1 A multiple benefits framing of EE is valuable
EE delivers the same or better service at reduced cost and with lower environmental impact. It also has many other benefits, such as improved health from better living conditions, reduced air pollution, and increased economic productivity. A ‘multiple benefits’ approach seeks to capture the value of EE in the many policy areas beyond the traditional arena of energy policy. The multiple benefits framing of EE is still under development as an area of research and practice - as exemplified by the modest academic research base and the sometimes confusing language used (‘multiple’ or ‘intangible’?; ‘benefit’, ‘impact’ or ‘effect’?).
The importance of multiple benefits is increasingly recognised in the policy making process from EU to local level, and there is considerable interest in being able to identify benefits beyond energy cost saving. There is still an EE ‘gap’; increasing the ambition level of EE policies, programmes and projects would deliver significant social, economic and environmental benefits. A multiple benefits approach allows policy makers, and other decision-makers, to recognise this wide range of benefits beyond energy savings and to communicate messages to energy users that are more targeted at what really matters to them.
The approach holds promise beyond EE too, for example in renewable energy and demand response.
2 Quantitative and qualitative evidence are both important
Stakeholders and decision-makers are more likely to be persuaded to engage further with EE through a combination of reliable quantitative data and relevant case studies. Either type of evidence on its own is less influential. Some policy-making processes can only formally take account of quantitative data (e.g. standard setting). However, to communicate the benefits of EE to wider stakeholders - including politicians, private sector companies, local authorities, and households - a wide range of good quality case studies, salient to different audiences in different countries and sectors, will also be vital.
The combination of good research data and good stakeholder engagement is potentially powerful: it enables partners to work together, delivers better quality interventions, and engages individuals and organisations more fully with EE. Stakeholders are keen to develop their use of the multiple benefits framing, supported by good quality data and case studies.
The implications of this for developing ‘good practice’ are subtle and far-reaching. Quantitative data is important but it needs to be transparent and based on good-quality, impartial research; and for case studies to be salient in different contexts and to different stakeholders means that the number and variety of such case studies needs to be high.
3 Developing new quantification methods is resource-intensive
IN-BEE provides two examples of new models in development, which could lead to the creation of new tools for estimating benefits. These are for estimating the monetary value of different perceptions of energy price risk, and for estimating both indoor comfort and labour productivity using the principle of human exergy. This work shows that the research effort needed to develop new methods and tools – as well as to gather new evidence – can be very large. In addition, the quality of evidence is important. For example, there is widespread scepticism about estimates of the job creation via EE, because of the simplistic methodologies sometimes employed.
For policy makers, improving the evidence base may mean focussing research resources on the areas of greatest impact or uncertainty. However, different benefits assume greater importance as new issues emerge. For example, ‘Dieselgate’ has led to increased political interest in the contribution EE can make to improving air quality. An ongoing process is needed to determine future research priorities, including for new decision-making frameworks, methods and tools.
4 Stakeholder engagement is key to success
It is important to understand how decisions are made, and to move away from a rational economic model in situations where this does not apply. How people or organisations actually make decisions determines the sort of evidence, tools and frameworks that researchers should develop. In addition, it is important to recognise that the least quantifiable benefits can be critical in gaining support for projects and programmes. It would be a mistake to give low priority to an issue simply because it is difficult to quantify. Whatever tools, methods and data are used, the process of engagement with stakeholders at multiple levels remains crucially important. Training for energy experts in communication with stakeholders could help improve engagement.
5 Capturing multiple benefits requires new thinking
In some situations, EE is rightly the central concern of decision-makers, and the multiple benefits approach serves to enhance rather than replace conventional benefit-cost analysis. However, for other stakeholders, EE is a means to very different ends and EE is far from the centre of their thinking. Deliberate ‘de-centring’ of EE can help with communication, coalition-building, and identifying new opportunities for EE. Understanding different viewpoints and priorities, and producing the appropriate quantitative and qualitative evidence, takes time and commitment from all parties.
The multiple benefits approach is widely applicable - with energy decision making being pervasive throughout society in many different contexts. But it brings with it an inescapable new complexity: there are multiple benefits; multiple beneficiaries; multiple decision makers; multiple theories of change; multiple values or objectives; and multiple frameworks and tools. Multiple benefits is a strong framework for learning to work with this complexity, and to adapt research, policies, programmes and projects to make the most of opportunities for increasing EE.
