Successful Measures
 

Why a policy facility on successful measures ?

  • In earlier projects, we often tried to identify "successful" and/or "innovative" measures, but the criteria were not homogenous and the measures could not directly be taken from the MURE database.
  • There are frequent requests from the national level for successful policy measures in other countries which could not be fully met by MURE up to now.

The new policy facility aimed at

  1. defining a consistent set of criteria to characterize successful policy measures and
  2. implementing an easy retrieval for successful measures in the MURE database.

Methodological approach

Step 1: Pre-choice of 10-15 policy measures per country (2-3 per sector) based on the following criteria

  • Only high and medium impact measures
  • Measures with some experience
  • Ongoing and not too old measures (>2000)
  • Representation of several measure types
  • Expert choice

Step 2: Evaluation of the chosen policy measures: enables to rank the pre-chosen set of (around 300) policy measures according to their success

  • 12 criteria have been identified to define the success level of a measure
  • Distinction between 6 "high" and 6 "low" priority criteria
  • Quantitative evaluation of each policy with a score between 1 (worst) and 5 (best) for each of the 12 criteria

Successful measures criteria

Group 1: High priority criteria  
1) High impact / high number of applicants Amount of energy savings or activities achieved by the measure
Scores 5 or 4 for high impact measure; 3: medium impact measure; 2 or1: low impact measure (impacts based on MURE descriptors 'Impact evaluation' and 'Semi-quantitative impact')
2) Cost efficiency for the implementor / necessary administrative support Energy savings achieved in relation to the costs or administrative burden for the implementer.
Scores:5 = very cost-effective; 4 = relatively cost-effective; 3 = neutral; 2 = less cost-effective; 1= not cost-effective
3) Potential for market transformation and promotion of energy services Suitability of the measure to enhance the market transformation to energy-efficient product/systems and to promote energy efficiency services (e.g. new actors or business models)
Score: 5 = very high potential; 4 = high potential; 3 = medium potential; 2 = low potential; 1 = very low potential
4) Suitability to overcome barriers for energy efficiency Suitability to overcome the various barriers to energy savings investments (i.e. raise information and knowledge, address capital constraints, risk and uncertainties, split incentives (i.e. costs and benefits of an EE investment falling on different actors).
Scores: 5 = very suitable to overcome barriers; 4 = suitable; 3 = neutral; 2 = not suitable; 1 = fully unsuitable.
5) Ease and stability of re-financing financial measures Extent to which the instruments differ has a stable funding (for instance budget-independence; only relevant for financial measures).
Scores: 5 = very high stability; 4 = high stability; 3 = medium stability; 2 = low stability; 1 = very low stability
6) Persistency of the savings induced by the measure How lasting is the impact of the measure in terms of time; usually, behavioral measures are less persistent or less ensured compared to measures inducing investments
Scores: 5 = very persistent / long-lasting; 4 = persistent / lasting; 3 = medium persistent / lasting; 2 = low persistency / short-lasting; 1 = very low persistency / very short-lasting
Group 2: Low priority criteria  
7) Transferability between countries Can the measure be easily transferred to another country? Does such a transfer makes sense? Is it possible that the measure may not work well in another political context?
Scores: 5 = very suitable for transfer; 4 = suitable for transfer; 3 = neutral; 2 = not suitable for transfer; 1 = fully unsuitable for transfer
8) Link to other measures / policy packages In general two or more measures interact when addressing the same targeted end use. Typical interaction, for example, is between the implementation of an EU Directive and the corresponding incentives (financial, fiscal, etc.).
Scores: 5 = very high degree of interaction; 4 = high degree; 3 = medium degree; 2 = low degree; 1 = no interaction (based on sub-heading 'Interaction of measures' in the detailed measure description; see new guidelines Chapter 4.3).
9) Some experience with measure Experience means that the measure is already implemented for some time (refers to MURE descriptor "starting year") and that a measure evaluation or at least some information on impact, acceptance etc. is available.
Scores 5 = very much experience; 4 = much experience; 3 = some experience; 2 = not much experience ; 1 = no experience at all (based on MURE descriptors 'Starting year' and 'Impact evaluation')
10) Avoidance of negative side-effects Negative side-effects are for instance "unfair" burdening of the measure costs or relatively high burden for low-income households; or else direct rebound effects ( e.g. more lighting, higher room temperature) or even indirect rebound effects due to economic interrelations.
Scores: 5 = Very high avoidance of negative side-effects; 4 = High avoidance; 3 = Medium avoidance; 2 = Low avoidance; 1 = Very low avoidance of negative side-effects
11) Positive side-effects Positive side-effects or co-benefits of a measure are e.g.: -higher economic growth, improved competitiveness and productivity, creation of new jobs, improved work environment, improved energy security, health etc.
Scores: 5 = very high positive side-effects; 4 = high positive effects; 3 = Medium positive effects; 2 = Low positive effects; 1 = very low positive effects
12) Ease of acceptance by relevant stakeholders Will the measure be easily accepted by the relevant stakeholders or lead to a strong opposition (e.g. by industry, consumer associations, renters etc.)?
Scores: 5 = Very high degree of acceptance; 4 = High degree of acceptance; 3 = Medium acceptance; 2 = Low acceptance; 1 = Very low acceptance / strong opposition