Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How much will the energy service directive contribute to the 20% EU energy savings goal?

  • Published:
Energy Efficiency Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Energy Service Directive (ESD) of the European Union (EU) stipulates that member states realize 9% energy savings for the period 2008–2016. A harmonized calculation approach, consisting of a combination of top-down and bottom-up methods, will be developed to determine the savings of energy efficiency improvement measures. However, it is unclear which part of all realized energy savings is eligible in meeting the ESD target. One can argue that not all savings, especially the autonomous efficiency gains, should be accounted for, but only savings due to (new) policy. An analysis is made of the way the methods can be applied, how baseline choices define the savings and whether these represent policy-induced savings. It is shown that the given target could be met with total energy savings that equal 1.0% of ESD energy use per year, hardly more than realized at present. With other choices, the target is met with total savings of 1.6% per year. The savings found are made comparable with the 2.4% yearly savings derived from the 20% savings target for 2020 formulated by the EU. Given the large gap between ESD savings and the savings target, it is concluded that the methods and baselines used should be chosen such that the ESD target leads to realized savings after 2008 at the upper side of the margin.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “The values and calculation methods referred to in Annexes II to V shall be adapted to technical progress in accordance with the procedure referred to in article 16.2.”

  2. Known as the Energy Demand Management Committee (EDMC)

  3. E.g., thermal insulation, energy management, or eco-driving. In order to avoid confusion with “measures”, in the ESD, which can also mean policy measures, these concrete energy-saving measures have been called end-user actions in the EMEEES project (EMEEES 2009).

  4. See ESD for definition of top-down and bottom-up methods.

  5. Bottom-up methods are not restricted to savings due to policy, see section on baselines.

  6. They could be adapted to calculate additional savings, by correcting the indicators for autonomous and energy price related effects [see (EMEEES 2009)]. However, this is restricted due to data constraints.

  7. EMEEES has found that it is possible to calculate (almost) all savings by bottom-up methods.

  8. Some indicators show no savings or even increasing specific energy consumption, i.e., negative “total” savings. That is why the results have been called “apparent total” savings (EMEEES (2009).

  9. According to EMEEES findings, savings for the stock approach will more resemble total savings while the market approach result resembles more the additional/policy savings, see EMEEES (2009).

  10. Annex I (point 3) states: “Measures of a technological nature should either have been updated to take account of technological progress, or be assessed in relation to the benchmark for such measures.”

  11. In the EMEEES project, clear rules have been formulated which baselines to take for total/policy savings.

  12. The Odyssee figure does not incorporate savings due to own co-generation at the site of the end-user. Up to now it is unclear whether the ESD fully incorporates CHP savings. Therefore, CHP savings are left aside.

  13. For assumption made when converting the 9% for 2008–2016 to 1.0% per year see chapter 5.

  14. The Green Paper saving figures are defined on total primary energy consumption, while ESD figures are defined on the largest part of final energy consumption. The difference constitutes industrial end-use under the emission trading scheme and the conversion losses in refineries and power production. Applying the Green Paper figure to the ESD part means implicitly that this figure is also valid for the other energy use.

  15. The 2.9% differs slightly from that in Table 2 due to differences for structure and actual energy use.

  16. Keeping in mind a five- to sevenfold increase in oil prices in $ from the 1990s, the appreciation of Euro against $, the often high energy taxes that mitigate the relative rise in percentage of end-user prices and overall price elasticity values in the order of 0.2 [see (EIA 2005); (Haas 1998) and (Dahl 1993)].

References

  • Adams & Begley (2004). Modelling opportunities for improved energy efficiency—Presentation to NFEE. Workshop, Ph. Adams and R. Begley, Allen Consulting Group, April 2004.

  • Atkins & ECN (2006). Impact assessment on the future action plan for Energy Efficiency (CLWP: 2006/TREN/032). Final Report prepared by Atkins/ECN, July 2006.

  • Boonekamp (2005). Indicators on domestic efforts to reduce CO 2 emissions in The Netherlands, P.G.M. Boonekamp et al, ECN-C--05-024, ECN, Petten, 2005.

  • Boonekamp (2006a). EC energy savings target—Analysis of 20% cost-effective energy savings in the Green Paper on Energy Efficiency, P.G.M. Boonekamp, ECN-E--06-016, ECN, Petten, September 2006 (appendix to [Atkins & ECN, 2006]).

  • Boonekamp (2006b). Actual interaction effects between policy measures for energy efficiency—A qualitative matrix method and quantitative simulation results for households, P.G.M. Boonekamp, Energy-The International Journal, 2006.

  • BRD (2005). The national climate protection programme 2005, BMU-BRD, 2005.

  • Dahl (1993). A survey of energy demand elasticities in support of the development of the NEMS, Carol Dahl, 1993.

  • EC (2005). Green paper on energy efficiency—Doing more with less, COM(2005) 265 final, European Commission, 22 June 2005.

  • EC (2006a). Directive 2006/32/EC on Energy end-use efficiency and energy services, Official Journal of the European Union, 27 April 2006.

  • EC (2006b). Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential, COM(2006) 545 final, European Commission, Brussels, 19 October 2006.

  • EC (2008a). 20 20 by 2020—Europe's climate change opportunity, Communication from the EC to the European Parliament, Council and committees, COM(2008) 30 final, Brussels, 23 January.2008.

  • EC (2008b). Moving forward together on energy efficiency, Communication from the EC on a first assessment of National Energy Efficiency Action Plans required by Directive. 2006/32/EC, COM(2008) 11 final, 23 January 2008.

  • EIA. (2005). Assumptions to the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2005. USA: EIA-DOE. 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • EMEEES (2006). EIE-06-128, Annex I: Description of the Action “Evaluation and Monitoring for the EU Directive on Energy End-Use Efficiency and Energy Services”, Coordinator Wuppertal Institute, August 2006.

  • EMEEES (2009). Measuring and reporting energy savings for the Energy Services Directive—How it can be done, Wuppertal Institute, June 2009. Results and recommendations from the EMEEES project.

  • EP (2008). Report on an action plan for energy efficiency: realising the potential, 2007/2106(INI), Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Rapporteur: Fiona Hall, A6-0003/2008, European Parliament, 8 January 2008.

  • EZ. (2006). Memorandum to Parliament on energy savings and saving options (Energiebe-sparing en optiedocument). The Netherlands: Ministry of Economic Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, R., & Schipper, L. (1998). Residential energy demand in OECD-countries and the role of irreversible efficiency improvements. Energy Economics, 20(4), 421–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2001). Climate Change, Working Group III on Mitigation, 2001.

  • Lechtenböhmer (2005). The mid-term potential for demand side energy-efficiency in the EU, S. Lechtenböhmer, Wuppertal Institute, 2005.

  • MURE (2007). Energy efficiency policies and measures in the EU-15, part 2 prepared by Ademe/Enerdata by Grant agreement IEE-174, Project: Odyssee-MURE., February 2007.

  • Newell, R. G., Jaffe, A. B., Stavins, R. N., et al. (1999). The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 941–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NTUA (2006). European Energy and Transport—Trends to 2030 (update 2005), PRIMES scenarios prepared for DG-TREN by ICCS-NTUA, May 2006.

  • Odyssee (2007). Energy Efficiency Trends in the EU-15, part 1 prepared by Ademe/Enerdata by Grant agreement IEE-174, Project: Odyssee-MURE, February 2007.

  • Rietbergen, M. J., Farla, J. C. M., Blok, K., et al. (2002). Do agreements enhance energy efficiency improvement? Analyzing the actual outcome of the long-term agreements on industrial energy efficiency improvement in The Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern (2003). Energy and Economic Growth, David I. Stern and Cutler J. Cleveland, Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics 0410, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2003.

  • Verbruggen (2001). Simulation model for evaluation of combinations of CO 2 emission reduction measures (in Dutch), Verbruggen, A. and D. Goetghebuer, STEM/DWTC, Antwerpen, 2001.

  • Vreuls (2004). INDEEP Final Report, Task 1 Prepared by H. Vreuls (SenterNovem), IEA-IA-DSM Technologies and Programmes, July 2004.

  • Vreuls et al. (2008). General bottom-up data collection, monitoring, and calculation methods—Final report. H. Vreuls (SenterNovem), S. Thomas (Wuppertal Institute) and J-S. Broc (Armines), September 2008.

  • WEC. (2007). Energy efficiency policies around the world: Review and evaluation. London: World Energy Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing (2006). Explaining the declining energy intensity of the US economy, Joint program on the science & policy of global change of MIT, Ian Sue Wing, Boston University, 2006.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ECN Policy Studies, P.O. Box 1, 1755, ZG, Petten, The Netherlands

    Piet G. M. Boonekamp

Authors
  1. Piet G. M. Boonekamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piet G. M. Boonekamp.

Annex 1: Estimation of autonomous and policy-related savings for EU countries

Annex 1: Estimation of autonomous and policy-related savings for EU countries

For The Netherlands, the contribution of policy to realized total savings has been analyzed in the following studies:

  • Outcome of the long-term agreements on industrial energy efficiency (Rietbergen et al. 2002)

  • Indicators on domestic efforts to reduce CO2-emissions (Boonekamp 2005)

  • Interaction between policy measures for household energy savings (Boonekamp 2006b).

In Rietbergen et al. (2002), the results of voluntary agreements in Dutch industry were analyzed. It was concluded that between a quarter and a half of the 2% yearly savings were due to the agreements or other supporting policy measures. Thus, at least 1% of the savings can be regarded as autonomous or price-induced. From the figures in Boonekamp (2005), on emission reduction due to total savings (Table 2.4), respectively, policy savings (Table 2.6), it can be estimated that about 40% of total savings over the period 1990–2003 probably are due to policy. It regards all sectors, including energy supply. Section 6 of Boonekamp (2006b) provides saving results based on ex-post simulations with a detailed bottom-up model on household energy use. It appears that about 50% of fuel savings and 15% of electricity savings in households for 1990–2000 are the result of three main policy measures (taxes, regulation, and subsidies). On basis of these results, it has been assumed that, for The Netherlands, total energy savings of 1.0% per year consist of 0.7% autonomous savings and 0.3% policy-induced savings [see also page 7 in (EZ 2006)].

An EU-wide source of information is provided by the MURE-database on policy measures (MURE 2007). The results for EU-15 countries show that they apply already policy measures for years, although to a strongly varying degree. Also qualitative impact values are available for many of the policy measures. The savings figures for The Netherlands are transferred to the EU-15 level by comparing the number and impact of policy measures for The Netherlands with that of EU-15 countries. From this comparison, for all end-use sectors, it follows that the impact of policy measures is relatively less for the EU-15. Therefore, it is assumed that not 40%, but about 30%, of total savings are related to policy. Given earlier mentioned total energy savings for EU-15 countries of 0.9% per year, policy savings amount to about 0.3% and autonomous savings to about 0.6%. Many new member states (NMS) applied less saving measures in the 1990s, and almost no policy measures were present up to recent years. Therefore, for NMS, the overall estimate of total savings is 0.8%, and policy savings are about 0.2% per year. Because the weight of NMS in EU-25 energy use is limited the EU-15 values are also valid for EU-25.

Other sources regarding autonomous savings state the following about autonomous energy savings. In Adams and Begley (2004), a model for the Australian energy system is described that uses 0.5% a year for autonomous energy savings in end-use sectors. In Wing (2006), the declining energy intensity for US industry is analyzed. For the period 1980–2000, part of the lower energy intensity is due to sectoral changes, but the 17% decrease in energy efficiency also contributes substantially. In IPCC (2001), assumptions are made for worldwide industrial energy trends for the IPCC scenarios. It is stated in section 3: “Autonomous energy efficiency improvement is assumed to lead to a reduction of specific energy use by 0.5%–1.0% per year (assumption for the average: 0.75%)”. In Stern (2003), the energy efficiency trends for the USA are discussed. Until 1982, negative efficiency trends are found, but, after 1982, substantial autonomous efficiency increase is detected. In BRD (2005), it is estimated that Households will reduce CO2 emissions by 5.3 Mton between 2008 and 2011. Of this reduction, 1.4 Mton should be autonomous and/or price-induced. In Newell et al. (1999), trends for consumer durables are analyzed as to energy use trends. It is concluded that “a sizable portion of efficiency improvements were autonomous”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boonekamp, P.G.M. How much will the energy service directive contribute to the 20% EU energy savings goal?. Energy Efficiency 4, 285–301 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-010-9088-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-010-9088-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation