Upload
others
View
26
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PPRROOMMIITTHHEEAASS –– 44
KKnnoowwlleeddggee ttrraannssffeerr aanndd rreesseeaarrcchh nneeeeddss ffoorr pprreeppaarriinngg
mmiittiiggaattiioonn//aaddaappttaattiioonn ppoolliiccyy ppoorrttffoolliiooss
((CCoonnttrraacctt NNoo.. 226655118822))
EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff
MMiittiiggaattiioonn // AAddaappttaattiioonn
nnggee ppoolliiccyy ppoorrttffoolliiooss ffoorr
RRoommaanniiaa
Author: Anca BARDICI, Camelia VASILE, Mihaela PISLARU, Irina VODA
Institute for Studies and Power Engineering Bucharest – ISPE SA
Co-authors: Dr. Popi KONIDARI, Anna FLESSA M.Sc., Eleni-Danai MAVRAKI M.Sc.
Energy Policy and Development Centre
Bucharest, 2013
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
2
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
3
This document is part of the relevant report prepared for the FP7 funded project
“PROMITHEAS-4: Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing
mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”, coordinated by Prof. Dimitrios MAVRAKIS,
Energy Policy and Development Centre (Greece). The whole report contains twelve
(12) documents for each one of the emerging economies that participate in the
project: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova,
Romania, Russia, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine.
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
4
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
5
CCOONNTTEENNTTSS
Contents.........................................................................................................................5
List of Tables .................................................................................................................5
List of Figures ...............................................................................................................5
Abbreviations.................................................................................................................7
Assessment of the three developed scenarios for Romania, through the multi -
criteria method AMS.....................................................................................................9
General comments............................................................................................................... 9
Required data ...................................................................................................................... 9
Assignment of grades ........................................................................................................ 10
Results ................................................................................................................................ 19
References.......................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusions .................................................................................................................22
LLIISSTT OOFF TTAABBLLEESS
Table 10: Total emissions for the country. _____________________________________________9 Table 11: Emissions per sector for the country. _________________________________________9 Table 12: Other environmental effects for the country under each scenario. ________________10 Table 13: Water Use.______________________________________________________________10 Table 14: Mean CEI for each sector depending on the policy instruments of the BAU scenario. 12 Table 15: Mean CEI for each sector depending on the selected policy instruments. __________13 Table 16: Mean CEI for each sector depending on the selected policy instruments. __________15 Table 17: Overall cost efficiency for the three scenarios._________________________________17 Table 18: Equity measurement. _____________________________________________________17 Table 19: AMS results for each scenario. _____________________________________________20
LLIISSTT OOFF FFIIGGUURREESS
Figure 44: Initial settings for the three scenarios in ClimAMS-2012._______________________10 Figure 45: Grades for the first criterion and its sub-criteria. _____________________________11 Figure 46: Grades for political acceptability. __________________________________________18 Figure 47: Grades for feasibility of implementation. ____________________________________19 Figure 48: Scenarios prioritization. __________________________________________________20
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
6
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
7
AABBBBRREEVVIIAATTIIOONNSS Abbreviation Full name
AAU Assigned Amount Unit
ANRE Romanian Energy Regulatory Authority
ANPM National Environmental Protection Agency
BAU Business As Usual
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
CER Certified Emission Reductions
CHP Combined Heat and Power
EC European Commission
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
ERU Emission Reduction Unit
ESCO Energy Service COmpanies
EUA European Allowance
EU - ETS European Union Emission Trading Scheme
EU European Union
GC Green Certificate
GEO Government Emergency Ordinance
GD Government Decision
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GIS Green Investment Scheme
GWh Gigawatthour
IMF International Monetary Fund
ISPE Institute for Studies and Power Engineering
JI Joint Implementation
LCP Large Combustion Plant
LEAP Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning
MEF Ministry of Environment and Forests
MW Megawatts
NAP National Allocation Plan
NAPEE National Action Plan on Energy Efficiency
NER New Entrance Reserve
NC National Communication
NIP National Investment Plan
NPP Nuclear Power Plants
NREAP National Renewable Energy Action Plan
OPCOM Commercial Operator of Romanian Electricity Market
OPT Optimistic
PES Pessimistic
PI Policy Instrument
PM Policy Mixes
RES Renewable Energy Sources
RES-e Electricity produced by RES
ROBOR Romanian Interbank Offer Rate
STI State Construction Inspectorate
T&D Transmission and Distribution
TOE Tons oil equivalent
UN United Nations
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
8
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
9
AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT OOFF TTHHEE TTHHRREEEE DDEEVVEELLOOPPEEDD SSCCEENNAARRIIOOSS FFOORR
RROOMMAANNIIAA,, TTHHRROOUUGGHH TTHHEE MMUULLTTII -- CCRRIITTEERRIIAA MMEETTHHOODD AAMMSS
GGeenneerraall ccoommmmeennttss
Each scenario was assessed for its performance under the criteria/sub-criteria of the AMS
method which is the combination of three standard multi-criteria methods: the Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP), the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) and the Simple Multi-
Attribute Ranking Technique (SMART) (Konidari and Mavrakis, 2007; 2006). AMS is
developed for evaluating climate Policy Instruments (PI) or relevant Policy Mixes (PM) and
with suitable modification for evaluating their interactions as well.
RReeqquuiirreedd ddaattaa
The LEAP provides the following outcomes for all three scenarios:
Table 1: Total emissions for the country.
Total GHG emissions (in MtCO2eq) Scenario 2000 2020 2050
BAU 81,66 91,23 163,24
Opt 81,66 75,21 163,79
Pes 81,66 85,72 155,45
Table 2: Emissions per sector for the country.
Scenario GHG emissions (in MtCO2eq)
Households
2000 2020 2050
BAU 7,53 9,27 23,36
Opt 7,53 8,37 22,30
Pes 7,53 8,93 22,94
Agriculture
BAU 0,85 1,13 2,51
Opt 0,85 1,12 2,50
Pes 0,85 1,12 2,50
Services
BAU 1,75 3,44 7,64
Opt 1,75 3,34 7,54
Pes 1,75 3,40 7,60
Industry
BAU 18,41 16,54 36,78
Opt 18,41 13,98 34,01
Pes 18,41 15,60 35,84
Transport
BAU 9,31 17,06 37,94
Opt 9,31 15,91 36,60
Pes 9,31 16,90 37,77
Electricity generation
BAU 29,46 31,95 42,62
Opt 29,46 20,64 48,45
Pes 29,46 27,93 36,40
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
10
Table 3: Other environmental effects for the country under each scenario.
Scenario Thousand Metric Tonnes CO2 eq
2000 2020 2050
Environmental effects (Carbon Monoxide (CO)- Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)- Non Methane
Volatile Organic Compounds- Sulfur Dioxide)
BAU 29748,48 32294,90 43063,38
Opt 29748,48 20870,26 48939,85
Pes 29748,48 28259,94 36783,44
Table 4: Water Use.
Billion m3 Scenario
2000 2020 2050
Households
BAU 1,106 0,689 0,689
Opt 1,106 0,761 1,026
Pes 1,106 0,724 0,841
Agriculture
BAU 0,046 0,056 0,056
Opt 0,046 0,056 0,056
Pes 0,046 0,056 0,056
Industry
BAU 0,246 0,235 0,235
Opt 0,246 0,247 0,287
Pes 0,246 0,240 0,254
AAssssiiggnnmmeenntt ooff ggrraaddeess
The software ClimAMS-2012 is used (Figure 44) for the evaluation of the scenarios.
Figure 1: Initial settings for the three scenarios in ClimAMS-2012.
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
11
Criterion 1: Environmental performance
The following grades in MAUT scale are calculated using the software ClimaAMS-2012
for:
the first sub-criterion “Direct contribution to GHG emission reductions” and the
outcome of LEAP for the total expected GHG emission of the country in year 2020
(Table 12). The scenario with the fewer amounts of emissions has the best
performance for this sub-criterion.
The second sub-criterion “Indirect environmental effects” and the total amount of the
total environmental effects provided by LEAP (Table 14).
Figure 2: Grades for the first criterion and its sub-criteria.
Criterion 2: Political acceptability
Each scenario was evaluated against each of the five sub-criteria of this criterion.
For cost efficiency, the MAUT procedure was used again. The scenario with the lowest costs
is the most cost effective one and receives grade 100.
The LEAP model cannot provide comparable outcomes. For the evaluation of the scenarios
under this sub-criterion a Cost Efficient Index was used. Each policy instrument is assigned a
value (Cost Efficient Index) that demonstrates its financial ability in pseudo-monetary units to
deliver one unit of the requested benefit (one tonne of reductions of CO2 emissions, one
gained square meter of forest land, one cubic meter of gained water etc).
For the first sub-criterion the mean CEI for each sector was calculated depending on the
policy instruments of each scenario. Each value was multiplied with the respective amount of
GHG emission reductions that were estimated by LEAP outcomes. In the case of Romania,
there were no GHG emission reductions compared to year 2000. For, this reason the BAU
scenario was used as the reference point, since the other two scenarios have GHG emission
reductions compared to BAU. The GHG emission reductions of OPT and PES compared to
the GHG emissions of BAU per sector were calculated and multiplied by the respective CEI
(Tables 14 and 15). Results are presented in Table 16.
This methodology was adopted since Romania has the obligation to increase its emissions
compared to the base year 1990. Therefore, emissions in 2020 for any of the three scenarios
were expected to be higher compared to 2000. The efforts of mitigating climate change are
reflected to any achieved GHG emission reductions compared to the BAU scenario.
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
12
Table 5: Mean CEI for each sector depending on the policy instruments of the BAU scenario.
Mitigation
Scen. Sector Technological options Policy instrument CEI Mean CEI
Building isolation requirements (Order 18/2009) -1,5
Subsidy (Order 18/2009) -0,25
Thermal insulation
Subsidy (Order 69/2010) -0,25
Energy efficient buildings Performance standards ( i)Requirements; ii) Certificates of
building energy performance; iii)energy audits (Law 372/2005 –
Ordinance 22/2008)
-5,75
Solar water systems/air conditioning Energy efficient appliances (Law 372/2005) -2,5
Households
Hot water, lighting, heating Energy efficient appliances (Order 69/2010) -2,5
(-1,5-0,25-0,25-5,75-2,5-
2,5)/6 = -2,125
Energy efficient buildings Performance standards ( i)Requirements; ii) Certificates of
building energy performance; iii) energy audits (Ordinance
22/2008)
-5,75
Best available technologies Combined standards (performance, technological or design
standards) (GEO 40/2010 – Law 205/2010)
-3,75
Industry
Energy efficiency Tradable permits (Law 554/2006, GD 60/2008, Law 126/2008) -0,5
(-5,75-3,75-0,5)/3 = -3,33
Energy efficient buildings Performance standards (i)Requirements; ii) Certificates of
building energy performance; energy audits (Law 372/2005 -
Ordinance 22/2008)
-5,75 Service
Solar water systems/air conditioning Energy efficient appliances (Law 372/2005) -2,5
(-5,75-2,5)/2 =-4,125
Transport - - - -
High efficiency cogeneration Subsidy (Bonus scheme) (Law 219/2007) -0,25
Promotion of RES Tradable permits (Green certificates – Economic policy
instruments) (Law 220/2008)
-0,75
Best available technologies Combined standards (performance, technological or design
standards) (GEO 40/2010 – Law 205/2010)
-0,5
Energy
Energy efficiency Tradable permits (Law 554/2006, GD 60/2008, Law 126/2008) -0,5
(-0,25-0,75-0,5-0,5)/4= -0,5
BA
U
Waste
management
Best available technologies Combined standards (performance, technological or design
standards) (GEO 40/2010 – Law 205/2010)
-0,5 -0,5
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
13
Adaptation
Water
management
Regulations - Planning Command and control -1/6
Table 6: Mean CEI for each sector depending on the selected policy instruments.
Mitigation
Scen. Sector Technological options Policy instrument CEI Mean CEI
Building isolation requirements (Order 18/2009) -1,5
Subsidy (Order 18/2009) -0,25
Thermal insulation
Subsidy (Order 69/2010) -0,25
Energy efficient buildings Performance standards ( i)Requirements; ii) Certificates of
building energy performance; iii)energy audits (Law 372/2005 –
Ordinance 22/2008)
-5,75
Solar water systems/air conditioning Energy efficient appliances (Law 372/2005) -2,5
Hot water, lighting, heating Energy efficient appliances (Order 69/2010) -2,5
Households
Energy performance of appliances Labelling appliances – Performance standards (GD 217/2012) -2,5
(-1,5-0,25-0,25-5,75-2,5-
2,5-2,5)/7 = -6.25/7= -2,180
Energy efficient buildings Performance standards ( i)Requirements; ii) Certificates of
building energy performance; iii) energy audits (Ordinance
22/2008)
-5,75
Best available technologies Combined standards (performance, technological or design
standards) (GEO 40/2010 – Law 205/2010)
-3,75
Industry
Energy efficiency Tradable permits (Law 554/2006, GD 60/2008, Law 126/2008) -0,5
(-5,75-3,75-0,5)/3 = -3,33
Energy efficient buildings Performance standards (i)Requirements; ii) Certificates of
building energy performance; energy audits (Law 372/2005 -
Ordinance 22/2008)
-5,75
OP
T
Service
Solar water systems/air conditioning Energy efficient appliances (Law 372/2005) -2,5
(-5,75-2,5)/2 =-4,125
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
14
Energy efficiency of
vehicles/transportation
Performance standards (transport management) (Proposed 0,5
Energy efficient vehicles Performance standards (Proposed) -1,75
Biofuels Fuel switch (Proposed) 0,25
Fuel quality Fuel quality standards (Proposed) -0,5
Transport
Energy efficient transportation Behavior change (Proposed) -0,25
(0,5-1,75+0,25-0,5-0,25/5=
-0,35
High efficiency cogeneration Subsidy (Bonus scheme) (Law 219/2007) -0,25
Promotion of RES Tradable permits (Green certificates – Economic policy
instruments) (Law 220/2008)
-0,75
Best available technologies Combined standards (performance, technological or design
standards) (GEO 40/2010 – Law 205/2010)
-0,5
Energy
Energy efficiency Tradable permits (Law 554/2006, GD 60/2008, Law 126/2008) -0,5
(-0,25-0,75-0,5-0,5)/4=-0,5
Waste
management
Best available technologies Combined standards (performance, technological or design
standards) (GEO 40/2010 – Law 205/2010)
-0,5 -0,5
Adaptation
Command and control -1/6 Water
management
Regulations - Planning
Awareness campaign (Proposed) -1/6
-1/6
Forests Management Command and control (Proposed) -1/6 -1/6
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
15
Table 7: Mean CEI for each sector depending on the selected policy instruments.
Mitigation
Scen. Sector Technological options Policy instrument CEI Mean CEI
Building isolation requirements (Order 18/2009) -1,5
Subsidy (Order 18/2009) -0,25
Thermal insulation
Subsidy (Order 69/2010) -0,25
Energy efficient buildings Performance standards ( i)Requirements; ii) Certificates of
building energy performance; iii)energy audits (Law 372/2005 –
Ordinance 22/2008)
-5,75
Solar water systems/air conditioning Energy efficient appliances (Law 372/2005) -2,5
Hot water, lighting, heating Energy efficient appliances (Order 69/2010) -2,5
Households
Energy performance of appliances Labelling appliances – Performance standards (GD 217/2012) -2,5
(-1,5-0,25-0,25-5,75-2,5-
2,5-2,5)/7 = -6.25/7= -2,180
Energy efficient buildings Performance standards ( i)Requirements; ii) Certificates of
building energy performance; iii) energy audits (Ordinance
22/2008)
-5,75
Best available technologies Combined standards (performance, technological or design
standards) (GEO 40/2010 – Law 205/2010)
-3,75
Industry
Energy efficiency Tradable permits (Law 554/2006, GD 60/2008, Law 126/2008) -0,5
(-5,75-3,75-0,5)/3 = -3,33
Energy efficient buildings Performance standards (i)Requirements; ii) Certificates of
building energy performance; energy audits (Law 372/2005 -
Ordinance 22/2008)
-5,75 Service
Solar water systems/air conditioning Energy efficient appliances (Law 372/2005) -2,5
(-5,75-2,5)/2 =-4,125
Energy efficiency of
vehicles/transportation
Performance standards (transport management) (Proposed +0,5
Biofuels Fuel switch (Proposed) +0,25
Transport
Fuel quality Fuel quality standards (Proposed) -0,5
(0,5+0,25-0,5)/3= +0,25
High efficiency cogeneration Subsidy (Bonus scheme) (Law 219/2007) -0,25
PE
S
Energy
Promotion of RES Tradable permits (Green certificates – Economic policy
instruments) (Law 220/2008)
-0,75
(-0,25-0,75-0,5-0,5)/4=-0,5
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
16
Best available technologies Combined standards (performance, technological or design
standards) (GEO 40/2010 – Law 205/2010)
-0,5
Energy efficiency Tradable permits (Law 554/2006, GD 60/2008, Law 126/2008) -0,5
Waste
management
Best available technologies Combined standards (performance, technological or design
standards) (GEO 40/2010 – Law 205/2010)
-0,5 -0,5
Adaptation
Water
management
Regulations - Planning Command and control -1/6 -1/6
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
17
Table 8: Overall cost efficiency for the three scenarios. Mitigation and Adaptation costs (pesdomonetary units)
Scen. Households Industry Services Transport Energy
Total
M A M A M A M A M A
BAU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Opt -1,962 -0,058 -8,525 0 -0,413 0 -0,403 0 -5,655 0 -17,014
Pes -0,741 -0.064 -3,130 -0,01 -0,165 0 +0,04 0 -2,01 0 -6,071
For dynamic cost efficiency, there are no direct, available data from the LEAP model so the
SMART procedure will be used.
For dynamic cost efficiency – technological improvements are encouraged. RES technologies
no others that the usual ones are promoted. Hydro is already a mature technology for the
country. In all three scenarios RES technologies are promoted. Only in Opt there is promotion
for nuclear, gas and coal technologies. The assigned grades are: BAU – 4, Opt – 7, Pes – 4.
For competitiveness there are no available results from LEAP, therefore the SMART
procedure was used and grades were assigned.
For competitiveness – In the Opt scenario the policy regarding the energy efficiency and the
technical improvements lead to the increase of productivity level.
As for attracting investors in JI the country offers opportunities. The assigned grades were:
BAU – 5, Opt – 7, Pes - 5.
For equity the grades were assigned with the MAUT procedure based on the outcomes from
the LEAP model.
For equity – Since one of the sectors that participate is the Household sector which does not
contribute to the GDP of the country the respective ratio cannot be used. Taking into
consideration the need to compare the scenarios under a regional level the ratio GHG
emission reductions in MtCO2eq to capita is calculated for each scenario. The larger the ratio
is the fairer is the scenario in sharing the burden among the sectors. In the Opt scenario
almost all sectors participate except for the service sector in contributing to emission
reductions.
Table 9: Equity measurement.
Scenario Total amount of GHG
emissions (MtCO2eq) in
2020
Reductions
compared to
emissions of BAU
in year 2020
(MtCO2eq)
Population in
2020
Million people
Ratio reductions
tCO2eq per capita
BAU 91,23 0 20,9 0
Opt 75,21 16,02 20,9 0,766
Pes 85,72 5,01 20,9 0,263
For flexibility the grades was assigned with the SMART procedure. The assessment was
based on information coming from the national report of Romania for PROMITHEAS-4
project.
For flexibility the scenarios are compared towards the incentives and the options that they
offer to target groups. The Opt scenario offers more options (financial subsidies, loans with
low interest rate) compared to the other two ones. The scenarios were evaluated by assessing
the following grades: for BAU – 5, for Opt – 6 and for Pes – 5.
For stringency for non-compliance and non-participation the SMART procedure was used
again.
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
18
For stringency for non-compliance, the scenarios do not foresee penalties, fees on any other
sanctions. The scenarios were evaluated by assessing to the grade 4.
Figure 3: Grades for political acceptability.
Criterion 3: Feasibility of implementation
For the third sub-criterion financial feasibility the assignment of grades followed the
SMART procedure.
For the implementation network capacity, the all scenarios have a good performance.
The existing implementation network provides the necessary information for climate change
policy issues in Romania. For the first sub-criterion - implementation network capacity the
grades 7 for BAU, 9 for Opt and 8 for Pes were assigned to the scenarios.
The implementation network has the capacity to implement the policies because has the good
trained personnel and also the appropriate technological infrastructure.
There are official reports regarding climate change policy issues for Romania. These reports
are updated regularly. For the - Romanian Energy Regulatory Authority the last annual
report available is for 20111.
The web-sites are friendly and the information is directly accessible.
The following entities form the Romanian implementation network:
- Ministry of Economy, Trade and Business Environment2;
- Ministry of Environment and Forests3;
- National Environmental Protection Agency4;
- Natural Agency of Mineral Resources5;
- Romanian Energy Regulatory Authority 6;
1 http://www.anre.ro/informatii.php?id=1114 2 http://www.minind.ro/ 3 www.mmediu.ro/ 4 www.anpm.ro 5 www.anrm.ro
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
19
- Romanian Transmission and System Operator - Transelectrica7.
For administrative feasibility, the scenarios have a poor performance. For Administrative
feasibility sub-criterion the grades 5, 5 and 5 are assigned to the scenarios because
bureaucratic procedures are still numerous.
For financial feasibility, the scenarios have again poor performance. The country has limited
incentives for the existing policy instruments. Foreign investments for climate change policy
projects can become significant revenue for the government so as to proceed with a better
monitoring, management and support towards relevant issues. The current policy portfolio
does not perform well under this sub-criterion. The introduction of a levy and a better policy
framework for JI projects may improve the situation. This is more likely to happen under the
Opt scenario. The grades are: BAU – 5, Opt – 7, Pes – 5.
Figure 4: Grades for feasibility of implementation.
RReessuullttss
The results for each scenario are presented in Table 17.
6 www.anre.ro 7 www.transelectrica.ro
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
20
Figure 5: Scenarios prioritization.
Table 10: AMS results for each scenario.
Scenarios Criteria
BAU Opt Pes
Direct contribution to GHG emission reductions (0,833) 0 83,300 28,651
Indirect environmental effects (0,167) 0 16,700 5.899
Environmental performance (0,168) - A 0 100,00 34,549
Cost efficiency (0,474) 0 47,300 16,878
Dynamic cost efficiency (0,183) 3,029 12,141 3,029
Competitiveness (0,085) 1,885 4,731 1,885
Equity (0,175) 0 17,500 6,008
Flexibility (0,051) 1.395 2,210 1,395
Stringency for non-compliance (0,032) 1,133 1,133 1,133
Political acceptability (0,738) - B 7,442 85,015 30,329
Implementation network capacity (0,309) 6,065 15,225 9,610
Administrative feasibility (0,581) 19,367 19,367 19,367
Financial feasibility (0,110) 2,439 6,122 2,439
Feasibility of implementation (0,094) - C 27,871 40,713 31,416
Total (A+B+C) 8,571 83,368 31,140
The results for each scenario are presented in Table 17. The final grades demonstrate which
of the three M/A policy portfolios has the better performance in responding to the climate
change needs of the country taking into consideration the national framework.
The Opt scenario has a better environmental outcomes compared to the other two, higher
feasibility of implementation, but performs inadequately in the Political acceptability.
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
21
RReeffeerreenncceess
1. Evaluating policy options for increasing the RES-E penetration in Greece, Harry D.
Kambezidis, Barbara Kasselouri , Popi Konidari, www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
2. A multi-criteria evaluation method for climate change mitigation policy instruments
Popi Konidari, Dimitrios Mavrakis, www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
3. Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Climate Policy Interactions, POPI KONIDARI and
DIMITRIOSMAVRAKIS, JOURNAL OF MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS
4. The AMS software, available on the E-class Platform of the Promitheas -4 Project: “Knowledge
transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”,
http://www.promitheasnet.kepa.uoa.gr/eclass/index.php?logout=yes
5. Nair Gireesh, Mahapatra Krushna, 2011. Policy instruments to promote building energy efficiency
from an end-user point of view. ECEEE 2011, Summer Study – Energy efficiency First: The
foundation of a low-carbon society.
6. Park Cheol-Woo, Kwon Kye-Si, Kim Wook-Bae, Min Byung-Kwon, Park Sung-Jun, Sung In-Ha,
Yoon Young Sik, Lee Kyung-Soo, Lee Jong-Hang and Seok Jongwon, 2009. Energy Consumption
Reduction Technology in Manufacturing – A selective Review of Policies, Standards, and Research.
International Journal of Precision Engineering and manufacturing, Vol. 10, No.5, pp. 151-173.
7. European Commission, 2008. DIRECTIVE 2008/101/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include
aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the
Community. Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:008:0003:0021:EN:PDF
8. Sumner Jenny, Bird Lori, and Smith Hillary, 2009. Carbon Taxes: A Review of Experience and
Policy Design Considerations. Prepared under Task No. SAO9.2034. Available at:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47312.pdf
9. Economic Policy Committee, 2008
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences/energy2011nov/doc/session5/joyce_euroace_long_v
ersion_2011_11_30.ppt#27
10. ECN, 1999. Energy efficiency Action Plan – Policy Action Plan for Promotion of End-Use Energy
Efficiency in the Czech Republic to 2010. Available at:
http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/1999/c99065.pdf
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
22
CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONNSS
In this report, the authors developed three Mitigation / Adaptation climate change policy
scenarios for Romania and assessed them.
The result of the assessment presents the best policy portfolio for Romania, in terms of
achieving the national 2020 targets: 20% emission reductions (base year 1989), 19% increase
of the energy efficiency (base year 2005) and 24% share of RES in the final energy
consumption.
The three developed scenarios, named Business as Usual (BAU), Optimistic (OPT) and
Pessimistic (PES) have the characteristics described below:
BAU scenario
The BAU scenario concerns the time evolution of the already implemented mitigation and
adaptation policy instruments in Romania, until the year 2050 and serves as the reference
against which the outcomes of the other scenarios are compared.
The currently implemented Romanian mitigation policy has three main components: i)
penetration of RES in the national energy mix, ii) support to increase energy efficiency; iii)
GHG emission reductions through JI, GIS and EU-ETS. Concerning the adaptation policy, the
main instrument is the preliminary assessment of flood risks and the respective prevention
measures, if needed.
OPT scenario
The Optimistic scenario concerns the time evolution of an enhanced mitigation /
adaptation policy portfolio that Romania will implement during the time interval 2011 –
2050. This enhanced policy portfolio takes into account the policy instruments adopted after
1st January 2011 as well as plans for the country and supports: i) the introduction of efficient
technologies in almost all sectors targeting to the maximum reduction of GHG emissions
through the maximum exploitation of the potential of the country in energy efficiency and
renewable energy sources and ii) the necessary infrastructure for the adaptation of the
country towards the minimum – in size and extent – expected climate change impacts.
This policy portfolio includes a more supportive policy framework for RES compared to
that of BAU through the new Energy Law, additional policy instruments for encouraging
energy efficiency (energy performance standards of buildings, energy labeling of energy-
related products) and for promoting the use of biofuels in the transport and agricultural
sectors. Emission trading through the EU-ETs and JI is promoted further, while policy
instruments for promoting carbon capture and storage technologies are considered. Policy
instruments for water and forest management are also part of this policy portfolio.
PES scenario
The Pessimistic scenario concerns the time evolution of a mitigation / adaptation policy
portfolio that the country will implement up to 2050. It is structured by: i) the
mitigation/adaptation policy instruments that the country has set into force after 1st January
2011; ii) no other additional policy instruments apart from those already decided to be
implemented and in line with the EU climate change policy; the EU policy instruments will
be adjusted to the needs and priorities of the examined country and iii) the minimum
exploitation of the potential of Romania in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources
by limiting the possible technological options only to the energy and transport sector and to
wind and hydropower. These are the sectors with the highest potential in energy efficiency
and these are the most promising for the country types of RES.
For this policy portfolio the introduction of additional policy instruments compared to BAU
is restricted only to the transport sector and to a fewer number compared to the OPT scenario.
As for adaptation only the already implemented Flood Directive is included.
PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”
23
Outcomes of LEAP model
Energy demand in year 2020 showed that the OPT scenario will have lower levels than the
Pessimistic, while the BAU will have the highest. The same order is observed in the
Transformation branch and for the GHG emissions of the sectors.
Regarding the Romanian 2020 targets: i) the 8% GHG emissions reduction is hardly
achieved8, even with the OPT scenario; ii) the share of RES in the final energy consumption
reaches a 17,7% which is the same for all three scenarios; iii) for the increase in energy
efficiency the BAU scenario stands out with 9,4%, the PES with 14,9%, while OPT is
surpassing the target by achieving 25,5%, against the 19% of the target.
The OPT scenario continuously presented the best – in terms of mitigation policy - energy
demand results, followed by the PES and leaving the BAU with the highest and worse.
Assessment outcomes 9
The three scenarios (BAU, OPT and PES) were assessed with the AMS multicriteria
method, against three criteria: i. environmental performance (amount of GHG emissions and
secondary environmental effects); ii. political acceptability (attitude of the involved entities –
target groups) and iii. feasibility of implementation (applicability of the policy portfolio from
the point of the governmental and national pertinent entities).
Under the first criterion, OPT received the highest mark even if the GHG emission
reduction target is not fully achieved because this policy portfolio is closer in achieving the
national commitments when compared to the other two.
Under the second criterion, the OPT scenario was by far the policy portfolio with the higher
performance in political acceptability compared to the other two. OPT offers financial
benefits and handles fairer target groups, supports innovative technologies and methods
compared to the other two policy mixtures. However, all scenarios score low in stringency for
non-compliance and in flexibility, since they do not include the necessary rules and
influencing mechanisms for transgressors.
Under the third criterion, OPT appears to have a more capable implementation network
able to provide the necessary information of the respective policy instruments, to handle
sufficient the administrative matters and with adequate financial means for its
implementation. ,
In this report, the component of adaptation in climate change policy is not fully developed
since the country hasn’t set an adequate framework to reduce its vulnerability to climate
change. Moreover, the design and assessment of relevant policy instruments require data
related with the frequency of extreme events, water resources and use, low-income groups,
biodiversity, the health sector, etc., which are not available at the moment.
Concluding with the assessment process the OPT policy portfolio is the best to achieve the
climate change targets of Romania for year 2020. The BAU scenario does not achieve
sufficiently the Romanian national targets, while the PES scenario although it reaches the
targets it is has less political acceptability and more difficulties to be implemented compared
to the OPT scenario.
8 2000 is considered the base year in this report, since data were not available before this year. 9 The assessment outcomes depend on the level of expertise of the person who makes the assessment, as well as
the degree of justification concerning the sub-criteria.