Next Article in Journal
A Comparative Study of Data-Driven Early-Stage End-of-Life Classification Approaches for Lithium-Ion Batteries
Previous Article in Journal
A Non-Intrusive Load Decomposition Model Based on Multiple Electrical Parameters to Point
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Understanding Energy Demand of the Tertiary Sector by Energy Carriers and End-Uses: An Integrated Bottom-Up and Top-Down Model Taking Germany as the Example

1
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Breslauer Strasse 48, 76139 Karlsruhe, Germany
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Darmstadt University of Technology, Franziska-Braun-Strasse 3, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2024, 17(17), 4486; https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174486
Submission received: 11 July 2024 / Revised: 30 August 2024 / Accepted: 4 September 2024 / Published: 6 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section C: Energy Economics and Policy)

Abstract

:
Despite its high share in national energy demand, the tertiary sector is an undifferentiated residual in the energy balances of most countries. To develop effective policy measures for enhancing energy efficiency, policymakers need a sound understanding of how the energy demand is structured. To date, only a few studies assess energy demand in the tertiary sector quantitatively. This paper aims to close this gap by introducing an integrated model that transparently breaks down the energy demand according to statistical subsectors, energy carriers and end-uses. The model combines a technology-based bottom-up with a top-down approach and applies it to a case study on Germany based on survey data from companies. Model validity is analyzed using a set of indicators. The results for Germany show that the model is consistent with the national energy balance showing an aggregate deviation of only 1%. The results for 2019 indicate that electricity demand in Germany’s tertiary sector is dominated by lighting (35%), information and communication technologies (33%) and the provision of mechanical energy (9%), while fuel demand is mainly due to space heating (78%), followed by mechanical energy (15%).

1. Introduction

Current progress in energy and climate policies is insufficient to achieve the 1.5 °C target for global warming that has been aimed for by the Paris climate agreement. Even limiting global warming to under 2 °C is becoming increasingly more difficult [1]. Therefore, there needs to be a change in the economy, governance and technology toward a sustainable, resource-efficient, climate-neutral and circular world [2,3].
Policymakers set the framework for this course. To define and implement effective policy measures to limit global warming, they need to understand the structure of energy demand. Since detailed data about real-world energy systems is usually limited or missing, policymakers regularly need to rely on knowledge gained from energy system models. Energy system models are specific representations of real-world systems based on detailed assumptions and system boundaries [4,5]. These models have several purposes: In addition to supporting the provision of official energy balances, energy system models may further subdivide energy demand by energy end-use [6]. The models allow for the development of scenarios that describe the outcome of an energy system model run [4]. Also, energy efficiency activities can be understood, and the best technology opportunities and new policies can be identified [6,7]. Another purpose is the investigation of the costs and benefits of policy measures. By adjusting the underlying input and assumptions, the effects and impacts of policy measures and long-term decarbonization scenarios can be analyzed, best strategies can be highlighted, and greenhouse gas emission reduction targets can be set [4,6,8].
Energy system models are often structured by official energy statistics which distinguish the supply side and the demand side. Ideally, the results of such models match the official energy balances, i.e., they have a top-down fit with statistics, and they also explain the elements that constitute energy demand from a disaggregate level, i.e., a bottom-up perspective. In doing so, the bottom-up view adds additional information on the structure of energy generation, energy end-use, improvement measures and finally carbon dioxide reduction options [9,10,11]. A key challenge in doing so is to provide a consistent and transparent fit of the top-down and the bottom-up values.
Demand side models are often distinguished by the sector they address along with the energy balances, i.e., households, industry, transport, a residual and the tertiary or service sector. In official energy balances, the tertiary sector is a rather undifferentiated residual, and data on energy end-use by energy carriers and subsectors is generally not published by statistical offices [12]. From an energy system perspective, the tertiary sector still holds a substantial share in energy demand. In Germany, for example, it had a non-negligible share of 14.7% of the country’s entire energy consumption in 2019 [12,13]. The sector includes the operation of public and private services, trade, commerce, manufacturing, schools, universities, hospitals, hotels and public swimming pools [14]. The definition of the tertiary sector differs between countries, with Germany including agriculture, construction and small industries, for example, in contrast to the EU [15].
Like any other sector, the tertiary sector’s final energy consumption needs to be reduced effectively and sustainably, and thus, transparency on its energy demand, its potential contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and potential levers for policymaking are required.
Despite this relevant and dynamic role, the number of studies analyzing the energy demand of the tertiary sector is relatively small. Altogether, there is a gap related to transparently modeling the sector’s energy demand consistent with statistical data and containing up-to-date information.
Against this background, the aim of this paper is to develop and apply an integrated top-down and bottom-up model for the tertiary sector. The associated research question is as follows: How can an integrated model transparently break down tertiary sector energy demand by end-use, energy carrier and subsectors according to the statistical classification of the economic activities in the European Community (NACE) as a bottom-up perspective to provide policymakers with a better understanding whilst still remaining consistent with the energy balance from a top-down view?
To answer this question, this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of studies addressing energy demand in the tertiary sector. Section 3 introduces a methodology to quantify energy demand that allows for breaking down energy demand into energy carriers and end-use using a combined bottom-up and top-down approach. To illustrate and validate this model, it is applied to a case study of Germany’s tertiary sector using national statistics, results from a dedicated survey among companies and other sources. This is followed by a presentation and discussion of the results and methodological aspects (Section 4). Finally, conclusions are provided (Section 5).

2. Energy Demand in the Tertiary Sector

2.1. Investigations of Energy Demand in the Tertiary Sector

The literature includes various works specifically relating to the tertiary sector’s dynamic structure. In developed countries, the tertiary sector is the most important economic sector [16]. Studies for the US, China and other OECD countries demonstrated the connection between economic growth and a growing tertiary sector [16,17,18,19,20,21,22].
However, activities, structure, productivity, substitution and intensity affect the total energy consumption [18]. The dynamics of consumption are manifold. This is visible in various works. Activity is expected to shift towards cooling end-uses at a high rate of growth worldwide [16,23]. Space heating and cooking were influenced by structural changes and energy efficiency improvements [18]. The share of electricity end-use may also rise due to the expansion of the use of heat pumps [24]. As far as the potential of renewable resources is concerned, a study conducted in the Netherlands shows that the tertiary sector plays a major role in the generation of solar and wind energy [25]. The internal structure in China, for example, is changing from traditional subsectors such as hotels and restaurants to finance and real estate [22]. In addition to the high share of the tertiary sector in the total final energy consumption, the sector also has a major impact on the energy consumption within buildings (34%) [24]. Policies need to attract buildings, but there is a big difference between Europe and China, with China’s policies needing to address the increasing proportion of new buildings [16]. In summary, structural changes in recent decades have led to a shift of processes to other sectors (outsourcing effects), and new technologies have influenced and continue to influence the energy demand structure of the sector. Therefore, energy demand and emissions do not reflect the full amount of emissions due to direct and indirect emissions from supply chain effects and goods produced in other sectors, as well as strong pull effects on other sectors [26,27,28].
There are several other studies on the tertiary sector. To obtain a more detailed understanding of the tertiary sector, an econometric analysis was implemented in [24] to examine the dependency of energy consumption and various variables like employees, worked hours, total floor area and gross domestic product (GDP) or gross value added (GVA). Other studies addressed issues such as the inelasticity of changes both in price and demand for electricity [29]. The main findings were that demand is inelastic in the short term, but the reverse is true in the long term, and that pricing policies appear to be effective. Energy efficiency measures also had a long-term impact due to income elasticity [29]. Other investigations found high theoretical and technological potential and a willingness of companies in the food retail and restaurant subsectors to participate in demand response [30]. Further analysis showed that supermarkets, hotels and office buildings could play an important role in compensating for grid instabilities [31].
These dynamics demonstrate the need for up-to-date energy demand modeling for the sector.

2.2. Modeling Energy Demand in the Tertiary Sector

2.2.1. Energy Demand Modeling

Energy system models are used to understand and describe the dynamics of energy demand quantitatively. They can be distinguished in different ways. The paper of van Beeck [32] describes an approach to classify the modeling approaches into different categories (Table 1). Starting from the general and specific purpose to the characteristics such as model structure, analytical approach, underlying methodology, mathematical approach, geographical coverage, sectoral coverage, time horizon and data requirements [32]. The sectoral coverage can be divided into a partial equilibrium when considering only one sector or equilibrium models, if the whole economy is considered [5]. The target can either be forecasting, exploring or backcasting [32]. Taking a closer look at the analytical approach, a typical distinction is made between the aforementioned top-down and bottom-up models [32].
Some of the aforementioned aspects are particularly relevant to this investigation and are therefore addressed in more detail. Regarding the analytical approach used in this paper, there are top-down, bottom-up and hybrid approaches. With a bottom-up approach, energy end-use can be determined from each sub-process [10,11]. This is important to focus on current and future technological details to find suitable policies and levies [9]. The strength of bottom-up models, which have a more detailed technical characterization of technologies and end-uses, lies in the representation of a significant number of different technology options, the coverage of energy sources at the primary and final energy levels, the substitution of processes and the demonstration and comparison of efficiency [9,34,35,36]. Top-down models, on the other hand, take a more macroeconomic, broader view of economic sectors and agents [9,35]. Compared to bottom-up models, the technological details are absent, which limits their representation of the energy system [9,34]. Top-down models are useful for examining the macroeconomic impact of energy policies [34,36]. In addition to using the two modeling approaches independently, combining them as ‘hybrid’ or ‘integrated solutions’ allows us to combine their benefits. [9]. This can be the key to connecting the detailed technology-based bottom-up approach with the systematic macroeconomic perspective of a top-down approach [9,34]. On the other hand, such integrated models also face the challenge of matching both bottom-up and top-down perspectives in a consistent manner.
In addition to the analytical approach, the available data are also important in the development of energy system models. These require a thorough knowledge of today’s energy consumption, which serves as the baseline year and provides the possibility to establish a benchmark for future energy consumption [37]. Setting the baseline year and gathering information for energy system models is a very important part of energy system modeling. After setting the baseline boundaries and the year, the energy use data can be determined [37]. In the literature, there are energy system models using the energy balance or activity, intensity and efficiency data for the baseline year, which project future energy demand, for example. An example, therefore, is PRIMES which uses data from Eurostat as a baseline reference [38,39], or POLES which uses the databases of Enerdata [40]. Other energy consumption predicting models like FORECAST are based on energy system models for the tertiary sector [41].

2.2.2. Specific Energy System Models

Few energy system models deal specifically with the tertiary sector (Table 2). Following the reviews by Chatterjee et al. [42] and Prina et al. [36], the following selection criteria for the literature review are set:
  • Articles must describe their methodology for a baseline year, not only using energy balances such as Eurostat, i.e., how energy consumption is subdivided into energy carriers and energy end-use [39];
  • Articles should address the tertiary sector.
Previous related publications include the work of Fleiter et al. [43] and Jakob et al. [41]. Their works introduce a static bottom-up (BU) method, consisting of basic energy service drivers and specific energy consumption indicators, calculating the share of the energy end-use in the tertiary sector [41,43]. This model uses typical values in the literature for the installed power and the annual utilization rate, achieving results within a range of ±10% compared to Eurostat statistics [43]. Another method for monitoring electricity consumption in the tertiary sector was adopted by Gruber et al. [44] and Plesser et al. [45] by installing electricity meters in buildings in the tertiary sector. For this purpose, 123 representative buildings in 12 EU countries were equipped with electric meters for a certain period of time, scaling the electricity consumption measured to an annual consumption of the electric appliances such as lighting, office equipment, ventilation and air conditioning [45]. The findings from these European studies have also been used in Hungary and Brazil, for example [49,50]. The most recent empirically based analysis relies on survey data from 2012 which also served as a basis for more recent works on the sector [46,47,48]. From the survey, the average electricity and fuel consumption per subsector was determined and related to the average number of employees in the surveyed companies [51]. The final electricity or fuel consumption is calculated by multiplying these survey values by the actual number of employed persons or other statistically available drivers in the respective year [51]. However, in this analysis, a detailed procedure is not available to the public and a transparent structure of the model is lacking.
To sum up, in the present energy system models for the tertiary sector, there is some room for improvement in terms of transparency of the models; most models use data that are more than a decade old which do not account for more recent dynamics in the sector, and subdividing the energy consumption into subsectors based on the NACE code, energy end-use and energy carriers is only carried out in few cases. There is also a lack of consideration for renewable energy sources.

3. Methodology: Design and Implementation of an Integrated Model

3.1. Design of the Tertiary Sector Model

Against this background and in contrast to existing models, the tertiary model suggested here seeks the following:
3.
To match the energy demand of national sectoral statistics from a top-down-perspective with a technology-oriented energy demand using a bottom-up approach to yield a consistent dataset;
4.
To subdivide energy demand by subsectors, energy end-use and energy carriers to point out major areas of energy demand;
5.
To use recent data and statistics to provide an up-to-date analysis;
6.
To yield a transparent calculation method to enhance the credibility of results but to also underline the dependency of input data and assumptions.
With reference to the model classification in Table 1, the suggested model can be described as follows: its purpose is to cover energy demand using a hybrid approach, i.e., a combined top-down and bottom-up approach.
Figure 1 shows the methodology of the model which follows a multi-level approach consisting of eight steps. Steps (1) to (4) cover setting up the mathematical model for determining energy demand, whereas steps (5) to (7) refer to how data are included in the model. The ulterior step (8) serves to perform quality control for the analysis.

3.1.1. Step (1): End-Use Level

The first step aims to determine the final energy demand by end-uses and energy carriers. Following AG Energiebilanzen, the end-uses include lighting, information and communication technology (ICT), mechanical energy, hot water, space heating, process heating, process cooling and air conditioning [52]. Furthermore, in keeping consistent with the official energy balances, the following energy carriers are covered: coal, motor gasoline, jet fuel kerosene, diesel oil, fuel oil light, liquified petroleum gas, natural gas, liquid and solid biomass, biogas, environmental heat, solar (thermal) heat, geothermal energy, district heating and electricity [13]. Waste heat is not included as it is not a tertiary sector consumption category in AG Energiebilanzen [13]. Environmental heat is based on combined heat and power plants.
The determination of final energy demand is based on three generic bottom-up end-use calculation types that originate from considerations about reasonably obtainable data on the company level as well as energy demand features of certain applications across companies. The following calculation types are distinguished:
Type I is used where typical average values for energy demand per end-use device can be used to determine energy demand. It is mainly used for standardized devices, e.g., ICT equipment, and computed by the following:
e m , j , k , B U I = n m , j · p m , j , k · c m , j · h m , j
with
e m , j , k , B U I as the final bottom-up (BU) energy demand of company m for the end-use j per energy carrier k [kWh/a];
n m , j as the number of end-use devices operated by company m for end-use j [n];
p m ,   j , k   as the average nominal rated energy consumption per end-use device of company m for end-use j and energy carrier k [kW/n];
c m , j as the capacity factor per end-use device of company m for end-use j [%];
h m , j as the average annual operating hours of company m per end-use j [h/a].
Type II is used where installed overall capacities are more easily determined than individual number and powers of devices, i.e., it is computed by the following:
e m , j , k , B U I I = i m , j · c m , j · h m , j
with
i m , j , k as the installed capacity of company m for end-use j and energy carrier k [kW].
Type III is characterized by a generic driver combined with driver-specific consumption. It is mainly used for space heating and hot water and depends on specific heating demand according to the type and age of the heating system used in the company:
e m , j , k , B U I I I = d m , j · s m , j · η m , j
with
d m , j as the driver value of company m for end-use j [e.g., L, m²];
s m , j , k as the driver-specific consumption value of company m for end-use j and energy carrier k [e.g., kWh/L, kWh/m²].
The sum over all types is a company’s bottom-up energy demand per end-use and energy carrier:
e m , j , k , B U = e m , j , k , B U I + e m , j , k , B U I I + e m , j , k , B U I I I

3.1.2. Step (2): Company Level

While the bottom-up demand reflects the technological data of a company, its sum will usually deviate from the bottom-up demand for various reasons. The reasons for this are diverse and include errors and aggregation issues in bottom-up data, misaligned assumptions and/or end-uses. Differences may also arise if the boundaries between business and private use are unclear, for example, if the company owner’s home and place of work are located in the same building [53]. Also, buildings may supply one or more workplaces with, for example, heating and hot water or mechanical equipment as specified, but the associated power data are missing and estimates have to be used [53].
To ensure that the bottom-up results e m , j , k , B U mirror the company’s overall demand and neither over- nor underestimate it, an alignment with the company’s top-down demand is needed when a value is given. For this, the bottom-up values per energy carrier are calculated from the end-use models e m , j , k ,   B U for each company by the following:
E m , j , k = e m , j , k , B U · j = 1 J e m , j , k , B U e m , k , T D
with
E m , j , k as the final energy consumption of company m for end-use j per energy carrier k;
e m , j , k ,   B U as the final bottom-up model (BU) energy consumption of company m for end-use j per energy carrier k;
e m , k ,   T D as the final top-down (TD) energy demand of company m across all end-uses per energy carrier k.

3.1.3. Step (3): Subsectoral Level

The energy demand for the companies is then extrapolated to an aggregated level across all companies per subsector by using subsectoral drivers (Equation (6)). These drivers are introduced to avoid structural distortions from treating small and large companies alike. For this, the model uses subsectoral drivers from statistics quantified on the sectoral level by b i (Table 3) and on the company level by b m . These drivers include the number of employees, students and annual guests in accommodation or hospital beds. The calculation of the subsectoral demand is made by the following:
E i , j , k = b i · 1 n i · m = 1 M E m , j , k b m
with
E i , j , k as the final energy consumption of the subsector i with the end-use j per energy carrier k;
ni as the number of companies in the sample belonging to subsector i;
b i as the value of the subsectoral driver in subsector i;
b m as the value of the driver of company m;

3.1.4. Step (4): Aggregated Level

In the fourth scaling step, the energy consumption determined is calibrated to the energy balance of the tertiary sector. Again, this is necessary to ensure consistency with the overall values:
E i , j , k ,   t o t a l = E i , j , k E k , b a l a n c e   · j = 1 J E i , j , k
with
E i , j , k , t o t a l as the total energy consumption of the subsector i with the end-use j per energy carrier k;
E i , j , k as the final energy consumption of the subsector i with the end-use j per energy carrier k;
E k , b a l a n c e   as the final energy consumption per energy carrier k from the energy balance.
The model implementation is carried out in Excel.

3.2. Implementation for a Case Study of the German Tertiary Sector

To illustrate and validate the model, it is applied to a case study of the German tertiary sector. The structure of the sector as well as the drivers of the companies obtained from the survey and the value of the subsectoral drivers mainly from Statistisches Bundesamt [54] can be seen in Table 3. Drivers taken from the survey are calculated using the sum of owners, full-time employees and half of the values given for part-time employees.
Table 3. Structure of the tertiary sector according to the NACE code in Germany [55].
Table 3. Structure of the tertiary sector according to the NACE code in Germany [55].
NACESubsector of Tertiary SectorDrivers b i m = 1 n b m
AAgriculture, forestry and fishing Employees510,0003505
C*1ManufacturingEmployees435,29522,304
FConstructionEmployees1,990,5426182
GWholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles Employees5,010,93212,113
HTransporting and storage Employees2,030,7731803
Passengers247,800,000*2
IAccommodation and food service activitiesEmployees1,182,0671830
Overnight stays by guests495,600,0005,076,154
JInformation and communication Employees1,140,2944962
KFinancial and insurance activitiesEmployees852,3502738
LReal estate activitiesEmployees363,275*3
MProfessional, scientific and technical activitiesEmployees2,310,9117096
NAdministrative and support service activitiesEmployees3,075,934482
OPublic administration and defense; compulsory social securityEmployees1,872,7179076
PEducationStudents11,217,93329,168
QHuman health and social work activitiesHospital beds 494,32619,740
Employees2,912,807946
RArts, entertainment and recreationEmployees420,219340
SOther services activitiesEmployees1,154,0291015
*1 only companies with less than 20 employees are covered here. *2 airports are not covered by the survey. *3 real estate activities are not covered by the survey.

3.2.1. Step (5): Company Data Acquisition via Survey

To obtain data on the company level, a survey among companies in Germany’s tertiary sector was carried out. It was based on a questionnaire used for previous analyses [46,47,53,56] but adjusted to major recent dynamics and new applications. In particular, questions on ICT equipment, data networks and LED lighting were added. The original questionnaire followed a structure from Geiger et al. [53] which grouped comparable companies and institutions for the survey and identified cross-cutting technologies. For the present analysis, the structure of the tertiary sector was based on NACE code classifications. Furthermore, the energy demand of several large, formerly state-owned institutions such as Deutsche Bahn (railway provider), Deutsche Telekom (telecommunications providers), Deutsche Post (postal service) and airports were allocated to the tertiary sector [57]. Military services are not considered.
The questionnaire itself is structured into a general part for all companies and specific questions for individual subsectors. It covers items relating to the energy consumption of the targeted companies, including exact information about appliances, equipment and machines used in the companies, e.g., in terms of numbers and power demand. The general part targeted information about heating systems, hot water provision, air conditioning and ventilation, vehicles, lighting systems and ICT such as servers, computers, monitors, copy machines, networks, projectors and data centers. Also, dishwashers, freezers and vending machines were covered as well as lunches that were sold. The specific part added detailed sectoral questions on energy demand, e.g., on drivers and compressor units, thermal engineering processes and other special industry-specific systems. As an example for hospitals, the specific part asked questions about the number of hospital beds, the equipment of the room and the hospital, such as swimming pools, diagnostic systems, laundries, disinfection and sterilization.
The survey was implemented via phone interviews from autumn 2020 to spring 2021 and covered the year 2019, i.e., the last ‘typical’ year preceding before the COVID pandemic. The phone interviews typically took between approximately 18 and 60 min to complete (10 to 90% quantile of respondents). The obtained answers were checked for plausibility, and obviously incorrect values and answers were removed prior to the calculation. In total, 1451 completed questionnaires were allocated to the subsectoral split indicated in Table 3.
Due to limits to the length of the survey and to considerations that some values such as the power demand of applications might be obtained more easily and reliably from the literature, additional values were taken over from the literature to complement the data. Depending on the case under consideration, this included the various data inputs for the previously introduced bottom-up model types I, II and III.
There are several areas and energy carriers that require special treatment for various reasons: Airports were handled differently due to their limited number. Therefore, the top-down values of the energy carriers are derived from values for the main German airports which were scaled by assigning a representative scaling key consisting of 70% office-type operations and 20% logistic-type and 10% retail-type businesses. For NACE ‘Real estate activities [L]’ not covered in the survey, office-type operations were used as well as additionally for, ‘Professional, scientific and technical activities [M]’, ‘Administrative and support service activities [N]’, ‘Arts, entertainment and recreation [R]’ and ‘Other service activities [S]’. Furthermore, since the current survey does not allow for conclusions about fuels for propulsion consumption in construction, the fuel ratio in agriculture to the construction industry from the previous survey was adopted for the construction subsector. Overall, the fuel reported in the AGEB statistics has been allocated proportionately to motor gasoline and diesel fuels and jet fuel kerosene entirely to airports. Geothermal energy was not inquired about in the 2019 survey, so the demand according to AGEB statistics was allocated to sectors and applications based on the distribution of environmental and solar heating. A similar approach was taken for biofuels; they were distributed proportionally similarly to the other fuels. It should also be noted that air conditioning does not add to the environmental heat.

3.2.2. Step (6): Subsectoral Statistical Values

Drivers for transferring company statistics to the subsectoral level are mainly the number of employees. These are available from the German Federal Statistical Office [54,58]. In the case of the aforementioned state-owned institutions, insurance and finance as well as airports and data centers, employment statistics from the companies’ or associations’ annual reports or specific sectoral statistics are used [59,60,61,62,63,64,65]. In some areas, employee numbers are less meaningful and other drivers appear more promising: the number of overnight stays is used for ‘Accommodation and food service [I]’ [66], the number of students in schools and universities for ‘Education [P]’ [67,68] and the number of hospital beds for hospitals under ‘Human Health [Q]’ [69] (see Table 3).

3.2.3. Step (7): Energy Balance of Tertiary Sector

The sectoral top-down values in this investigation are based on the annual energy balance published by AG Energiebilanzen [13]. It details energy demand by energy carrier for the sector in its entirety. Energy consumption is subdivided for each year into energy carriers including environmental heat, solar heat and renewable energies [70]. In areas that are not covered by the official statistics, the energy balance is based on sales data (e.g., oil), and the consumption of storable energy carriers is derived from market research results based on changes in stock levels [13].

3.2.4. Step (8): Validation and Quantification of Tertiary Model

For validation and quality control purposes, two indicators are introduced. The indicator I1 (Equation (8)) is used to quantify and compare the uncalibrated energy demand over all subsectors per energy carrier E k , u c (refer to step (3) in Figure 1) to the energy consumption per energy carrier according to official sector statistics E k , b a l a n c e . I1 mirrors how well the calculated bottom-up value on the sectoral level meets the actual top-down value in the interval [0, 1]. The closer the value to 1, the better the match.
I 1 = E k , u c E k , b a l a n c e
Here,
I 1 is the indicator for validation of the tertiary model;
E k , u c is the uncalibrated energy demand per energy carrier k (Step (3) in Figure 1);
E k , b a l a n c e is the reference value for the energy demand per energy carrier k from the national energy balance.
In addition to the base model for the subsectoral aggregation described in step (3) of Figure 1, an alternate approach (2) can also be used to calculate the subsectoral demand by the following:
E i , j , k = m = 1 n E m , j , k m = 1 n b m · b i
with
E i , j , k , ( 2 ) as the final energy consumption of the subsector i with the end-use j per energy carrier k with the second modeling approach (2).
The difference to the first approach (Equation (6)) is that the energy consumption of the companies per subsector is added together and divided by the total driver levels from the survey in that subsector. This means that an average value is first calculated for each subsector. This value is then multiplied by the sum of the respective drivers for this subsector.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Baseline Model Output

Figure 2 (for the numerical values, see Appendix B Table A1) shows the aggregated model output by subsector for the case study of Germany’s tertiary sector. The dominant energy carriers vary by subsector. In the subsector ‘Agriculture [A]’, biomass is most commonly used, for example, for transportation and space heating. In the ‘Trade [G]’ and ‘Accommodation and food service [I]’ sectors, as well as in ‘Information [J]’ and in most of the other less energy-intensive sectors, electricity is the most predominant energy carrier.
The percentage breakdown of applications for electricity and other energy sources is shown in Figure 3. Lighting (35%) and ICT (33%) are the main end-uses for electricity, as are space heating (78%) and mechanical energy (15%) for the other energy carriers.
Figure 4 shows the percentage of electricity and fuel consumption in the different application areas according to the NACE code shown in Table 3 (Figure 4 and Appendix B Table A2). The results generally underline the change compared to the previous investigation of the tertiary section in 2012 [47]. Lighting is no longer the dominant application in electricity consumption [47]. Rather, lighting and ICT are both at about 30% of the electricity demand. This is mainly due to the ongoing replacement of incandescent lamps with energy-saving LED lighting and the increasing demand for ICT. Additionally, space heating has the largest share of energy demand for most of the subsectors. The exceptions are the sectors ‘Agriculture [A]’ with a large share of mechanical energy and ‘Information [J]’ with a major proportion of ICT and air conditioning. Apart from this, all thermally conditioned areas in agriculture are attributed to space heating. Process heat is mainly used in the ‘Accommodation And Food [I]’ sector. In general, the mechanical energy turns out to be relatively small as the largest part is allocated to the transport sector.

4.2. Comparison of Bottom-Up Results with the German Top-Down Energy Balance

4.2.1. Validation Results for the Baseline Assumptions

The modeled energy consumption by subsector and energy carrier in 2019 prior to the calibration to the top-down values according to the AGEB energy balance indicates in a transparent way how well the bottom-up model matches the statistics (A similar investigation for the bottom-up/down-top comparison on company level using the survey data from this investigation is available in [71]). The results for indicator I1 (Table 4 ‘Baseline Values’) show that the model tends to underestimate energy consumption for almost all energy carriers. The coal and the liquid gas share is substantially lower than in the energy balance [70], and the district heating values are substantially above the statistics.
Overall, the bottom-up approach yields results that are consistent in terms of total energy consumption with the national energy balance, only showing a deviation of 1% across all energy carriers.

4.2.2. Sensitivity Analysis

To understand the impact of modifying the literature values and estimates as an input to the model, these values are subjected to a sensitivity analysis (Table 4 ‘Sensitivity +10% and −10%’). In each calculation on the end-use levels e m , j , k , B U I , e m , j , k , B U I I or e m , j , k , B U I I I coupled with the further literature or estimated values, the sensitivity is considered only once; otherwise, the analysis would be duplicated. The values are changed in the range between +10% and −10%. The latter occurs only if directly coupled with the further literature values or estimated values; otherwise, there would be a double consideration both for energy consumption and power. The values of efficiency rates, specific heat capacity, specific energy content of the fuels and capacity factors are not subjected to a sensitivity analysis.
Some results from the sensitivity analysis can be explained by the design of the model. It can be determined that the results do not vary by more than 0.7% when the specified values are modified within a range of ±10%. This underlines a stronger impact of survey data compared to the literature values or estimates and to the top-down calibration in the model.

4.2.3. Alternative Subsectoral Approach

Table 4 also contains the results if the alternative subsectoral approach is used (Table 4 ‘Alternate model’). The results show that the alternate model only achieves an overall 61% match with the overall energy balance. This means that the baseline approach yields a better overall result with the data used. It also improves the mapping of the company level, as the intermediate values are weighted by individual companies rather than by the reported consumption totals per subsector. The weighting of the individual companies is stronger than in the first approach in which the entire sector is considered. Due to the better match, the baseline approach was chosen as the more appropriate way for extrapolating the final energy consumption to Germany’s tertiary sector as a whole.

4.3. Limitations of the Tertiary Model

While the overall baseline model yields a good fit of bottom-up data and top-down statistics, it has various limitations. They include the dependence on external data which usually needs to be collected via an effortful data collection process. Though a survey setting via phone calls, as in this case, helps to minimize data errors or misunderstandings as a human may directly respond to interpretation issues or point out implausible answers, inconsistencies in data collection cannot be ruled out. Also, the use of a survey might also limit the detection and identification of new trends. The data of the survey were checked for each company regarding inconsistencies. However, the possibility to provide a validation with actual documentation or metered data is not given. In addition, the bottom-up approach cannot represent the overall energy consumption in every regard due to necessary measures of simplifying assumptions and extrapolations. The two-fold top-down calibration on a company level and on a sectoral level can help to limit the impact of faulty bottom-up approaches; yet, errors will still be reflected in the overall results. In addition, the scaling factor in Equation (7) is the same for all subsectors per energy carrier, and no error differentiation is made in the extrapolation per subsector.

4.4. Implications for Policymaking

The model and its result may help policymakers in the preparation of measures to address energy demand in the tertiary sector, thereby helping to curb the sector’s greenhouse gas towards the 1.5 °C target. As underlined, the results for 2019 show that the distribution of applications using electricity in the sector is about 35% lighting, 33% ICT, 9% mechanical energy, 1% hot water, 6% process heat, 7% space heating, 3% process cooling and 7% air conditioning. This underlines that lighting and ICT are particularly energy-relevant applications and therefore may offer a high potential for savings. Such findings allow policymakers to consider targeted measures and to subsequently understand their potential impact. In the field of lighting, for example, with appropriate promotion and information, existing incandescent lamps could be replaced with more energy- and cost-efficient LEDs. In the other major savings area of ICT, especially with the growing number of data centers, policies could focus on efforts to maximize the energy efficiency of products and services. Applications using fuels are 15% mechanical energy, 5% hot water, 2% process heat and 78% space heating. Consequently, the main lever for energy savings, especially for natural gas, is in the heat sector.
Under the consideration of the discussed limitations, policymakers can use such analyses as a basis for in-depth analysis of specific applications and energy efficiency measures, and for the development of policies in areas such as heat pumps, biomass heating, district heating, solar thermal and hydrogen technologies. The more detailed distinction between subsectors allows for even more detailed insights and possibilities for measures for policymakers.

5. Conclusions

In line with the aim of this paper, a hybrid top-down and bottom-up model was developed which allows us to differentiate energy demand in the tertiary sector by end-uses, energy carriers and subsectors. To illustrate the model, a case study for the German tertiary sector combines the literature values, estimates and survey results from 1451 companies. The results are in line with the official German energy statistics of the sector, and aggregated subsectoral bottom-up data show a very good fit with the overall top-down statistics, with a deviation across all energy carriers of 1%.
The approach and results yielded here can serve as a starting point for policymakers when seeking to decarbonize the tertiary sector which is often treated as a residual in official energy balances. Future efforts complementing this work may focus on further investigations of sectors and end-uses with a high relevance for energy demand. The model can serve as a basis for further development, offering the opportunity to uncover saving potentials, identify relevant efficiency measures and design policy measures for the tertiary sector, which can then be implemented and analyzed. The savings potential can also be used to consider the non-energy benefits associated with energy efficiency improvements that go beyond the energy aspects [6,72,73].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.A.-K., S.H. and C.R.; methodology, S.A.-K.; validation, S.A.-K.; formal analysis, S.A.-K.; investigation, S.A.-K.; data curation, S.A.-K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.-K.; writing—review and editing, S.A.-K. and S.H.; visualization, S.A.-K. and S.H.; project administration, C.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data that has been used is confidential and the authors do not have permission to share the data.

Acknowledgments

This investigation uses information from the project ‘Erhebung des Endenergieverbrauchs im Sektor Gewerbe, Handel, Dienstleistungen (GHD) für das Jahr 2019’ supported by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action. The authors would like to thank everybody who helped to accomplish this research study and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the initial version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Energy Consumption by End-Uses in the Model

In the model described here, the energy end-uses are subdivided into lighting, ICT, mechanical energy, hot water, space heating, process heating, process cooling and air conditioning. All types of electric lights and promotional lighting in all manner of rooms and storage, even lighting in refrigerators, are included under lighting. ICT includes all electrical devices such as laptops, monitors, projectors and copying and printing machines, as well as hot drinks and beverage vending machines. The growing market of servers and data centers is also included. The ICT end-use represents purely electric energy consumption. In this field, a lot of new applications have emerged in the last couple of years. Mechanical energy is used for all types of machines, like compressors and plants, as well as in elevators and in part in washing machines and ventilation systems. The energy carriers used for mechanical energy can be either fuels or electricity. Hot water includes heating water by fuel or electricity, and, in comparison to process heat, only the hot water coming directly from the tap is considered. Space heating describes warming up rooms and buildings with electricity, fuels or district heating. Process heating includes the energy either by fuels or electricity for thermal processes, e.g., heating, boiling, frying, melting, welding, tempering and drying. It also includes laundry, washing machines, dishwashers and all cooking processes in restaurants and hotels. Process cooling mainly applies to refrigeration and other cooling processes. Air conditioning includes all the electricity consumed by air conditioning systems in rooms, storage and buildings.

Appendix B. Calibrated Energy Consumption in the Tertiary Sector by Energy Carrier and Subsector for the Year 2019

Table A1. Calibrated energy consumption in the tertiary sector in TJ by energy end-use and subsector for the year 2019.
Table A1. Calibrated energy consumption in the tertiary sector in TJ by energy end-use and subsector for the year 2019.
2019 Fossil FuelsRenewable Energies ElectricityTotal
CoalMotor GasolineJet Fuel KeroseneDiesel OilLight Fuel Oil Liquified Petroleum GasNatural GasBiomassEnvironmental HeatSolar–ThermalGeothermalDistrict HeatElectricity All
AAgriculture, Forestry and Fishing69 6037 -89,807 13,943 158 26,150 86,795 25 379 171 2 21,924 245,461
CManufacturing (only companies with less than 20 employees)----8863 25 13,894 5491 51 5 24 158 17,514 46,024
FConstruction-602 -8958 4552 5981 11,034 8005 2827 60 1225 89 18,149 61,481
GWholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles----18,803 14,906 57,757 297 22 670 294 3632 74,002 170,381
HTransporting and Storage-142 3746 2114 2905 1 8259 355 96 10 45 2041 16,626 36,339
IAccommodation and Food Service Activities----10,853 -62,775 9826 581 100 289 14,373 64,472 163,271
JInformation and Communication----479 -7159 87 6 -3 689 83,959 92,382
KFinancial and Insurance Activities----3149 -4396 51 ---185 5239 13,020
LReal Estate Activities----1166 37 3834 159 0 --224 2731 8151
MProfessional, Scientific and Technical Activities----7335 513 24,004 977 4 -2 1415 85,155 119,404
NAdministrative and Support Service Activities-132 -1957 10,259 282 29,923 1451 13 -4 1708 12,382 58,111
OPublic Administration and Defense; Compulsory Social Security----5676 -24,750 1177 ---1505 15,327 48,435
PEducation----11,085 -48,383 28 153 48 85 4239 30,529 94,549
QHuman Health and Social Work Activities----12,917 -39,414 402 385 0 164 6867 35,224 95,374
RArts, Entertainment and Recreation----1283 40 5281 253 14 36 21 398 5675 13,002
SOther Services Activities----4476 111 13,601 479 6 -2 725 30,118 49,519
Tertiary Sector6969133746102,836117,74422,054380,613115,83441841309232938,248519,0261,314,905
Table A2. Calibrated energy consumption in the tertiary sector by energy end-use and subsector for the year 2019.
Table A2. Calibrated energy consumption in the tertiary sector by energy end-use and subsector for the year 2019.
2019 Energy ConsumptionShare of Energy End-Use
ElectricityFuelsElectricityFuels
Total Total LightingICTMech. EnergyHot WaterProcess HeatSpace HeatingProcess CoolingAir Cond.LightingICTMech. EnergyHot WaterProcess HeatSpace HeatingProcess CoolingAir Cond.
NACE CodeTJTJ%%
AAgriculture, Forestry and Fishing21,924223,53635737147010--461152--
CManufacturing (only companies with less than 20 employees)17,51428,511401119119613--031582--
FConstruction18,14943,3326520800212--223075--
GWholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles74,00296,38038338101083---3097--
HTransporting and Storage16,62619,7143341709622--317061--
IAccommodation and Food Service Activities64,47298,79929617327827---9883--
JInformation and Communication83,95984239691001020---7092--
KFinancial and Insurance Activities5239778125565011011---8092--
LReal Estate Activities273154203946501315---5095--
MProfessional, Scientific and Technical Activities85,15534,2493736812863---5095--
NAdministrative and Support Service Activities12,38245,72933377011612--55090--
OPublic Administration and Defense; Compulsory Social Security15,32733,1084443501-16---4096--
PEducation30,52964,0205526921213---10189--
QHuman Health and Social Work Activities35,22460,14951184351423--08290--
RArts, Entertainment and Recreation56757327323360104211---71281--
SOther Services Activities30,11819,4013733911973--45685--
Tertiary
Sector
519,026795,8793533916737--155278--

References

  1. IPCC. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report; Summary for Policymakers; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  2. European Commission. Energy Efficiency First Principle: Comission Recommendation (EU) 2021/1749 of 28 September 2021 on Energy Efficiency First: From Principles to Practice—Guidelines and Examples for Its Implementation in Decision-Making in the Energy Sector and Beyond. Available online: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-targets-directive-and-rules/energy-efficiency-first-principle_en (accessed on 29 October 2022).
  3. IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ (accessed on 29 October 2022).
  4. Prina, M.G.; Nastasi, B.; Groppi, D.; Misconel, S.; Garcia, D.A.; Sparber, W. Comparison methods of energy system frameworks, models and scenario results. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 167, 112719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wiese, F.; Hilpert, S.; Kaldemeyer, C.; Pleßmann, G. A qualitative evaluation approach for energy system modelling frameworks. Energ. Sustain. Soc. 2018, 8, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Worrell, E.; Ramesohl, S.; Boyd, G. Advances In Energy Forecasting Models Based On Engineering Economics. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2004, 29, 345–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gacitua, L.; Gallegos, P.; Henriquez-Auba, R.; Lorca, Á.; Negrete-Pincetic, M.; Olivares, D.; Valenzuela, A.; Wenzel, G. A comprehensive review on expansion planning: Models and tools for energy policy analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 98, 346–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Strachan, N.; Pye, S.; Kannan, R. The iterative contribution and relevance of modelling to UK energy policy. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 850–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fattahi, A.; Sijm, J.; Faaij, A. A systemic approach to analyze integrated energy system modeling tools: A review of national models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 133, 110195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Lopion, P.; Markewitz, P.; Robinius, M.; Stolten, D. A review of current challenges and trends in energy systems modeling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 96, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. van Vuuren, D.P.; Hoogwijk, M.; Barker, T.; Riahi, K.; Boeters, S.; Chateau, J.; Scrieciu, S.; van Vliet, J.; Masui, T.; Blok, K.; et al. Comparison of top-down and bottom-up estimates of sectoral and regional greenhouse gas emission reduction potentials. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 5125–5139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Eurostat. Complete Energy Balances 1990–2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/product/page/NRG_BAL_C (accessed on 27 February 2024).
  13. AG Energiebilanzen e.V. Energiebilanz Deutschland 2019. Available online: https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/daten-und-fakten/bilanzen-1990-bis-2020/?wpv-jahresbereich-bilanz=2011-2020 (accessed on 10 April 2022).
  14. eurostat. Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community. Available online: https://showvoc.op.europa.eu/#/datasets/ESTAT_Statistical_Classification_of_Economic_Activities_in_the_European_Community_Rev._2.1._%28NACE_2.1%29/data (accessed on 27 July 2023).
  15. Eurostat. Glossary:Tertiary Sector. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Tertiary_sector (accessed on 29 August 2024).
  16. Zhang, L. Model Projections and Policy Reviews for Energy Saving in China’s Service Sector. Energy Policy 2013, 59, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ge, J.; Lei, Y. Carbon emissions from the service sector: An input-output application to Beijing, China. Clim. Res. 2014, 60, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mairet, N.; Decellas, F. Determinants of energy demand in the French service sector: A decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 2734–2744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mulder, P.; de Groot, H.L.; Pfeiffer, B. Dynamics and determinants of energy intensity in the service sector: A cross-country analysis, 1980–2005. Ecological Economics 2014, 100, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schipper, L.; Meyers, S.; Ketoff, A.N. Energy Use in the Service Sector: An International Perspective. 1986. Available online: https://escholarship.org/content/qt3t874089/qt3t874089.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2024).
  21. Xing, R.; Hanaoka, T.; Kanamori, Y.; Masui, T. Estimating energy service demand and CO2 emissions in the Chinese service sector at provincial level up to 2030. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 134, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, G.; Lin, B. Impact of structure on unified efficiency for Chinese service sector—A two-stage analysis. Appl. Energy 2018, 231, 876–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jakubcionis, M.; Carlsson, J. Estimation of European Union service sector space cooling potential. Energy Policy 2018, 113, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tsemekidi Tzeiranaki, S.; Bertoldi, P.; Economidou, M.; Clementi, E.L.; Gonzalez-Torres, M. Determinants of energy consumption in the tertiary sector: Evidence at European level. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 5125–5143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Voulis, N.; Warnier, M.; Brazier, F.M. Impact of service sector loads on renewable resource integration. Appl. Energy 2017, 205, 1311–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Alcántara, V.; Padilla, E. Input–output subsystems and pollution: An application to the service sector and CO2 emissions in Spain. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 905–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Roberts, S.H.; Foran, B.D.; Axon, C.J.; Stamp, A.V. Is the service industry really low-carbon? Energy, jobs and realistic country GHG emissions reductions. Appl. Energy 2021, 292, 116878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rosenblum, J.; Horvath, A.; Hendrickson, C. Environmental Implications of Service Industries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 4669–4676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lim, K.-M.; Lim, S.-Y.; Yoo, S.-H. Short- and long-run elasticities of electricity demand in the Korean service sector. Energy Policy 2014, 67, 517–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wohlfarth, K.; Klobasa, M.; Gutknecht, R. Demand response in the service sector—Theoretical, technical and practical potentials. Appl. Energy 2020, 258, 114089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wohlfarth, K.; Klobasa, M.; Eßer, A. Setting course for demand response in the service sector. Energy Effic. 2019, 12, 327–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. van Beeck, N. Classification of Energy Models. 1999. Available online: https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/532108/777.pdf (accessed on 2 May 2023).
  33. Hall, L.M.; Buckley, A.R. A review of energy systems models in the UK: Prevalent usage and categorisation. Appl. Energy 2016, 169, 607–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Böhringer, C.; Rutherford, T.F. Combining bottom-up and top-down. Energy Econ. 2008, 30, 574–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dai, H.; Mischke, P.; Xie, X.; Xie, Y.; Masui, T. Closing the gap? Top-down versus bottom-up projections of China’s regional energy use and CO2 emissions. Appl. Energy 2016, 162, 1355–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Prina, M.G.; Manzolini, G.; Moser, D.; Nastasi, B.; Sparber, W. Classification and challenges of bottom-up energy system models—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 129, 109917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. EERE. Steps to Develop a Baseline: A Guide to Developing an Energy Use and Energy Intensity Baseline and the Reporting Requirements for the Save Energy Now LEADER Pledge. 2011. Available online: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/resources/pdfs/leaderbaselinestepsguideline.pdf (accessed on 27 July 2023).
  38. E3-Modelling. Modelling tools for EU analysis. Available online: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/climate-strategies-targets/economic-analysis/modelling-tools-eu-analysis_en (accessed on 2 July 2023).
  39. European Union. Eurostat. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat (accessed on 2 July 2023).
  40. JRC. POLES-JRC Model Documentation. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2a03544b-f1f6-11e8-9982-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (accessed on 2 July 2023).
  41. Jakob, M.; Fleiter, T.; Catenazzi, G.; Hirzel, S.; Reitze, F.; Toro, F. The impact of policy measures on the electricity demand of the tertiary sector of the European countries: An analysis with the bottom-up model FORECAST. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Improving Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings IEEC 2012, Frankfurt, Germany, 18–19 April 2012; pp. 566–580. [Google Scholar]
  42. Chatterjee, S.; Stavrakas, V.; Oreggioni, G.; Süsser, D.; Staffell, I.; Lilliestam, J.; Molnar, G.; Flamos, A.; Ürge-Vorsatz, D. Existing tools, user needs and required model adjustments for energy demand modelling of a carbon-neutral Europe. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 90, 102662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fleiter, T.; Hirzel, S.; Jakob, M.; Barth, J.; Quandt, L.; Reitze, F.; Toro, F.; Wietschel, M. Electricity demand in the European service sector: A detailed bottom-up estimate by sector and by end-use. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Improving Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings: IEECB Focus 2010, Frankfurt, Germany, 13–14 April 2010. [Google Scholar]
  44. Gruber, E.; Sofronis, I.; Dusée, R.; Plesser, S. Detailed Analysis of Electricity Consumption in Tertiary Buildings as a Basis for Energy Efficiency Policies. 2007, pp. 1181–1189. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stefan-Plesser/publication/228348511_Detailed_Analysis_of_Electricity_Consumption_in_Tertiary_Buildings_as_a_Basis_for_Energy_Efficiency_Policies/links/0f31753c609b2ea85b000000/Detailed-Analysis-of-Electricity-Consumption-in-Tertiary-Buildings-as-a-Basis-for-Energy-Efficiency-Policies.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2023).
  45. Plesser, S.; Fisch, N.; Gruber, E.; Schlomann, B. Monitoring Electricity Consumption in the Tertiary Sector—A Project within the Intelligent Energy Europe Program. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for Enhanced Building Operations, Berlin, Gernmay, 20–22 October 2008. [Google Scholar]
  46. Schlomann, B.; Gruber, E.; Geiger, B.; Kleeberger, H.; Wehmhörner, U.; Herzog, T.; Konopka, D.-M. Energieverbrauch des Sektors Gewerbe, Handel, Dienstleistungen (GHD) in Deutschland für die Jahre 2004 bis 2006: Schlussbericht an das Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi)—Anschlussauftrag des Forschungsvorhabens 53/09, Karlsruhe, München, Nürnberg. 2009. Available online: https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/ccx/2009/Erhebung-GHD_Abschlussbericht_Mai-2009.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2023).
  47. Schlomann, B.; Gruber, E.; Geiger, B.; Kleeberger, H.; Gerspacher, A.; Pich, A.; Mai, M.; Steinbach, J.; Schiller, W. Energieverbrauch des Sektors Gewerbe, Handel, Dienstleistungen (GHD) in Deutschland für die Jahre 2007 bis 2010: Schlussbericht an das Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi)—Anschlussauftrag des Forschungsvorhabens 53/09, Karlsruhe, München, Nürnberg. 2013. Available online: https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/ccx/2013/Energieverbrauch_GHD_2006-2011.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2023).
  48. Schlomann, B.; Schleich, J. Adoption of low-cost energy efficiency measures in the tertiary sector—An empirical analysis based on energy survey data. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43, 1127–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bastos, B.Q.; Souza, R.C.; Calili, R.F.; Cyrino Oliveira, F.L.; Catenazzi, G.; Jakob, M. Modeling the impact of energy efficiency in the electricity consumption of the Brazilian tertiary sector. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), Dresden, Germany, 6–9 June 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Koeppel, S.; Novikava, V.; Boza-Kiss, B.; Novikova, A.; Graning, S.; Ürge-Vorsatz, D. Analysis of Electricity Consumption in the Tertiary Sector of Hungary. 2008, pp. 449–461. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benigna-Boza-Kiss/publication/264083399_Analysis_of_electricity_consumption_in_the_tertiary_sector_of_Hungary/links/5b335a9aaca2720785e9cc3f/Analysis-of-electricity-consumption-in-the-tertiary-sector-of-Hungary.pdf#page=141 (accessed on 28 August 2024).
  51. Schlomann, B.; Wohlfarth, K.; Geiger, B.; Kleeberger, H.; Hardi, L.; Pich, A.; Gruber, E.; Gerspacher, A.; Holländer, E.; Roser, A. Energieverbrauch des Sektors Gewerbe, Handel, Dienstleistungen (GHD) in Deutschland für die Jahre 2011 bis 2013: Schlussbericht an das Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi)—Anschlussauftrag des Forschungsvorhabens 53/09, Karlsruhe, München, Nürnberg. 2015. Available online: https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/ccx/2015/Schlussbericht-GHD_2006-2013_Februar2015.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2022).
  52. AG Energiebilanzen e.V. Anwendungsbilanzen. Available online: https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/daten-und-fakten/anwendungsbilanzen/ (accessed on 24 May 2022).
  53. Geiger, B.; Gruber, E.; Megele, W. Energieverbrauch und Einsparung in Gewerbe, Handel und Dienstleistung; Technik, Wirtschaft und Politik No. 36, Heidelberg, 1999. Available online: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=6588434 (accessed on 24 May 2022).
  54. Statistisches Bundesamt. Business Register Enterprises. Legal entities by economic sector and size class of employees in the 2019 reporting year: Destatis_D_URS_RE_WZ4St_BGKL_2019, 2019. Available upon request from Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). (accessed on 14 April 2022).
  55. AG Energiebilanzen e.V. Vorwort zu den Energiebilanzen für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Available online: https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/vorwort.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2022).
  56. Schlomann, B.; Gruber, E.; Geiger, B.; Kleeberger, H.; Herzog, T. Regular survey on energy consumption in the tertiary sector in Germany. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Improving Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings: IEECB Focus 2010, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 13–14 April 2010. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wagner, U.; Wimmer, P.; Zipperle, T. Sektorsteckbrief Gewerbe, Handel, Dienstleistungen (GHD): Strategisches Leitprojekt Trends und Perspektiven der Energieforschung. Teilprojekt: Methodenentwicklung und -anwendung zur Priorisierung von Themen und Maßnahmen in der Energieforschung im Kontext der Energiewende (FKZ 03ET4036 X-Z), München. 2018. Available online: https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/node?id=1448941 (accessed on 9 May 2022).
  58. Statistisches Bundesamt. Employees Subject to Social Insurance Contributions at Their Place of Work: Germany, Reference Date, Sex, Economic Sections 13111-0003. 2019. Available online: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online (accessed on 6 July 2023).
  59. Bitkom, e.V. Rechenzentren in Deutschland: Aktuelle Marktentwicklungen, Stand 2022. Available online: https://www.bitkom.org/sites/main/files/2022-02/10.02.22-studie-rechenzentren.pdf (accessed on 6 July 2023).
  60. Deutsche Bahn AG. Daten & Fakten 2019, Berlin. 2019. Available online: https://www.deutschebahn.com/resource/blob/5058456/05c0e4b2c061ff2bf196ca5644a1ac3e/20190325_bpk_2020_daten_fakten-data.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2022).
  61. Deutsche Post DHL Group. 2019 Geschäftsjahr, Bonn. 2019. Available online: https://group.dhl.com/content/dam/deutschepostdhl/de/media-center/investors/documents/geschaeftsberichte/DPDHL-Geschaeftsbericht-2019.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2022).
  62. Deutsche Telekom AG. HR Factbook 2019 MENSCHEN.FAKTEN.ENTWICKLUNGEN, Bonn. 2019. Available online: https://www.e-paper.telekom.com/hr_factbook_2019_de/#0 (accessed on 28 April 2022).
  63. Statista Research Department. Anzahl der Beschäftigten im Deutschen Kreditgewerbe in den Jahren von 1991 bis 2021. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/6786/umfrage/anzahl-der-beschaeftigten-im-bankgewerbe/ (accessed on 6 July 2023).
  64. Statista Research Department. Anzahl der Passagiere auf deutschen Flughäfen von 2001 bis 2022. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/77928/umfrage/passagiere-auf-deutschen-flughaefen/ (accessed on 6 July 2023).
  65. Statista Research Department. Beschäftigte in der Versicherungswirtschaft in Deutschland von 1997 bis 2021. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/6602/umfrage/arbeitnehmer-in-der-versicherungswirtschaft-seit-1997/ (accessed on 6 July 2023).
  66. Statista Research Department. Gästeübernachtungen in Deutschen Beherbergungsbetrieben von 1992 bis 2022. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/29514/umfrage/gaesteuebernachtungen-in-deutschland-seit-1992/ (accessed on 6 July 2023).
  67. Statistisches Bundesamt. Schüler, Schulanfänger, Absolventen und Abgänger: Deutschland, Schuljahr, Geschlecht: 21111-0001. 2019. Available online: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online (accessed on 6 July 2023).
  68. Statistisches Bundesamt. Studierende: Deutschland, Semester, Nationalität, Geschlecht: 21311-0001. 2019. Available online: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online (accessed on 6 July 2023).
  69. Statista Research Department. Anzahl der Krankenhausbetten in Deutschland in den Jahren 1998 bis 2021. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/157049/umfrage/anzahl-krankenhausbetten-in-deutschland-seit-1998/ (accessed on 6 July 2023).
  70. AG Energiebilanzen e.V. Bilanzen 1990 bis 2030. Available online: https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/daten-und-fakten/bilanzen-1990-bis-2030/?wpv-jahresbereich-bilanz=2021-2030 (accessed on 2 July 2023).
  71. Arnold-Keifer, S.; Hirzel, S.; Rohde, C. Taking a closer look at technical energy efficiency potentials using an integrated bottomup and top-down model for the German tertiary sector: Results and calibration issues. In Proceedings of the ECEEE Summer Study Proceedings, Chamouille, France, 10–15 June 2024; pp. 1015–1023. [Google Scholar]
  72. Mills, E.; Rosenfeld, A. Consumer non-energy benefits as a motivation for making energy-efficiency improvements. Energy 1996, 21, 707–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. OECD. Ancillary Benefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Proceedings of an IPCC Co-Sponsored Workshop; OECD: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Design of the integrated model illustrating the different levels of analysis and the related data sources.
Figure 1. Design of the integrated model illustrating the different levels of analysis and the related data sources.
Energies 17 04486 g001
Figure 2. Modeled energy demand in the tertiary sector by energy carrier and subsector for the year 2019 (calibrated to energy balance). Letters in brackets refer to subsector NACE codes.
Figure 2. Modeled energy demand in the tertiary sector by energy carrier and subsector for the year 2019 (calibrated to energy balance). Letters in brackets refer to subsector NACE codes.
Energies 17 04486 g002
Figure 3. Modeled energy demand in the tertiary sector by energy end-use and subsector for the year 2019 (calibrated to energy carrier of energy balance). (Left): electricity demand; (Right): other energy carriers.
Figure 3. Modeled energy demand in the tertiary sector by energy end-use and subsector for the year 2019 (calibrated to energy carrier of energy balance). (Left): electricity demand; (Right): other energy carriers.
Energies 17 04486 g003
Figure 4. Modeled energy demand in the tertiary sector by energy end-use and subsector for the year 2019 (calibrated to energy carrier of energy balance). Letters in brackets refer to NACE codes.
Figure 4. Modeled energy demand in the tertiary sector by energy end-use and subsector for the year 2019 (calibrated to energy carrier of energy balance). Letters in brackets refer to NACE codes.
Energies 17 04486 g004
Table 1. Classification of energy system models based on [32,33] with modifications. Underlined entries indicate the suggested model design.
Table 1. Classification of energy system models based on [32,33] with modifications. Underlined entries indicate the suggested model design.
Purposes:general: description, prediction, forecasting and backcasting
specific: ernergy demand, supply side or impact
Analytical approach:top-down, bottom-up approach or hybrid
Methodology:econometric, macroeconomic, economic equilibrium, optimization, simulation or multi-criteria methodologies
Mathematical approach:accounting framework, linear programming, mixed integer programming or dynamic programming
Geographical coverage:global, regional, national, local or project
Sectoral coverage:single-sector or multi-sectoral models
Time horizon:status quo, short, medium or long term
Data requirements:quantitative or qualitative
technical or monetary
Table 2. Energy system models for the tertiary sector subdivided into energy carriers and energy end-use.
Table 2. Energy system models for the tertiary sector subdivided into energy carriers and energy end-use.
Purpose of
Energy Model
Analytical Approach
And Underlying
Methodology
Geographical
Coverage
Sectoral Coverage Time HorizonDisaggregationYear of
Publication
Ref.
current electricity demandstatic BU method consisting of basic drivers and specific energy consumption indicatorsEurope
(29 countries)
trade, hotels/restaurants, traffic, finance, health, education, public administration, waste, sport, social service, real estate2007electricity (lighting, ventilation/cooling, circulation pumps/heating auxiliaries, ICT, data center, hot water, space heating, laundry, cooking, refrigeration/freezing, miscellaneous building technologies, street lighting, elevators)2010 [43]
future electricity demand (FORECAST)BU method consisting of basic drivers and specific energy consumption indicatorsEurope
(29 countries)
trade, hotels/restaurants, traffic, finance, health, education, public administration, waste, sport, social service, real estate2012–2035
(outlook to 2025)
electricity (lighting, electric heating, ventilation/cooling, refrigeration, cooking, data centers)2012[41]
detailed data on energy consumption (EL-TERTIARY)electricity metering, survey and analysisEU
(12 countries, 123 selected buildings)
offices, schools, universities, kindergartens, hotels, supermarkets, hospitals2006–2008electricity (central IT, heating, hot water, motor drives, office equipment, refrigeration, ventilation, air condition/cooling, lighting)2007/2008[44,45]
energy carrier and end-useextrapolation
from survey
in 2004 and 2006
Germanyconstruction, offices, small manufacturing, retail trade, hospitals/schools/pools, hotels/restaurants, food, laundries, agriculture, horticulture, textile2006–2011electricity and fuels (lighting, mechanical energy, hot water, process heat, process cooling, air conditioning, ICT, space heating)2009[46]
energy carrier and end-useextrapolation
from survey
in 2008 and 2010
Germanyconstruction, offices, small manufacturing, retail trade, hospitals/schools/pools, hotels/restaurants, food, laundries, agriculture, horticulture, textile2006–2011electricity and fuels (lighting, mechanical energy, hot water, process heat, process cooling, air conditioning, ICT, space heating)2013[47]
energy carrier and end-useextrapolation
from survey
in 2012
Germanyconstruction, offices, small manufacturing, retail trade, hospitals/schools/pools, hotels/restaurants, food, laundries, agriculture, horticulture, textile2011–2013electricity (lighting, mechanical power, hot water, process heat, process cooling, air conditioning, ICT, space heating), fuels (mechanical power, hot water, process heat, space heating)2015[48]
Table 4. Values for indicator I1 by energy carrier comparing the uncalibrated bottom-up results to the national top-down energy balance for the year 2019 and the impact of a sensitivity analysis modifying the baseline input data. The last row shows the results if an alternative subsectoral model is used *.
Table 4. Values for indicator I1 by energy carrier comparing the uncalibrated bottom-up results to the national top-down energy balance for the year 2019 and the impact of a sensitivity analysis modifying the baseline input data. The last row shows the results if an alternative subsectoral model is used *.
CaseEnergy CarrierTotal
Indicator I1CoalLiquified
Petroleum Gas
Light Fuel Oil Natural GasDistrict HeatRenewable
Energies
ElectricityAll
Baseline values0.070.091.530.822.360.810.921.01
Sensitivity: +10%0.070.091.530.822.360.750.921.02
Sensitivity:
−10%
0.070.091.530.812.360.750.921.01
Alternate model 0.020.010.340.451.990.510.630.61
* Since the 2019 survey does not allow for conclusions to be drawn about the type of transport fuel and geothermal energy, this is not considered in Table 4.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arnold-Keifer, S.; Hirzel, S.; Rohde, C. Understanding Energy Demand of the Tertiary Sector by Energy Carriers and End-Uses: An Integrated Bottom-Up and Top-Down Model Taking Germany as the Example. Energies 2024, 17, 4486. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174486

AMA Style

Arnold-Keifer S, Hirzel S, Rohde C. Understanding Energy Demand of the Tertiary Sector by Energy Carriers and End-Uses: An Integrated Bottom-Up and Top-Down Model Taking Germany as the Example. Energies. 2024; 17(17):4486. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174486

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arnold-Keifer, Sonja, Simon Hirzel, and Clemens Rohde. 2024. "Understanding Energy Demand of the Tertiary Sector by Energy Carriers and End-Uses: An Integrated Bottom-Up and Top-Down Model Taking Germany as the Example" Energies 17, no. 17: 4486. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174486

APA Style

Arnold-Keifer, S., Hirzel, S., & Rohde, C. (2024). Understanding Energy Demand of the Tertiary Sector by Energy Carriers and End-Uses: An Integrated Bottom-Up and Top-Down Model Taking Germany as the Example. Energies, 17(17), 4486. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174486

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop