Saving energy is not easy: An impact assessment of Dutch policy to reduce the energy requirements of buildings
Introduction
The European Union's goal is to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020, compared with 1990 emission levels. On a national level, the Dutch Government lowered its initial reduction target (Menkveld et al., 2010) from 30% to 20% (Klimaatbrief, 2011). To achieve this target, the built environment is important. About 20% of all Dutch CO2 emissions are emitted within the built environment (Vringer et al., 2014) from the use of fossil fuels, such as natural gas. The Dutch Government stimulates the implementation of energy saving measures in the built environment, fossil fuel is not declining fast enough on its own. There are many reasons why the energy saving rate is not as fast as desired; not even when energy saving measures bring important benefits, such as paying for themselves within a few years, offering added comfort, and reducing housing costs. Currently, owner-occupiers and tenants are sometimes unable to influence the energy quality of their buildings. They are insufficiently informed, lack knowledge, cannot carry out measures themselves, or they are not interested in making the effort. Moreover, builders are not inclined to build more energy-efficient buildings, as this may harm their competitive position. The financial advantage of future low energy bills is often underestimated by home buyers. They are not prepared to pay a higher price for a more energy-efficient house, even when the total housing costs would be lower (mortgage repayments plus energy bill). To help investors take saving measures and because of the long history of energy saving policy and existing political constraints, the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK) implemented a mix of policy instruments, including an energy tax, various subsidies and energy efficiency standards for newly constructed buildings (BZK, 2011). Dutch policy is of course in line with the EU Directive on the energy performance of buildings (EPBD).
The Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK) requested PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency to make an impact assessment of the energy saving policy for the built environment. Their goal was not only to gain more insight into the effects of the policy, but also to obtain advice on how the policy could be made more effective and efficient. The central question to be answered in the assessment was:'How can the government stimulate investments in energy saving measures in the built environment more effectively and efficiently?’ To answer this question we formulated three research questions:
- •
To what extent are policy goals being achieved?
- •
How is the policy shaped?
- •
How does this policy influence investment decisions?
This impact assessment was limited to the policy as described in the “Plan of Action Energy Saving in Built Environment” (BZK, 2011). The objective of this plan of action is threefold:
- •
To contribute to the European target of 20% CO2 reduction by 2020, by means of energy saving in the built environment;
- •
To use energy saving as a means of allowing people more control over the increase in their living expenses;
- •
To use energy saving to boost the construction sector.
For this assessment, we focused on the CO2 emission reduction target and related energy saving goals. The assessment did not address possible effects on housing costs, the construction sector (employment) or the financing of investments. Nor did we investigate the extent to which energy saving measures in the built environment would be more or less effective or efficient than those in other sectors, such as industry or traffic and transport. Furthermore, additional policy was excluded from the assessment, but is mentioned where applicable. In particular, the 2013 Dutch Energy Agreement for sustainable growth (Nationaal Energieakkoord; SER, 2013) – signed by over 40 parties, including national, regional and local authorities, employer organisations and trade unions, nature conservation and environmental organisations, financial institutions and NGOs – was taken into account in our assessment of the target range, but we did not address any of the new or modified instruments named in the Energy Agreement.
Section snippets
Approach
We combined a judging and a reflective assessment (see also Teisman et al., 2002), given its objective. Thus, we tried to assess the policy's current efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, we also attempted to provide more insight into the obstacles that make policy instruments less effective, and/or into the reasons why one or more instruments could not be used in practice.
Fig. 1 shows the policy chain, in which policy effectiveness is determined by its impact in relation to the policy
The Dutch target range
CO2 emissions and energy consumption are expected to decrease, gradually, between 2012 and 2020. However, the intermediate policy target for 2015 was not achieved. Not enough energy saving measures were implemented in existing buildings. It is very unlikely that the CO2 policy target for 2020 will be achieved (a maximum of 22.5 Mt CO2), even when additional policy measures as described in the Dutch Energy Agreement (SER, 2013) would be taken into account. It is expected that CO2 emissions will
Conclusions
Two contextual remarks are in order:
- ●
In this evaluation, we were seriously hampered by a lack of available data to establish the effect and efficiency of individual policy instruments. A systematic assessment of impacts and efforts for each policy instrument, therefore, could not be made. Had this information been available, we would have been able to make recommendations to optimise the composition of the current set of instruments, on a quantitative basis. However, we were still able to assess
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Anke van Hal (Nyenrode Business University), Rob Aalbers (CPB), Casper Tigchelaar, Marijke Menkveld and Jeffry Sipma (ECN), Edwin Marquart (RVO), Jasper van den Munckhof (Energiesprong), David van der Woude and Jos van Dalen (The Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations), Astrid Hendriksen, Hilde Toonen and Erik Heijmans (Mixed Methods), Dieter Verhue (Bureau Veldkamp), Ruud Hoevenagel (Panteia), Joke Huisman (Dialogos), many collegues at PBL and all others for
References (40)
- et al.
On the economics of energy labels in the housing market
J. Environ. Econ. Manag.
(2011) - et al.
Theoretical vs. actual energy consumption of labelled dwellings in the Netherlands: discrepancies and policy implications
Energy Policy
(2013) - et al.
A qualitative evaluation of policy instruments used to improve energy performance of existing private dwellings in the Netherlands
Energy Policy
(2012) - et al.
Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy Instruments
Environ. Resour. Econ.
(2007) - Berben, J., Oomen, R., 2013. Verschil tussen werkelijk en berekend energiegebruik. EPC-berekening moet energetische...
Environmental agreements used in combination with other policy instruments
- BZK, 2011. Plan of Action Energy Saving in Built Environment The Hague: Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom...
- Convenant Huursector, 2012. Convenant energiebesparing huursector (Covenant energy saving in the rental sector),...
- Convenant Meer met Minder, 2012. Meer met Minder, convenant energiebesparing bestaande woningen en gebouwen (Covenant...
- DellaVigna, Stefano, 2007. Psycology and Economics: Evidence from the Field, Working Paper 13420, National Bureau of...
The “give-and-take” packaging of policy instruments: optimising legitimacy and effectiveness
Effectiviteit Convenanten Energiebeleid (Effectiviness of covenants for energy policy)
Policies for increasing energy efficiency: thirty years of experience in OECD countries
Energy Policy
Efficient and Effective use of Tradeable Permits in Combination with other Policy Instruments
Evaluatie van het Klimaatbeleid in de Gebouwde Omgeving 1995–2002 (Assessment of the Climate Policy for the Build Environment 1995–2002)
Cited by (30)
Do areas with a higher proportion of single-person households save more on electricity consumption? Evidence from the difference-in-differences model
2023, Energy for Sustainable DevelopmentDefects of the financial incentive policy for global zero carbon buildings: A game analysis of policy insights
2022, Energy and BuildingsCitation Excerpt :Some countries, such as China [11] and the United States (Roy et al., 2016), have adopted positive financial incentives based on subsidies. Other countries, such as Denmark (Gram-Hanssen, 2014) and the Netherlands [4], have adopted negative financial incentives based on the imposition of energy taxes. Despite the tremendous efforts of governments to incentivize the ZCB market, building energy consumption still maintains a rapid growth trend [12,3].
Who is more dependent on gas consumption? Income, gender, age, and urbanity impacts
2021, Applied GeographyCitation Excerpt :The reason for regular renovation in the non-profit rental sector could be housing corporations’ obligation to adapt the energy-efficiency regulation. In contrast, the new rules are not necessarily enforced for privately-owned houses (Vringer et al., 2016). The results show that three socioeconomic groups consume a substantial amount of gas and are highly dependent on gas consumption: high-income households, low-income households, and those older than 65 years old.