BRISKEE ANALYSIS AND MODELLING ON THREE LEVELS: MICRO, MESO AND MACRO
The conclusions have been made for three analytical levels: micro, meso and macro.
MICRO LEVEL FINDINGS
The detailed results from the (micro level) survey themselves can help policy makers design more effective programmes and tools for implementing energy efficiency in households.
Key Messages from the micro-level analysis
- BRISKEE has shown on an empirical basis, which of the factors underlying the Implicit Discount Rate (IDR) are related with energy efficient technology adoption, thereby focussing on time and risk preferences. These findings can be used to make policy interventions more effective.
- The results from the micro-level provide indications, how reactive policies could be designed to take into account the characteristics of different groups, e.g. low-income households, more risk-averse or more impatient individuals..
For more detailed policy conclusions from the micro-level, see BRISKEE's micro-level pages.
MESO LEVEL FINDINGS
However, the project team took the analysis beyond behavioural results, and analysed the outcome on three levels: the micro-level survey data were linked with model-based analysis to understand the implications for energy demand.
On the meso-level (i.e. the level of bottom-up energy system models), the results suggest that taking specific factors behind Implicit Discount Rates into account leads to additional economic energy savings in BRISKEE New Actor-Related Scenario NAMS. This scenario integrates findings from the micro-level analysis and assumes that policy measures are applied that affect the discount rates and decision behaviour of low-income households.
- Compared to just assuming that existing measures are intensified but no actor-specific measures are applied, this yields higher energy efficiency and larger penetration of renewables in the building sector. This is particularly true for CO2
- More savings can be realised in buildings than for appliances, due to the eco-design regulations.
- Multiple-benefits are important: Policies for improved comfort after a building upgrade can be a strong driver towards increasing the energy performance of the building stock.
- The simulations indicate that lowering the discounts rates of low income households would support the uptake of renewables, in addition to increased energy efficiency.
- Additional monetary policy measures like subsidies can further reduce final energy demand and stimulate investments in energy efficiency significantly. However, this would have to carried out with care.
- The technical performance of the product or installation is crucial. Besides light bulbs, participants rated performance criteria as the most important criteria in almost all countries. It is, however, important not to “oversell” these technologies.
- Environmental criteria play a significant role in the decision process for important consumer segments.
MACRO LEVEL FINDINGS
BRISKEE explored the long-term macro-economic impacts of changes in micro-economic decision-making and of energy efficiency policy on employment, GDP and exports in the EU up to 2030. Our innovative modelling approach in BRISKEE linked a macro-economic model (ASTRA-EC) with the energy systems models.
Macro-level policy outcomes in summary
- Macro-economic impacts need to be carefully investigated in their dynamic dimension between short term and longer term impacts and structural shifts. It is a policy decision and societal debate how these dynamic impacts can be made acceptable in view of long-term benefits. This could imply "exnovation" strategies for actors who will be strongly disadvantaged by the structural changes.
- The impacts on GDP and strucutural shifts are much less than the It is important to look at the long-term dynamic impacts that would arise after investments are paid off. The positive effects of energy costs reductions cannot fully be accounted for within the time framework chosen (i.e. up to 2030), because they are lagging behind the investments.
- The results are influenced by our assumption that crowding out of private consumption is prevailing in the compensation of positive impulses exceeding negative ones. This is a rather cautious, neoclassical assumption. If a more Keynesian situation were assumed, in which underutilized capacity and idle capital can accommodate additional investments, the assumption of a strong crowding out of consumption by investment would not hold anymore. Under such assumptions, the additional investments lead to increase in a final demand impulse, which leads via multiplier effects to a higher increase in employment and GDP than is depicted in our model run.