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 achieved by the measure / amount of energy saving activites which are addressed and carried out by the measure
Link to MURE descriptors 'Impact evaluation' and 'Semi-quantitative impact': High impact measure = score 5 or 4. Medium impact measure = score 3. Low impact measure = score 2 or 1
2) Cost efficiency for the implementor / necessary administrative support Relation of energy savings achieved and necessary costs for the implementor / amount of administrative support necessary to implement a measure, i.e. extent of the administrative barrier to implement a measure
Score 55 = very cost-effective. Score 4 = relatively cost-effective. Score 3 = neutral, balanced relation. Score 2 = less cost-effective. Score 1 = not cost-effective at all
3) Potential for market transformation and for promotion of energy service market Suitability of the measure to enhance the market transformation to energy-efficient product/systems and to strengthening the market for energy efficiency and energy services (e.g. in the form of new actor or new business models)
Score 5 = very high potential. Score 4 = high potential. Score 3 = medium potential. Score 2 = low potential Score 1 = very low potential
4) Suitability to overcome barrieres for energy efficiency This criterion refers to the fact that in reality various barriers prevent private households and companies from realizing even a profitable energy-saving potential. Usually, the following main types of barriers are distinguished: information and knowledge deficits; capital constraints both including external and internal funds; risk and uncertainties, often leading to very short pay-back times for an EE investment; or split incentives when the costs and benefits of an EE investment decision fall on different actors.
Score 5 = very suitable to overcome barriers. Score 4 = suitable to overcome barriers. Score 3 = neutral. Score 2 = not suitable to overcome barriers. Score 1 = fully unsuitable to overcome barriers
5) Ease and stability of re-financing (only relevant for financial measures) This criterion examines the extent to which the instruments differ in terms of their funding; one focus is on the aspect of budget-independence of the funding. It must only be evaluated for financial measures.
Score 5 = very high stability. Score 4 = high stability. Score 3 = medium stability. Score 2 = low stability. Score 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, behavioural measures are less persistent or the persistency is less ensured as for measures inducing investments
Score 5 = very persistent / long-lasting. Score 4 = persistent / lasting. Score 3 = medium persistent / lasting. Score 2 = low persistency / short-lasting. Score 1 = very low persistency / very short-lasting
Group 2: Low priority criteria  
7) Transferability between countries The following questions are adressed by this criterion: Can the measure be easily transferred to another country? Makes such a transfer sense? Is it possible that the measure may not work in the same way in another politcal context?
Score 5 = very suitable for transfer. Score 4 = suitable for transfer. Score 3 = neutral. Score 2 = not suitable for transfer. Score 1 = fully unsuitable for transfer
8) Link 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 incentivizing (financial, fiscal, etc.) measures. Please note that this criterion refers to a sub-heading in the detailed measure description, where information on interaction should be given, too (see new guidelines Chapter 4.3).
Link to sub-heading 'Interaction of measures' in the detailed measure description. Score 5 = very high degree of interaction. Score 4 = high degree of interaction. Score 3 = medium degree of interaction. Score 2 = low degree of interaction. Score 1 = no interaction at all
9) Some experience with measure Experiece means that the measure is already implemented for some time (refers to MURE descriptor "starting year"). And also that a measure evaluation or at least some information on impact, acceptance etc. is available.
Link to MURE descriptors 'Starting year' and 'Impact evaluation'. Score 5 = very much experience. Score 4 = much experience. Score 3 = some experience. Score 2 = not much experience. Score 1 = no experience at all
10) Avoidance of negative side-effects Side-effect are defined here as measure impacts which are not directly linked to the energy savings induced and the costs of the measure. Negative side-effects are e.g.: -Distributional effects as e.g. an ""unfair"" burdening of the measure costs or relatively high burden for low-income households -Direct rebound effects, i.e. negligent handling of energy due to cost saving induced by the measure (e.g. more lighting, higher room temperature) -Indirect rebound effects due to economic interrelations.
Score 5 = Very high avoidance of negative side-effects. Score 4 = High avoidance of negative side-effects. Score 3 = Medium avoidance of negative side-effects. Score 2 = Low avoidance of negative side-effects. Score 1 = Very low avoidance of negative side-effects
11) Support of positive side-effects Positive side-effects or co-benefits of a measure are e.g.: -Higher economic growth, improved competetiveness and productivity -Creation of new jobs, improved work environment -Improvement of energy security, health etc.
Score 5 = Very high support of positive side-effects. Score 4 = High support of positive side-effects. Score 3 = Medium support of positive side-effects. Score 2 = Low support of positive side-effects. Score 1 = Very low support of positive side-effects
12) Ease of acceptance by relevant stakeholders The following questions are adressed by this criterion: Will the measure be easily accepted by the relevant stakeholders or is a strong opposition to be expected (e.g. by industry, consumer associations, renters etc.)?
Score 5 = Very high degree of acceptance. Score 4 = High degree of acceptance. Score 3 = Medium degree of acceptance. Score 2 = Low degree of acceptance. Score 1 = Very low degree of acceptance / strong opposition