Search

At present, expanding the use of renewable energy sources for heating (RES-H) relies predominantly on publicly funded support instruments. As these are subject to subsidy cuts and suspensions, these instruments do not provide long-term security for investors and technology suppliers. Although feed-in tariffs and quota-based systems are the major support schemes for renewable energy sources in the electricity sector, similar policy designs have not been applied to RES-H. This paper presents and evaluates three different policy instruments which have the potential to finance RES-H without using public funds: A physical quota system for biomass, a technology-based quota system ( Portfolio Model) and a remuneration-based system ( Premium model). The assessment suggests that while the Portfolio Model and the Premium Model are both promising policies to enhance RES-H deployment, there is greater acceptance among stakeholders for the Premium Model.

In order to achieve national or EU-wide energy efficiency targets, a variety of policies is available. Apart from the traditional set of regulative, financial, fiscal and informative instruments, market-oriented instruments as e.g. energy efficiency obligations (EEOs) become more and more important. The new EU Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) even suggests EEOs as the preferred instrument for promoting energy efficiency in all Member States. Their actual impact, however, depends highly on the national framework. With a multi-criteria, semi-quantitative approach we evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these instruments, taking Germany as an example. The evaluation shows that none of the instruments alone can achieve the prescribed energy efficiency targets, but that a mix of instruments is necessary. The possibility of a budget-independence of the funding in particular supports a supplementary deployment of new market-oriented instruments such as an EEO as part of the future mix of policy instruments in Germany.

This paper compares two flagship policies in the area of energy efficient building refurbishment, the German CO2-Building Rehabilitation Programme and the Green Deal in the UK. Although both policies are essentially loan programmes to finance energy efficiency measures, the nature of the two policies is very different regarding scope, financial architecture, integration with other policies, and carbon reductions. The paper draws out the main differences of the programmes as well as similarities.

This article describes and evaluates a number of different financial support instruments for the energy refurbishment of the building stock based on the example of Germany. The key focus is on policy instruments which are not counter-financed by public budgets or where, by other means, investment and planning security for investors is assured. Through such instruments the typical disadvantages of public budget-financed support programs (e.g. insufficient support funds, frequent changes to support conditions) should be alleviated. Five different policy instruments are examined in terms of their legal viability and evaluated according to functionality criteria. The article closes with a recommended time frame for the implementation of an effective set of policy instruments.