Wuppertal Institut | 1 AbstractThe economic assessment of low-carbon energy options is the primary step towards the design of policy portfolios to foster the green energy economy. However, today these assessments often fall short of including important determinants of the overall cost-benefit balance of such options by not including indirect costs and benefits, even though these can be gamechanging. This is often due to the lack of adequate methodologies.The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive account of the key methodological challenges to the assessment of the multiple impacts of energy options, and an initial menu of potential solutions to address these challenges.The paper first provides evidence for the importance of the multiple impacts of energy actions in the assessment of low-carbon options.The paper identifies a few key challenges to the evaluation of the co-impacts of low-carbon options and demonstrates that these are more complex for co-impacts than for the direct ones. Such challenges include several layers of additionality, high-context dependency, and accounting for distributional effects.The paper continues by identifying the key challenges to the aggregation of multiple impacts including the risks of overcounting while taking into account the multitude of interactions among the various co-impacts. The paper proposes an analytical framework that can help address these and frame a systematic assessment of the multiple impacts.

Deep energy retrofit (DER) of the existing building stock is a meaningful strategy to reduce fossil fuel consumption and CO 2 emissions. However, the investment volumes required to undertake DER are enormous. In Europe, cumulative demand for DER is estimated at close to 1000 billion EUR until 2050. Public expenditures and political measures can help to stimulate and guide DER, but substantial private investments are required to achieve significant results. In this paper, we analyze the economic and financial implications for renovating an office building to the BPassive House^standard. This is achieved by applying a dynamic Life Cycle Cost & Benefit Analysis (LCCBA) to model the cash flows (CF). The model also includes an appraisal of debt and equity financing implications, and a multi-parameter sensitivity analysis to analyze impacts of input parameter deviations. In the second part of the paper, we use the Bmultiple project benefits^(MPB) concept to identify project-based cobenefits of DER (with a focus on productivity), to make Energy Efficiency (2019) 12:261-279 https://doi.the business case more attractive. Results show that the DER project cash flow over a 25-year period achieves a 21-year dynamic payback with an IRR of below 2%. Levelized Cost of Heat Savings is 100 EUR/MWh with a 70% capital expenditure and 15% interest cost share. The Loan Life Cover Ratio comes out to 1.2. To make the business case more attractive, pecuniary MPBs identified are increased rents, real estate values, (employee) productivity, maintenance costs, and CO 2 savings, in addition to societal benefits. Compared to simpler economic modeling, the dynamic LCCBA cash flow model provides solid grounds not only for DER business case analysis, project structuring, and financial engineering, but also for policy design. CFs from future energy cost savings alone are often insufficient in convincing investors. However, they can co-finance DER investments substantially. Consideration of project level MPBs can offer meaningful monetary contributions, and also help to identify strategic allies for project implementation; however, the Bsplit incentive^dilemma requires differentiation between tenants and different types of investors. Furthermore, the approach supports policy-makers to develop policy measures needed to achieve 2050 goals.

The implementation of energy efficiency improvement actions not only yields energy and greenhouse gas emission savings, but also leads to other multiple impacts such as air pollution reductions and subsequent health and eco-system effects, resource impacts, economic effects on labour markets, aggregate demand and energy prices or on energy security. While many of these impacts have been studied in previous research, this work quantifies them in one consistent framework based on a common underlying bottom-up funded energy efficiency scenario across the EU. These scenario data are used to quantify multiple impacts by energy efficiency improvement action and for all EU28 member states using existing approaches and partially further developing methodologies. Where possible, impacts are integrated into cost-benefit analyses. We find that with a conservative estimate, multiple impacts sum up to a size of at least 50% of energy cost savings, with substantial impacts coming from e.g., air pollution, energy poverty reduction and economic impacts.

No abstract

No abstract