consider other alternative framings of energy efficiency and their relationship to ..... In a review of the jobs impact of policies for energy efficiency and renewable.
Assessing the intangibles: the socio-economic benefits of energy efficiency
D2.4 Intangible benefits of energy efficiency, final report Tina Fawcett and Gavin Killip, Environmental Change Insitute, University of Oxford, UK
March 2017
DOCUMENT INFORMATION Project number
649619
Acronym
IN-BEE
Full title
Assessing the intangibles: the socio-economic benefits of energy Efficiency
Project URL
http://in-bee.com/
Document URL EU Project officer
Ms Giulia Pizzini
Deliverable
Number
D2.4
Title
D2.4 Intangible benefits of Energy Efficiency - final report
Work package
Number
WP2
Title
Intangible Benefits of Energy Efficiency
Date of delivery
Contractual
M21
Actual
M24
Status
Version 1
Draft
Nature
Report
Dissemination level
Public
Abstract for dissemination
This document provides an integrating overview of INBEE research work which is about, or linked to, the general literature on intangible or multiple benefits. It summaries key pieces of WP2 research work, which are presented in full in the appendices. Further, it brings together themes and ideas which have emerged across the whole project. The aim is to situate this topic within broader areas of knowledge, to give a brief introduction into the specialised packages of research which have been completed, and to suggest where gaps exist and how these might be filled.
Keywords
Multiple benefits, energy efficiency
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation Programme under grant agreement No 649619. The Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein, the sole responsibility lies with the authors.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2. Terminology ........................................................................................................................................ 4 3. Multiple benefits and other framings of energy efficiency ................................................................ 1 4. Multiple benefits in other contexts .................................................................................................... 2 5. Multiple benefits and energy efficiency policy ................................................................................... 2 6. Literature reviews ............................................................................................................................... 4 6.1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 4 6.2. Demand response and smart homes ........................................................................................... 5 6.3. Jobs and macro-economic policy ................................................................................................. 5 6.4. Multiple benefits in Poland and Central Eastern Europe............................................................. 6 6.5. Multiple benefits of energy efficiency in Austrian Energy Regions ............................................. 6 6.6. Identifying stakeholders............................................................................................................... 7 7. Scale and multiple benefits ................................................................................................................. 7 8. Exploring practitioner experiences of using multiple impacts arguments in policy debates ............. 8 9. Discussion: A new visual representation of multiple benefits ............................................................ 9 10. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 11 11. References ...................................................................................................................................... 11
ii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 The multiple benefits of energy efficiency improvements (IEA 2014) ..................................... 9 Figure 2 New representation of the multiple impacts highlighted by the IEA ..................................... 10
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Number of academic journal articles in two databases by search criteria ............................... 4 Table 2: Example of multiple benefits experienced by actors at different scales .................................. 7
iii
1. Introduction This document provides an integrating overview of INBEE research work which is about, or linked to, the general literature on intangible or multiple benefits. It summaries key pieces of WP2 research work, which are presented in full in the appendices. Further, it brings together themes and ideas which have emerged across the whole project. The aim is to situate this topic within broader areas of knowledge, to give a brief introduction into the specialised packages of research which have been completed, and to suggest where gaps exist and how these might be filled. The multiple benefits framing suggests that energy efficiency has many environmental, social and economic benefits, such as improved health, new job creation, and increased productivity, and that these are not properly understood or taken account of in decision-making. The impacts may be negative but are often positive (hence the use of ‘benefits’ rather than ‘impacts’). These benefits may be quantifiable, with good quality data and agreed methodologies or intangible and hard to value - or somewhere in between. Studies show their value using cost-benefit analysis can be much higher than direct energy cost savings (IEA, 2014). We begin with showing how multiple benefits relates to other ideas in energy policy, and how it could impact policy making. First there is a short discussion of the terminology used. Then we consider other alternative framings of energy efficiency and their relationship to multiple benefits, followed by a brief consideration of how multiple benefits arguments are used in other areas of energy policy. Next we describe how energy efficiency policy could use multiple benefits framings, and whether that might change outcomes. Following this, relevant specialist work packages are summarised, including a number of literature reviews and empirical work on how NGOs use multiple benefits arguments in their interactions with policy makers. The discussion section builds on all of this analysis and research, to identify key findings and a future research agenda, and presents a new visualisation of multiple benefits, in which energy efficiency is not given the priority status implicit in the widely-used representation developed by the IEA (2014). The report finishes with conclusions on the various benefits of energy efficiency and implications for theory and practice.
2. Terminology This project initially used the language of ‘intangible benefits of energy efficiency’, as per the project name. However, a bibliographic search showed that the term ‘intangible benefits’ is very rarely used in the literature, and we sought a more recognisable phrase. The phrase ‘multiple benefits’ currently has high levels of recognition due to IEA’s high profile work. They chose this phrase after considering other alternatives such as co-benefits, or non-energy benefits, as explained below: “In other literature, these impacts have been variously labelled “co-benefits”, “ancillary benefits” and “non-energy benefits” (NEBs) – and are often used interchangeably with “multiple benefits”. The IEA uses the term multiple benefits, which is broad enough to reflect the heterogeneous nature of outcomes and to avoid pre-emptive prioritisation of various benefits; different benefits will be of interest to different stakeholders.” (IEA, 2014) iv
We decided to follow IEA’s lead, and generally use the language of multiple benefits. However, the COMBI project, a sister project of INBEE, is using ‘multiple effects’. Arguably, this more clearly signals that negative as well as positive impacts of energy efficiency are included in the analysis. Use of language in this field of research is still fluid, in part because the research field, boundaries and methodologies are still developing (for a more detailed discussion, see Appendix 1).
3. Multiple benefits and other framings of energy efficiency Globally energy efficiency is increasingly understood as a key component of low carbon energy policy (IEA, 2016). At the same time, there is considerable evidence showing that many energy efficiency opportunities are not taken, across all sectors of the economy. (e.g. Graham et al., 2013; IEA, 2015) Given the UN Paris Agreement, which sets an aspirational limit to global temperature rise at 1.5C, rather than the 2C which formed the basis for much of earlier policy making, the need for action to reduce fossil fuel energy is greater than ever. For energy efficiency to make the contribution needed, new understandings of energy efficiency may be needed, as much as new policies. Multiple benefits is one of several ideas challenging existing understandings of energy efficiency and energy policy. A number of other new framings are described briefly below – together with first thoughts on their relationship to multiple benefits. Energy efficiency as first fuel: ‘Energy efficiency first’ or treating energy efficiency as the first fuel describe the same concept, which is that cost-effective opportunities for demand reduction should be implemented before investing in new energy supply. As explained below, this has recently been adopted as a guiding principle for EU energy policy. This framing does not necessarily include the multiple benefits of energy efficiency in its cost/ benefit calculations. If the multiple benefits of energy efficiency were included, would the multiple benefits / effects of energy supply options also have to be considered? Energy efficiency as infrastructure: Framing energy efficiency as infrastructure is an idea which has been adopted by Scotland in its national Energy Efficiency Plan (for more details see WP5 output). It signals that energy efficiency offers long term public benefits, and that it should be considered in the same way as investments in other infrastructure, such as roads, telecoms, water and waste management. In Scotland, the multiple economic, social and environmental benefits of energy efficiency are key to justifying treating it as infrastructure. This argument could perhaps be made just with respect to the energy saving benefits of energy efficiency, but a multiple benefits framing makes the infrastructure argument much stronger. Invisible energy policy: Non-energy policies can have a positive or a negative impact on energy demand and they are often overlooked and unseen, which is why they are sometimes called ‘invisible energy policies’. For example, policies that result in services such as hospitals, schools or shops becoming more centralised may mean people have to use more fuel to travel to them. There can also be less obvious effects on energy demand by ‘non-energy’ policies and priorities, such as those relating to consumer choice, health and safety, growth, austerity, security, or decentralisation
1
(Royston, 2016). Using a lens of invisible energy policy, widens boundaries in a different way from a multiple benefits framing. These ideas are not mutually exclusive. Treating energy efficiency as infrastructure builds on a multiple benefits understanding and is the framing with most obvious resonance. More generally, energy efficiency as policy has been framed in different ways over time - and it has very rarely, if ever, simply seen as a means of using energy more efficiently (Mallaburn and Eyre, 2013). Its multiple benefits have meant it can be framed to fit the dominant political priorities of the time, whether those be economic competitiveness, job creation or delivering warmth.
4. Multiple benefits in other contexts Energy efficiency is not the only energy option for which multiple benefits are claimed. Multiple benefits are also explored, for example, in relation to renewable energy installations and to energy access programmes. A recent report on the economic benefits of renewable energy focused on four macroeconomic variables - GDP, employment, welfare and trade (IRENA, 2016). It concluded that: “Scaling up renewable energy can generate new sources of growth, increase incomes, create jobs and improve welfare. Going forward, holistic, adaptable frameworks that capture and measure the multiple impacts of renewable energy deployment can tip the balance in favour of low-carbon investments. Policy makers responsible for taking today’s critical investment decisions need more complete analysis and evidence of the broad impacts of their choices.” (IRENA 2016:80) These arguments are very much the same as those made by the energy efficiency community. So the multiple benefits arguments extend beyond energy efficiency, and the different research and practitioner communities could learn from each other. The Austrian Energy Regions case study research, mentioned later, includes both renewables and energy efficiency, and shows the integration of benefits from these different elements of the energy transition.
5. Multiple benefits and energy efficiency policy The European Union (EU) is committed to energy efficiency: this is exemplified by its aim of delivering 20% improvement in energy efficiency by 2020. More specifically, it has a range of policies to require Member States (MS) to improve the efficiency with which energy is used. Policy has been implemented through three key Directives – Ecodesign (2009/125/EC), Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD - 2009/125/EC and the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED - 2012/27/EU). As their names suggest, the Ecodesign Directive covers the energy efficiency of products, EPBD covers aspects of energy use in buildings, and EED is an over-arching directive which sets binding national energy efficiency targets up to 2020, and includes additional policy requirements and tools which help MS to achieve their targets. Under the Energy Efficiency Directive, EU countries are required to
2
use energy more efficiently at all stages of the energy chain from its production to its final consumption. At the time of writing, European energy efficiency policy is being reviewed and the European Commission presented their proposals on 30 November 2016 for the period post-2020, under the title ‘Clean Energy for all Europeans’ (European Commission, 2016). The legislative proposals, known as the ‘Winter Package’, cover energy efficiency, renewable energy, the design of the electricity market, security of electricity supply and governance rules for the Energy Union. The package also includes actions to accelerate clean energy innovation and to renovate Europe's buildings. The aim of the package of measures is “to keep the European Union competitive as the clean energy transition is changing the global energy markets”. The Winter Package is yet to be debated by the Parliament and the European Council, and the final decision on targets and other legislative details is expected during 2017. The policy approach proposed by the European Commission in the Winter Package is ‘energy efficiency first’. Energy efficiency first is a framework which focuses on energy-related decision making, and aims to ensure that energy efficiency is considered before supply side options, when meeting demand. Energy efficiency first builds on the principles of least-cost planning and integrated resource planning. These ideas were first developed in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Integrated resource planning is an approach that requires systematic consideration of energy efficiency as a means for achieving outcomes more cheaply. The US energy system is more highly regulated than those in the EU, and integrated resource planning is generally required by state-level regulators (Wilson and Biewald, 2013). EU energy saving and energy efficiency targets are set through a complex process, but which has a calculation of cost and benefits at its heart. Overall energy saving targets for Member States are defined in Article 7 of the Energy Efficiency Directive. National targets for 2014-2020 must be based on a nominal savings rate of 1.5% per year compared to the average energy consumption in the period 2010-20121. Article 7 has only been structured to deliver energy savings; it does not consider the multiple benefits of energy efficiency. The proposals for a revised Article 7 in the Winter Package do include considerations of the social benefit of ensuring that households in energy or fuel poverty benefit from the scheme. However, this inclusion of more than one objective for a policy, is not the same as a multiple benefits framing. In addition to the overall Article 7 target, there are numerous efficiency standards for products and buildings (set via the EcoDesign Directive and EPBD). Quantified multiple benefits are not currently included in the setting of these energy efficiency targets. Whether and how a multiple benefits framing should be included in these policy making processes is a complex issue. Done correctly, it should deliver targets which are closer to the social, economic and environmental optimum. However, there are many questions about data availability and quality, transferability of data between contexts, quantification and monetisation of benefits (and costs) both in theory and in practice, amongst other issues. These themes are discussed in further detail in Report D2.3. 1
However, due to exemptions and exclusions allowed within the legislation, the notified saving targets are only about half of this headline figure, i.e. the annual saving rate is about 0.75% (Forster et al, 2016, RicardoAEA, 2015).
3
6. Literature reviews This project has not carried out a wide literature review on multiple benefits. A very comprehensive literature review has been carried out by IEA in support of their work on multiple benefits (IEA 2014). In addition, other H2020-funded projects are carrying out further literature reviews – notably the COMBI project (http://combi-project.eu/). Therefore, rather than replicate recent or ongoing work, the aim within INBEE has been to carry out targeted reviews, where these are necessary to support the research aims of the project. Two specific literature reviews, on the monetary value of different perceptions of energy price risk and on estimating both indoor comfort and labour productivity using the principle of human exergy were carried out in support of model development work. For clarity, these are are reported in D2.3 Frameworks for assessment, final report, Appendices 3 & 4, along with the model development research.
6.1. OVERVIEW In order to develop overview insights into the multiple literature, two pieces of work were carried out. Firstly, a critical review of the methods and approaches found to date in the literature on multiple impacts was completed (for details see Appendix 2). The purpose was not to review the content of each study in detail, but rather to characterise the different approaches taken and methods used, leading to a more general typology of the studies which are included under the broad banner of ‘multiple impacts’. The review includes consideration of number of approaches to assessing multiple impacts, and their pros and cons. It also looks briefly at existing tools and threshold and scale effects (discussed further in D2.3). It concludes with a discussion of the types of research required to advance the field, and suggests taking a ‘graduated response’ approach to making progress, in the absence of perfect evidence. Secondly, we carried out database searches to guage the size of the evidence base. Searches of academic literature databases show that there is a small literature on multiple benefits and energy efficiency (Table 1). Searches were carried out in two comprehensive databases - SCOPUS and Web of Science - using ‘energy efficiency’ in combination with ‘multiple benefits’ and a range of near synonyms, as well as ‘energy efficiency’ alone. These searches were carried out on 13/14 February 2017, and searched titles, abstracts and key words. Table 1: Number of academic journal articles in two databases by search criteria
Search terms "multiple benefits" AND "energy efficiency" “intangible benefits” AND “energy efficiency” "multiple impacts" AND "energy efficiency" "co benefits" AND "energy efficiency" "non energy benefits" AND "energy efficiency" "energy efficiency"
SCOPUS 13 0 3 73 22 58,689 4
Web of Science 7 1 2 56 8 25,935
There are more articles making reference to the longer-established terms of ‘co benefits’ and ‘non energy benefits’ than multiple benefits (with some overlap between these references). However, the key point to note is that the literature, which dates from the 1990s onwards, is small. Little academic research has been framed in terms of the multiple benefits of energy efficiency.
6.2. DEMAND RESPONSE AND SMART HOMES We carried out literature reviews on changes in the broader energy landscape which might affect how multiple benefits is used, both in decision making and in communication. These literature reviews covered demand response (Appendix 3) and smart homes and other forms of smart technology (Appendix 4). The rising percentage of renewables in the electricity generation mix has increased interest in customers’ capacity for demand response. More consumers are generating their own energy and selling as well as buying from their energy retailer, and are becoming ‘prosumers’. Smart homes and other smart technologies offer new ways of achieving energy savings. The roll-out of smart meters and feedback options, means that customers can be better informed than ever about their own energy use. Whether these and other developments lead to more engaged, active customers with greater interest in the benefits of energy efficiency remains to be seen, but it certainly seems possible. Actors trying to persuade householders or organisations to engage in demand response (typically by reducing demand for electricity at peak times) could learn from the persuasive promotion of energy efficiency through its multiple benefits. As for energy efficiency, the economic argument – assuming there is a financial benefit to demand response – is unlikely always to be sufficient.
6.3. JOBS AND MACRO-ECONOMIC POLICY The topic of jobs growth is one area where the multiple benefits approach has grown in sophistication in recent years. Key findings from our reading and existing reviews are summarised here. Initially job figures were based on ‘multipliers’ which estimated the number of jobs created per million euros of investment in energy efficiency. However, the approach has been criticised for being too simplistic in its assumptions about the functioning of the economy and how labour and employment fit into a fuller picture of labour markets, and how money flows through an economy as income, taxation, savings and consumer spending. The simple multiplier method becomes particularly problematic when the debate is at the scale of ambitious low-carbon renovations of entire building stocks, for example. Expert reviews have suggested that using figures about the jobs impacts of energy efficiency programmes is problematic. One review of green jobs concluded that “fully assessing the consequences of environmental policies for employment presents a considerable challenge, and at 5
present it is not possible for policy-makers to assess conflicting claims about the quality and quantity of green jobs that have already been created, or may be created in the future” (Bowen and Kuralbayeva 2015:3). In a review of the jobs impact of policies for energy efficiency and renewable energy, the UK Energy Research Centre concluded that jobs growth needs to be considered within broader strategic objectives, not used simply as a figure for advocating narrow sectoral support. Further, that “...the proper domain for the debate about the long-term role of ... energy efficiency is the wider framework of energy and environmental policy, not a narrow analysis of green job impacts” (Blyth et al., 2014) These conclusions echo those found in our empirical work with NGOs (see later), where claims about jobs benefits of energy efficiency, while potentially important, were felt to be problematic in terms of both methodology and credibility.
6.4. MULTIPLE BENEFITS IN POLAND AND CENTRAL EASTERN EUROPE This review of literature about energy efficiency and multiple benefits in Poland and Central Eastern European (reported in full in Appendix 5), includes many Polish-language sources in the bibliography, and so presents information which may not be normally available to readers in English. In Poland there are a number of energy-related social, economic and environmental issues which energy efficiency can help resolve. These include: poor air quality, winter smog, fuel poverty, and high energy intensity of industry and thus lack of competitiveness. Poor air quality - much of it linked to inefficient individual coal burning stoves - and fuel poverty lead to negative impacts on health. Energy efficiency programmes, policies and measures are recognised as an important part of the solution to these problems. In Central and Eastern Europe more generally, fuel poverty is a recognised problem, and a very socially significant one, given its high prevalence and the long heating seasons. Concerns about the relatively high energy intensity of national economies are also shared. This means energy efficiency has direct relevance to pressing social and economic problems. Naturally, barriers to implementation remain. Nevertheless, there are many opportunities for energy efficiency to deliver multiple benefits in these countries.
6.5. MULTIPLE BENEFITS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN AUSTRIAN ENERGY REGIONS Austrian “Climate and Energy Model Regions” (CEMRs) are organisations that are funded for a maximum of three years to increase the use of renewable energies and energy efficiency improvements at a regional level. CEMRs play a particular role in the transition towards a sustainable energy system since they are initiatives launched by the local people in a region, taking a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach to the topic. This research (described in full in an INBEE Case Study) includes a literature review on energy efficiency, multiple benefits and CEMRs in Austria. There have been Austrian studies of multiple 6
benefits both in buildings, and from low energy transport interventions - showing a wide range of social, economic and environmental benefits. In CEMRs, increased use of local and renewable energy is generally more of a focus than energy efficiency, with a very wide range of benefits acknowledged in evaluations. These include those highlighted by IEA, such as job creation and reduction of CO2, as well as more specific benefits such as heightened regional identity and increased attractiveness to tourists. This regional approach to energy policy is seen as a good response to the rising need for the low-carbon and renewable energy transition as energy systems are increasingly decentralized, especially in Germany, the UK and Austria.
6.6. IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS The multiple benefits approach is fundamentally about recognising that energy efficiency interventions can have multiple impacts on multiple stakeholders. There is existing research on stakeholder identification, analysis and mapping, which could be helpful for multiple benefit analysis. However, a rigorous procedure for identifying stakeholders is not yet available. Bringing together the literature, we make suggestions about what key elements of such an approach should be (for full details see Appendix 6).
7. Scale and multiple benefits Which multiple benefits are important in the decision about whether or how much energy efficiency to adopt depends on the project / decisions under question, the responsibilities and / or the values of the actors involved. The table below gives examples of the key multiple benefits identified by actors in a number of cases - most based on case study evidence from INBEE, others from elsewhere, as referenced. Table 2: Example of multiple benefits experienced by actors at different scales
Actor
Key benefits
Householders doing low carbon renovation to their homes Householders offered free / discounted energy efficiency Communities involved in energy education
Money saving, comfort, climate change mitigation, environmental improvement, indoor air quality, health Money saving, comfort, health
Large businesses: retailers Large business: manufacturer Local government
Children’s education, money saving, climate change mitigation, community cohesion, local skills Improved indoor air quality, staff productivity, customer experience, corporate reputation Climate change mitigation, process efficiency, local air quality Economic investment in local area, healthier population (due to warmer homes), local jobs,
7
Case Studies / other references Fawcett and Killip, 2014 Kirklees case study
Emden case study
Retail case study L’Oreal case study Kirklees case study
Regional government
national recognition of Local Authority, Climate change mitigation, economic investment in local area, job creation, energy independence (scheme also includes renewable energy), creating a regional identity, avoiding rural exodus
Austrian Energy Regions case study
More sophisticated actors with greater responsibility for a range of economic, environmental and social issues, tend to include a number of multiple benefits, and require more quantitative evidence and a formal framework via which these are included (usually a cost-benefit analysis).
8. Exploring practitioner experiences of using multiple impacts arguments in policy debates Understanding how and why multiple impacts arguments are used, by whom, and to what effect is an important research topic, and complementary to ongoing quantitative research into impacts. Preliminary discussions with experts and stakeholders suggested that using multiple benefits to boost the attraction of energy efficiency may backfire in some cases (see Appendix 7): the presentation of so many impacts may be perceived as a signal that advocates of energy efficiency are rather desperate to convince. In order to explore this issue, interviews were carried out with nine experts in a range of international, EU and UK trade associations, energy and environmental organisations and other NGOs. The aim of this research was to examine the dynamics of the multiple impacts / benefits approach through the lens of practitioner experience. Once recorded and transcribed, the content of the interviews was analysed. The approach to analysis was thematic. The number of interviewees is relatively small and the sample is not intended to be representative. For a full description of this research see Appendix 8. A summary of key findings is presented here. Respondents found a multiple benefits/impacts framing of energy efficiency policies, programmes or projects useful. It enabled them to connect with a range of stakeholders and decision-makers, who had different problems to solve, and to talk to them in a way which reflected and respected the fact that stakeholders may have priorities other than energy efficiency. They could demonstrate how energy efficiency could be a positive solution in a range of spheres, from health to air quality to jobs and economic growth. Organisations have thought a great deal both about what sorts of evidence work best to support their arguments, and how to communicate it. Their experience is that a combination of high quality quantitative evidence and compelling case studies is most effective. Either type of evidence on its own is not sufficiently persuasive. Further evidence is required, with a particular need for a wider range of well-evidenced case studies and improved quantitative data on benefits, especially job creation and associated economic effects. Communication has to start from the interests of those they are trying to influence, with salient arguments being presented. It also has to respond to current areas of political concern. Some organisations are looking to go beyond standard communication, to involve stakeholders in emotional and experiential learning. 8
Although multiple benefits analysis was not yet judged to be mainstream, it is much more prevalent than previously, with more political interest in the benefits of energy efficiency. To be successful, it requires coalition building, and alliances between organisations who have different interests. In future, respondents think that the multiple benefits approach could take on a broader agenda resource efficiency, linking different elements of the energy transition or integrating with the UN’s sustainable development goals. The multiple benefits approach is not a panacea - it does not mean that organisations using it always win the argument. However, there is a strong commitment to pursuing and developing this way of promoting energy efficiency.
9. Discussion: A new visual representation of multiple benefits The IEA’s 2014 diagram represents a selection of possible impacts arranged graphically like a flower (Figure 1).
Figure 1 The multiple benefits of energy efficiency improvements (IEA 2014)
At the centre sits the largest circle ‘energy efficiency improvements’ and arrows indicate the relationships with the impacts arranged like petals around the outside. Arrows are one-directional from the middle to the edge, suggesting a privileged status for energy efficiency as the issue of principal concern. Colours suggest that each type of benefit has its own identity (no two colours are the same) but there are shades of the same colour in several places, suggesting a closer similarity between impacts (for example, ‘macro-economic impacts’ and ‘industrial productivity’ are both in shades of blue). The IEA’s representation places energy efficiency at the centre of things - literally and figuratively. While conducting research for IN-BEE, the primacy of energy efficiency has been called into question many times, especially when the aim is to operationalise ideas about linking energy efficiency to 9
other issues. The successful engagement of stakeholders requires a less deterministic approach than suggested in the IEA’s diagram. Energy efficiency is not the principal issue in many cases, and the connection between one impact and another can be made in either direction: energy efficiency can be viewed as a secondary or ancillary benefit of something else. Equally, the assumption that issues can be clustered using colour may be misleading or counter-productive: just because it is possible to classify things in this way does not mean that all stakeholders will agree with the classification. Finally, it has become clear during the IN-BEE research that different effects and issues can link to one another in multiple ways, some of which include energy efficiency, but many do not. There is no central node through which links have to pass; any issue can be a starting point or priority for someone, and it can be linked to one or more of the other issues, depending on the viewpoint of the stakeholder concerned. Here we propose a re-representation of the IEA’s diagram in an attempt to capture conceptually these important points. these important points. Where the IEA’s diagram resembles a flower (with energy efficiency at the centre), this new centre), this new diagram is more like a bicycle wheel, with all issues placed around the edge; where the IEA’s figure the IEA’s figure uses arrows to suggest priority status for energy efficiency and secondary status to other issues, this new other issues, this new diagram deliberately uses no arrows and gives no priority to energy efficiency (
Figure 2) .
10
Figure 2 New representation of the multiple impacts highlighted by the IEA
This is not to say that the IEA’s diagram is right or wrong – simply to say that it represents one particular view. The key thing is to recognise that different viewpoints can be radically different from the viewpoint of the energy efficiency community.
10. Conclusions Multiple benefits is relatively new as a conceptual approach to promoting energy efficiency, certainly in Europe. It has relevance both in ‘real world’ decision making around energy efficiency at a variety of scales, as well as within theoretically rigorous economic modelling which is used to set policy goals for energy efficiency. The multiple benefits arguments also extend beyond energy efficiency, for example to renewable energy and demand response, and the different research and practitioner communities could learn from each other. The multiple benefits framing of energy efficiency is still under development as an area of research and practice - as exemplified by the diversity in language, and the modest academic research base. Each of the multiple benefits which can be identified, itself represents a complex area of knowledge, where further specialist research is needed (see also D2.3). We are seeing greater sophistication of conceptual understanding and quantification of benefits, e.g. in relation to green jobs growth, which is necessary and welcome. However, further quantification is not the only important route to progress with multiple benefits. As our empirical work with NGOs demonstrated, multiple benefits arguments are most persuasive when linked to the values and priorities of decision-makers and politicians, most of whom do not value energy efficiency as a benefit in itself. Different contexts make different benefits salient -
11
within Austrian energy regions, the energy independence and self-reliance that efficiency delivers is key (in combination with an increased use of renewable energy). The importance of recognising differing contexts, actors, values, priorities has led to the development of an alternative visualisation of multiple benefits, which de-centres energy efficiency. Understanding how best to communicate and operationalise multiple benefits is equally important as improving the quantitative evidence base, and to do this effectively researchers will need to co-create this knowledge with practitioners and decision-makers beyond the energy efficiency community.
11. References Blyth, W., Gross, R., Speirs, J., Sorrell, S., Nicholls, J., Dorgan, A., Hughes, N., 2014. Low carbon jobs: The evidence for net job creation from policy support for energy efficiency and renewable energy. UKERC, London. European Commission, 2016. Clean Energy for All Europeans – unlocking Europe's growth potential, Brussels. Fawcett, T., Killip, G., 2014. Anatomy of low carbon retrofits: evidence from owner-occupied Superhomes. Building Research & Information 42, 434-445. Forster, D., Kaar, A.-L., Rosenow, J., Leguijt, C., Pato, Z., 2016. Study evaluating progress in the implementation of Article 7 of the Energy Efficiency Directive Final Report: Report for DG Energy. Ricardo Energy & Environment, Available: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/final_report_evaluation_on_implementati on_art._7_eed.pdf [Accessed December 2016]. Graham, P., Laustsen, J., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., 2013. Going deep in energy consumption in buildings: How to achieve the best case scenario for deep savings in building energy consumption, European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy Summer Study, Pres'que Ile de Giens, France. IEA, 2014. Capturing the multiple benefits of energy efficiency. International Energy Agency, Paris. IEA, 2015. Accelerating energy efficiency in small and medium-sized enterprises: Powering SMEs to accelerate economic growth. International Energy Agency, Paris. IEA, 2016. Energy efficiency market report 2016. International Energy Agency, Paris. IRENA, 2016. Renewable energy benefits: Measuring the economics. International Renewable Energy Agency, Available: www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_Measuring-theEconomics_2016.pdf [Accessed Feb 2017]. Mallaburn, P.S., Eyre, N., 2013. Lessons from energy efficiency policy and programmes in the UK from 1973 to 2013. Energy Efficiency 7, 23-41. Ricardo-AEA, 2015. Study evaluating the national policy measures and methodologies to implement Article 7 of the Energy Efficiency Directive. Study produced for DG ENER . , Available at https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Final%20Report%20on%20Article%207%2 0EED.pdf [Accessed 22/2/16]. Royston, S., 2016. Invisible energy policy in higher education, DEMAND Centre Conference,. DEMAND Centre, Lancaster, 13-15 April 2016. . Wilson, R., Biewald, B., 2013. Best Practices in Electric Utility Integrated Resource Planning: Examples of State Regulations and Recent Utility Plans. . Regulatory Assistance Project and Synapse Economics., Available: www.raponline.org [Accessed March 2017]. 12
13
