Energy efficiency policy evaluation by moving from techno-economic towards whole society perspective on energy efficiency market.

Energy efficiency is recognised as a key strategy to tackle three energy-related challenges – climate change, energy security and economic development – at the least cost to the society. In the recent years of the economic downturn, it gained even more relevance in the developed countries as there is more than ever the need to decouple economic recovery and growth from energy consumption. However, despite this formal recognition, energy efficiency remains the least understood and the most neglected feature of overall energy policy. Despite the substantial efforts made to develop sound energy efficiency policies, the desired effects in terms of achieved energy savings are lacking. The phenomenon is known as energy efficiency gap and its persistence was the main driver of this research. The aim of the research was to examine the causes and propose solutions for bridging the gap. Therefore, ideal policy making cycle is defined connecting design, implementation and multiple criteria evaluation of policy instruments’ impacts in closed, repetitive loop. Concept of energy efficiency market was introduced as a basis for policy making, enabling better understanding of the overall environment where policy needs to be implemented. Paper deals with the concept of energy efficiency market. It discusses the fundamental aim of energy efficiency policy – to achieve market transformation towards more efficient products and services. It presents market barriers that call for policy interventions, but upgrades the list of usually addressed barriers with behavioural and societal aspects of energy efficiency related decisions. Established methodology for energy efficiency market assessment includes upgraded model of barriers to energy efficiency. Focus of this paper is how to establish a model of energy efficiency market and to upgrade exisitng model of barriers to energy efficiencies to describe the reality better as to be a basis for policy instruments design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]