Comparative analysis of customer-funded energy efficiency programs in the United States and Switzerland–Cost-effectiveness and discussion of operational practices

In the Swiss canton of Geneva, an energy efficiency portfolio has been operated since 2009. In contrast, such programs have been in place for more than 40 years in the US. There are numerous lessons to be learnt from their experience. We have therefore conducted a comparative analysis including Gene...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Energy policy 2019-12, Vol.135, p.111010, Article 111010
Main Authors: Cho, Haein, Freyre, Alisa, Bürer, Meinrad, Patel, Martin K.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Administrators
Ambition
Comparative analysis
Cost analysis
Costs
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Energy efficiency
Energy policy
Financial instruments
Investment
Investments
Levelized cost of saved energy
Low income program
Power efficiency
Public finance
Public mandates
Public policy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In the Swiss canton of Geneva, an energy efficiency portfolio has been operated since 2009. In contrast, such programs have been in place for more than 40 years in the US. There are numerous lessons to be learnt from their experience. We have therefore conducted a comparative analysis including Geneva and 11 leading states in the US, with the objective to identify explanatory factors for the success of energy efficiency programs. First, we compared total investment in energy efficiency programs between 2006 and 2015 and public policies related to energy efficiency in each state. Second, we analyzed the levelized cost of saved energy (LCSE) of the programs from the perspective of program administrators. Our cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the program investment scale has been strongly influenced by i) the existence of public mandates, which require program administrators to set ambitious targets and maximize their investment in cost-effective energy efficiency measures, ii) financial instruments that ensure program expenditure to be recovered, and iii) complementary funding from other programs. Moreover, learning and accumulated experience of the program administrators allow to reduce the LCSE. We conclude that the combination of financial instruments with public mandates can ensure a high level of effectiveness. •Public policy instruments effectively promote energy efficiency.•Financing mechanisms are essential to ensure that energy efficiency program costs are recovered.•Establishing a separate financial authority will help to manage collected funds for energy efficiency programs.•Nationwide system to monitor and evaluate energy efficiency program will catalyze knowledge sharing among various partners.
ISSN:0301-4215
1873-6777
DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111010