Joint Implementation Network

Energy efficiency policy is expected to play a key role for meeting the European Union's energy targets (particularly for reduced energy demand and reduced CO2 emissions) using a range of policy instrument combinations. However, most analyses undertaken so far have focused on single-policy measures rather than developing a more generic framework for assessing to what extent a particular policy mix is effective and under which specific conditions. This paper both contributes to the theoretical literature on policy mixes and undertakes an empirical analysis of the current policy mixes in buildings efficiency policy in 14 European Union countries. Building on the existing literature, and using expert knowledge, an assessment of the interaction of 55 pairs of policies is presented. This identifies policy mixes likely to deliver more, less or the same energy savings in combination than singly. The theoretical assessment is compared with actual policy mixes present within the European Union, highlighting that combinations of multiple financial incentives may need further investigation. By bringing these forms of knowledge together, the paper suggests how buildings policy mixes could be made more effective, shows gaps in current knowledge and highlights key research needs.

In this article we deviate from neoclassical assumptions of fully competitive energy markets and represent a more realistic oligopolistic market, given the reconsolidation tendencies of energy companies. We focus on policies for energy efficiency improvement for electricity suppliers, namely on white certificates. The behavior of each supplier is based on a detailed decision tree, which determines the optimal move given the expectation on the competitor's behavior. According to our preliminary findings, the introduction of white certificate obligations should encompass larger increases in the electricity prices. In order to test our theoretical findings we make use of a typical oligopolistic market in Italy, where we depict that a leader company can serve the main part of electricity and energy efficiency projects, through financing them with white certificates, while the residual demand is more expensive and must be covered at a high cost from follower companies.

Emission reduction activities in the European Union (EU) in- and outside the European Trading System (ETS) thus far have largely taken place separately. One possibility to combine the two is through linking Non-ETS offset project-based crediting schemes in the form of Joint Implementation or domestic offset (DO) projects with the EU ETS. Linking would allow non-ETS offset project-based CO2 credits to be traded within the ETS market. This paper discusses the merits and drawbacks of the implementation of a DO scheme in the built environment in the Netherlands. The built environment can be characterised as a sector with a great diversity and significant energy savings potential. Emphasis is paid on the modalities for estimating energy savings under DO projects. The authors discuss if next to existing EU, national or regional policies in the Netherlands, DO could spur initiatives in sub-sectors or market areas that are difficult to reach with conventional policy instruments. Thus, despite the existing policy framework in this sector, there could be still space for DO to reach the untapped energy savings potential. DO can support activities and technologies that are not covered by other policy instruments, either because they are not part of the instruments focus or are above the minimum requirements of the incumbent policy targets. It is expected that some lessons from this study in the Netherlands can be taken into account also by other countries facing similar market circumstances, which have implemented several policy instruments and are considering DO schemes as an alternative for capturing part of the untapped energy saving potential in their end use sectors. Another possible advantage of DO is that is has the potential to reduce public spending on existing policy goals, when it is considered in conjunction with existing public financing instruments. In order to tap into this potential, there are a series of hurdles in place, like additionality and the current CO2 price levels, while transaction and administration costs must be kept low.

Next to energy efficiency, in the context of GHG reductions, additional policy mechanisms to the incumbent EU Emissions Trading scheme (EU ETS) are discussed. Such is the case of Non-ETS Domestic Offset (DO) schemes, which can reduce CO2-eq.emissions in the non-ETS sectors and trade these as CO2 credits on the ETS market. Taking into account that the EU’s “Linking Directive” (EC 2004) creates the conditions to use credits generated by emission reduction projects certified by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Kyoto Protocol (KP) within the EU ETS market, in this paper we employ the institutional analysis method of interactions in order to provide insight of a combined White Certificates (WhC) and DOs cheme. Special attention is paid to the parameters that seem to hamper harmonization of WhC and DO. Aim of this paper is to discuss whether smart market- based instruments, such as WhC, can be complementary to the effectiveness of mechanisms fostering energy efficiency such as DOs projects and vice versa. In this respect, the potential combined scheme is assessed (ex-ante) with the help of standard criteria that refer to the triptych energy, environment & society. Given the outcome of the study made, it is fair to say that such a DO/WhC combined scheme could be selected if the additionality concern is to minimize short term social costs of reaching a certain goal. However recent information and research conducted so far cannot yet uphold an ambition that a WhC/DO scheme of this kind could also drive technical change, keep consumer costs down and be equitable.