Who should administer energy-efficiency programs?

Blumstein, Carl; Goldman, Charles A.; Barbose, Galen

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2003.11.006

Cited by 45 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are other pragmatic issues that also need to be considered in assessing the relative merits and viability of a third party administration option (Blumstein et al 2005). First, the move to third-party administration typically involved the enactment of adequate state enabling legislation and required the devotion of significant regulatory and stakeholder resources during the transition period.…”

Section: Use Of Non-utility Parties As Energy Efficiency Program Admimentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial Analysis of Incentive Mechanisms to Promote Energy Efficiency: Case Study of a Prototypical Southwest Utility

Cappers¹,

Goldman²,

Chait³

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Use Of Non-utility Parties As Energy Efficiency Program Admimentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial Analysis of Incentive Mechanisms to Promote Energy Efficiency: Case Study of a Prototypical Southwest Utility

Cappers¹,

Goldman²,

Chait³

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These are categorized as follows: (a) new service providers (e.g., energy aggregators, such as when municipalities or market intermediaries enable energy users to collectively bargain for low-carbon investments), (b) the integration of consumers into grids (e.g., time-of-use pricing), and (c) decentralized energy supply (e.g., community energy, peer-to-peer electricity trading). In line with the literature that explores potential conflicts between business models, centralized supply systems, and energy efficiency (see e.g., Bachrach et al 2004;Blumstein et al 2005;Eyre 1997), Wilson et al underline that consumers might become less passive and move towards the active production, organization, and management of smallscale energy systems. This development is a potentially disruptive threat to the core business of centralized networks and utilities.…”

Section: Supply Side and Distributionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Demand-side approaches for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C

Mundaca

Ürge-Vorsatz²,

Wilson

2018

Energy Efficiency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Paris Climate Agreement defined an ambition of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. This has triggered research on stringent emission reduction targets and corresponding mitigation pathways across energy economy and societal systems. Driven by methodological considerations, supply side and carbon dioxide removal options feature prominently in the emerging pathway literature, while much less attention has been given to the role of demand-side approaches. This special issue addresses this gap, and aims to broaden and strengthen the knowledge base in this key research and policy area. This editorial paper synthesizes the special issue's contributions horizontally through three shared themes we identify: policy interventions, demand-side measures, and methodological approaches. The review of articles is supplemented by insights from other relevant literature. Overall, our paper underlines that stringent demand-side policy portfolios are required to drive the pace and direction of deep decarbonization pathways and keep the 1.5°C target within reach. It confirms that insufficient attention has been paid to demand-side measures, which are found to be inextricably linked to supply-side decarbonization and able to complement supply-side measures. The paper also shows that there is an abundance of demand-side measures to limit warming to 1.5°C, but it warns that not all of these options are Bseen^or captured by current quantitative tools or progress indicators, and some remain insufficiently represented in the current policy discourse. Based on the set of papers presented in the special issue, we conclude that demand-side mitigation in line with the 1.5°C goal is possible; however, it remains enormously challenging and dependent on both innovative technologies and policies, and behavioral change. Limiting warming to 1.5°C requires, more than ever, a plurality of methods and integrated behavioral and technology approaches to better support policymaking and resulting policy interventions.

show abstract

“…It is also held that removing program administration and delivery from utilities mitigates the throughput incentive, discussed later in this report. (The issue of utility administration is discussed in detail by Blumstein et al [2003] and Harrington and Murray [2003].) In considering this issue, it is important to distinguish between administration and delivery.…”

Section: : Program Selection Design Administration and Deliverymentioning

confidence: 99%

Discussion of Consumer Perspectives on Regulation of Energy Efficiency Investments

Author¹

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Who should administer energy-efficiency programs?

Cited by 45 publications

References 13 publications

Financial Analysis of Incentive Mechanisms to Promote Energy Efficiency: Case Study of a Prototypical Southwest Utility

Financial Analysis of Incentive Mechanisms to Promote Energy Efficiency: Case Study of a Prototypical Southwest Utility

Demand-side approaches for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C

Discussion of Consumer Perspectives on Regulation of Energy Efficiency Investments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About