Next Article in Journal
Analysis of the Impact of Stator Inter-Turn Short Circuits on PMSM Drive with Scalar and Vector Control
Next Article in Special Issue
Towards Fossil Free Cities—A Supermarket, Greenhouse & Dwelling Integrated Energy System as an Alternative to District Heating: Amsterdam Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
Psychrophilic Full Scale Tubular Digester Operating over Eight Years: Complete Performance Evaluation and Microbiological Population
Previous Article in Special Issue
Regional Energy Transition: An Analytical Approach Applied to the Slovakian Coal Region
 
 
Article

Towards a More Realistic Cost–Benefit Analysis—Attempting to Integrate Transaction Costs and Energy Efficiency Services

1
Energy, Transport and Climate Policy Division, Wuppertal Institute, Doeppersberg 19, 42103 Wuppertal, Germany
2
DLR Institute of Networked Energy Systems, Carl-von-Ossietzky-Str. 15, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany
3
Oeko-Institut e.V., Merzhauser Straße 173, 79100 Freiburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2021, 14(1), 152; https://doi.org/10.3390/en14010152
Received: 16 November 2020 / Revised: 16 December 2020 / Accepted: 18 December 2020 / Published: 30 December 2020
In order to calculate the financial return of energy efficiency measures, a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is a proven tool for investors. Generally, however, most CBAs for investors have a narrow focus, which is—simply speaking—on investment costs compared with energy cost savings over the life span of the investment. This only provides part of the full picture. Ideally, a comprehensive or extended CBA would take additional benefits as well as additional costs into account. The objective of this paper is to reflect upon integrating into a CBA two important cost components: transaction costs and energy efficiency services—and how they interact. Even though this concept has not been carried out to the knowledge of the authors, we even go a step further to try to apply this idea. In so doing, we carried out a meta-analysis on relevant literature and existing data and interviewed a limited number of energy experts with comprehensive experience in carrying out energy services. Even though data is hardly available, we succeeded in constructing three real-world cases and applied an extended CBA making use of information gathered on transaction costs and energy services costs. We were able to show that, despite these additional cost components, the energy efficiency measures are economically viable. Quantitative data was not available on how energy services reduce transaction costs; more information on this aspect could render our results even more positive. Even though empirical and conceptual research must intensify efforts to design an even more comprehensive CBA, these first-of-its-kind findings can counterargue those that believe energy efficiency is not worth it (in monetary terms) due to transaction costs or energy services costs. In fact, this is good news for energy efficiency and for those that seek to make use of our findings to argue in favor of taking up energy efficiency investments in businesses. View Full-Text
Keywords: cost–benefit analysis; energy services; transaction costs; energy efficiency; energy efficiency gap cost–benefit analysis; energy services; transaction costs; energy efficiency; energy efficiency gap
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Adisorn, T.; Tholen, L.; Thema, J.; Luetkehaus, H.; Braungardt, S.; Huenecke, K.; Schumacher, K. Towards a More Realistic Cost–Benefit Analysis—Attempting to Integrate Transaction Costs and Energy Efficiency Services. Energies 2021, 14, 152. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14010152

AMA Style

Adisorn T, Tholen L, Thema J, Luetkehaus H, Braungardt S, Huenecke K, Schumacher K. Towards a More Realistic Cost–Benefit Analysis—Attempting to Integrate Transaction Costs and Energy Efficiency Services. Energies. 2021; 14(1):152. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14010152

Chicago/Turabian Style

Adisorn, Thomas, Lena Tholen, Johannes Thema, Hauke Luetkehaus, Sibylle Braungardt, Katja Huenecke, and Katja Schumacher. 2021. "Towards a More Realistic Cost–Benefit Analysis—Attempting to Integrate Transaction Costs and Energy Efficiency Services" Energies 14, no. 1: 152. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14010152

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop