The costs and benefits of white certificates schemes

Abstract

International audienceWhite certificate schemes mandate energy companies to promote energy efficiency with flexibility mechanisms, including the trading of energy savings. A unified framework is used to estimate the costs and benefits of the schemes implemented in Great Britain in 2002, in Italy in 2005 and in France in 2006. 'Negawatt-hour cost' estimates reach 0. 009€/kWh saved in Great Britain and 0.037€/kWh saved in France, which compares favourably to energy prices in those countries. Moreover, the benefits of reduced energy bills and CO 2 emissions saved exceed the costs; thus, white certificate schemes pay for themselves. Overall, the policy instrument is cost-effective and economically efficient. A closer look at the differences amongst countries provides general insights about the conceptualization of the instrument: (a) Compared to utility demand-side management, to which they are related, white certificate schemes provide more transparency about energy savings, but less transparency around costs; (b) the substantial efficiency discrepancy between the British scheme and its French counterpart can be explained by differences in technological potentials, coexisting policies and supply-side systems in these countries and (c) the nature and amount of costs influence compliance strategies. Notably, if energy suppliers are allowed to set their retail price freely, they tend to grant subsidies to end-use consumers for energy efficient investments. 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V

Implications of an energy efficiency obligation scheme for the Swedish energy-intensive industries: an evaluation of costs and benefits

“…It should be noted that the estimation of the Swedish Energy Agency for the administration cost is in line with initial evidence from the EEOs in Denmark and France, where the administration costs fell within the same range (Giraudet et al 2012;Mikkelsen 2012). Moreover, administration and program costs are thought to be maximum 20% of the total costs of the EEO for the case of France (VITO et al 2015).…”

“…Suerkemper et al (2011) and Clinch and Healy (2001) evaluated energy efficiency programs in the domestic sector for France and Ireland respectively. Furthermore, a benefit and costs assessment was performed for the EEO and white certificate schemes' implemented in France, Italy and UK by Giraudet et al (2012). In these studies, CBA has been used to assess energy efficiency policy instruments at the national level, often including all energy consuming sectors.…”

“…In these studies, CBA has been used to assess energy efficiency policy instruments at the national level, often including all energy consuming sectors. Some include qualitative analysis (Fraunhofer ISI et al 2012;Tol 2012) or environmental social benefits (Giraudet et al 2012), while others focus on specific sectors (Suerkemper et al 2011). …”

“…According to Giraudet and Finon (2015), it is very difficult to identify the share of the cost borne by the obligated parties. Giraudet and Finon (2015) and Giraudet et al (2012) define investment costs as "direct costs", which are categorized as "obligated parties direct costs" or "customer direct costs". From their estimations based on publicly available information and stakeholder interviews, the share of obligated parties to the total costs, including investment costs, was around 10% in France, meaning that the scheme was mainly financed by end-use consumers.…”

“…We assume that the price estimations used for the sensitivity analysis range for this study are in line with the current situation and its possible development in the future. The avoided CO 2 costs were used undiscounted in the estimation of the benefits since CO 2 emissions reductions represent a social benefit which is then removed from the system once the reductions are achieved (Giraudet et al 2012).…”