2012
DOI: 10.1007/s12053-012-9157-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The German energy audit program for firms—a cost-effective way to improve energy efficiency?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
47
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
3
47
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Shen et al, 2012), evaluation of energy audit programs (e.g. Fleiter et al, 2012b), energy system or process optimization by statistical modeling (e.g. Giacone & Mancò, 2012), development and evaluation of energy end-use industrial policy programs and measures (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Shen et al, 2012), evaluation of energy audit programs (e.g. Fleiter et al, 2012b), energy system or process optimization by statistical modeling (e.g. Giacone & Mancò, 2012), development and evaluation of energy end-use industrial policy programs and measures (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Farla and Blok (1995) estimated the degree of free-rider for the Dutch Energy Bonus to be as high as 85 % [24]. This could be compared with estimations for Long-Term Agreements (LTAs) estimated to be 0-50 % for the current Swedish LTA-program PFE [18], and for energy audits; 0 % as a general estimation based on a compilation of 42 European industrial energy programs [46], up to 9 % found in the German program [23].…”
Section: Tablementioning
confidence: 99%
“…They showed that about half of the suggested measures where implemented, where measures with low investment costs were preferred [21][22]. Fleiter et al [23] presents an evaluation of the German energy audit program and show that participating SMEs adopted 1.7-2.9 of the measures. Farla and Blok [24] found that the investment subsidy, the Dutch Energy Bonus, suffered from a large degree of free-rider effects.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A comparison of these results with other energy audit programmes is given in Table 12, including the United States Industrial Assessment Centers (US IACs) (Anderson & Newell, 2003;Muthulingam et al, 2009), the Australian Commonwealth Government's Enterprise Energy Audit Programme (EEAP Australia) (Harris et al, 2000), Project Highland and the German energy audit programme promoted by the KfW fund (the German promotional bank) (Fleiter et al, 2012b). Only actual savings are presented in the table, and only cost-effectiveness indicators related to the public expenses.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Energy Audit Programmesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The American programme was evaluated based on database records, while the Australian evaluation was conducted through phone interviews with 100 participating companies (Anderson & Newell, 2003;Harris et al, 2000). The German evaluation was based on online questionnaires and statistics from the KfW (Fleiter et al, 2012b), and the total energy savings in the German programme were estimated from the questionnaires (Fleiter et al, 2012b). Spill-over/free-rider effects were not considered in the first mentioned programmes, nor were the programmes' costeffectiveness indicators calculated in these energy audit programmes.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Energy Audit Programmesmentioning
confidence: 99%