Download Reducing rebound without sacrificing macroeconomic benefits of

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Energy Star wikipedia , lookup

Transcript
Reducing Rebound Without Sacrificing Macroeconomic
Benefits of Increased Energy Efficiency
Karen Turner, Gioele Figus, Patrizio Lecca, Kim Swales
IAEE International Conference, Bergen 20-22 June 2016
EPSRC grant ref. EP/M00760X/1
Project title: ‘Energy Saving Innovations and Economy-Wide Rebound Effects’
What is rebound?
𝐴𝐸𝑆
𝑅 = 1− 𝑥100
𝑃𝐸𝑆
• Determined by ratio of actual energy savings to potential energy savings
following an energy efficiency improvement
• PES generally stated in terms of potential engineering or technical savings
• Increase efficiency by 10%, require 10% less physical energy input to
produce same level of production output or consumption utility
• AES depends on focus – direct rebound just energy use of more efficient
user; for economy-wide rebound, AES = all energy use across economy
Why economy-wide rebound?
• Rebound triggered by fact that reduced physical energy requirement
reduces price of delivering energy service
• Response to change in price gives us direct rebound
• But will trigger series of economic responses (zero rebound – no
economic response?)
• Our focus – economy-wide rebound
• Accompanies productivity or cost push expansion where energy
efficiency in production increases
• Or demand-led expansion when efficiency in household energy use
increases
Why does it matter?
• Primary aim of energy efficiency policy is to
reduce energy use and emissions
• But policymakers tend to operate in context
of multiple objectives
• Likely to welcome economic benefits that
drive rebound
• But need to know can delivery on energy and
emissions targets and commitments
• Do we need to live with limited economic
expansion if we want to maximise energy
savings?
Question: can we decouple economy-wide rebound and
economic expansion?
• Economy-wide rebound driven by same processes as economic
expansion
• Does this make rebound a necessary ‘evil’?
• Can we reduce rebound without sacrificing macroeconomic benefits
of increased energy efficiency?
• Focus of energy efficiency often simply on the most energy intensive
activities
• What if we increase energy efficiency in something that is a
competitor for a relatively energy-intensive activity?
• Focus on service demand and delivery (dematerialisation agenda)
For example, public vs. private transport in delivering mobility
• Experiment with UK CGE model: increase energy efficiency by 10% in
UK ‘Road and Rail’ public (and freight) transport sector
• Delivers expected benefits of a productivity led expansion – positive
impact on GDP, aggregate investment, employment, exports,
household income and consumption
• However, expansion accompanied by rebound in energy use across
economy
New household consumption structure in our UKENVI multi-sector
economy-wide CGE model
• Key focus of sensitivity analysis
• Impact of varying price elasticity
of substitution between Private
Transport and Road and Rail in
household consumption decision
• 0.5 in central case; vary 0.1→1.1
• KEY – MACRO LEVEL IMPACTS
ARE NOT SENSITIVE TO THIS
PARAMETER
Impacts on household decision
• When set very low, due to increased
income
• …and slight decrease in price of refined
fuel when demand falls with increased
efficiency in Road and Rail sector
• …households increase use of both public
and private transport
• But as elasticity/responsiveness to
increase competitiveness of public option
increases
• …demand for cars and refined fuels falls
from outset
Key result – we can decouple!
Policy implications?
• Concern – are cost savings from efficiency improvements in public
transport provision passed on through price faced by consumer?
• Could we get same result if, e.g. cost savings used to improve quality of
service rather than price?
• Attractiveness of public option key in any case - how do we get price
sensitivity to improve?
But, generally, result suggests
• As we make households more willing to substitute in favour of public
option
• Economy-wide rebound may be reduced while retaining macroeconomic
benefits
• Key – composition of household transport activity
Policy implications?
• Would we find similar if focus on efficiency/competitiveness of
delivery and/or use of other services?
• E.g. Heating: low carbon electricity vs. gas; LPG vs. oil off-grid
• Dematerialisation agenda – focus on (not just energy)
efficiency and competitiveness of delivery (and use) of
low carbon options in delivering energy (using) services to
deliver low carbon expansion
• With limited, or even ‘good’ rebound?
Thank you for listening
Questions?
[email protected]
EPSRC project web-site: http://cied.ac.uk/research/impacts/energysavinginnovations
Working paper linked to this presentation:
http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/56448/