Go to content

8. Transferability of successful energy efficiency initiatives across the Nordics

In this chapter, we explore the successful initiatives within the building and industry sectors in each Nordic country, as detailed in Chapter 6, focusing on their potential for transferability and adaptability to other Nordic countries. The objective was to assess how easily these initiatives could be duplicated or implemented in different contexts or locations. High replicability potential indicates that the measures can be successfully adapted to various settings, with consideration of factors such as technology scalability, ease of implementation, and infrastructure compatibility.
Transferability refers to the potential for initiatives to be adopted and effectively implemented in diverse geographical, political, and economic contexts. Sharing successful models among Nordic countries and beyond can accelerate responses to energy and climate challenges. However, each country’s unique characteristics influence the success of these initiatives, which must be adapted to local conditions with respect to infrastructure, regulations, cultural attitudes, and economic structures. This underscores the importance of tailoring best practices to local contexts rather than simply replicating them.
A workshop was held on May 27, 2024, gathering several experts from Nordic countries who shared their ideas and observations on the transferability and adaptability of energy efficiency and climate change mitigation initiatives among the Nordic countries. During the workshop, participants engaged in discussions, exchanged valuable insights, and identified strategies for effectively implementing and customising selected initiatives across borders. 
Table 20 illustrates a summary of all the initiatives discussed during the workshop.
Table 20. Overview of all assessed initiatives.
No.
Initiative's title
Sector
Initiative's original country
1
Window energy labelling
Buildings
Denmark
2
Minimum requirement targets for energy saving for new and existing buildings
Buildings
Denmark
3
Property and Building Sector Energy Efficiency Agreement and HÖYLÄ IV
Buildings
Finland
4
Promotion of heat pumps
Buildings
Finland
5
Subsidy for heat pumps and geothermal district heating systems
Buildings
Iceland
6
Programme for passive houses and low-energy houses
Buildings
Norway
7
Programme for best available technology (BAT) in existing buildings
Buildings
Norway
8
Programme for buildings with very low energy use (LÅGAN)
Buildings
Sweden
9
Halve More campaign (Halvera Mera)
Buildings
Sweden
10
The energy saving scheme for energy companies
Industry
Denmark
11
Subsidy scheme for renewable energy use in production processes
Industry
Denmark
12
Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries
Industry
Finland
13
Energy Audit Programme (EAP)
Industry
Finland
14
Incentives for industrial energy conversion projects through the Energy Fund
Industry
Iceland
15
Programme for climate and energy initiatives for industry
Industry
Norway
16
Support for the introduction of energy management
Industry
Norway
17
Programme for energy efficiency in energy-intensive industry (PFE)
Industry
Sweden
18
Energy efficiency networks for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
Industry
Sweden

8.1 Assessing transferability of successful initiatives

The workshop consisted of two group sessions. In the first group session, workshop participants were divided into two main groups to discuss two sets of initiatives. One group focused on initiatives related to the building sector, while the other concentrated on those pertaining to the industry sector.
Participants were tasked with sorting the initiatives based on their potential cost-effectiveness and scalability (their possible transferability to other countries). While the focus was on scalability, cost-effectiveness was also included as an attribute to encourage participants to discuss the initiatives in a broader context and to increase their familiarity with the details of each initiative.

8.1.1 Building sector

The building-related initiatives identified as successful in different Nordic countries, as outlined in Chapter 6, are further discussed below in terms of potential cost-effectiveness and transferability.
1. Denmark: Window energy labelling
This initiative was rated as possessing medium-high scalability and medium-high cost-effectiveness. It is a market-driven initiative that has elevated all new window products to the A-level rating, which represents the highest energy standard. However, it has also resulted in overheating problems in new buildings. The initiative might therefore be expanded to include shading systems.
2. Denmark: Minimum requirement targets for energy saving for new and existing buildings
This initiative was rated as possessing high scalability and medium-high cost-effectiveness. However, it was noted that cost-effectiveness is not necessarily the same for building owners as it is for society. Furthermore, while achieving a high insulation level is beneficial for energy conservation, it can inadvertently lead to overheating and increased cooling loads and material use. Notably, minimum requirements differ between new and existing buildings, which is advantageous but not common in all Nordic countries.
3. Finland: Property and Building Sector Energy Efficiency Agreement and HÖYLÄ IV
This initiative was rated as possessing medium-low scalability but medium-high cost-effectiveness. HÖYLÄ IV has been historically effective, especially in phasing out oil heating, but its future impact may be limited as oil heating declines. Energy efficiency agreements for the property and building sector focus on the rental market segment, which remains highly relevant for sustainability efforts, although their widespread adoption faces challenges. They could complement other policies such as the EPBD in national implementations, which requires a robust public-private partnership and high trust levels for replication, which can be challenging, particularly when establishing similar initiatives from scratch.
4. Finland: Promotion of heat pumps         
This initiative was rated as possessing medium-high scalability and medium-high cost-effectiveness. It was observed that the cost-efficiency of heat pumps depends on proper system design, installation, and maintenance. Furthermore, while individual homeowners may see variable cost-efficiency, a broader energy system perspective, including effects on flexibility and peak demand, generally shows reduced costs.
5. Iceland: Subsidy for heat pumps and geothermal district heating systems             
This initiative was rated as possessing medium-low scalability and medium cost-effectiveness. It was noted that Iceland presents a special case where heat pumps are more expensive than district heating systems. Individual households might see varying levels of cost-efficiency, but from a broader energy system perspective given the unique geothermal resources available, the integration of these systems typically results in optimised overall costs and energy utilisation.
6. Norway: Programme for passive houses and low-energy houses
This initiative was rated as possessing medium scalability and medium-low cost-effectiveness. It was emphasised that there should be a focus on both the building envelope and HVAC systems in this kind of initiative. While the type of programme is beneficial, the topic is considered outdated for most countries, highlighting the need for more advanced and innovative approaches in the current global context.
7. Norway: Programme for BAT in existing buildings
This initiative was rated as possessing low scalability and low cost-effectiveness. It was noted that being the first mover in such initiatives can be expensive, but it is necessary for societal advancement. The importance of adopting cutting-edge technologies in existing buildings to drive long-term benefits was emphasised, despite the initial high costs.
8. Sweden: Programme for buildings with very low energy use (LÅGAN)                 
This initiative was rated as possessing high scalability and medium cost-effectiveness. The effects of the programme are well-documented, demonstrating its impact on reducing energy consumption in buildings. By promoting the construction of buildings with very low energy use, the programme provides a proven model for achieving significant energy savings across a wide range of applications.
9. Sweden: Halve More campaign (Halvera Mera)           
This initiative was rated as possessing high scalability and medium cost-effectiveness. The effects of the programme are well-documented. It focused exclusively on apartments, with a goal of reducing energy use by 50%. Therefore, the scope was rather limited, but it could be extended to include more building categories.
Table 21 summarises the main findings from the discussion on building-related initiatives during the first group session of the workshop. It focuses on the potential transferability of each initiative to other Nordic countries and the factors to consider. 
Table 21. Transferability assessment of building-related initiatives.
No.
Initiative
Transferability potential
What to consider?
1
Denmark:
Window energy labelling
Medium-high
  • Applicable in other Nordic countries with established market-driven frameworks.
  • Overheating issues may require additional measures such as shading systems in similar climates.
  • Potential challenges in harmonising labelling standards.
2
Denmark:
Minimum requirement targets for energy saving for new and existing buildings
High
  • Different requirements for new and existing buildings are beneficial for all countries.
  • High insulation requirements may need adaptations to prevent overheating.
  • Varied cost-effectiveness can influence policy adoption.
3
Finland:
Property and Building Sector Energy Efficiency Agreement and HÖYLÄ IV
Medium-low
  • Requires high levels of public-private partnership and trust, which might be difficult to establish from the beginning.
  • Relevant to rental markets, which vary significantly across countries.
  • May complement existing policies such as the EPBD implemented at national level.
4
Finland:
Promotion of heat pumps
Medium-high
  • Effective system design, installation, and maintenance are critical for success.
  • Cost-efficiency varies, but a broader energy perspective makes it generally beneficial.
  • Can be integrated with existing energy policies and incentives in all countries.
5
Iceland:
Subsidy for heat pumps and geothermal district heating systems
Medium-low
  • Iceland’s unique geothermal resources make direct transfer challenging.
  • Other countries with geothermal potential could adapt similar models.
  • Cost-efficiency for households varies, but overall energy system benefits are significant.
6
Norway:
Programme for passive houses and low-energy houses
Medium
  • Focus on building envelope and HVAC systems is universally relevant.
  • Considered outdated in many countries; more advanced goals and approaches are needed.
  • Provides a foundation for evolving toward more innovative energy-efficient building standards.
7
Norway:
Programme for BAT in existing buildings
Low
  • High initial costs for adopting cutting-edge technologies may deter adoption.
  • Essential for long-term societal benefits and technological advancement.
  • Potentially beneficial for countries seeking to lead in energy efficiency innovation.
8
Sweden:
Programme for buildings with very low energy use (LÅGAN)
High
  • Proven model for achieving significant energy savings, adaptable to various climates.
  • Detailed documentation aids in replication.
  • Can serve as a benchmark for setting national energy efficiency standards.
9
Sweden:
Halve More campaign (Halvera Mera)
High
  • Focus on reducing energy use by 50% in apartments can be expanded to other building types.
  • Well-documented results facilitate adaptation.
  • Potential for significant impact if integrated into broader national energy policies.

8.1.2 Industry sector

The industry-related initiatives identified as successful in different Nordic countries, as outlined in Chapter 6, are further discussed in terms of potential cost-effectiveness and transferability in this sub-chapter.
10. Denmark: The energy saving scheme for energy companies
This initiative was rated as possessing high scalability and high cost-effectiveness. The scheme has been adopted by 18 EU countries outside the Nordics. It has proven to be particularly cost-effective in SMEs rather than large industries. In Finland, the scheme was considered expensive and labour-intensive, leading the country to choose an alternative approach. Norway also evaluated the scheme but decided against its adoption.                     
11. Denmark: Subsidy scheme for renewable energy use in production processes      
This initiative, rated as possessing high scalability and medium-low cost-effectiveness, provides subsidies to promote the use of renewable energy in production processes alongside energy efficiency measures. Despite its medium-low cost-effectiveness, its high scalability suggests significant potential for widespread adoption across various industries. By incentivising the transition to renewable energy, the scheme supports Denmark’s goals of environmental sustainability and energy efficiency.
12. Finland: Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries
This initiative was rated as possessing high cost-effectiveness and medium-low scalability. It involves agreements aimed at enhancing energy efficiency in industries, boasting low transaction costs. Participants benefit from improved subsidy levels. While challenging to implement from scratch, it is comparatively easier in the Nordics.​                             
13. Finland: Energy Audit Programme
This initiative was rated as possessing high scalability but medium-low cost-effectiveness. It currently primarily targets SMEs and municipalities, after the implementation of compulsory audits for large industries. The programme has always involved subsidies. However, there may be considerations regarding the distribution of costs between the public and private sectors.
14. Iceland: Incentives for industrial energy conversion projects through the Energy Fund
This initiative was rated as possessing medium-high scalability and medium-high cost-effectiveness. This programme aims to encourage industries to adopt more sustainable energy practices, thereby reducing reliance on fossil fuels. It aligns with the overarching goals of the Nordics to enhance energy efficiency and promote environmental sustainability within the industrial sector.
15. Norway: Programme for climate and energy initiatives for industry
This initiative was rated as possessing medium-high scalability and medium cost-effectiveness. The programme is characterised by a certain degree of flexibility, accommodating various deadlines and objectives tailored to industry needs. While comprehensive, it addresses both broad and specific challenges, often tailored to the Norwegian context, ensuring relevance and effectiveness in promoting sustainable practices within the industrial sector.
16. Norway: Support for the introduction of energy management          
This initiative was rated as possessing high cost-effectiveness and medium-high scalability. This initiative plays a crucial role in promoting energy management practices, which prove highly cost-effective for larger companies, offering numerous benefits at relatively low costs. While energy management is currently a mandatory requirement for large industrial energy consumers under the EED, it can also be beneficial for SMEs.
17. Sweden: Programme for energy efficiency in energy intensive industry (PFE)
This initiative was rated as possessing medium cost-effectiveness and medium-high scalability. While the initiative facilitates high energy savings that may occur naturally, companies may incur significant costs. However, the programme's structure is highly transferable to other Nordic countries. Notably, the networking aspect of the programme was highly appreciated, suggesting its potential for easy transfer to similar initiatives in other regions.
18. Sweden: Energy efficiency networks for SMEs
This initiative was rated as possessing medium cost-effectiveness and high scalability. This programme aims to foster collaboration and knowledge-sharing among SMEs to enhance energy efficiency practices, offering a scalable solution that can be easily replicated across various industries and regions.
Table 22 summarises the main findings from the discussion on industry-related initiatives during the first group session of the workshop. It focuses on the potential transferability of each initiative to other Nordic countries and the factors to consider.
Table 22. Transferability assessment of industry-related initiatives.
No.
Initiative
Transferability potential
What to consider?
1
Denmark: The energy saving scheme for energy companies
High
  • Highly replicable, given its adoption by 18 EU countries outside the Nordics.
  • Proven cost-effectiveness in SMEs.
  • Consideration of alternative approaches due to perceived expense and labour-intensity in some countries, such as Finland.
2
Denmark: Subsidy scheme for renew­able energy use in production processes
High
  • High scalability across various industries.
  • Aligns with Nordic goals of environmental sustainability and energy efficiency.
3
Finland: Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries
Medium
  • Low implementation costs by the government.
  • Improved subsidy levels for participants.
  • Possible challenges when implementing from scratch.
4
Finland: Energy Audit Programme (EAP)
Medium-High
  • Subsidies involved, but with cost distribution between public and private sectors.
  • Alignment with local energy efficiency goals and economic conditions.
5
Iceland: Incentives for industrial energy conversion projects through the Energy Fund
Medium-High
  • Alignment with the overarching goals of the Nordics.
  • Specific energy transition needs and challenges, which differ across the Nordic countries.
6
Norway: Programme for climate and energy initiatives for industry
Medium-High
  • Flexibility to accommodate various industry needs.
  • Tailored approach addressing both broad and specific challenges.
7
Norway: Support for the introduction of energy management
High
  • Mandatory requirement for large industrial energy consumers under the EED.
  • Potential benefits for SMEs.
8
Sweden: Programme for energy efficiency in energy-intensive industry (PFE)
Medium-High
  • High scalability and transferability to other Nordic countries.
  • Networking aspect facilitates easy replication in similar initiatives in other regions.
9
Sweden: Energy efficiency networks for SMEs
High
  • Fosters collaboration and knowledge-sharing among SMEs.
  • High scalability and potential for easy replication across various industries and regions.

8.2 Examples of initiatives’ adapta­bility across the Nordic region

In the second group session of the workshop, participants were divided into groups representing their home countries. This session consisted of two tasks.
In the first task, each country group was asked to sort the initiatives from the other Nordic countries for both the building and industry sectors based on relevance (importance or need) to their own country on a scale (low to high).
In the second task, the country groups were asked to select two or more initiatives (at least one each for the building and industry sectors) among the most relevant initiatives selected in task 1 and investigate the potential for transferability by reflecting on crucial adaption challenges and specific technical measures needed for adaption in the local context.

8.2.1 Task 1: Sorting initiatives by relevance

Each country group sorted the initiatives from the other countries for both the building and industry sectors based on their relevance (importance or need) to their own country.
In Denmark, certain technologies such as heat pumps (Initiative 4 – Promotion of heat pumps) are already well-promoted. However, initiatives based on subsidies (Initiative 5 – Subsidy for heat pumps and geothermal district heating systems; Initiative 7 – Programme for BAT in existing buildings; Initiative 11 – Subsidy scheme for renewable energy use in production processes; and Initiative 14 – Incentives for industrial energy conversion projects through the Energy Fund) are considered ineffective and faces general reluctance.
Meanwhile, the Faroe Islands emphasised the importance of integrating specific initiatives into their national building codes (Initiative 6 – Programme for passive houses and low-energy houses and Initiative 7 – Programme for BAT in Existing Buildings). Additionally, certain initiatives, such as Initiative 4, have already been implemented in the Faroe Islands, and others, such as Initiative 5, necessitate prior heat supply planning. This region faces a unique challenge due to the presence of only one electricity utility and district heating company, rendering Initiative 10 (The energy saving scheme for energy companies) ineffective.
Finland recognised most of the initiatives as either already implemented or similarly developed. The country boasts a high level of energy efficiency but acknowledges the potential of specific initiatives, such as Initiative 9 (Halve More campaign), to further enhance its energy policies in the building renovation sector. Furthermore, Initiative 17 (Programme for energy efficiency in energy intensive industry) and Initiative 18 (Energy efficiency networks for SMEs) were noted for their potential to strengthen networking, particularly among SMEs.
Iceland did not identify initiatives that rely on voluntary agreements, such as Initiative 12 (Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries), as particularly effective, preferring mandatory regulations. Currently, Initiative 1 (Window energy labelling) and Initiative 11 (Subsidy scheme for renewable energy use in production processes) are actively implemented, whereas Initiative 3 (Property and Building Sector Energy Efficiency Agreement and HÖYLÄ IV) is less favoured in Iceland due to low energy prices and specific natural conditions.
Norway recognised the importance of initiatives such as Initiative 1 (Window energy labelling) and Initiative 2 (Minimum requirement targets for energy saving in new and existing buildings) for their alternative requirements for existing buildings and windows. However, Initiative 3 (Property and Building Sector Energy Efficiency Agreement and HÖYLÄ IV) and Initiative 5 (Subsidy for heat pumps and geothermal district heating systems) were not regarded as relevant due to Norwegian bans on oil-heated properties and the lack of geothermal heating in the country. Initiative 9 (Halve More campaign) was considered outdated and uninteresting. Initiative 10 (The energy saving scheme for energy companies) and Initiative 12 (Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries) were regarded as relevant since Norway lacks industry-level energy efficiency targets. Due to Norway’s focus on electrification and biofuels, Initiative 11 (Subsidy scheme for renewable energy use in production processes) and Initiative 14 (Energy fund for industrial energy conversion) were noted as less relevant. Norway regarded Initiative 13 (Energy Audit Programme) as interesting, as it could extend the need for energy audits to smaller companies that are not covered by the EED commitment.
Sweden, meanwhile, balances established programmes with the need for innovation. While Initiative 6 (Programme for passive houses and low-energy houses) may overlap with existing Swedish programmes, it remains vital for piloting new technologies. Non-technological approaches to building energy efficiency (Initiative 9 – Halve More campaign) are prioritised to maintain neutrality in technological choices. The relevance of Initiative 11 (Subsidy scheme for renewable energy use in production processes) was questioned due to extensive renewable energy use in Swedish industries. Initiative 13 (Energy Audit Programme) presents opportunities for enhanced monitoring and evaluation practices, whereas Initiative 15 (Programme for climate and energy initiatives for industry) has similarly already been implemented in Sweden.
In summation, the primary motivations shared by all the countries for scoring initiatives with the lowest relevance to their own countries are as follows:
  • Effectiveness: Some initiatives are perceived as ineffective or irrelevant due to existing advancements, in which similar outcomes have already been achieved through current technologies, policies, or practices. For instance, Denmark questions the impact of initiatives relying on subsidies, reflecting its doubts about their effectiveness. Similarly, Norway’s emphasis on electrification and biofuels diminishes the relevance of initiatives targeting fossil fuel switching. Additionally, several initiatives are already well-established across various countries.
  • Regulatory and market fit: The alignment of initiatives with national building codes and regulatory frameworks is crucial. For instance, the Faroe Islands prioritise integrating initiatives into their building codes, highlighting the importance of regulatory compliance for effective implementation, while Norway cites regulatory bans on oil-heated properties as a factor that impacts the relevance of some initiatives.
  • Technological and infrastructure constraints: Countries may lack the necessary technological infrastructure or face unique challenges for the implementation of certain initiatives. For instance, Norway notes that the national scarcity of geothermal district heating affects the feasibility of some initiatives.
  • National policy alignment: Initiatives may not align with national policy priorities or may address outdated topics. For example, Iceland favours mandatory regulations over voluntary agreements, while Norway believes that Initiative 9 addresses an outdated topic.
  • Industry-specific issues: Specific industries within countries may not find certain initiatives applicable or beneficial. For instance, Sweden questions the relevance of Initiative 11, as its industries already make extensive use of renewable energy.
  • Implementation and monitoring challenges: Concerns about implementation feasibility and monitoring effectiveness also play a role. For instance, Norway considers Initiative 13 intriguing as it contributes to extending energy audits; at the same time, it notes challenges in its implementation for smaller companies.

8.2.2 Task 2: Relevant initiatives for each Nordic country

8.2.2.1 Relevant initiatives for Denmark

Two key initiatives were chosen for the building sector
Initiative 8 – Sweden’s LÅGAN programme
Needed adaptations: The Danish adaptation of the LÅGAN programme requires a sharper definition of the activities it promotes. Specifically, it is crucial to focus on well-defined, impactful activities and remove smaller projects to ensure that the programme delivers additional benefits rather than duplicating existing efforts.
Challenges: One of the main challenges is the current national shifting focus towards industrial projects rather than residential buildings. This trend favours larger, more significant projects, which can be more complex to implement. Such a shift is not unique to Denmark; it is also observed in other countries such as France, Ireland, and Italy.
Additional comments: The LÅGAN programme in Sweden bears similarities to Initiative 10 – Denmark’s energy-saving scheme for energy companies, which has been successfully replicated in more than 13 European countries. This suggests that a well-defined, impactful programme can have significant positive effects and can serve as a model for other countries.
Initiative 4 – Finland’s Promotion of heat pumps
Challenges: The primary challenge in promoting heat pumps, particularly air-to-water heat pumps, is their high cost. This cost barrier can limit widespread adoption, making it essential to find ways to make these technologies more affordable or provide sufficient financial incentives.
Additional comments: In Denmark, heat pumps are already recognised and promoted through legislative measures. However, this Finnish initiative offers valuable insights, especially in terms of effective promotional strategies and incentives that can be adopted to enhance the existing Danish efforts. Learnings from Finland’s approach can help address some of the financial and practical challenges faced in Denmark.
Two key initiatives were chosen for the industry sector
Initiative 18 – Sweden’s energy efficiency networks for SMEs
Needed adaptations: To effectively implement this initiative in Denmark, a secretariat will need to be established to manage the network, or alternatively, regional funding will be required to support its operations.
Challenges: Encouraging participation among SMEs can be challenging due to limited resources within the target group. Additionally, ensuring a favourable cost-benefit ratio is crucial to justify the investments required for the related efficiency measures.
Initiative 13 – Finland’s Energy Audit Programme
Needed adaptations: The Danish version of this programme should have a primary focus on SMEs. This involves customising the programme’s structure and content further to better suit the scale, resources, and operational realities of SMEs in Denmark.
Technical measures: Implementing an automated system to collect data from the audits would enhance efficiency and accuracy, making the process more manageable and informative.
Additional comments: While energy audits are primarily aimed at larger companies under the EED, adapting them for SMEs can provide substantial benefits by addressing the specific needs and constraints of smaller enterprises. 

8.2.2.2 Relevant initiatives for the Faroe Islands

Two key initiatives were chosen for the industry sector
Initiative 18 – Sweden’s energy efficiency networks for SMEs
Needed adaptations: To effectively implement this initiative in Denmark, a secretariat will need to be established to manage the network, or alternatively, regional funding will be required to support its operations.
Challenges: Encouraging participation among SMEs can be challenging due to limited resources within the target group. Additionally, ensuring a favourable cost-benefit ratio is crucial to justify the investments required for the related efficiency measures.
Initiative 13 – Finland’s Energy Audit Programme
Needed adaptations: The Danish version of this programme should have a primary focus on SMEs. This involves customising the programme’s structure and content further to better suit the scale, resources, and operational realities of SMEs in Denmark.
Technical measures: Implementing an automated system to collect data from the audits would enhance efficiency and accuracy, making the process more manageable and informative.
Additional comments: While energy audits are primarily aimed at larger companies under the EED, adapting them for SMEs can provide substantial benefits by addressing the specific needs and constraints of smaller enterprises.

8.2.2.3 Relevant Initiatives for Finland

Two key initiatives were chosen for the building sector
Initiative 7 – Norway’s Programme for BAT in existing buildings
Needed adaptations: Both technical measures and improvements to design and installation guidelines need to be adapted to better implement modern heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, such as smart controls and heat pumps.
Challenges: Currently, it is politically impossible to introduce any new subsidies, limiting the financial support available for implementing these measures.
Technical measures: Measures that can be considered in this initiative include heat pumps, renewable energy sources, smart control and system integration, operation, and maintenance.
Additional comments: This initiative is strongly connected to behavioural matters, such as demand response, where energy consumption is adjusted based on supply conditions. Effective implementation requires educating occupants and operators about these systems and their benefits. Furthermore, Finland already boasts a good level of energy efficiency; thus, a programme focusing on the best available technology would be instrumental in advancing energy efficiency even further.
Initiative 8 – Sweden’s LÅGAN programme
Needed adaptations: The current energy efficiency goals sets a strict standard for energy efficiency measures. Sweden’s programme content needs to be adapted to the current situation, including the integration of net-zero energy buildings.
Challenges: Busy schedules and individual requirements of each operator can make it challenging to find time for collaborative system-level development.
Additional comments: Education, development, communication, and collaboration remain paramount and highly valued in Finland. Developing skills and know-how is crucial, especially when aiming to achieve higher energy efficiency levels. 
Two key initiatives were chosen for the industry sector
Initiative 18 – Sweden’s energy efficiency networks for SMEs
Needed adaptations: Strengthening networking within voluntary agreements, especially among SMEs, is essential. It requires fostering trust among participants and in the facilitator to provide opportunities for collaboration and information-sharing.
Challenges: Ensuring openness among competitors can be challenging within these networks. Additionally, utilising waste heat effectively often requires finding external demand for it, which can be logistically challenging.
Technical measures: Various cooling technologies, compressed air or steam systems, and heat recovery solutions, basically any industrial processes, could be considered in this initiative.
Additional comments: Trust is vital for fostering successful collaboration within these networks. Finland has already implemented multiple voluntary energy efficiency agreements, some of which involve smaller companies. Strengthening networking within these agreements, particularly among SMEs, could yield significant benefits.
Initiative 17 – Sweden’s programme for energy efficiency in energy intensive industry (PFE)
Needed adaptations: Finland’s voluntary energy efficiency agreements can be investigated further to determine if insights from the PFE can be integrated into the next generation of agreements.
Challenges: Each new generation of energy efficiency agreements must address the latest EU regulation updates and requirements. Ensuring compliance with EU directives while minimising the administrative burden of documentation and reporting is crucial. However, combining previously implemented schemes with new initiatives can be challenging.
Additional comments: Finland has provided training and technical support to participants in energy efficiency agreements, aiding in monitoring and reporting energy use and conducting savings calculations. Moreover, subsidies have been incorporated, instead of tax rebates, in voluntary agreements, further incentivising participation and cooperation. 

8.2.2.4 Relevant initiatives for Iceland

One key initiative was chosen for the building sector
Initiative 6 – Norway’s programme for passive houses and low-energy houses
Needed adaptations: The ambitions of this initiative need to be adjusted to fit Iceland’s unique energy landscape, particularly the low energy prices and extensive use of geothermal energy in the country. Adaptation should ensure that energy efficiency measures are both economically viable and environmentally beneficial.
Challenges: The primary challenge lies in the current knowledge gap in the industry regarding energy efficiency. However, this gap is closing rapidly as awareness and expertise grow.
Technical measures: Measures that can be included in this initiative are insulated and airtight building envelopes, heat pumps, geothermal heating systems, energy monitoring systems, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, and smart control for heating and cooling.
Two key initiatives were chosen for the industry sector
Initiative 17 – Sweden’s programme for energy efficiency in energy intensive industry (PFE)
Needed adaptations: The energy contracts managed by the National Power Company of Iceland, Landsvirkjun, may need revision to ensure the effectiveness of this initiative in Iceland. These revisions can include introducing incentives for increased energy efficiency, even in a landscape dominated by renewable energy sources.
Challenges: Significant challenges include low energy prices and rigid energy contracts, which diminish the industry’s incentive to save energy. This diminished motivation can primarily be attributed to the fact that the energy in question is renewable, which leads to the perception of a lower need for efficiency improvements.
Technical measures: Measures that can be considered in this initiative are waste heat recovery for industrial processes, process optimisation, equipment upgrades and retrofits, and combined heat and power for electricity.
Initiative 18 – Sweden’s energy efficiency networks for SMEs
Needed adaptations: It may be necessary to establish regional coordinators to facilitate the creation and management of energy efficiency networks in order to implement this initiative in Iceland. This can involve providing training and resources to ensure the effective participation of SMEs.
Challenges: One of the key challenges is the geographic dispersion and varying sizes of SMEs across Iceland, which might necessitate tailored approaches to effectively bring these enterprises into energy efficiency networks. Additionally, there may be a need for initial funding or subsidies to encourage participation.
Additional comments: This initiative is particularly relevant for Iceland, where collaboration and knowledge sharing are vital due to its small market size and limited resources. By creating networks for SMEs, Iceland can enhance its overall energy efficiency through shared expertise and coordinated efforts. 

8.2.2.5 Relevant initiatives for Norway

Two key initiatives were chosen for the building sector
Initiative 2 – Denmark’s window energy labelling
Needed adaptations: This initiative assesses solar gains and U-value, and the standards of assessment must be adjusted for Norwegian conditions, such as outdoor temperatures and solar conditions. The revision should also include setting minimum requirements for sales.
Challenges: Managing solar gains in new, well-insulated buildings to prevent increased cooling needs is crucial. Ensuring compliance through audits and control, updating requirements, and refining the calculation method to reflect expected energy losses are some key challenges.
Additional comments: Similar to energy labels for appliances, the window energy label could incorporate additional parameters like shading and control for customer information. Deciding whether labels should be calculated by the manufacturer, or a third party is also essential.
Initiative 3 – Finland’s Property and Building Sector Energy Efficiency Agreement (excluding Höylä IV)
Needed adaptations: National targets for energy savings in the commercial sector and rental housing market must be established. Focusing on renewables is less relevant for Norway; instead, emphasis should be placed on energy efficiency, management of peak loads, and energy prices.
Challenges: Ensuring compliance through audits and controls, as well as attracting participation from property owners in a voluntary programme, can be challenging. Cost considerations also pose significant challenges.
Additional comments: Only this initiative was considered for potential transferability to Norway. Höylä IV was excluded due to the national ban on oil-heated properties since 2020. Few initiatives currently target rental properties in Norway. In addition, subsidies through the national electricity price support scheme (Strømstøtteordning) can be explored.
Two key initiatives were chosen for the industry sector
Initiative 12 – Finland’s Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries
Needed adaptations: Implementation of national-level energy efficiency targets specific to the industrial sector is crucial.
Challenges: Establishing clear guidelines to define and calculate energy efficiency metrics within the industry is critical. In this regard, NVE was commissioned in 2023 to define energy efficiency key performance indicators (KPIs) across all industry sectors.
Technical measures: Comprehensive oversight of energy use and process data is necessary. Infrastructure expansion may be required to enable the effective external utilisation of surplus heat, such as through district heating networks.
Additional comments: Standardised guidelines for defining energy efficiency KPIs across various sectors are essential to facilitate comparisons of measures across industries.
Initiative 18 – Sweden’s energy efficiency networks for SMEs
Needed adaptations: The concept is robust, with no significant adaptations required for the Norwegian context.
Challenges: A primary barrier is the reluctance of enterprises to share sensitive process data and information outside their respective industries.
Technical measures: Additional infrastructure may be needed to support efficient resource exchange among participating enterprises.
 Additional comments: Implementation involves creating relevant networks at different organisational levels, whether at a regional or industry-specific level. Shared infrastructures and joint investments are essential to fostering collaborative energy efficiency initiatives. Key goals of this initiative include the following:
  1. Facilitating the exchange of critical information, such as residues and waste heat available from one company that could benefit another
  2. Sharing experiences and best practices on successful energy efficiency measures implemented by participating enterprises

8.2.2.6 Relevant initiatives for Sweden

Two key initiatives were chosen for the building sector
Initiative 1 – Denmark’s Minimum Requirement Targets for Energy Saving in New and Existing buildings
Needed adaptations: Minimum energy performance standards for existing buildings are currently not established in Sweden, necessitating significant efforts to introduce these requirements.
Challenges: Implementation challenges include the absence of such requirements in Sweden’s current regulatory landscape and the need for developing these requirements from scratch.
Technical measures: The initiative is technology-neutral, focusing solely on energy targets or performance metrics.
Additional comments: It is assumed the programme will align with the updated EPBD requirements, rather than the specific levels set in the Danish initiative.
Initiative 3 – Finland’s Property and Building Sector Energy Efficiency Agreement and HÖYLÄ IV
Needed adaptations: No specific adaptations were identified.
Challenges: Collaboration is necessary to co-create solutions with a diverse and influential stakeholder group.
Additional comments: This initiative holds significant potential across social, economic, environmental, and organisational dimensions, despite targeting a relatively minor market sector. It is particularly relevant due to current market inefficiencies in the building sector.
One key initiative was chosen for the industry sector
Initiative 16 – Norway’s Support for the introduction of energy management
Needed adaptations: As this programme closely aligns with Sweden’s Energy Step Programme, no specific adjustments are required.
Challenges: Budget priorities and political changes may pose challenges to maintaining alignment with national and international targets.
Technical measures: In line with Sweden’s objective of being technology-neutral, the initiative should primarily focus on energy targets or performance criteria.
Additional comments: This initiative mirrors aspects of Sweden’s Energy Step Programme, providing familiarity and potential synergies in energy management practices.
Nordic Energy Research I www.norden.org/publications I pub@norden.org