Domestic offset projects in the built environment

Emission reduction activities in the European Union (EU) in- and outside the European Trading System (ETS) thus far have largely taken place separately. One possibility to combine the two is through linking Non-ETS offset project-based crediting schemes in the form of Joint Implementation or domestic offset (DO) projects with the EU ETS. Linking would allow non-ETS offset project-based CO2 credits to be traded within the ETS market. This paper discusses the merits and drawbacks of the implementation of a DO scheme in the built environment in the Netherlands. The built environment can be characterised as a sector with a great diversity and significant energy savings potential. Emphasis is paid on the modalities for estimating energy savings under DO projects. The authors discuss if next to existing EU, national or regional policies in the Netherlands, DO could spur initiatives in sub-sectors or market areas that are difficult to reach with conventional policy instruments. Thus, despite the existing policy framework in this sector, there could be still space for DO to reach the untapped energy savings potential. DO can support activities and technologies that are not covered by other policy instruments, either because they are not part of the instruments focus or are above the minimum requirements of the incumbent policy targets. It is expected that some lessons from this study in the Netherlands can be taken into account also by other countries facing similar market circumstances, which have implemented several policy instruments and are considering DO schemes as an alternative for capturing part of the untapped energy saving potential in their end use sectors. Another possible advantage of DO is that is has the potential to reduce public spending on existing policy goals, when it is considered in conjunction with existing public financing instruments. In order to tap into this potential, there are a series of hurdles in place, like additionality and the current CO2 price levels, while transaction and administration costs must be kept low.

[1]  Niki-Artemis Spyridaki,et al.  White certificates and domestic offset schemes: possible synergies , 2012, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

[2]  Alexandros Flamos,et al.  Linking least-cost energy system costs models with MCA: An assessment of the EU renewable energy targets and supporting policies , 2011 .

[3]  D. ürge-Vorsatz,et al.  Bottom–up assessment of potentials and costs of CO2 emission mitigation in the buildings sector: insights into the missing elements , 2009 .

[4]  Martijn G. Rietbergen,et al.  The Effectiveness of Policy Instruments for Energy-Efficiency Improvement in Firms: The Dutch Experience , 2004 .

[5]  V. Oikonomou,et al.  Implementing agreement on demand-side management technologies and programmes , 2006 .

[6]  P. Bertoldi,et al.  Tradable white certificate schemes: fundamental concepts , 2008 .

[7]  H. E. Elzenga,et al.  Verkenning Schoon en Zuinig , 2009 .

[8]  Luis Mundaca,et al.  Transaction costs of Tradable White Certificate schemes: The Energy Efficiency Commitment as case study , 2007 .

[9]  Christina Hood.  Reviewing Existing and Proposed Emissions Trading Systems , 2010 .

[10]  P. Bertoldi,et al.  Tradable Certificates for Energy Savings: Opportunities, Challenges, and Prospects for Integration with other Market Instruments in the Energy Sector , 2005 .

[11]  A. Flamos,et al.  Domestic Offsets in Practice: Modalities and Implications , 2013 .

[12]  Paul Baudry,et al.  Energy supplier obligations and white certificate schemes: Comparative analysis of experiences in the European Union , 2010 .

[13]  P. Boonekamp,et al.  Actual interaction effects between policy measures for energy efficiency : A qualitative matrix method and quantitative simulation results for households , 2006 .

[14]  Alexandros Flamos,et al.  The clean development mechanism—catalyst for wide spread deployment of renewable energy technologies? or misnomer? , 2010 .

[15]  John Psarras,et al.  Using Biomass to Achieve European Union Energy Targets—A Review of Biomass Status, Potential, and Supporting Policies , 2011 .

[16]  Martin Kumar Patel,et al.  “White and Green”: Comparison of market-based instruments to promote energy efficiency , 2005 .

[17]  Martijn G. Rietbergen,et al.  The effectiveness of policy instruments for energy efficiency improvements in firms , 2004 .

[18]  Alexandros Flamos,et al.  Is blending of energy and climate policy instruments always desirable , 2010 .