Decarbonization of industry: Guidelines towards a harmonized energy efficiency policy program impact evaluation methodology

被引:22
作者
Andrei, Mariana [1 ]
Thollander, Patrik [1 ]
Pierre, Inge [2 ]
Gindroz, Bernard [3 ]
Rohdin, Patrik [1 ]
机构
[1] Linkoping Univ, Div Energy Syst, Dept Management & Engn, SE-58183 Linkoping, Sweden
[2] Energiforetagen Sverige, S-10153 Stockholm, Sweden
[3] CEN CENELEC Sect Forum Energy Management SFEM, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
关键词
Decarbonization of industry; Energy efficiency policy programs; Ex-ante policy evaluation; Energy audits; Policy process; Guidelines; Methodology; MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES; DRIVING FORCES; BARRIERS; ADOPTION; DRIVERS;
D O I
10.1016/j.egyr.2021.02.067
中图分类号
TE [石油、天然气工业]; TK [能源与动力工程];
学科分类号
0807 ; 0820 ;
摘要
The decarbonization of EU energy system is under way, but manufacturing industry is still using approximately 25% of the EU total final energy use. To maintain long-term competitiveness while contributing to the EU goal of carbon neutrality by 2050, manufacturing industry needs to improve energy efficiency in a cost-effective way. One important way to achieve this is through energy audits. The Energy Efficiency Directive promotes member states' development of energy efficiency programs to encourage industry to undergo energy audits. Previous studies have reviewed industrial energy efficiency policy program evaluations and argued that there is no harmonized way to conduct them. This leads to difficulties in: i) comparing energy efficiency and cost saving potentials throughout different programs, and ii) providing necessary information that supports the improvement of the policy program. Therefore, we argue that a harmonized methodology for industrial energy efficiency policy program evaluation is of great importance, and, we have developed a set of five-steps guidelines that lay the foundation for an ex-ante energy efficiency policy program evaluation methodology. The guidelines are to be be conducted during the lifetime of the program, in five steps, as follows: (s1) define key issues, (s2) set the objectives for each key issue, (s3) identify the options for each key issue, (s4) analyze options from an energy and environmental perspective, and (s5) compare options and select the recommended one. Our proposed methodology will support policymakers and evaluators answer questions such as: i) how can the objectives of the policy program be achieved? ii) is there any need to change the policy program? Furthermore, a comparison in terms of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of all major policy options developed, including the status quo option is proposed in the methodology. This paper can be seen an important step towards the goal of creating a harmonized policy evaluation methodology. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:1385 / 1395
页数:11
相关论文
共 57 条
  • [1] Ahmed K, 2008, ENVIRON DEV, P1, DOI 10.1596/978-0-8213-6762-9
  • [2] Information programs for technology adoption: the case of energy-efficiency audits
    Anderson, ST
    Newell, RG
    [J]. RESOURCE AND ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2004, 26 (01) : 27 - 50
  • [3] Benchmarking energy performance of industrial small and medium-sized enterprises using an energy efficiency index: Results based on an energy audit policy program
    Andersson, Elias
    Arfwidsson, Oskar
    Thollander, Patrik
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 182 : 883 - 895
  • [4] A study of the comparability of energy audit program evaluations
    Andersson, Elias
    Arfwidsson, Oskar
    Bergstrand, Victor
    Thollander, Patrik
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2017, 142 : 2133 - 2139
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2019, Energy, transport and environment statistics, DOI DOI 10.2785/660147
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2018, Energy Efficiency Indicators - Highlights 2018, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  • [7] [Anonymous], 2012, OFFICIAL J L, V315, P1
  • [8] [Anonymous], 2011, Corporate value chain (scope 3) accounting and reporting standard
  • [9] Extending the energy efficiency gap
    Backlund, Sandra
    Thollander, Patrik
    Palm, Jenny
    Ottosson, Mikael
    [J]. ENERGY POLICY, 2012, 51 : 392 - 396
  • [10] Backlund S., 2014, P IND SUMM STUD RET, P75