B.- A.1.1 Characteristics of motor stock in firm B.- A.1.2 Summary of interview topics.- A.2 Features of case study data base Ostertag, Landwehr,Thomas et al. 1998.- A.2.1 List of interviewees for the market study.- A.2.2 Summary of interview topics for the market study.- A.3 Decision trees for the sequential NPV of optimal motor choice.- 9 Case study of "Contracting".- 9.1 Contracting from the perspective of the no-regret advocates.- 9.1.1 Economic energy saving potential of residential heat contracting.- 9.1.2 Interpretation with respect to our typology.- 9.2 Re-evaluation of "first level" phenomena and causes.- 9.2.1 Verification of investment appraisal.- 9.2.2 Re-evaluation of transaction costs.- 9.2.3 Re-evaluation of 1st level causes of market failure.- 9.2.3.1 Evidence for causes of Type I and Type II.- 9.2.3.2 Evidence for causes of Type III.- 9.2.3.3 Evidence for causes of Type V.- 9.2.3.4 Conclusions about the 1st level causes of market failure.- 9.3 Contracting as an autonomous solution (2nd level).- 9.3.1 Effectiveness of contracting.- 9.3.1.1 Contracting as a remedy to X-inefficiencies.- 9.3.1.2 Contracting as a remedy to the ignorance of utility.- 9.3.1.3 Contracting as a remedy to interferences with diffusionmechanisms.- 9.3.1.4 Contracting as a remedy to excessive capital costs.- 9.3.2 Transaction costs and cost-efficiency of contracting.- 9.3.2.1 Comparative heuristic aspects of transaction costs undercontracting.- 9.3.2.2 Quantitative aspects of transaction costs under contracting.- 9.3.2.3 Impact of contracting on profitability beyond transaction costs.- 9.3.3 Evidence and remedies for causes of market failure at the 2nd level.- 9.3.3.1 Market failure related to standard energy service contracts.- 9.3.3.2 Information asymmetries on the quality of the contractor.- 9.3.3.3 Information asymmetries on the ex-post behaviour ofcontracting clients.- 9.3.3.4 Reinforcements of contracting as an autonomous solution.- 9.4 Summary and policy implications of the re-evaluation results.- Annex to Chapter 9.- A.1 Definition and critique of performance contracting.- A.2 The energy saving potential of heat contracting in residentialbuildings (re-estimation).- A.3 Economic aspects of rental housing legislation.- A.4 List of contracting projects for secondary analysis.- A.5 List of interview candidates.- A.6 Summary of interview topics.- A.6.1 Topics of interviews with technical experts.- A.6.2 Topics of interviews with contracting professionals.- A.6.3 Topics of interviews in individual contracting projects.- 10 Generalisation of case study results.- 10.1 Discussion of the case study findings.- 10.1.1 Synopsis of results.- 10.1.2 Policy implications.- 10.1.3 From case studies towards more general results.- 10.2 Possibilities for aggregation by means of the Panta Rhei model.- 10.2.1 General characteristics and key equations.- 10.2.1.1 Energy demand in households.- 10.2.1.2 Energy demand in production.- 10.2.1.3 Capital stock turnover.- 10.2.2 "Cause"-based aggregated estimation of no-regret potentials.- 10.2.2.1 Price distortions of non-energy inputs to energy savingmeasures.- 10.2.2.2 X-inefficiencies on the side of the adopter.- 10.2.2.3 Mismatch of governance structures.- 10.2.3 Explicit technology choice.- 10.3 Conclusion on the aggregation of no-regret potentials.- Annex to Chapter 10: Key features of the model "Panta Rhei".- A.1 Energy demand and related regression equations.- A.1.1 Energy demand in households.- A.1.2 Energy demand in production.- A.2 Prices, demand and production.- General conclusions.- Annex.- List of abbreviations.- List of tables.- List of figures.- References.
54 citations