Search

Paris-compatible climate scenarios often consider bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as an important technology for carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Although the main barrier to BECCS deployment is often associated with lack of economic policy incentives, unfavorable regulations can also impede investments. Over the past decade, the regulatory conditions at the UN and on the EU level have developed to be more permissive toward BECCS. For instance, CDR accounting guidelines have been developed by the UN, and the EU CCS Directive regulates responsibilities regarding storage of CO2. However, several existing regulations still cause deployment hurdles. Taking a European viewpoint, this perspectives article takes stock of recent regulatory developments and provides a discussion on legal acts that need to be reformed in order to facilitate BECCS deployment. Although the European trend is characterized by developing a regulatory regime that is more supportive of BECCS, we identify three areas for further improvement: (1) allowing EU Member States to use negative emissions from BECCS to comply with their obligations under the legislative pillars that underpin the EU's climate objectives: (2) amending the CCS Directive to exempt physical leakage of biogenic CO2, attributable to sustainably sourced biomass, from the requirement to surrender emission allowances in the EU ETS or, if BECCS has been economically rewarded, the penalty for leakage should correspond to the level of the reward; and (3) pushing to erase the last few barriers due to multilateral regimes, such as clarifying whether BECCS is covered by the geoengineering moratorium maintained by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. These proposed reforms would further improve the regulatory preconditions for BECCS deployment in the EU.

The energy efficiency gap is known as the difference between optimal level of energy efficiency and the actual level of achieved energy efficiency. Energy management has proven to further close the energy efficiency gap. Energy management may differ depending on whether it concerns a large, energy-intensive company or small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs are of high interest since they form a large share of the economy today. For SMEs, a lighter form of energy management, in the form of energy efficiency network participation, has proven to deliver sound energy efficiency impact, while for larger, energy-intensive firms, a certified energy management system may be more suitable. However, various barriers inhibit adoption of energy efficiency measures. While there is an array of research on barriers to and driving forces for energy efficiency in general, research on barriers to, and driving forces for, energy management is rare, one exception being a study of energy-intensive pulp and paper mills. This holds even more so for industrial SMEs. This paper aims to identify the barriers to, and drivers for, energy management in manufacturing SMEs. Results of this explorative study show that the top four barriers to energy management are lack of time/other priorities, non-energy-related working tasks are prioritized higher, slim organization, and lack of internal expert competences, i.e., mainly organizational barriers. The top four drivers for energy management are to reduce production waste, participation in energy efficiency networks, cost reduction from lower energy use, and commitment from top management. Furthermore, results show that energy management among the studied SMEs seems to not be as mature, even though the companies participated in an energy management capacity building program in the form of energy efficiency networks, which, in turn, shows a still largely untapped potential in the societal aim to reduce the energy efficiency and management gaps. The main contribution of this paper is a first novel attempt to explore barriers to, and drivers for, energy management among SMEs.

Improvements in industrial energy efficiency demonstrated various additional effects beyond pure energy savings and energy cost savings. Observed on many levels, these additional effects, often denoted as non-energy benefits, constitute a diverse collection, for instance, effects related to firms’ production or improvements in the work environment and the external environment. Previous studies showed the potential of including quantified and monetised non-energy benefits in energy efficiency investments. However, there seems to be a lack of methodological overview, including all the steps from observation to monetisation and inclusion in investments. This study systematically reviews the academic literature on non-energy benefits relating to methods for observation, measuring, quantification, and monetisation of the benefits. The most commonly applied research design was a case study approach, in which data on non-energy benefits were collected by conducting interviews. Furthermore, the primary methods used to enable quantification and monetisation of observed non-energy benefits were based on classifications, indexes in relation to the energy savings, or frameworks. Calculation methods, databased tools, classification frameworks, and ranking were applied to evaluate the benefits’ potential in relation to energy efficiency investments. Based on a synthesis of the review findings, this article contributes a novel scheme for improved utilisation of the non-energy benefits of industrial energy efficiency.