Go to content

6. Selection of best practices and exemplary initia­tives within energy efficiency in the Nordics

This chapter covers two principal tasks:
  1. Identifying energy efficiency best practices across Nordic countries in building and industry sectors. This task outlines criteria for evaluating best practices in the Nordic countries, focusing on energy saving impact and the extent of their implementation. It also provides examples of best practices from the region.
  2. Presenting notable programmes and policies aimed at promoting energy efficiency and mitigating climate change in the building and industry sectors. This task involves showcasing successful initiatives from each Nordic country.

6.1  Best practices

6.1.1 Background

A good practice is an approach or method confirmed through practical experience and research, consistently proving its effectiveness in achieving desired results while optimising resource utilisation. Key criteria for defining good practices include efficiency, technical feasibility, and economic viability
R. Anna, M. Simone, Z. Claudio, and F. Giorgio, “Key performance indicators of ‘good practices’ of energy efficiency in industry: Application to real cases in Italy and in the European union,” Int. J. EQ, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 239–250, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.2495/EQ-V2-N3-239-250.
. Consequently, a best practice in energy efficiency could be defined as a highly effective and efficient measure, supported by empirical evidence and demonstrated outcomes, leading to significant improvements in energy efficiency. However, the definition of energy efficiency best practice lacks standardisation, and energy efficiency improvement is not the sole critical factor. Therefore, key performance indicators (KPIs), such as cost-effectiveness and environmental impact, often assessed through energy savings, are commonly used
B. Boza-Kiss, S. Moles-Grueso, and D. Urge-Vorsatz, “Evaluating policy instruments to foster energy efficiency for the sustainable transformation of buildings,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 163–176, Jun. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.04.002.
. Successful energy efficiency measures typically exhibit cost-efficient CO2 reduction, ease of development, and additional societal benefits, including positive economic impact and job creation
K. Tanaka, “Review of policies and measures for energy efficiency in industry sector,” Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 6532–6550, Oct. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.058.
.
The EU Odyssee-Mure project
Ademe, “EU Odyssee-Mure project.” LIFE-CET programme of the European Commission, 2025 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.odyssee-mure.eu/
 has focused on assessing energy efficiency measures by sector for most European countries. One of the project’s key outcomes was the creation of the Mure database, which offers valuable insights into energy efficiency policies and implemented measures across these countries. As part of the project, ‘good practices’ in energy efficiency were identified based on a set of criteria such as energy savings, cost efficiency, market transformation potential, ability to overcome barriers to energy efficiency, ease of re-financing, long-term savings persistence, transferability across countries, connections to other measures, proven experience, avoidance of negative side effects, promotion of positive side effects, and acceptance by relevant stakeholders

6.1.2 Assessment criteria

To identify best practice energy efficiency measures, we have focused specific assessment criteria based on key aspects such as energy savings and the level of spread.
  • Energy saving impact: This criterion evaluates the actual or potential energy savings from implementing energy efficiency measures, which is crucial for decision-makers and stakeholders.
  • Level of spread: This criterion assesses the extent to which energy efficiency measures have been adopted, implemented, or disseminated within or across designated areas. A higher level of spread typically indicates greater success in achieving widespread adoption, suggesting a broader realisation of energy efficiency benefits
    C. Morton, C. Wilson, and J. Anable, “The diffusion of domestic energy efficiency policies: A spatial perspective,” Energy Policy, vol. 114, pp. 77–88, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.057.
    .
This chapter defines the energy saving impact of the measures based on scientific and national studies, such as
Finnish Energy Authority, “Long-term renovation strategy 2020-2050: Finland. Report according to Article 2a of Directive (2010/31/EU) on the energy performance of buildings, as amended by Directive 2018/844/EU,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-04/fi_2020_ltrs_en_0.pdf
,
IMPLEMENT Consulting Group, “No wasted energy. Uncovering the electricity efficiency potential in Iceland,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://library.arcticportal.org/2833/1/2023%20No%20wasted%20energy.pdf
,
Oslo Economics and SINTEF Energy, “Industrien: Etterspørsel etter kraft, beslutningsfaktorer og energieffektivisering [Industry: Demand for power, decision factors and energy efficiency],” OE-rapport 64, 2022.
,
The Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) and The Norwegian Building Authority (DiBK), “Underlag for langsiktig strategi for energieffektivisering ved renovering av bygninger [Foundation for the long term strategy for energy efficiency by renovation of building],” Mar. 2022.
,
Fossil Free Sweden, “Strategi för fossilfri konkurrenskraft. Effektiv användning av energi och effekt [Strategy for fossil-free competitiveness. Efficient use of energy and power],” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://fossilfrittsverige.se/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/FFS_Strategi_Energi_Tryck_V2-1-1.pdf
,
Danish Energy Agency, “Kortlægning af energiforbrug og opgørelse af energisparepotentialer i produktionserhvervene [Mapping of energy consumption and assessment of energy-saving potentials in the manufacturing industries],” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Analyser/kortlaegning_af_energisparepotentialer_i_produktionserhvervene_2022.pdf
,
Enova, Potensial for energieffektivisering i norsk landbasert industri [Potential for energy efficiency in Norwegian land-based industry]. in Enovarapport, no. 5. 2009.
,
V. M. Nik, E. Mata, A. Sasic Kalagasidis, and J.-L. Scartezzini, “Effective and robust energy retrofitting measures for future climatic conditions—Reduced heating demand of Swedish households,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 121, pp. 176–187, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.03.044.
,
É. Mata, A. Sasic Kalagasidis, and F. Johnsson, “Energy usage and technical potential for energy saving measures in the Swedish residential building stock,” Energy Policy, vol. 55, pp. 404–414, Apr. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.023.
,
M. Pomianowski, Y. I. Antonov, and P. Heiselberg, “Development of energy renovation packages for the Danish residential sector,” Energy Procedia, vol. 158, pp. 2847–2852, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.048.
,
R. Fazeli and B. Davidsdottir, “Energy performance of dwelling stock in Iceland: System dynamics approach,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 167, pp. 1345–1353, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.009.
,
T. Niemelä, R. Kosonen, and J. Jokisalo, “Cost-effectiveness of energy performance renovation measures in Finnish brick apartment buildings,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 137, pp. 60–75, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.12.031.
,
J. Hirvonen, J. Jokisalo, J. Heljo, and R. Kosonen, “Towards the EU emissions targets of 2050: optimal energy renovation measures of Finnish apartment buildings,” International Journal of Sustainable Energy, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 649–672, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1080/14786451.2018.1559164.
, expert consultations, and internal evaluations, supplemented by the semi-quantitative evaluation available from the Mure database. Similarly, the evaluation of the spread level uses consultations with national experts and the database’s semi-quantitative evaluation. It is crucial to acknowledge that this evaluation represents subjective expert judgment of the impact rather than an absolute measure.

6.1.3 Examples of best practices in the Nordics

Energy efficiency measures in each of the Nordic countries were initially identified through the state-of-the-art review conducted in Chapter 2, Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. This comprehensive analysis facilitated the recognition and prioritisation of best practices in the Nordic region.
In this analysis, best practices are defined as measures that exhibit both high energy-saving impact and widespread adoption. In contrast, good practices may vary in energy-saving impact and level of spread; however, since they do not achieve high ratings in both attributes, they are not classified as best practices.
In the building sector, common best practices across most Nordic countries include highly insulated and airtight building envelopes, energy-efficient windows, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, energy-efficient appliances and lighting, and heat pumps for heating. These practices are supported by stringent building codes in most countries, alongside successful initiatives such as Finland’s energy efficiency agreements and Norway’s incentives for energy measures in households. Good practices across the Nordic countries include district heating systems (in Finland, Sweden, and Denmark), building energy labelling, and various subsidy schemes that promote energy efficiency in buildings, such as those in Denmark and Iceland. Additionally, Sweden's technology procurement groups advance energy-efficient solutions.
In the industry sector, common best practices encompass combined heat and power systems, waste heat recovery, energy management systems, and mandatory energy audits for large enterprises. These measures are reinforced by financial incentives and regulations, such as Denmark's energy taxes and Finland's environmental permit requirements. Norway and Sweden provide financial support for energy-efficient technologies, while Iceland supports geothermal projects. Good practices include industrial process electrification, energy audit models, and advisory programmes, as seen in Finland, as well as industry-specific networks and centres to promote energy savings, such as Denmark's Centre for Energy Savings in Enterprises and Sweden's energy efficiency networks for SMEs. Additionally, public funding initiatives such as Iceland's Energy Fund and Norway's energy and environmental tax system, represent notable good practices.
An overview of selected best and good practices in building and industry sectors for each Nordic country appears in the Appendix 2. The Faroe Islands are excluded from this detailed analysis due to limited available literature on best practice energy efficiency measures.
Furthermore, Section 6.2 describes selected measures from each country in more detail, focusing on additional criteria such as cost-effectiveness, potential obstacles, and success factors.

6.2 Exemplary initiatives

Exemplary programmes and policies for energy efficiency and climate change mitigation were selected through a comprehensive review of the historical policies from each Nordic country and by consulting successful measures documented in the Mure database
Odyssee-Mure, “Successful Measures.” Accessed: Mar. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.measures.odyssee-mure.eu/successful-efficiency-measures-tool.html#/
. The selection process was further refined through consultations with experts from each country, ensuring an informed and comprehensive decision-making process.
The exemplary programmes and policies presented in this chapter are analysed based on a set of key criteria.
    • Energy saving impact: This criterion focuses on the actual or potential energy savings achieved through the implementation of the initiatives.
    • Level of spread: This criterion examines the extent to which energy efficiency measures have been adopted, implemented, or disseminated across the country.
    • Other effects beyond energy savings: This criterion focuses on additional impacts resulting from the initiatives, such as environmental improvements, economic growth, and technological advancements.
    • Cost-effectiveness: This criterion assesses the comparison between the investment required to implement the initiative and the resulting energy savings. The costs assessed, where available, primarily refer to the administrative and funding expenses associated with the initiatives’ implementation.
    • Obstacles to implementation: This criterion identifies and evaluate challenges encountered during implementation.
    • Success factors: This criterion uncovers the key drivers behind the success of the initiatives, exploring the elements that contributed to achieving goals and delivering tangible results in terms of energy savings, cost-effectiveness, and environmental benefits.
    Note that for some initiatives, data on energy savings and costs were not always readily available, potentially limiting a comprehensive evaluation of certain aspects of the initiatives.
    The table below provides an overview of the initiatives selected in each Nordic country, which are described in detail in the following sections.
    Denmark
    Finland
    Iceland
    Norway
    Sweden
    Building sector
    Window energy labelling
    Property and Building Sector Energy Efficiency Agreement and HÖYLÄ IV
    Subsidy for heat pumps and geothermal district heating systems
    Programme for passive houses and low-energy houses
    Programme for buildings with very low energy use (LÅGAN)
    Minimum requirement targets for energy saving for new and existing buildings
    Promotion of heat pumps
    Programme for best available technology (BAT) in existing buildings
    Halve More campaign (Halvera Mera)
    Industry sector
    The energy saving scheme for energy companies
    Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries
    Incentives for industrial energy conversion projects through the Energy Fund
    Programme for climate and energy initiatives for industry   
    Programme for energy efficiency in energy-intensive industry (PFE)
    Subsidy scheme for renewable energy use in production processes
    Energy Audit Programme (EAP)
     
    Support for the introduction of energy management
    Energy efficiency networks for SMEs
    The next sections provide a country-by-country overview of selected energy efficiency policies and programmes in the building sector (6.2.1) and the industry sector (6.2.2). This review includes detailed analyses for Denmark (6.2.1.1 and 6.2.2.1), Finland (6.2.1.2 and 6.2.2.2), Iceland (6.2.1.3 and 6.2.2.3), Norway (6.2.1.4 and 6.2.2.4), and Sweden (6.2.1.5 and 6.2.2.5).

    6.2.1  Building sector

    6.2.1.1 Denmark

    window energy labelling

    Duration: 2011–ongoing
    Description: The Danish Energy Agency and the Danish Window Industry Association implemented an energy labelling system for windows in 2011 aimed at facilitating the identification of the most energy-efficient options available. The idea of the labelling originates from the EU’s ‘Energy Labelling Directive’. This system states that products with a high potential for energy savings must be energy labelled and uses an A to F scale to indicate the level of energy efficiency estimated for the window on the market. This scale is similar to the energy labels of other products, such as refrigerators, dishwashers, cars, light bulbs, and more.
    This A to F scale determines the energy class of windows by their ‘energy balance’ (expressed in W/kWm2), accounting for heat loss and solar heat gain through the window. A negative value signifies that the window negatively contributes to the building's heating, while a positive value indicates a positive contribution to heating. Energy Class A windows are deemed energy-neutral according to specified calculation rules, allowing as much heat in as they release.
    The energy labelling scheme targets consumers seeking new windows for existing buildings, aiming to simplify the comparison of energy performance across various window types. The window manufacturer is obligated to furnish energy data for current windows in different designs and sizes when presenting an offer or confirming an order.
    Since 2010, Danish Building Regulations (BR10) have required new windows to meet at least Energy Class C standards. Subsequently, with BR15 in 2015 and BR18 in 2018, the requirement was upgraded to Energy Class B. The energy labelling programme initiated a partnership with regulatory bodies to ensure impartial verification of energy labelling data to ensure accessibility to all manufacturers of window solutions without discrimination, including non-member manufacturers of the Window Industry Association. The programme is responsible for verifying that all window solutions included in the energy labelling meet the specified requirements outlined in this agreement.
    Energy saving impact: Not directly quantifiable, but about 70% of Danish windows (approx. 31 million m2) can be replaced with more energy-efficient windows with a savings potential corresponding to approximately 4,327 GWh, the majority of which (2,960 GWh) comes from replacing windows with U-values of around 2.1-2.9 W/m2K.
    Other effects
    • Development of new windows with broader glass and reduced frames.
    • Local employment opportunities for craftsmen.
    Cost-effectiveness: Not directly quantifiable. The Window Industry Association stated that no significant external investment was involved in the agreement. However, the window industry itself had to invest in producing new products, including materials and tests.
    Level of spread: High. Window energy labelling is integrated into building code minimum requirements.
    Obstacles
    • High upfront costs for producers to make new window designs.
    • Challenges arose in applying the windows' energy balance principle, necessitating higher solar gains and reduced frame sizes.
    Success factors
    • Alignment with building regulation minimum requirements.
    • Political agreement between the window industry and Climate and Energy Ministers.
    • An informative website established by the Window Industry Association aimed at informing users about energy labelling of new windows and the associated energy savings. The website also provides comprehensive details on energy-labelled product systems, allowing users to calculate energy gains for various window configurations.
    • Possible inclusion in the EU labelling scheme (currently on hold).
    References
    Danish Secretariat for the Energy Labeling Scheme for Facade Windows, “Energivinduer: en del af løsningen [Energy-efficient windows: part of the solution].” Accessed: Mar. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://energivinduer.dk/
    Minimum requirement targets for energy saving for new and existing buildings
    Duration: 2006–ongoing
    Description: Established in 2006, minimum energy saving targets for both new and existing buildings aim to improve Danish energy efficiency standards over time.
    For new buildings, the strategy involved minimum requirements five and 10 years ahead, known as ‘low energy class level 2015’ or ‘Building Class 2020’ in building regulations. Denmark has seen a consistent decrease in energy use in new buildings since the 1961 introduction of energy requirements in building regulations.
    In 2008, the Danish government committed to reducing building energy needs for new buildings by 25 % in 2010, 50 % in 2015, and 75 % in 2020 compared to the 2006 requirements. This initiative gained broad support from various Danish Parliament political parties.
    In 2010, the first step involved introducing the Building Regulation 2010 (BR10), which tightened energy requirements by approximately 25%, and a voluntary energy class was revised and renamed 'Low-energy Class 2015 (Lavenergiklasse 2015)'. Buildings constructed to meet the low-energy class standards of 2015 exhibited an energy framework reduced by 50% compared to the 2006 level.
    Responding to requests from the Danish building industry for ample time for product development, the voluntary low energy class known as 'Building Class 2020' was introduced in 2011.
    In July 2016, the formerly voluntary 'Low-energy Class 2015' transitioned into a mandatory standard and was rebranded as the 'Danish Building Regulation 2015 (BR15)'. BR15 sets the minimum energy performance criteria for all new building types. Alongside these minimum standards, BR15 outlines requirements for the voluntary 'Building Class 2020' (equivalent to the nZEB level at that time). Building Class 2020 reduced the energy consumption of buildings by 75% compared to the 2006 level.
    In 2018, slight adjustments were made to the energy performance requirements, primarily due to updates in primary energy factors and calculation procedures, and these modifications were incorporated into the Building Regulation 2018 (BR18). The voluntary 'Class 2020' was found to exceed the cost-optimal level and continues as a voluntary low-energy class with minimal adjustments to requirements, reflecting updated primary energy factors.
    The BR10 legislation also extended to existing buildings by including component requirements for installations and minor renovations. These requirements prio­ri­ti­sed cost-effective energy efficiency initiatives for building owners, ensuring the adoption of energy-efficient solutions when replacing items such as windows, pumps, and boilers.
    Additionally, as an alternative to component requirements, two voluntary renovation classes were introduced:
    • A residential building qualifies as 'Renovation Class 2' if the total energy demand for heating, ventilation, cooling, and domestic hot water per square meter of heated floor area is no more than 70.0 kWh/m² per year, plus an additional 2,200 kWh per year divided by the heated floor area. For non-residential buildings, the energy performance framework sets the threshold at 95 kWh/m2 + 2,200 kWh per year divided by the heated floor area.
    • Similarly, a residential building falls into 'Renovation Class 1' if the total energy demand for heating, ventilation, cooling, and domestic hot water per square meter of heated floor area does not exceed 52.5 kWh/m² per year, plus 1,650 kWh per year divided by the heated floor area. For non-residential buildings, the energy performance framework sets the threshold at 71.3 kWh/m2 +2,200 kWh per year divided by the heated floor area.
    Meeting the renovation class standards requires improving the supplied energy requirement by a minimum of 30 kWh/m² per year. Additionally, compliance with the indoor climate requirements for new buildings is necessary to achieve 'Renovation Class 1'.
    Energy saving impact: Not directly quantifiable, but heat consumption in single-family houses decreased by 25% from 2006 to 2011, which corresponds to the political ambition of the specific requirements.
    Other effects: Slight increase in summer overheating because of the increase of windows, among other things.
    Cost-effectiveness: Not directly quantifiable. Presumably low additional initial investment with high energy savings.
    Level of spread: High. This measure was eventually incorporated into building codes.
    Obstacles: Initial resistance from the building industry as the suggested percentages of energy saving seemed too difficult to achieve.
    Success factors: The advance notification of the upcoming energy requirements has provided the industry with sufficient time to develop the necessary solutions, thereby reducing costs.
    References
    K. Engelund Thomsen et al., “Implementation of the EPBD. Denmark. Status in 2020,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Denmark-%E2%80%93-2020.pdf
    ,
    Aarhus University, “Danskere bruger mindre energi på varme [Danes are using less energy for heating].” [Online]. Available: https://ingenioer.au.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/nyhed/artikel/danskere-bruger-mindre-energi-paa-varme/

    6.2.1.2 Finland

    Energy Efficiency Agreement for the Property and Building Sector and HÖYLÄ IV
    Duration: 2017–2025
    Description: The Energy Efficiency Agreement Scheme is a cornerstone of Finland's energy efficiency policy.
    The Agreement for the Property and Building Sector, signed in October 2016 for the 2017–2025 period, succeeds its predecessor spanning 2008–2016. This agreement is integral to the nation's broader energy efficiency initiative and encompasses various governmental bodies such as the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, the Ministry of the Environment, the Energy Authority, and RAKLI – the Finnish Association of Building Owners and Construction Clients.
    One of this agreement’s main focuses is to improve energy efficiency within the rental housing and commercial property sectors, a vital component of the nation's built environment. Signatories commit to specific Action Plans outlined within the agreement, aimed at enhancing energy efficiency measures within their respective properties. These plans are meticulously designed to align with national and EU energy savings objectives, ensuring a concerted effort towards sustainability.
    Companies joining the agreement pledge to adhere to these Action Plans, committing themselves to implement measures aimed at improving energy efficiency. This includes initiatives such as upgrading insulation, optimising heating and cooling systems, and integrating renewable energy sources where feasible.
    The government grants energy subsidies to support the implementation of new energy-efficient technology and, case-dependently, conventional energy efficiency investments and energy audits of the participant SMEs and municipalities. However, energy audits of large companies are not subsidised.
    Monitoring and reporting mechanisms, overseen by Motiva Oy, ensure transparency and accountability by requiring companies to report annually on their energy usage, efficiency measures implemented, and the realisation of other activities outlined in the Action Plans. This robust monitoring system allows for progress evaluation and the identification of areas for improvement.
    The agreement emphasises the importance of raising awareness among stakeholders, including tenants and residents, about energy efficiency benefits. By promoting awareness and education, the agreement aims to foster a culture of energy conservation.
    HÖYLÄ IV is another energy efficiency agreement that promotes the upkeep of oil heating systems, including regulators and burners, along with the replacement of boilers and other energy efficiency measures in buildings. It aims to increase the use of renewable energy alongside oil heating and the proportion of biofuel in heating oil sales.
    Efforts to improve the efficiency of oil heating are concentrated in several key areas:
    • Inspection and advisory services: Providing advisory services alongside routine maintenance by installation companies, with specific performance targets set for activities such as customer visits and repair suggestions.
    • Upgrading old oil-heating systems: Facilitating comprehensive services for boiler replacements and system renovations, often by a single-service provider, while integrating renewable energy sources with oil heating systems.
    • Promotion of advanced oil-heating systems: Encouraging the adoption of energy-efficient technologies, such as condensing boilers and heating units utilising multiple energy sources, while ensuring functionality across different conditions and building stocks.
    • Promotion of renewable energy use: Promoting renewable energy in oil-heated properties through initiatives such as sustainably produced bioliquids and heating systems utilising renewable energy alongside or instead of oil.
    • Overall building energy efficiency: Addressing factors influencing building energy consumption, such as heating, hot water demand, ventilation, insulation, and resident behaviour, through cooperation with industry partners to provide property owners with skills and information.
    Currently, the focus of the agreement's implementation is more on disseminating information regarding energy efficiency related to oil-heating maintenance and user behaviour rather than replacing outdated oil boilers.
    Participants in these agreements can receive subsidies for both conventional and new energy efficiency technologies, whereas non-participants are only eligible for subsidies for new technologies.
    Energy saving impact
    • The Property and Building Sector Energy Efficiency Agreement achieved annual energy savings of 600 GWh in 2022 from measures taken between 2017 and 2022. The savings arise from almost 8,500 implemented measures.
    • HÖYLÄ IV had energy savings of 2,500 GWh/year in 2020.
    Other effects
    • Reduction in CO2 emissions.
    • Facilitation of the national targets on increasing the use of renewable energy.
    • Improvement in Finland’s security of supply and self-sufficiency in energy via efficient energy use.
    • Green growth and new markets for clean technology solutions.
    • Support in the fulfilment of international climate-related obligations.
    • Reduction in oil consumption (10–30%) through the heating system upgrade.
    Cost-effectiveness: Not directly quantifiable. The costs related to implementing the energy efficiency agreements are low but not quantified. Investments in energy efficiency measures for the Property and Building Sector Energy Efficiency Agreement in the 2017–2022 period are estimated to be around 120 million euro (M€). Cost-effectiveness is not calculated due to insufficient data on total costs.
    Level of spread: High, though not directly quantified.
    Obstacles: Potential technical challenges during new system installations.
    Success factors
    • The agreement serves as an alternative, flexible, and cost-effective approach to regulations, aligning with the EED and national climate and energy strategies.
    • Subsidies for implementing energy efficiency measures.
    • Collaboration among different operators, namely the industry associations, the state, and Motiva.
    • Promotion measures consisting of things such as information dissemination in webinars and other events, as well as energy advice given to companies and information disseminated through client magazines.
    References
    Odyssee-Mure, “Successful Measures.” Accessed: Mar. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.measures.odyssee-mure.eu/successful-efficiency-measures-tool.html#/
    ,
    Finnish Ministry of the Environment, Finnish Ministry of Economic A airs and Employment in Finland, RAKLI, and Finnish Energy Authority, “Property and Building Sector Energy Efficiency Agreement.” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://energiatehokkuussopimukset2017-2025.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Property-and-Building-Sector-Energy-Efficiency-Agreement-2017-2025.pdf
    ,
    Finnish Ministry of the Environment et al., “Energy Efficiency Agreement on the Distribution of Liquid Heating Fuels. HÖYLÄ IV.” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://energiatehokkuussopimukset2017-2025.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Energy-Efficiency-Agreement-2017-2025-on-the-Distribution-of-Liquid-Heating-Fuels-H%C3%96YL%C3%84-IV.pdf
    Promotion of heat pumps
    Duration: 2000-ongoing
    Description: Sales of heat pumps in Finland experienced a significant surge around the year 2,000, coinciding with the promotional efforts by the Finnish Heat Pump Association and Motiva Oy. From only a few hundred units sold annually in the 1990s, sales escalated to about 200,000 by 2022, with a cumulative total of 1,500,000 units. The popularity of geothermal heat pumps has also grown, with approximately half of new single-family houses now being heated by a geothermal heat pump.
    The installation of heat pumps received support through investment subsidies from 2006 to 2011. Additionally, since 2011, a partial tax credit for installation costs (labour cost) has been available in annual taxation for heat pumps installed in existing buildings, with some changes in the tax credit rules over time. For instance, in 2017, the deduction was set at 50% of the labour cost. 
    Alongside financial support, information dissemination has played a crucial role. Motiva Oy, in collaboration with other stakeholders, continually promotes heat pumps to enhance the energy performance of small residential buildings and encourage the use of renewable energy sources. 
    Annual monitoring of new heat pump sales figures is conducted, and the results are incorporated into the official energy statistics. The promotion of heat pumps in detached and terraced houses was outlined already in Finland's National Energy Efficiency Action Plans (NEEAPs). It is also recognised as one of the household sector measures under Finland's compliance with EED Art 7/8. Heat pumps serve as an illustration of system integration and electrification. Heat pump technology for heating has experienced substantial growth, evident in housing energy statistics, showcasing increased heat pump energy and electricity consumption. Heat pumps also have applications in generating district heating and cooling, allowing the utilisation of surplus and geothermal heat. They contribute to reducing the reliance on fossil fuels while enhancing energy efficiency compared to direct electric heating or electric boilers. Looking ahead, heat pumps are expected to become more prevalent in both individual building heating and district heating production. Potential heat sources encompass surplus heat, soil (geothermal), and air (via air/air or air/water-source heat pumps).
    According to an amendment to the Act on Excise Tax on Electricity and Certain Fuels, which entered into force at the beginning of 2022, electricity used in heat pumps and electric boilers that produce heat for district heating or cooling networks has been transferred to electricity tax category II. Lowering the electricity tax on heat pumps supports heat pump competitiveness and may partly compensate for other risks and uncertainties related to projects, such as the security of supply and investment costs.
    Energy saving impact: Data not available. Cumulative energy savings by 2030 are estimated at 20,400 GWh according to EED Article 7. The estimate covers all air pump types (geothermal, air-air, air-water and exhaust air recovery). Annual energy savings are estimated to range from 400 GWh/year in 2021 to 160 GWh/year by 2030.
    Other effects
    • Potential increase in the utilisation of waste heat and support to carbon-neutral energy systems.
    • Potential reduction of fossil-fuel use while facilitating electrification in heating buildings. Heat pumps enable heat production that is more energy efficient than direct electric heating or electric boilers.
    Cost-effectiveness: Not directly quantifiable as costs are not quantified, and, consequently, cost-effectiveness is not assessed.
    Level of spread High, as evidenced by sales figures.
    Obstacles
    • Potential high upfront costs (investment and installation) for heat pumps.
    • Possible technological barriers related to the installation and operation of heat pumps.
    Success factors
    • Information dissemination from the Finnish Heat Pump Association and Motiva Oy.
    • Subsidy first (2006–2011) and tax credit later (2011–ongoing) for the installation cost in annual taxation for heat pumps installed in existing buildings.
    • Lowering the electricity tax on heat pumps that produce heat for district heating or cooling network (2022–ongoing).
    References
    Odyssee-Mure, “Successful Measures.” Accessed: Mar. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.measures.odyssee-mure.eu/successful-efficiency-measures-tool.html#/
    ,
    Finnish Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, “Carbon neutral Finland 2035 – national climate and energy strategy,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/164323/TEM_2022_55.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

    6.2.1.3 Iceland

    Subsidy for heat pumps and geothermal district heating systems
    Duration: 2004–ongoing
    Description: Energy consumers in Iceland without access to geothermal heating rely on electricity to heat their homes, which is notably more costly than geothermal alternatives. To promote equitable living standards, the government extends subsidies to households to offset the distribution and transmission expenses associated with electric heating. Although these subsidies are significant and fully cover these costs for households utilising electric heating, they are limited to a specified maximum kilowatt-hour threshold per user. Essentially, subsidy recipients collaborate with the government to heat their homes, highlighting a mutual interest between the government and users in minimising the expenses associated with electric heating.
    Apartment owners with subsidised electric heating who wish to adopt environ­men­tally friendly energy generation and/or implement measures that lead to improved energy efficiency in heating can apply for a subsidy for heat pump installations.
    Eligible costs for the installation of heat pump systems include the following:
    • Heat pump.
    • Mounting and all additional equipment with the heat pump.
    • Material costs from electricians.
    • Piping material costs.
    • Transportation costs of the heat pump.
    • Part of the trenching and core drilling costs for the connection of the geothermal heat pump.
    The prices of heat pumps and their installation costs can vary significantly, and operational expenses may also arise. Subsidies are calculated based on equipment purchase and installation material costs, covering half of the total material cost up to a maximum of 1,337,000 Icelandic króna (ISK) (ca. 9,000 €)
    1 ISK = 0.0069 € at the time of writing
    .
    Until 2021, individuals had the option of receiving a lump sum payment for heat pump purchases and electricity expenses over a 10-year period. However, now, due to recent changes in the system, individual applicants receive payment for heat pump purchases along with a monthly subsidy. Additionally, electricity used for heating has a reduced VAT of 11% compared to the standard 24% rate for other electricity uses.
    This subsidy also funds the installation and expansion of geothermal district heating systems in areas using subsidised electricity, particularly in rural regions with potential geothermal resources.​
    Energy saving impact: Heat pumps: Since the introduction of the subsidy, energy saving has been around 11 GWh/year from 2004–2023. Geothermal district heating systems: energy savings are not quantified.
    Other effects: Reduces the government’s electricity subsidy burden.
    Cost-effectiveness
    • Heat pumps: investments totalled 393,000,000 ISK (2.7 M€), leading to a cost-effectiveness of approximately 35,000,000 ISK/GWh per year (240,000 €/GWh per year) from 2004–2023.
    • Geothermal district heating systems: investments totalled 2,250,000,000 ISK (15 M€), but without quantified energy savings, cost-effectiveness is not assessed.
    Level of spread: High for heat pumps with about 550 applications since 2009, with 180 in the last two years under the new monthly subsidy. Data for geothermal district heating systems are not available.
    Obstacles
    • Potential high upfront costs in addition to the subsidy.
    • Possible technological barriers related to the installation and operation of heat pumps.
    Success factors
    • Indirect contribution to the availability of ‘high-value’ electricity in the market by subsidising the adoption of heat pumps.
    • Offering a win-win measure, as heat pump usage reduces electricity consumption, thereby decreasing government expenses on electric heating subsidies.
    • Enhancing transparency and accessibility by making real-time savings accessible online.
    References
    Icelandic Energy Authority, “Heat Pumps.” Accessed: Apr. 02, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://orkustofnun.is/en/energy_transition/heat_pumps
    ,
    Icelandic Energy Authority, “Individuals.” Accessed: Apr. 02, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://orkustofnun.is/en/information/individuals

    6.2.1.4 Norway

    Programme for passive houses and low-energy houses
    Duration: 2010–2013
    Description: In 2010, Norway defined passive houses as buildings consuming less than half the energy of Norwegian houses, with specific criteria outlined to meet this classification. The Norwegian standards for passive houses and low-energy buildings were introduced by this programme in 2010 (NS 3700 for residential buildings) and 2011 (NS 3701 for service buildings) and established minimum requirements for heating energy demand, calculation criteria, and building components and installations.
    To meet the passive house standard, buildings must have improved insulation, better components such as windows and doors, efficient heat recovery in ventilation, and minimal air leakage compared to the minimum building code requirements. These measures, defined as passive, reduce energy needs for heating and ventilation, leading to lower energy costs. Active strategies include installing energy systems such as solar collectors or heat pumps.
    Enova’s Passive House Programme, operational from 2010 to 2013, aimed to support both new and existing buildings that adhered to passive house or low-energy building standards. This programme provided advisory services during the design phase and financial assistance per square meter for projects meeting passive house standards, encompassing both residential and service buildings. 
    The roots of Enova's Passive House programme trace back to the innovative exemplary buildings programme in 2007, which served as prototypes that demonstrated the feasibility of passive houses in Norway. Legislative changes between 2007 and 2010, alongside the development of the exemplary buildings and the Passive House programme, underscored a broader shift towards energy efficiency. 
    While initial demand for advice through this programme was modest in 2010 and 2011, interest surged in 2012 and 2013, leading to a notable increase in passive house projects. By mid-2013, it seemed that the ambitious goal of having 10% of new buildings constructed to NS 3700 and NS 3701 standards had been met.
    Energy saving impact: The energy savings from the funded projects are estimated 302 GWh/year  from 2010-2013. The experiences and changes in regulations following the programme may have led to larger savings in the building sector.
    Other effects
    • Enhanced knowledge and expertise in the construction sector.
    • Utilisation of passive houses for reputation building and marketing by project partners and building owners.
    • Integration of passive house standards into Norwegian building regulations (TEK15 and TEK17), incorporating U-values and technical requirements closer to low-energy/passive house standards.
    • Increased collaboration among contractors during the planning phase of passive house projects, leading to the exploration of new cooperation methods and technologies.
    • Greater involvement of academia experts in passive house projects compared to traditional construction projects.
    • Surge in sales of energy-efficient building products and materials, such as doors and windows.
    Cost-effectiveness: 979 MNOK (ca. 85 M€)
    1 NOK = 0.086 € at the time of writing
     was awarded to projects through applications, resulting in a cost-effectiveness of 3.2 MNOK/GWh per year or 275,000 €/GWh per year from 2010–2013.
    Level of spread: High, with the aim for 10% of new constructions and renovations to participate in the passive house programme, resulting in around 5–6 million square meters of such buildings or nearly 10% market share. From June 2010 to November 2013, 751 support applications were approved, including 182 for feasibility studies and 569 for square metre support for construction.
    Obstacles
    • Lack of expertise and experience in the construction of passive houses in the market at the programme's launch.
    • Challenges posed by initial process understanding. Enova simplified measurements with indicators but faced issues, such as difficulty in measuring reduced costs and saved energy, leading to estimation practices and a limited basis for linking indicators to programme goals.
    • Varied quality of the documentation on energy-saving effects among projects.
    • Disagreement among contractors on whether to recommend building according to the passive house standard after the programme concluded.
    Success factors
    • Connection to clear criteria/standard. The establishment of the passive house standard (NS 3700 and NS3701) gave clear criteria for performance requirements of passive houses and low-energy buildings.
    • Effective cooperation among all stakeholders and active involvement from the funding/advisory partner (e.g., Enova-hired experts) and architects.
    • Gradual increase in the expertise on passive house/low-energy buildings.
    References
    J. Røyrvik et al., “Evaluering av Enovas passivhusprogram [Evaluation of Enova’s Passive House program],” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.enova.no/upload_images/6F51B5323F0F45EEB36E9F0C926859F1.pdf
    ,
    Enova, “Project List 2012-2023 [Project List 2012-2023].” [Online]. Available: https://www.enova.no/om-enova/om-organisasjonen/prosjektliste-2012-2023/
    Programme for Best Available Technology (BAT) in existing buildings
    Duration: 2018–2021
    Description: Enova’s programme aimed to facilitate sustainable market transformation by promoting investments in energy and climate measures within existing buildings, prioritising the adoption of the BAT.
    This initiative targets investments in BAT for existing commercial or larger residential buildings, with a focus on achieving at least one of the following objectives:
    1. Reduction of energy consumption.
    2. Promotion of local renewable thermal energy production.
    3. Transition from direct electric heating to waterborne heating connected to renewable energy-based heat sources or district heating.
    Enova provided a list of predefined BAT measures for existing buildings, each with specific requirements to qualify for incentives. Examples include external wall insulation meeting a U-value ≤ 0.18 W/m2/K, upgrading to energy-efficient lighting with light control, and transitioning from direct electric room heating to hydronic heating connected to renewable energy-based heat sources or district heating, covering at least 70% of the net annual energy demand for room heating. Additionally, establishing a system for detailed energy monitoring was encouraged.
    For commercial buildings, the establishment of simplified energy management and monitoring systems (EMS) was a prerequisite for final report approval. Regarding heat pumps, measuring electricity and heat quantity was mandatory. In instances where the heat pump served multiple purposes, all energy flows had to be accurately measured.
    Support excluded measures involving air-to-air heat pumps, heating plants not owned by the building owner, and heating systems for buildings already connected to or obliged to connect to district heating networks.
    The maximum support rate varied based on the measure and company size, ranging from 30–50% of approved costs. Additionally, support could be subject to further limitations based on the measures' profitability.
    Energy saving impact: Energy savings of 65 GWh/year from the funded projects from 2018–2021.
    Other effects
    • Potential win out of the best solutions in the market and outcompeting currently off-the-shelf options. This implies a lasting market transformation and a change in market standards for rehabilitation and upgrading.
    • Potential better quality of energy upgrades by adopting the best technical solutions.
    • Minimisation of emissions and environmental effects.
    Cost-effectiveness: Approximately 370 MNOK (31 M€) was financed from 2018–2021, leading to a cost-effectiveness of 5.6 MNOK/GWh per year (480,000 €/GWh) from 2018–2021.
    Level of spread: Medium to high, with 409 projects financed from 2018–2021.
    Obstacles
    • High upfront costs, with significant initial investment required for energy-efficient measures.
    • Technical complexity of BAT adoption.
    • Resistance to change due to reluctance to deviate from traditional practices.
    Success factors: Enova motivated market players within rehabilitation, retrofits and extensions to raise energy ambitions regarding both building structures and future operations.
    References
    Enova, “Project List 2012-2023 [Project List 2012-2023].” [Online]. Available: https://www.enova.no/om-enova/om-organisasjonen/prosjektliste-2012-2023/
    ,
    Enova, “Programkriterier for Beste tilgjengelige teknologi i eksisterende bygg [Program criteria for Best Available Technology in existing buildings].” [Online]. Available: https://www.enova.no/download/?objectPath=upload_images/4EA3E794744843089BE7B174C82EF4DD.pdf&filename=3%20Programkriterier%20for%20Beste%20tilgjengelige%20teknologi%20i%20eksisterende%20bygg.pdf

    6.2.1.5 Sweden

    Programme for buildings with very low energy use (LÅGAN)
    Duration: 2010–2016 (first programme period)
    Description: To expedite market progress and achieve national objectives, Sweden's Construction Industry and the Swedish Energy Agency launched a five-year funding programme called LÅGAN, targeted at buildings with very low energy consumption. The programme aimed to stimulate energy-efficient construction, promote a national market for low-energy buildings, and foster a wide range of suppliers for such projects. The programme focused on four main areas: communication, networking, demonstration, and development. LÅGAN aimed to establish a market with a wide range of new actors offering products and services for the construction of low-energy buildings.
    1. Communication: Communication activities aimed to showcase programme initiatives to diverse stakeholders in the construction sector, including clients, contractors, designers, and small-scale builders. Utilising structured documentation and a database for low-energy buildings, these efforts facilitate comprehensive results dissemination, fostering market awareness and enabling the effective monitoring of industry trends. The programme predominantly executed communication initiatives through project-based approaches, typically initiated by the board or member group.
    2. Network: The programme achieved national collaboration through the coordi­nation of regional networks. Network projects aimed to capture ideas, exchange experiences and knowledge, and develop projects for broad dissemination in the regions. LÅGAN's network financing provided opportunities for actors who lacked prior exposure or resources to develop business opportunities in low-energy buildings. LÅGAN-supported networks were established in Umeå, Norrbotten, Southeast (Växjö), Dalarna and Värmland, Örebro, and Uppsala. Companies with both natural and financial resources participated in network projects.
    3. Demonstration: Programme demonstration projects aimed to support building initiatives for evaluation and knowledge dissemination, fostering market development and overcoming resistance to untested methods. Companies with both natural and financial resources participated in demonstration projects. To qualify for support, all building types must meet specific criteria, demonstrating energy consumption significantly below regulatory standards for both new construction and renovation.
    4. Development: Development projects encompassed collaboration among companies with sufficient natural and financial resources to develop tools for implementing low-energy buildings. Firstly, member group representatives were expected to initiate these projects; however, external interest prompted opportunities for external actors to seek support. LÅGAN's orientation aimed to stimulate the construction sector and promote the broad implementation of low-energy buildings with innovative solutions.
    From 2016 to 2019, LÅGAN operated as a national and regional cluster colla­bo­ra­tion. Since 2019, the programme has transitioned into a national network. Projects and regional collaborations are now initiated through competitive funding applications, focusing on resource-efficient buildings with low climate impact throughout their life cycle.
    Energy saving impact: Total energy savings from the programme are unquantified.
    Other effects: The programme established a national knowledge platform, actively disseminating the results from funded projects.
    Cost-effectiveness: Not directly quantifiable. The programme’s original budget amounted to 54 Swedish krona (SEK)
     1 SEK = 0.087 € at the time of writing
     (4.7 M€), with the Swedish Energy Agency financing 40%. However, industry co-financing significantly increased the total to 77 MSEK, with the agency’s contribution reduced to 28%.
    Level of spread: High, with approximately 4,000,000 m2 of low-energy buildings registered in the LÅGAN market overview from 2010–2015
    LÅGAN, “Statistics.” Accessed: Dec. 02, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://marknad.laganbygg.se/statistics
    .
    Obstacles: Resource and time-intensive administration, with the programme coordinator dedicating considerable effort to supporting project managers with both project applications and final reports. This was driven by the programme's goal to engage individuals and organisations unfamiliar with writing such documents.
    Success factors
    • Extensive communication efforts through the programme’s website and market overview, including a web-based database showcasing construction projects with low-energy consumption nationwide.
    • Programme structure that integrated the four areas of communication, networking, demonstration, and development.
    • Very high organisational and administrative standards.
    • An effective combination of concrete examples and general knowledge related to low-energy building.
    References
    T. Jansson, M. Grudin, and K. Henningsson, “Slututvärdering av Programmet för byggnader med mycket låg energianvändning (LÅGAN) [Final evaluation of the Programme for low energy buildings (LÅGAN)],” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://laganbygg.se/UserFiles/Projekt/Slutrapport_Lagan_160218.pdf
    ,
    H. Nakos Lants, M. Haegermark, and Å. Wahlström, “Omvärldseffekter kring  LÅGAN-programmet [External Effects of the LÅGAN Program],” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://laganbygg.se/UserFiles/Projekt/LAGAN_omvarldseffekter_april_2021.pdf
    HalvE More campaign (Halvera Mera)
    Duration: 2013–2017
    Description: The Swedish Energy Agency aimed to accelerate energy efficiency in the housing sector through demonstration projects, which emerged as an effective approach. To expedite progress, the agency’s procurement group for energy-efficient housing, BeBo, developed the concept of ‘Rekorderlig Renovering’ (Record-breaking Renovation). This initiative sought to conduct demonstration projects to renovate multi-family dwellings, aiming for energy performance improvements of at least 50%. To increase the number of demonstration projects in line with Rekorderlig Renovering, the ‘Halvera Mera’ (Halve More) campaigns were launched in three consecutive phases:
    First, Halvera Mera 1.0 (2013) was successful, prompting the Swedish Energy Agency to announce a new phase in 2014, Halvera Mera 2. A third round, Halvera Mera 3, ran from 2016–2017, aiming to reach more property owners and further increase the method's dissemination. 
    The campaigns’ main goal for property owners was to identify measures resulting in a halving of energy consumption in multi-family dwellings during renovation. The first Halvera Mera campaign aimed to initiate several feasibility studies (Stage 1) according to the Rekorderlig Renovation method through a grant. The purpose of the campaign was to obtain an overall picture based on many property owners, which shows that it is possible to halve energy use when renovating apartment buildings. While property owners were not explicitly required to implement some of the feasibility study’s measures (Stage 2), the intention was that the property owners would see that it was possible to implement measures in a profitable way, encouraging several of them to proceed with implementation and follow up on the results (Stage 3).
    The pre-study report adhered to a specified template, containing information on the building’s condition before renovation, a description of the examined energy measures, a presentation of calculated energy savings, and life cycle cost (LCC) analyses for selected measures. This template was gradually developed across the three Halvera Mera campaign phases to clarify how the pre-study had to be conducted and to align with BeBo's other tools as they were developed.
    The feasibility studies investigated several measures, with the most common being window replacement, additional insulation of roofs and facades, replacement of thermostatic valves, and installation of heat recovery ventilation or heat recovery ventilation with heat exchange.
    Energy saving impact: Exact energy savings were not quantified; however, the calculated average savings amounted to 80 kWh/m² per year, representing a 61% improvement in energy performance.
    Other effects
    • Identification of the technical measures with the highest energy saving potential based on real projects.
    • Recognition of varying prioritisation of measures among stakeholders and across geographical regions.
    Cost-effectiveness: Although not directly quantifiable, the campaign allocated 150,000 SEK (13,000 €) to each accepted property owner, totalling around 9,000,000 SEK for 60 owners. Additionally, the average investment cost for implemented measures was approximately 1,380 SEK per square metre or 190,000 SEK per apartment. Energy efficiency costs varied widely, ranging from 40 SEK to 8,300 SEK per square metre, depending on the included measures.
    Level of spread: Medium. After the three phases of Halvera Mera, around 60 property owners participated in the campaign, including both private and municipal sectors, as well as housing cooperatives.
    Obstacles
    • Lack of experience among property owners to conduct feasibility studies, including energy calculations and needed assumptions.
    • Initial uncertainty and knowledge gaps among property owners regarding profitability assessments.
    • Insufficiently clear templates and instructions for property owners to ensure more comparable results. In many cases, interpreting the figures has been challenging, and some reports lack complete information.
    Success factors
    • Continuous programme improvements after each phase.
    • Support for implementing the feasibility studies and quality checks, particularly in Halvera Mera 3.
    • Introduction of a tool to assess the profitability of different energy-saving measures in Halvera Mera 3.
    • Establishment of the Resource Pool, a support system specialised in the Rekorderlig Renovering methodology, offering assistance, guidance, and expertise, including technical advice and quality checks, to property owners and consultants involved in the campaign.
    • Insights gained from the investigations by the property owners, even when measures were not implemented on the studied properties.
    References
    K. Westerbjörk and E. Karlsson, “Halvera Mera 1+2+3. Analys [Halv more 1+2+3. Analysis],” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.bebostad.se/library/2365/2017_03-halvera-mera-1plus2plus3.pdf

    6.2.2 Industry sector

    6.2.2.1 Denmark

    The energy saving scheme for energy companies
    (also known as the Energy Efficiency Obligation Scheme)
    Duration: 2006–2020
    Description: In 2005, Denmark launched an ambitious initiative to enhance energy conservation by establishing energy efficiency obligations through voluntary agreements with energy companies. This initiative prompted significant legislative changes in 2006, which facilitated the implementation of four agreements with industry organizations across different energy sectors, including electricity suppliers, natural gas suppliers, electricity grid companies, natural gas distribution companies, and district heating companies. These changes were grounded in legal principles, mandating an annual energy efficiency obligation for these companies. However, in practice, the implementation occurred through agreements with the relevant sectors/companies. These agreements underwent renegotiations in 2009, 2012, and 2016 to adapt to evolving energy conservation goals and strategies.
    The scheme’s core objective was to encourage grid and distribution companies, collectively referred to as energy companies, to commit to specific targets for energy savings. Typically, these companies enlisted the expertise of external stakeholders such as craftsmen or energy advisors, to execute projects aimed at controlling energy consumption among end-users, particularly households and businesses.
    The scheme obligates energy companies to achieve an energy-saving target at the sector level. However, in practice, the scheme operated as a voluntary arrangement between energy companies and the Danish Energy Agency, allowing participating companies to have significant flexibility in defining energy-saving initiatives. Typically, energy companies provide financial assistance to help cover the costs for businesses or households implementing these measures. These subsidies could be provided directly or channelled through the entity overseeing the energy-saving activity.
    The scheme facilitated energy efficiency measures spanning households, service buildings, and industries. For instance, when a single-family household replaces an outdated gas boiler, the gas provider might offer a subsidy based on estimated annual savings per kilowatt-hour, commonly at a rate of 0.4 Danish krone (DKK)/kWh
    1 DKK = 0.13 € at the time of writing
    . The expenses for such measures were then distributed among all energy consumers.
    Upon completing energy-saving projects, energy companies provided subsidies to either the participants or the end-users involved. Additionally, they reported the achieved energy savings to the Danish Energy Agency. The costs incurred by these energy-saving measures were ultimately passed on to the customers of the energy companies through their energy bills.
    Energy saving impact: Approximately 31,000 GWh of total energy savings were achieved between 2006 and 2020 across electricity, district heating, gas, and oil sectors.
    Other effects
    • CO2 emission reductions.
    • Cost reduction for businesses undertaking energy-saving measures.
    Cost-effectiveness: While not directly quantifiable, the scheme’s annual expen­diture was limited to the following: 1,300 MDKK (174 M€) from 2013–2014 and 1,500 MDKK (200 M€) from 2015–2020. The cost target was adhered to, except in 2015, and the total costs from 2013 to 2020 were approximately 9,500 MDKK (1,200 M€). However, several household measures were deemed economically unviable, as many would have likely been pursued without the support scheme.
    Level of spread: High, with ministry estimates indicating at least 100,000 energy-saving cases annually from 2013–2015, increasing to 120,000 from 2018–2020.
    Obstacles
    • Inability to measure the energy savings within the scheme accurately.
    • Energy company audit inadequacy in ensuring agreement compliance and detecting potential misuse, as highlighted by the National Audit Office (Rigsrevisjonen).
    • Increased energy costs for users, which favoured those able to afford energy-saving measures.
    • Potential initial conflicting interests among stakeholders due to inadequate pre-scheme collaboration planning.
    Success factors
    • Annual audits and adjustments to agreements in cases of reported misuse to prevent further occurrences.
    • Annual renegotiation and adaptation of agreements to align with evolving energy conservation goals and strategies.
    • Engagement of external stakeholders such as craftsmen and energy advisors to execute energy-saving projects, ensuring specialised expertise and efficient implementation.
    • Flexibility provided to participating energy companies to develop energy-saving initiatives, enabling tailored approaches to address diverse challenges and opportunities.
    • Transparent reporting mechanisms, ensuring accurate documentation and assessment of achieved energy savings, enhancing accountability and facilitating continuous improvement efforts.
    References
    Danish Energy Agency, “Afrapportering af energispareordningen [Reporting of the energy efficiency obligation scheme],” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ens.dk/forsyning-og-forbrug/energiselskabernes-energispareindsats
    ,
    Statsrevisorene Rigsrevisionen, “Extract from Rigsrevisionen’s report on the energy efficiency obligation scheme (EEO).” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.environmental-auditing.org/media/112926/summary-english-23-2016.pdf
    ,
    Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities, “Denmark’s Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.kefm.dk/media/7095/denmarks-national-energy-and-climate-plan.pdf
    Subsidy scheme for renewable energy use in production processes
    Duration: 2013–2021
    Description: In a 2012 political agreement, the Danish Parliament set a target for renewable energy to constitute 35% of final energy consumption by 2020. However, despite this goal, favourable tax policies for fossil fuels provide little incentive for industries to transition to renewable energy. To address this issue, a subsidy programme was introduced to promote the energy-efficient utilisation of renewable energy in industrial operations.
    This scheme aimed to narrow the cost disparity between renewable energy sources and fossil fuels. State subsidies were directed towards assisting industries in shifting to renewable energy sources or district heating through several aims:
    • Substituting fossil fuels with renewable energy sources (e.g., wind, solar, biogas, and biomass) for manufacturing processes. Subsidies encompassed various forms of renewable energy, with biomass conversions being predominant. For instance, companies transitioning from coal to wood chips could benefit from the scheme. However, for electricity generation from renewables, such as wind turbines, companies had to decide between receiving investment support through the renewable energy process scheme or opting for a premium price for environmentally friendly electricity.
    • Transitioning from fossil fuels to district heating for industrial processes. For example, a greenhouse might replace its individual coal-fired plant and connect to district heating. Simultaneously, there were opportunities to optimise energy consumption processes when upgrading to a new energy supply system.
    • Investing in energy-efficient measures directly associated with the transition to renewable energy or district heating. Offering investment assistance for energy-efficient equipment ensured that supported projects achieved maximum energy efficiency. Additionally, this assistance facilitated reasonable payback periods for companies.
    • Supporting the Conversion from conventional cogeneration to biomass-based energy production. This entailed providing investment assistance to coal-fired CHP plants transitioning to biomass. These CHP plants passed on the benefits to industrial companies in the form of reduced heat prices.
    The aid was distributed to industrial companies through reduced heat prices, facilitating their transition to renewable energy sources. Companies already using district heating for industrial processes were not eligible for projects replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources.
    Energy saving impact: Exact energy savings were not quantified; however, an ex-ante analysis indicated a reduction of fossil-fuel use of approximately 4,400 GWh/year until 2020.
    Other effects
    • Reduction in CO2 emissions through renewable energy adoption.
    • Reduction in fossil-fuel dependency, with a diversification of energy mix and enhancement of energy security.
    • Innovation in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, fostering technological advancements and competitiveness in the clean energy sector.
    Cost-effectiveness: Direct cost-effectiveness was not directly quantifiable; however, the total grant allocation was 3,750 MDKK (500 M€), divided as follows: 250 MDKK in 2013 and 500 MDKK annually from 2014 until 2020.
    Level of spread: Medium. Data were unavailable.
    Obstacles
    • Market price fluctuations of renewable energy sources or competing non-renewable energy sources.
    • Comprehensive documentation required to prove the energy efficiency of the project, including the mapping of energy consumption, analysis of current and future energy (fuel) utilisation, assessment of profitable energy savings in the company's processes, and energy-conscious design of the renewable energy system.
    Success factors
    • Coverage of a wide variety of project types.
    • Provision of comprehensive guidance on the application process.
    References
    Odyssee-Mure, “Successful Measures.” Accessed: Mar. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.measures.odyssee-mure.eu/successful-efficiency-measures-tool.html#/
    ,
    Danish Energy Agency, “Vejledning til ansøgning om: Tilskud til fremme af vedvarende energi i virksomheders  produktionsprocesser [Guidelines for application for: Grant for promotion of renewable energy in companies’ production processes].” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Vejledning+til+ans%C3%B8gning+om+Tilskud+til+fremme+af+vedvarende+energi

    6.2.2.2 Finland

    Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries
    Duration: 2017–2025
    Description: The Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries is a component of the Finnish energy efficiency agreement scheme, which is applied across various sectors of the economy. The most recent agreement, signed in October 2016, spans from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2025. It supersedes the previous energy efficiency agreement covering the period from 2008 to 2016 and the energy conservation agreement spanning 1997 to 2007. The agreements ranging from 2008 to 2016 were crafted to align with the requirements of the Energy Services Directive, while those for the period spanning 2017 to 2025 consider the implementation needs of the EED. 
    The objective of this agreement is twofold: Firstly, it seeks to ensure compliance with national energy savings targets and those outlined in the EED during its implementation period from 2014 to 2020. Secondly, it aims to significantly contribute to meeting the EU’s shared energy savings target set for 2030. Further­more, the agreement sets ambitious targets for the energy usage of industry companies. By the end of 2018, it aimed to encompass at least 80% of the energy use of industry companies within its scope. In energy-intensive industries with an annual consumption of 100 GWh/year, full coverage of energy use is the objective.
    The industry sector’s agreement is integrated into the broader Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries, which also encompasses the energy industry and the private services sector.
    This agreement is comprised of three main components:
    • A framework agreement.
    • Action plans tailored for different sub-sectors or branches.
    • Accession documents.
    Companies participate in the agreement by signing a distinct Accession Document specific to the Action Plan of their respective sub-sector or branch. By doing so, they pledge to enhance their energy efficiency in accordance with the outlined actions and targets within their Action Plan. Action Plans have been developed for various branches, including energy-intensive industries, the food and drink industry, the chemical industry, the technology industry, the wood product industry, energy production, energy services, motor trades and repairs, the commerce sector, and the hotel and restaurant sector.
    Energy-intensive industries aim for a target of 7.5% energy savings by 2025, with an interim goal of 4% by 2020. Companies joining agreement set their targets for 2017–2025 and commit to implementing an energy efficiency or ISO 50001 system.
    In mid-sized industries, the target is to cover at least half of the sector’s energy use with Action Plans, aiming for a 7.5% saving by 2025 and 4% by 2020. Participants align their targets accordingly.
    Mid-sized companies from previous periods set targets of 10.5% for 2014–2025 and 7% for 2020, utilising their reported savings.
    Additionally, companies commit to continuous improvement of energy efficiency, the organisation and planning of energy efficiency activities, the implementation of energy efficiency measures, and the integration of energy efficiency considerations into planning and procurement processes. Regular monitoring, reporting, internal communication, and training are also integral aspects of their commitment.
    Monitoring and reporting on energy usage, efficiency measures, and related activities are conducted annually by agreement participants, with compiled reports aiding in the execution and monitoring of targets outlined in the Action Plans.
    Energy saving impact: Cumulative annual energy savings until 2020: 8325 GWh; 11.5 TWh/year in 2022 (all savings valid in 2022 from the period 2017–2022).
    Other effects
    • Reduction in CO2 emissions.
    • Mitigation of the national targets for increasing the use of renewable energy.
    • Improvement in Finland’s supply security, and self-sufficiency through efficient use of energy is also improved.
    • Green growth and new market possibilities for clean technology solutions.
    Cost-effectiveness: The budget for the assignment, covering most of the opera­tional costs of the agreement scheme’s administration, was approximately 1 M€ in 2017. The level was generally similar in previous years. Cost-effectiveness has not been calculated due to the lack of data on the total costs associated with the agreements.
    Level of spread: High. By 2023, 776 companies had joined the Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries. The coverage accounts for over 90% of the total energy consumption of industry.
    Obstacles: Extensive administrative work to ensure timely submission of good quality data.
    Success factors
    • Specific commitment of participants to set energy efficiency targets and implement actions accordingly.
    • Guidelines provided for energy saving calculations.
    • Robust monitoring and evaluation process, with annual reports detailing energy efficiency measures submitted to an online monitoring system.
    • Communication efforts of successful results to foster motivation and continuous improvement.
    References
    Odyssee-Mure, “Successful Measures.” Accessed: Mar. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.measures.odyssee-mure.eu/successful-efficiency-measures-tool.html#/
    ,
    Finnish Ministry of Employment and the Economy et al., “Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries.” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://energiatehokkuussopimukset2017-2025.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Energy-Efficiency-Agreement-for-Industries-2017-2025.pdf
    ,
    L. Gynther and U. Suomi, “Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries in Finland. Case study prepared by Motiva for the EPATEE project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 programme.” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://epatee.eu/sites/default/files/epatee_case_study_finland_energy_efficiency_agreement_for_industries_ok_0.pdf
    Energy Audit Programme (EAP)
    Duration: 1994–ongoing
    Description: Energy auditing has been a key energy conservation tool in Finland since 1992 and has been included in every national climate strategy since that time.
    The EAP began as a subsidy policy in 1992, became a full programme in 1993, and was implemented in 1994. It consisted of the following elements: programme administration, detailed guidelines, auditor training and authorisation, along with a monitoring system and promotion activities.
    Originally aimed at all companies, this programme is now intended only for those not subject to the mandatory energy audits required by the EED since June 2014. This has led to a consistent reduction in the number of audits.
    While the EAP is voluntary, industrial participants receive a 40% subsidy from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment.
    Implemented by the Energy Authority and operated by Motiva Oy, energy audits consist of three basic elements:
    1. Analysis of the gross energy consumption of the audited company
    2. Investigation of the potential for energy saving measures, and
    3. Reporting which includes relevant profitability calculations. Energy audits serve as a tool for company energy management and can also be integrated into a company’s environmental management system. 
    Motiva monitors the audit volumes, results, and quality of the reported energy audits. Specific energy audit models are designed for different sectors, such as industrial energy audits, industrial energy analysis, process industry energy analysis, energy inspection, building energy audits, post-acceptance energy audits, follow-up energy audits, and limited energy audits (for smaller industries). Analysis models also exist for compressed air, refrigeration, steam-condensate systems, and for power plant energy analysis. 
    Effective auditing support tools such as an auditor handbook have streamlined the auditing process, enhancing efficiency and accuracy. These tools have provided auditors with the necessary resources and guidelines to conduct comprehensive and effective audits.
    Finally, Motiva energy audits are conducted by two experts: one who specialises in HVAC and one who specialises in electrical systems. By the end of 2013, around 2,000 experts had been authorised to work as Motiva energy auditors.
    Energy saving impact: Energy saving potential identified by energy audits within the EAP from 1992 to 2004 (not including the saving potential of the process industry, which is monitored via the voluntary agreement scheme):
    • Heat: 2,807 GWh/year
    • Electricity: 557 GWh/year
    Other effects
    • Reduction in environmental impacts.
    • Enhanced competitiveness among industries that undergo energy audits to improve operational efficiency.
    Cost-effectiveness: Total costs (subsidies + audits) in the period 1992–2004: 60 M€.
    In 2014, 82% of subsidies went to industries with Energy Efficiency Agreements. However, after mandatory audits were enforced by the EED, voluntary audits plummeted. From 2018 to 2021, only 10 sites were audited, with approximately 60,000 € in subsidies.
    Potential cost-effectiveness identified by energy audits within EAP from 1992 to 2004: 60,000 €/GWh (ca. 200 M€ required investments and ca. 3,300 GWh energy savings in heat and electricity).
    Level of spread: High. The number of sites audited totalled approximately 9,800 at the end of 2014. In 2014, 82% of energy audit subsidies were given to industries participating in the Energy Efficiency Agreements, thus, confirming the strong link between the two measures. 
    Obstacles
    • Insufficient awareness among market actors regarding profitable short-term energy-saving measures.
    • Permanent authorisation granted to energy auditors, resulting in the presence of less credible auditors with no opportunity for re-evaluation.
    • Expensive and labour-intensive monitoring system.
    Success factors
    • Motiva’s proactive promotion campaign capitalised on favourable market conditions during the 1990s recession, attracting consulting companies and fostering collaboration with stakeholders.
    • Motiva’s supportive role throughout the process, coupled with sustained political backing, has ensured continuous development and effective implementation of this comprehensive programme.
    • The inclusion of effective auditing support tools and an auditor handbook, complemented by rigorous auditor training and strict quality control measures.
    • Market-driven incentives for high-quality audits incentivised auditors to uphold standards, contributing to the programme’s credibility and success, which has been meticulously monitored to track progress and ensure accountability.
    References
    Odyssee-Mure, “Successful Measures.” Accessed: Mar. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.measures.odyssee-mure.eu/successful-efficiency-measures-tool.html#/
    ,
    J. Khan, “Evaluation of the Energy Audit Programme in Finland,” Department of Evironmental and Energy Systems Studies, Lund university, 2006.

    6.2.2.3 Iceland

    Incentives for industrial energy conversion projects through the Energy Fund
    Duration: 1980–ongoing
    Description: The Icelandic Energy Fund promotes subsidies for energy conversion projects aimed at phasing out the use of fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable and environmentally friendly energy sources. The Energy Fund’s role is to bolster the efficient utilisation of the country’s energy resources through subsidies or loans, primarily targeting actions aimed at reducing fossil fuel usage and boosting the utilisation of domestic renewable energy sources. The state assumes responsibility for the fund’s obligations, with ministers vested with administrative oversight.
    The day-to-day administration of the Energy Fund is overseen by the National Energy Authority while under the supervision of the fund’s board.
    The recipients of subsidies from the Energy Fund include individuals, municipalities, and larger companies. Furthermore, the Energy Fund extends assistance to projects contributing to energy security and competitiveness in the energy sector, aligned with the energy policy, innovation policy, regional development policy, and governmental climate policies. The Energy Fund can provide subsidies up to one-third (33%) of the total project cost, excluding VAT.
    Operating as a competitive fund, the main evaluation criteria for funded projects revolve around the amount of fossil fuels that can be displaced per specific subsidy amount—a metric known as the ‘price per litre’ benchmark. Additional criteria vary depending on the nature and focus of each project undertaken by the fund, encompassing the consideration of factors such as production and service relevance, project credibility, implementation speed, and the potential for catalysing further energy transitions through similar equipment or technology.
    The fund adopts a risk-averse approach, ensuring that subsidies are only disbursed upon project completion and fulfilment of the agreement terms with the fund. The Energy Fund is committed to expediting energy transitions using proven technology, although it may support cutting-edge technology if it involves a promising market product.
    Energy saving impact: Annual oil use replaced by funded projects:
    • 2021: 42.7 GWh
    • 2022: 37.5 GWh
    • 2023: 21.1 GWh
    Other effects
    • Reduction in Iceland’s future energy costs as renewable energy sources often have lower operational and maintenance expenses compared to fossil fuels, leading to potential long-term savings for the country.
    • Reduction in CO2 emissions, helping to lower the carbon footprint of Iceland’s energy sector.
    Cost-effectiveness
    Funding amounts:
    • 2021: 914,000,000 ISK (6,300,000 €)
    • 2022: 871,000,000 ISK (6,000,000 €)
    • 2023: 469,000,000 ISK (3,200,000 €)
    Cost effectiveness of ca. 22,000,000 ISK/GWh (150,000 €/GWh) in the period 2021–2023.
    Level of spread: High, but not directly quantifiable.
    Obstacle: Connection to energy price trend. Low prices do not favour this measure.
    Success factors
    • Enhancing the availability of environmentally friendly electricity, deemed ‘high-value’ for its lower environmental impact and long-term sustainability. This availability accelerates the transition towards a cleaner energy market.
    • Transparent framework for assessing the economic viability and impact of funded projects, through evaluation criteria, such as the ‘price per litre’ benchmark for oil displacement.
    References
    Icelandic Energy Authority, “Energy Fund.” Accessed: Apr. 02, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://orkustofnun.is/en/energy_transition/energy_fund

    6.2.2.4 Norway

    Programme for climate and energy initiatives for industry
    Duration: 2012–ongoing
    Description: ‘Climate and energy initiatives for industry’ is an Enova-supported programme that aims to accelerate and broaden the transition to climate-friendly and energy-efficient solutions within the industry sector. It focuses on implementing measures to enhance energy efficiency, promote electrification, optimise waste heat utilisation, and facilitate the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.
    Projects within this programme are selected based on their cost-effectiveness, considering factors such as support per CO2 equivalent or kWh saved, or per kW, as well as their alignment with Enova's strategic priorities and potential ripple effects beyond the individual project. Priority may be given to projects offering valuable insights for future technological development, cost reduction opportunities, or those that can significantly enhance market awareness of effective solutions.
    The applicable technologies eligible for support may vary from one application period to another, and specific ranking criteria are provided within each thematic area. For projects seeking investment support, the costs should primarily be associated with physical investments, with only a small portion allocated for hours.
    In cases in which support is sought for investigations, a small proportion of costs for necessary equipment (such as meters or loggers) can be included, up to a maximum of 20% of the total costs. Generally, support is primarily granted for hours that are owned or purchased by the company.
    Companies engaged in industrial or process-related activities, with initiatives related to existing industrial production or facilities, are eligible to apply for this programme. Support can be provided to cover a portion of the additional costs associated with adopting climate- or energy-friendly solutions, or for investigating potential climate- or energy-related measures.
    The maximum percentage of support is determined based on the size of the company and the content of the project in compliance with state aid regulations. However, projects are prioritised within the available budget for each application deadline by considering overall scores that evaluate the impact per costs sought, alignment with Enova's priorities, and potential for innovation and broader effects.
    Energy saving impact: Energy saving in the period 2019–2022: 700 GWh/year. Data on energy saving missing for 20% of executed projects.
    Other effects
    • Reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions in projects aiming at increasing energy efficiency.
    • Additional reduction in CO2 emissions in projects involving electrification and transition from fossil fuels. The estimated overall effect is a reduction of 141.75 kilotons (kt) of CO2.
    • Increase in energy flexibility and reduction in the load on net capacity.
    Cost-effectiveness: Total subsidies of approximately 670 MNOK (5.7 M€), which leads to a cost-effectiveness of ca. 950,0000 NOK/GWh per year (81,000 €/GWh per year) in the period 2019–2022. However, this is not an accurate estimation, as the exact energy saving is unknown due to no data for 20% of the financed projects.
    Level of spread: High. 552 projects totally supported.
    Obstacles
    • Limited coverage of upfront costs. The fund covers only 20% of costs for necessary equipment (meters, loggers) for energy-efficiency measures.
    • Limited net capacity for projects related to electrification.
    • Limited opportunities for external use of waste heat due to few industry actors that could make use of their waste heat being located in the proximity of waste heat producers.
    • Elevated energy prices associated with renewable fuels (e.g., bioenergy) in projects centred around transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
    Success factors
    • The programme’s flexibility in supporting various types of projects and technologies.
    • Prioritisation mechanism of projects based on their cost-effectiveness.
    • Emphasis on project innovation that can lead to a broader adoption of energy- efficient solutions beyond individual projects.
    References
    Enova, “Project List 2012-2023 [Project List 2012-2023].” [Online]. Available: https://www.enova.no/om-enova/om-organisasjonen/prosjektliste-2012-2023/
    ,
    Enova, “Klima- og energisatsinger i industrien [Climate and energy initiatives for industry].” Accessed: Mar. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.enova.no/bedrift/industri-og-anlegg/klima--og-energisatsinger-i-industrien/
    Support for the introduction of energy management
    Duration: 2012–2019
    Description: This programme, led by Enova SF, aimed to support the adoption of energy management practices within Norwegian industries, with a particular focus on systematic mapping and monitoring of energy use during regular operations and light maintenance. Recognising the significant energy consumption and GHG emissions within the industry, the programme aimed to increase energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions. Key findings of this initiative revealed a general decrease in energy intensity within Norwegian mainland industries but noted an increase in the mining and oil extraction sectors.
    The programme provided guidance and helped develop tailored energy action plans for each company. These plans encompassed efficiency and transition goals, project activities, and implementation strategies. Companies were offered various options for establishing energy management practices, ranging from adhering to international standards such as NS EN ISO 50001 to simpler approaches suitable for smaller enterprises. The energy action plan typically covered the following:
    • Energy efficiency and transition goals.
    • Activities and projects contributing to goal achievement.
    • Implementation strategies for activities and projects.
    While an energy action plan was able to function independently, an energy management system relied on having an energy action plan in place. Once a company had commenced its energy action plan, it could progress toward implementing simple energy management practices. Eventually, consideration could be given to investing in certified energy management systems.
    Enova also developed specific guidelines to assist companies in assessing their energy management practices, along with providing templates for documenting energy management systems. The aim was to define a straightforward solution that was particularly suited for SMEs and energy users.
    Energy saving impact: Energy saving 2012–2019: 3,100 GWh/year. Experience showed that energy use could be reduced by approximately 10% through the implementation of energy management, with higher potential for reduction in the oil and gas industry.
    Other effects
    • Contribution to reducing CO2 emissions related to energy use, with an estimated reduction effect of 18.25 ktCO2 in 2012–2019.
    • Increase in the awareness of own energy use among companies.
    • Reduction in the energy costs of the companies.
    Cost-effectiveness: Total subsidies of approximately 220 MNOK (20 M€), leading to a cost-effectiveness of ca. 71,000 NOK/GWh per year (6,000 €/GWh per year). Introduction of energy management shown to be a cost-effective measure that allows companies to reduce energy use through inexpensive measures connected to awareness of their own energy use.
    Level of spread: High. 589 projects supported in the period 2012–2019. Since 2012, Enova has contributed to establishing energy management in over 500 Norwegian companies and assisted in building up entities capable of delivering necessary systems and services. There has also been a cautious increase in the number of Norwegian companies with ISO certification in energy management.
    Obstacles
    • Effective results require the right competence and good knowledge and systematic follow-up of a company’s own processes.
    • Need for clear endorsement and support from company management, where leadership priorities determine resource allocation, including personnel and finances.
    Success factors
    • Development of a specific guideline aimed at small and medium-sized companies, including a checklist to evaluate their status regarding various requirements in a simplified energy management system.
    • Increase in awareness within industries of the significance of energy management and rise in its adoption, regardless of ENOVA’s assistance.
    References
    Enova, “Project List 2012-2023 [Project List 2012-2023].” [Online]. Available: https://www.enova.no/om-enova/om-organisasjonen/prosjektliste-2012-2023/
    ,
    Enova, “Energiledelse er introdusert og etablert i norsk industri [Energy management is introduced and established in Norwegian industry].” Accessed: Mar. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.enova.no/om-enova/effekten-av-enova/energiledelse-er-introdusert-og-etablert-i-norsk-industri/
    ,
    Enova, “Det starter med energiledelse [It starts with energy management].” Accessed: Mar. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.enova.no/bedrift/industri-og-anlegg/tema/det-starter-med-energiledelse/

    6.2.2.5 Sweden

    Programme for energy efficiency in energy intensive industry
    Duration: 2004–2012. The last industries joined in 2012 but continued their contracts until 2017.
    Description: The Swedish PFE programme was a voluntary initiative targeting energy-intensive manufacturing industries to enhance electricity efficiency in the production process. An industry is considered energy-intensive if either energy costs constitute at least 3% of the production value, or if the combined energy, CO2, and sulphur taxes amount to at least 0.5% of the company’s added value. The programme's inception was linked to the introduction of an energy tax on electricity consumption (0.5 €/megawatt-hour (MWh)), which took effect on July 1st, 2004. Participation in the programme was voluntary, with manufacturers committing to five-year contracts. In 2004, there was a tax increase on process-related electricity use from 0 to 0.005 SEK per kWh. By enrolling in the programme, manufacturing companies would receive a tax reduction equivalent to the new tax expenses.
    The programme’s duration (five years) was divided into two periods. During the first two years, the companies had to implement and certify a standardised energy management system (EMS), conduct energy mapping and analyses of energy consumption, establish energy efficiency protocols for projections, and plan changes and renovations of their plants and for the procurement of electricity-consuming equipment. At the end of the first period, the company would commit to submitting an evaluation of the initial two years to the Swedish Energy Agency, including proposals for energy efficiency improvements. If approved by the Swedish Energy Agency, the companies would implement these measures over the next three years. By the conclusion of the second period, the companies would submit a final report, and the Swedish Energy Agency would evaluate the outcomes. Subsequently, it became possible to initiate a second five-year period.
    The incentive for participating in the programme was twofold: Firstly, the company was exempted from paying energy tax. Secondly, through measures to enhance energy efficiency, the overall cost of energy consumption was reduced.
    In 2012, the EC advised that the tax reduction available for participating companies, a crucial aspect of the programme, contravened EU rules for state aid. Consequently, the programme was gradually phased out, with no new entrants accepted after 2012. However, participants already registered for the programme were permitted to continue as scheduled until 2017.
    Energy saving impact: Energy saving of ca. 1450 GWh/year in the period 2004–2012 through electricity saving measures. The largest electricity savings occurred in the pulp and paper industry.
    Other effects
    • Increased knowledge of energy efficiency among the employees of the companies.
    • Decreased environmental impacts.
    • Experiences and results of the energy efficiency efforts can continue to be shared with other companies, that is, both with participants in the programme and with other companies.
    • Companies that ceased participating in the programme retained practices and ISO 50001 certification to a very high extent, enabling them to continue systematically working on improving their energy use.
    Cost-effectiveness: Total costs were ca. 1,000 MSEK (88 M€) in the period 2004–2009, leading to a cost-effectiveness of ca. 690,000 SEK/GWh per year (60,000 €/GWh per year). The main costs were companies’ investments into electricity saving measures and administrative costs to comply with PFE regulations.
    Level of spread: High. At the start of the programme, it was estimated that 1,150–1,300 companies were eligible to participate in PFE. Of these, 105 companies across more than 250 manufacturing sites completed a five-year programme cycle, which was more than expected.
    Obstacles
    • Lack of an overarching quantifiable performance target for the programme. Such a target would have laid the foundation for a quantitative evaluation of the socio-economic benefits of PFE. This has contributed to PFE being subject to various assessors' expectations and criticism regarding the programme's goals, means, and results.
    • Less attractive for companies with electricity consumption <100 GWh/year.
    Success factors
    • Use of a standardised energy management system defined by the programme. 
    • The programme’s overall objective of improving industrial electricity efficiency while safeguarding industrial competitiveness.
    References
    Swedish Energy Agency, “Programmet  för energi​effektivisering. Erfarenheter och resultat efter fem år med PFE [The program for energy efficiency. Experiences and results after five years with the PFE],” 2011. [Online]. Available: https://energimyndigheten.a-w2m.se/System/TemplateView.aspx?p=Arkitektkopia&id=b1b49f2d3ad6467e83dad1c60fcaced6&q=pfe&lstqty=1
    ,
    C. Stenqvist and L. J. Nilsson, “Energy efficiency in energy-intensive industries—an evaluation of the Swedish voluntary agreement PFE,” Energy Efficiency, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 225–241, May 2012, doi: 10.1007/s12053-011-9131-9.
    Energy efficiency networks for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs)
    Duration: 2015–2021
    Description: The initiative targeted SMEs and was administered by regional energy agencies and county administrative boards, receiving support from the Swedish Energy Agency. Participating companies voluntarily paid a fee to enrol in a local network, collaborating with other enterprises to commit to energy-saving measures and share insights.
    The overarching objectives aimed to nationally support SMEs across diverse industries, seeking to enhance their overall energy efficiency by 15% and reduce electricity consumption by 10%. Additionally, the project aspired to equip these companies with sufficient knowledge to sustain their focus on energy issues beyond the project's conclusion. Companies willingly shared their experiences on mutually relevant issues.
    The networks aimed to serve as a platform for the exchange of knowledge and information regarding energy efficiency. It is important to note that the financing from the Energy Agency covered only this informational aspect and did not extend to the implementation of actual measures in various industries.
    Each network included four stages:
    1. Introduction: Formalisation of the network's direction and signing of agreements.
    2. Energy assessment: Energy experts visit each company; conduct energy assessments or updates; and establish energy policies, goals, and action plans.
    3. Networking: Definition of common needs, exchange of experiences, and work on energy efficiency measures. This phase may run alongside the assessment phase and include network meetings, training, result tracking, and assistance in seeking grants.
    4. Evaluation: Utilisation of tools provided by the Swedish Energy Agency to monitor energy usage and assess the impact of implemented measures. Measures implemented might include replacing fluorescent tubes with LED lights, streamlining ventilation in the heavy production line, or digitising the company.
    Examples of established networks:
    • ENIG network, established in 2009, aimed for a 5% annual reduction in energy consumption for participating SMEs by 2015, focusing on manufacturing techniques. It later transitioned to commercialise the findings after the planned funding conclusion.
    • EESI, founded in 2010, targeted a 20% reduction in specific energy use in sawmills by 2020 through mapping and modelling.
    • Project GeniAl aimed to demonstrate a 25% reduction in energy use in the aluminium sector by 2020 compared to 2005, focusing on implementing energy-efficient measures.
    • JoSEn research projects, funded by the Swedish Energy Agency from 2013 to 2017, aimed to promote energy efficiency in steel-producing companies in collaboration with Jernkontoret.
    Energy saving impact: Energy saving not quantified. By the beginning of 2021, participating companies reported an average energy efficiency improvement of 14% and a 14.2% increase in electricity use efficiency. In Halland County, the participating companies managed to reduce energy use by one-fifth on average.
    Other effects: Continuous cooperation, which persisted after the end of the programme, had an impact on overall energy efficiency developments in Swedish industry.
    Cost-effectiveness: Not directly quantifiable. Costs of the programme are not quantified and, consequently, cost-effectiveness is not assessable. The plastic and rubber manufacturer, National Sweden, in Halmstad generated the largest savings in the county and has reduced its energy costs by almost one MSEK per year.
    Level of spread: High. 288 companies in 34 networks have implemented 2,274 energy efficiency measures.
    Obstacles
    • Lack of time and staff resources to work continuously within the networks.
    • Varying levels of engagement among participants, with some promptly initiating work while others hesitated due to uncertainties about the effec­tiveness of measures and challenges in prioritising energy efficiency efforts.
    Success factors
    • Advantages derived from conducting the energy audits. Companies started monitoring oil and electricity consumption, allowing them to pinpoint potential areas for savings based on the audits.
    • Increased awareness of the excessive energy use among the companies through network participation. They acquired knowledge on operating production equipment more efficiently, thereby reducing energy loss during machine shutdowns, for example.
    • Reduction of companies’ costs and increased competitiveness.
    • Improved network of contacts and increased understanding between companies, energy agencies, county administrative boards, and the Swedish Energy Agency.
    References
    Odyssee-Mure, “Successful Measures.” Accessed: Mar. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.measures.odyssee-mure.eu/successful-efficiency-measures-tool.html#/
    ,
    S. Paramonova and P. Thollander, “Energy-efficiency networks for SMEs: Learning from the Swedish experience,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 65, pp. 295–307, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.088.


    Nordic Energy Research I www.norden.org/publications I pub@norden.org