Generic Energy Efficiency Facts:
Lo sviluppo di una riflessione seria sull’impatto dell’efficienza energetica sull’economia e la società italiana ed europea è spesso ostacolato da tre falsi miti:
1. E’ VERO CHE FARE EFFICIENZA ENERGETICA SIGNIFICA FRENARE LA CRESCITA ECONOMICA ?
2. E’ VERO CHE LE SOLUZIONI DI EFFICIENZA ENERGETICA RICHIEDONO COSTI INIZIALI TROPPO ALTI ?
3. E’ VERO CHE IL MERCATO DELL’EFFICIENZA ENERGETICA SI SVILUPPA DA SOLO E DUNQUE NON C’È BISOGNO DI NORME E REGOLE ?
The European Commission and EU Member States must propose a post 2020 energy-and-climate strategy and plan the use of resources that the EU will make available through its multi-annual regional and cohesion policy.
On 23 September 2013, a large contingent of European companies gathered for the Fourth Annual High-level Dinner Debate, organized by the European Alliance to Save Energy. Over the next period, the European Commission and EU Member States have two very important tasks ahead:
In this context, the progressive business community has an important role to play to ensure policy makers fully understand the potential of energy efficiency and embrace a long term vision for an energy efficient economy.The dinner debate was an opportunity to gather senior business representatives with high-level European decision-makers to:
Together with some of the participants to the dinner and other business leaders, EU-ASE reiterated the call for an EU binding energy savings target for 2030 in a letter addressed to the Competitiveness Council, the European Parliament and European Commission. The text, issued on 11 October, is also available on this page.
The 2020 framework was designed without a comprehensive assessment of the synergies and potential trade-offs between the three targets (as recognized by the Green Paper – page 7, 5th paragraph) and had only two binding targets: one for raising the share of energy consumption produced from renewables (RES) in the European Union (EU) and one for EU greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction. The energy efficiency (EE) target, however, was not binding. In short, the framework is fragmented.
This situation has led to 1) a lack of the necessary regulatory support (i.e. binding targets) for energy efficiency (EE) for which the EU 20% improvement target by 2020 will not be met, 2) a remarkable growth for RES in general terms, but in a incoherent and inconsistent way among different Member States; and 3) the failure of the Emission T rading S cheme (ETS), conceived as the major driver for long term low carbon investments, due to a large surplus of ETS allowances. This only was caused in part by the economic crisis.
To date the EU’s 2020 Climate and Energy framework has been fundamental in reducing GHG emission and strengthen RES. However, it clearly has not delivered the amount of energy savings expected and did not create the right long term signals for investment in EE solutions. More efforts must be focused on EE across Europe to provide industry with certainty in the policy framework and improve consumer acceptance on EE technology, products and services. A holistic approach of this future package is needed to avoid sub- optimization of certain sectors.
When designing policies for 2030, for the business perspective it would be a mistake to see a trade- off between the need for a binding target- based regulatory framework for 2030 and the competitiveness of European industry.
What is in fact needed is a cohesive 2030 framework based on three binding European targets. This will, in our opinion, restore economic competitiveness, reduce energy costs and prices, increase security of supply and sustain economic growth in the EU.
By adopting an ambitious mandatory energy saving target for 2030, Europe could reduce energy prices, create jobs, decrease energy consumption and cut energy imports.
