Our most important findings

Efficiency

  1. 1

    The sustainable energy transition in the heating sector is currently lagging and buildings sector goals are unlikely to be met by 2030.

    Reducing emissions from the current level of 130 million tons of CO2 to between 70 and 72 million tons in the next 11 years will require ramping up all available technologies across the board. These include insulation, heat pumps, heat networks, decentralized renewable energy and power-to-gas. Cherry-picking the various building technologies is no longer an option because of past shortcomings.

  2. 2

    Energy efficiency in existing buildings is a prerequisite for technology neutrality.

    Ensuring adequate competition between various energy supply options such as renewable energy, heat pumps, synthetic fuels and decarbonized heat networks requires reducing final energy consumption by at least a third before 2050. The more efficient a building is, the more realistic any necessary expansion on the generation side will be.

  3. 3

    Power-to-gas can only complement aggressive efficiency policies in the buildings sector, not replace them.

    Synthetic fuels are a significant component of energy supply in all 2050 climate protection scenarios. But their contribution by 2030 is only limited, and even between 2030 and 2050 they are considerably more expensive than most energy efficiency measures in the buildings sector. In addition, the bulk of generation from power-to-gas may be allocated to other markets (industrial processes, shipping, air travel and transport by truck).

  4. 4

    To successfully implement the heating transition, we urgently need a roadmap for promoting energy efficiency in buildings by 2030.

    To this end, a package of policy measures is needed, including changes to relevant laws, regulations and energy tax laws, as well as an overhaul of funding programs. The heating sector goals for 2030 and 2050 can only be met if the installation rate of all building-related climate protection technologies is quadrupled.

  1. 1
  2. 2

    The ongoing protests of the Yellow Vests are of the Macron government’s own making.

    Over the last 18 months, the French government has abolished the wealth tax, increased flat-rate social security contributions, reduced housing subsidies and increased the tobacco tax. Taken together with the energy tax increase and a lack of compensation, these measures have contributed to the widening of economic inequalities in French society.

  3. 3

    CO2 taxation is regressive in nature and necessitates the compensation of lower income groups to ensure political stability.

    Like any consumption tax, the CO2 surcharge on energy consumption has a greater effect on low-income households than high-income households in percentage terms. This was also the case in France. A per capita redistri-bution of revenue or other redistribution mechanisms are necessary to balance this.

  4. 4

    For CO2 taxation to be widely accepted, it must be implemented in a reve-nue-neutral manner.

    In France, most of the revenue from the CO2 surcharge on energy taxes was used for consolidating the budget. The contribution climat énergie was therefore not recognised by large parts of the population as a climate protection measure. In addition to so-cial compensation, it is therefore necessary to use the revenues for climate protection measures which are transparent and easily accessible.

From study : The French CO2 Pricing Policy:
  1. 1

    Improving energy efficiency would significantly lower the costs of the German electricity system.

    Each saved kilowatt-hour of electricity reduces fuel and CO2 emissions, as well as investment costs forfossil and renewable power plants and power grid expansion. If electricity consumption can be lowered by10 to 35 percent by 2035 compared to the Reference scenario outlined in the study, the costs for electricitygeneration will reduced by 10 to 20 billion euros2012.

  2. 2

    Improvements in the energy efficiency of the electricity sector can be achieved economically.

    One saved kilowatt-hour of electricity would lead to reduced electrical system costs of between 11 to 15euro cents2012 by 2035, depending on the underlying assumptions. Many efficiency measures wouldgenerate lower costs than these savings, and would therefore be beneficial from an overall economicperspective.

  3. 3

    Reductions in future power consumption mean a lower need to expand the power grid.

    A significant increase in energy efficiency can significantly reduce the long-term need to expand thetransmission grid: between 1,750 and 5,000 km in additional transmission lines will be needed by 2050,down from 8,500 km under the “business as usual” scenario.

  4. 4

    Reducing power consumption would reduce both CO2 emissions and import costs for fuel.

    Reducing power consumption by 15 percent compared to the Reference scenario would lower CO2 emissionsby 40 million tonnes and would reduce spending on coal and natural gas imports by 2 billion euros2012 in2020.

Stay in touch. Subscribe to our newsletter.

]>