4.6 Review Book Chapter

Energy Efficiency: What Has Research Delivered in the Last 40 Years?

Journal

Publisher

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-084937

Keywords

energy efficiency; energy intensity; efficiency policy; energy efficiency gap; public policy

Funding

  1. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics
  2. ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) [ES/R009708/1]
  3. UKRI/EPSRC under the Heat, Buildings, Digital and Flexibility Themes of the Centre for Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS) [EP/R 035288/1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

After 40 years of research, energy efficiency initiatives are generally perceived as highly effective, with innovation contributing to lowering energy technology costs and increasing energy productivity. However, rebound effects at the macro level still warrant careful policy attention.
This article presents a critical assessment of 40 years of research that may be brought under the umbrella of energy efficiency, spanning different aggregations and domains-from individual producing and consuming agents to economy-wide effects to the role of innovation to the influence of policy. After 40 years of research, energy efficiency initiatives are generally perceived as highly effective. Innovation has contributed to lowering energy technology costs and increasing energy productivity. Energy efficiency programs in many cases have reduced energy use per unit of economic output and have been associated with net improvements in welfare, emission reductions, or both. Rebound effects at the macro level still warrant careful policy attention, as they may be nontrivial. Complexity of energy efficiency dynamics calls for further methodological and empirical advances, multidisciplinary approaches, and granular data at the service level for research in this field to be of greatest societal benefit.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available