A methodological framework for comparative assessments of equipment energy efficiency policy measures

Application of best practice for setting minimum energy efficiency standards in technically disadvantaged countries: Case study of Air Conditioners in Brunei Darussalam

“…The Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program (CLASP)'s Policy Analysis Modeling System (PAMS) model [32], which has been used by rigorous researchers, such as Cardoso et al [7], Vendrusculo et al [14], and Letschert et al [8] in justifying MEPS levels, is adopted. This model is consistent with the LCC analysis and national impact analysis used by the US DOE in support of its rulemakings on appliance EE standards [33,6] and the model of the Australian Ministerial Council on Energy in estimating options for revising AC MEPS in 2010 [34].…”

Calculating impacts of energy standards on energy demand in U.S. buildings with uncertainty in an integrated assessment model

“…The paper finds that aggressive building-energy codes and equipment standards are an effective, cost-saving approach for achieving significant reductions in building-energy consumption at the subnational level in the United States, even allowing for substantial uncertainties in energy and climate strategies that produce different emissions pathways, different climate models, uncertainties in population, wealth, and uncertain performance and This conclusion is robust to significant uncertainties in population and economic activity levels, and accounts for scenarios with relatively hot and cold climates, both with or without carbon taxes in place, for both worldwide business-as-usual and emissions-control scenarios and for a broad range of building technology performance and costs. 27 That aggressive building energy codes and equipment standards can be successful in saving energy and can be cost-effective should come as no surprise to analysts who have had past contact with U.S. energy codes and standards programs, which have had a long record of success in saving energy and money for consumers. While the analysis presented here does not address the separate energy and cost impacts of standards for individual equipment classes, or of individual building types, it appears that the socioeconomic, population, and emissions policy/climate uncertainties investigated in this paper are unlikely to change the fundamental conclusions coming from more detailed analyses.…”

“…Turning to the United States, the National Energy Modeling System has some regional granularity [26] that has been used in national climate policy analyses but not for statelevel policies. Non-IAM Models also have been developed and used to evaluate specific energyefficiency policies [27]. Some U.S. energy policy studies have been performed using state or region-specific models, e.g.…”

An ex post criticism, based on stakeholders’ preferences, of a residential sector’s energy master plan: the case study of the Sicilian region

“…The building sector has a large impact on the development of energy plans worldwide (Thomas et al 2012;Blum et al 2013), due to its increasing importance in economies (BPIE 2011) and the great potential of the energy retrofitting in improving energy efficiency (GhaffarianHoseini et al 2013;Vine et al 2014;Schlomann et al 2014), which also turns in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2007). The importance of this sector is confirmed by the regulatory and technical standard frameworks that push for higher energy efficiency in this sector (European Union 2010) and especially in the residential segment; in Europe, in fact, this segment constitutes a major part of building stocks and accounts for 75 % of the total stock (Eurostat 2010).…”