1 / 27

Jean-Sébastien BROC Researcher Ecole des Mines de Nantes France jbroc@emn.fr

ADEME-WEC Workshop on Energy Efficiency Policies London 17-18 June 2010. Case n°7 – Measures focused on low income households. Jean-Sébastien BROC Researcher Ecole des Mines de Nantes France jbroc@emn.fr. Contents. What are the issues? Overview of the 4 case examples

lela
Télécharger la présentation

Jean-Sébastien BROC Researcher Ecole des Mines de Nantes France jbroc@emn.fr

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ADEME-WEC Workshop on Energy Efficiency Policies London 17-18 June 2010 Case n°7 – Measures focused on low income households Jean-Sébastien BROC Researcher Ecole des Mines de Nantes France jbroc@emn.fr

  2. Contents • What are the issues? • Overview of the 4 case examples • Conclusions on the key issues • Lessons learnt / Recommendations

  3. What are the issues? • what policy instruments? (+ specific to low income HH?) • eligibility to specific measures/policies • who funds? who implements? • is it possible to implement large-scale programmes/measures? • interactions with other policies

  4. Overview of the 4 case examples

  5. Overview of the 4 case examples • Brazilian Electricity Public Benefits Fund *Change rate used: 1€<>1.3$

  6. Overview of the 4 case examples • Brazilian Electricity Public Benefits Fund (2)

  7. Overview of the 4 case examples • ProBEC(Programme for Biomass Energy Conservation, SADC)

  8. Overview of the 4 case examples • ProBEC (2)

  9. Overview of the 4 case examples • UK Fuel Poverty Strategy *Change rate used: 1€<>0.8 £

  10. Overview of the 4 case examples • UK Fuel Poverty Strategy (2)

  11. Overview of the 4 case examples

  12. Overview of the 4 case examples • WAP (Weatherization Assistance Program, US)

  13. Overview of the 4 case examples • WAP (2)

  14. Conclusions on the key issues • What policy instruments? (+ specific?) Two main objectives/difficulties: TARGETING vulnerable vs. “achievable” FUNDING Core funding = public + leverage effect

  15. Conclusions on the key issues • What policy instruments? (+ specific?) The classical ones • public funding for dedicated subsidies/grants scheme (UK, US) (may also be leasing proportional to the income level (Cuba?)) • obligations on energy distributors/suppliers (UK, Brazil) (may also be a public goods charge or special energy tax) • applying bonus on general incentives: better rates for soft loans (France), higher subsidies for CFL (India), higher amount of Whites Certificates (France) (all schemes under consideration) • free energy audits, information, etc.  not alone, but essential!

  16. Conclusions on the key issues • What policy instruments? (+ specific?) Innovative approaches • Supporting the development of local companies in rural areas (ProBEC, see also e.g., SELCO (Solar Electric Light) and THRIVE (LED lighting) in India) • Other instruments under consideration: renting of efficient appliances, energy-microfinance, sales of carbon credits, etc.  mainly looking for innovative funding mechanisms

  17. Conclusions on the key issues • Eligibility to specific measures/policies • concrete/applicable definition of fuel poverty/low income  required when the measures is not “located” • socio-economical(income, HH composition) or technical(energy performance/expenditures) criteria • verification/proves  mainly based on existing schemes (e.g., other social benefits): look for the best compromise between fairness and minimisation of administration costs. • from eligibility issues to territorial approaches  using knowledge of local stakeholders and/or databases+GIS to prioritize actions on a spatial basis

  18. Conclusions on the key issues • who funds? who implements? • public policy  core funding = public, and/or utilities + long term perspectives + leverage effect (if quality recognised  trust) • organisation on at least two levels: • central (national)  main funding + rules • local  partnerships + implementation • if objectives = more actions  more workforce  training • looking for empowerment (instead of assistance)

  19. Conclusions on the key issues • is it possible to implement large-scale programmes/measures? • YES ! all examples are at least national programmes + significant results … but more needs to be achieved: • economies of scale  ↓ administration / transaction costs • energy “only” one side of poverty alleviation  synergies between policies (health, employment, etc.)  NEBs !  now = tipping point (economic crisis / investment target)

  20. Conclusions on the key issues • interactions with other policies Three main axes (see e.g., EPEE project, www.fuel-poverty.org): • energy prices  social tariffs, regulation • households’ incomes  general social policies, direct financial aids • level of energy consumption  energy efficiency Interactions [social tariffs  energy efficiency] • short term vs. long term • potential barrier at the individual level • but also an incentive at the regulation/utility level, in order to limit the amount of related subsidies

  21. Recommendations • coordination between different levels Source: http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/230-9/

  22. Recommendations • coordination between different levels • Example: building networks of support for community-based projects

  23. Recommendations • International level  providing leverage effect for non-OECD countries • centralising funding (or information)  avoiding time & resource wasting in fund-raising  1 fund + call for tenders? (cf. various frameworks: UNFCCC, UNDP, UNEP, World Bank, WEF-WEC Energy Poverty Action, etc.) • networking  experience sharing & lobbying • (see e.g. The EPEE project in EU  www.fuel-poverty.org) …but experience sharing ≠ ≠ ≠ standardisation !  success relies on taking account of the specificities • building a scientific community  gathering & developing knowledge + trust in the results  recognition  support

  24. Recommendations • National level  Setting the basis for large-scale actions • core and long term funding  planning over time  building foundations for lasting activities + guarantee for leverage effect • technical resources  database of BAT & good practices + training schemes  dissemination + consistency • network of local agencies / actors • evaluation adjusting the rules  valuing the results (including the NEBs)  building experience feedback

  25. Recommendations • Local level  involving, implementing, achieving ! • partnerships  mobilizing all stakeholders & gathering skills • proximity / knowledge of the territories: • more efficient targeting + avoiding “lost opportunities” • involving local communities • appropriation by the households( behaviours) • energy audits  prioritizing / matching the “real” needs • coordination with other social policies  synergies • monitoring + ensuring quality(low income ≠ ≠ ≠ low quality)

  26. Acknowledgements To Didier and Bruno (sorry for the delay ;-)…) To the examples’ reviewers: Ana Christina Romano Mascarenhas and Gilberto De Martino Jannuzzi for the Brazilian case Marlett Balmer for the SADC case Jacky Pett for the UK case and Kevin Monte de Ramos for the US case.

  27. « I’ll need little support to pay my energy bill » « You come at the wrong time » Thank you. Questions / discussions ? jbroc@emn.fr « I just fall short of liquidities »

More Related