Evaluation of Mitigation / Adaptation nge policy ... Romania.pdfmitigation/adaptation policy...

PPRROOMMIITTHHEEAASS –– 44

KKnnoowwlleeddggee ttrraannssffeerr aanndd rreesseeaarrcchh nneeeeddss ffoorr pprreeppaarriinngg

mmiittiiggaattiioonn//aaddaappttaattiioonn ppoolliiccyy ppoorrttffoolliiooss

((CCoonnttrraacctt NNoo.. 226655118822))

EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ooff

MMiittiiggaattiioonn // AAddaappttaattiioonn

nnggee ppoolliiccyy ppoorrttffoolliiooss ffoorr

RRoommaanniiaa

Author: Anca BARDICI, Camelia VASILE, Mihaela PISLARU, Irina VODA

Institute for Studies and Power Engineering Bucharest – ISPE SA

Co-authors: Dr. Popi KONIDARI, Anna FLESSA M.Sc., Eleni-Danai MAVRAKI M.Sc.

Energy Policy and Development Centre

Bucharest, 2013

PROMITHEAS-4: “Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”

2


3

This document is part of the relevant report prepared for the FP7 funded project

“PROMITHEAS-4: Knowledge transfer and research needs for preparing

mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”, coordinated by Prof. Dimitrios MAVRAKIS,

Energy Policy and Development Centre (Greece). The whole report contains twelve

(12) documents for each one of the emerging economies that participate in the

project: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova,

Romania, Russia, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine.


4


5

CCOONNTTEENNTTSS

Contents.........................................................................................................................5

List of Tables .................................................................................................................5

List of Figures ...............................................................................................................5

Abbreviations.................................................................................................................7

Assessment of the three developed scenarios for Romania, through the multi -

criteria method AMS.....................................................................................................9

General comments............................................................................................................... 9

Required data ...................................................................................................................... 9

Assignment of grades ........................................................................................................ 10

Results ................................................................................................................................ 19

References.......................................................................................................................... 21

Conclusions .................................................................................................................22

LLIISSTT OOFF TTAABBLLEESS

Table 10: Total emissions for the country. _____________________________________________9 Table 11: Emissions per sector for the country. _________________________________________9 Table 12: Other environmental effects for the country under each scenario. ________________10 Table 13: Water Use.______________________________________________________________10 Table 14: Mean CEI for each sector depending on the policy instruments of the BAU scenario. 12 Table 15: Mean CEI for each sector depending on the selected policy instruments. __________13 Table 16: Mean CEI for each sector depending on the selected policy instruments. __________15 Table 17: Overall cost efficiency for the three scenarios._________________________________17 Table 18: Equity measurement. _____________________________________________________17 Table 19: AMS results for each scenario. _____________________________________________20

LLIISSTT OOFF FFIIGGUURREESS

Figure 44: Initial settings for the three scenarios in ClimAMS-2012._______________________10 Figure 45: Grades for the first criterion and its sub-criteria. _____________________________11 Figure 46: Grades for political acceptability. __________________________________________18 Figure 47: Grades for feasibility of implementation. ____________________________________19 Figure 48: Scenarios prioritization. __________________________________________________20


6


7

AABBBBRREEVVIIAATTIIOONNSS Abbreviation Full name

AAU Assigned Amount Unit

ANRE Romanian Energy Regulatory Authority

ANPM National Environmental Protection Agency

BAU Business As Usual

CCS Carbon Capture and Storage

CER Certified Emission Reductions

CHP Combined Heat and Power

EC European Commission

EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery

ERU Emission Reduction Unit

ESCO Energy Service COmpanies

EUA European Allowance

EU - ETS European Union Emission Trading Scheme

EU European Union

GC Green Certificate

GEO Government Emergency Ordinance

GD Government Decision

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GIS Green Investment Scheme

GWh Gigawatthour

IMF International Monetary Fund

ISPE Institute for Studies and Power Engineering

JI Joint Implementation

LCP Large Combustion Plant

LEAP Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning

MEF Ministry of Environment and Forests

MW Megawatts

NAP National Allocation Plan

NAPEE National Action Plan on Energy Efficiency

NER New Entrance Reserve

NC National Communication

NIP National Investment Plan

NPP Nuclear Power Plants

NREAP National Renewable Energy Action Plan

OPCOM Commercial Operator of Romanian Electricity Market

OPT Optimistic

PES Pessimistic

PI Policy Instrument

PM Policy Mixes

RES Renewable Energy Sources

RES-e Electricity produced by RES

ROBOR Romanian Interbank Offer Rate

STI State Construction Inspectorate

T&D Transmission and Distribution

TOE Tons oil equivalent

UN United Nations

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change


8


9

AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT OOFF TTHHEE TTHHRREEEE DDEEVVEELLOOPPEEDD SSCCEENNAARRIIOOSS FFOORR

RROOMMAANNIIAA,, TTHHRROOUUGGHH TTHHEE MMUULLTTII -- CCRRIITTEERRIIAA MMEETTHHOODD AAMMSS

GGeenneerraall ccoommmmeennttss

Each scenario was assessed for its performance under the criteria/sub-criteria of the AMS

method which is the combination of three standard multi-criteria methods: the Analytical

Hierarchy Process (AHP), the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) and the Simple Multi-

Attribute Ranking Technique (SMART) (Konidari and Mavrakis, 2007; 2006). AMS is

developed for evaluating climate Policy Instruments (PI) or relevant Policy Mixes (PM) and

with suitable modification for evaluating their interactions as well.

RReeqquuiirreedd ddaattaa

The LEAP provides the following outcomes for all three scenarios:

Table 1: Total emissions for the country.

Total GHG emissions (in MtCO2eq) Scenario 2000 2020 2050

BAU 81,66 91,23 163,24

Opt 81,66 75,21 163,79

Pes 81,66 85,72 155,45

Table 2: Emissions per sector for the country.

Scenario GHG emissions (in MtCO2eq)

Households

2000 2020 2050

BAU 7,53 9,27 23,36

Opt 7,53 8,37 22,30

Pes 7,53 8,93 22,94

Agriculture

BAU 0,85 1,13 2,51

Opt 0,85 1,12 2,50

Pes 0,85 1,12 2,50

Services

BAU 1,75 3,44 7,64

Opt 1,75 3,34 7,54

Pes 1,75 3,40 7,60

Industry

BAU 18,41 16,54 36,78

Opt 18,41 13,98 34,01

Pes 18,41 15,60 35,84

Transport

BAU 9,31 17,06 37,94

Opt 9,31 15,91 36,60

Pes 9,31 16,90 37,77

Electricity generation

BAU 29,46 31,95 42,62

Opt 29,46 20,64 48,45

Pes 29,46 27,93 36,40


10

Table 3: Other environmental effects for the country under each scenario.

Scenario Thousand Metric Tonnes CO2 eq

2000 2020 2050

Environmental effects (Carbon Monoxide (CO)- Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)- Non Methane

Volatile Organic Compounds- Sulfur Dioxide)

BAU 29748,48 32294,90 43063,38

Opt 29748,48 20870,26 48939,85

Pes 29748,48 28259,94 36783,44

Table 4: Water Use.

Billion m3 Scenario

2000 2020 2050

Households

BAU 1,106 0,689 0,689

Opt 1,106 0,761 1,026

Pes 1,106 0,724 0,841

Agriculture

BAU 0,046 0,056 0,056

Opt 0,046 0,056 0,056

Pes 0,046 0,056 0,056

Industry

BAU 0,246 0,235 0,235

Opt 0,246 0,247 0,287

Pes 0,246 0,240 0,254

AAssssiiggnnmmeenntt ooff ggrraaddeess

The software ClimAMS-2012 is used (Figure 44) for the evaluation of the scenarios.

Figure 1: Initial settings for the three scenarios in ClimAMS-2012.


11

Criterion 1: Environmental performance

The following grades in MAUT scale are calculated using the software ClimaAMS-2012

for:

the first sub-criterion “Direct contribution to GHG emission reductions” and the

outcome of LEAP for the total expected GHG emission of the country in year 2020

(Table 12). The scenario with the fewer amounts of emissions has the best

performance for this sub-criterion.

The second sub-criterion “Indirect environmental effects” and the total amount of the

total environmental effects provided by LEAP (Table 14).

Figure 2: Grades for the first criterion and its sub-criteria.

Criterion 2: Political acceptability

Each scenario was evaluated against each of the five sub-criteria of this criterion.

For cost efficiency, the MAUT procedure was used again. The scenario with the lowest costs

is the most cost effective one and receives grade 100.

The LEAP model cannot provide comparable outcomes. For the evaluation of the scenarios

under this sub-criterion a Cost Efficient Index was used. Each policy instrument is assigned a

value (Cost Efficient Index) that demonstrates its financial ability in pseudo-monetary units to

deliver one unit of the requested benefit (one tonne of reductions of CO2 emissions, one

gained square meter of forest land, one cubic meter of gained water etc).

For the first sub-criterion the mean CEI for each sector was calculated depending on the

policy instruments of each scenario. Each value was multiplied with the respective amount of

GHG emission reductions that were estimated by LEAP outcomes. In the case of Romania,

there were no GHG emission reductions compared to year 2000. For, this reason the BAU

scenario was used as the reference point, since the other two scenarios have GHG emission

reductions compared to BAU. The GHG emission reductions of OPT and PES compared to

the GHG emissions of BAU per sector were calculated and multiplied by the respective CEI

(Tables 14 and 15). Results are presented in Table 16.

This methodology was adopted since Romania has the obligation to increase its emissions

compared to the base year 1990. Therefore, emissions in 2020 for any of the three scenarios

were expected to be higher compared to 2000. The efforts of mitigating climate change are

reflected to any achieved GHG emission reductions compared to the BAU scenario.


12

Table 5: Mean CEI for each sector depending on the policy instruments of the BAU scenario.

Mitigation

Scen. Sector Technological options Policy instrument CEI Mean CEI

Building isolation requirements (Order 18/2009) -1,5

Subsidy (Order 18/2009) -0,25

Thermal insulation


Energy efficient buildings Performance standards ( i)Requirements; ii) Certificates of

building energy performance; iii)energy audits (Law 372/2005 –

Ordinance 22/2008)

-5,75

Solar water systems/air conditioning Energy efficient appliances (Law 372/2005) -2,5

Households

Hot water, lighting, heating Energy efficient appliances (Order 69/2010) -2,5

(-1,5-0,25-0,25-5,75-2,5-

2,5)/6 = -2,125


building energy performance; iii) energy audits (Ordinance

22/2008)

-5,75

Best available technologies Combined standards (performance, technological or design

standards) (GEO 40/2010 – Law 205/2010)

-3,75

Industry

Energy efficiency Tradable permits (Law 554/2006, GD 60/2008, Law 126/2008) -0,5

(-5,75-3,75-0,5)/3 = -3,33

Energy efficient buildings Performance standards (i)Requirements; ii) Certificates of

building energy performance; energy audits (Law 372/2005 -

Ordinance 22/2008)

-5,75 Service


(-5,75-2,5)/2 =-4,125

Transport - - - -

High efficiency cogeneration Subsidy (Bonus scheme) (Law 219/2007) -0,25

Promotion of RES Tradable permits (Green certificates – Economic policy

instruments) (Law 220/2008)

-0,75



-0,5

Energy


(-0,25-0,75-0,5-0,5)/4= -0,5

BA

U

Waste

management



-0,5 -0,5


13

Adaptation

Water

management

Regulations - Planning Command and control -1/6

Table 6: Mean CEI for each sector depending on the selected policy instruments.

Mitigation




Thermal insulation




Ordinance 22/2008)

-5,75



Households

Energy performance of appliances Labelling appliances – Performance standards (GD 217/2012) -2,5

(-1,5-0,25-0,25-5,75-2,5-

2,5-2,5)/7 = -6.25/7= -2,180



22/2008)

-5,75



-3,75

Industry


(-5,75-3,75-0,5)/3 = -3,33



Ordinance 22/2008)

-5,75

OP

T

Service


(-5,75-2,5)/2 =-4,125


14

Energy efficiency of

vehicles/transportation

Performance standards (transport management) (Proposed 0,5

Energy efficient vehicles Performance standards (Proposed) -1,75

Biofuels Fuel switch (Proposed) 0,25

Fuel quality Fuel quality standards (Proposed) -0,5

Transport

Energy efficient transportation Behavior change (Proposed) -0,25

(0,5-1,75+0,25-0,5-0,25/5=

-0,35




-0,75



-0,5

Energy


(-0,25-0,75-0,5-0,5)/4=-0,5

Waste

management



-0,5 -0,5

Adaptation

Command and control -1/6 Water

management

Regulations - Planning

Awareness campaign (Proposed) -1/6

-1/6

Forests Management Command and control (Proposed) -1/6 -1/6


15

Table 7: Mean CEI for each sector depending on the selected policy instruments.

Mitigation




Thermal insulation




Ordinance 22/2008)

-5,75



Households

Energy performance of appliances Labelling appliances – Performance standards (GD 217/2012) -2,5

(-1,5-0,25-0,25-5,75-2,5-

2,5-2,5)/7 = -6.25/7= -2,180



22/2008)

-5,75



-3,75

Industry


(-5,75-3,75-0,5)/3 = -3,33



Ordinance 22/2008)

-5,75 Service


(-5,75-2,5)/2 =-4,125

Energy efficiency of

vehicles/transportation

Performance standards (transport management) (Proposed +0,5

Biofuels Fuel switch (Proposed) +0,25

Transport

Fuel quality Fuel quality standards (Proposed) -0,5

(0,5+0,25-0,5)/3= +0,25


PE

S

Energy



-0,75

(-0,25-0,75-0,5-0,5)/4=-0,5


16



-0,5


Waste

management



-0,5 -0,5

Adaptation

Water

management

Regulations - Planning Command and control -1/6 -1/6


17

Table 8: Overall cost efficiency for the three scenarios. Mitigation and Adaptation costs (pesdomonetary units)

Scen. Households Industry Services Transport Energy

Total

M A M A M A M A M A

BAU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Opt -1,962 -0,058 -8,525 0 -0,413 0 -0,403 0 -5,655 0 -17,014

Pes -0,741 -0.064 -3,130 -0,01 -0,165 0 +0,04 0 -2,01 0 -6,071

For dynamic cost efficiency, there are no direct, available data from the LEAP model so the

SMART procedure will be used.

For dynamic cost efficiency – technological improvements are encouraged. RES technologies

no others that the usual ones are promoted. Hydro is already a mature technology for the

country. In all three scenarios RES technologies are promoted. Only in Opt there is promotion

for nuclear, gas and coal technologies. The assigned grades are: BAU – 4, Opt – 7, Pes – 4.

For competitiveness there are no available results from LEAP, therefore the SMART

procedure was used and grades were assigned.

For competitiveness – In the Opt scenario the policy regarding the energy efficiency and the

technical improvements lead to the increase of productivity level.

As for attracting investors in JI the country offers opportunities. The assigned grades were:

BAU – 5, Opt – 7, Pes - 5.

For equity the grades were assigned with the MAUT procedure based on the outcomes from

the LEAP model.

For equity – Since one of the sectors that participate is the Household sector which does not

contribute to the GDP of the country the respective ratio cannot be used. Taking into

consideration the need to compare the scenarios under a regional level the ratio GHG

emission reductions in MtCO2eq to capita is calculated for each scenario. The larger the ratio

is the fairer is the scenario in sharing the burden among the sectors. In the Opt scenario

almost all sectors participate except for the service sector in contributing to emission

reductions.

Table 9: Equity measurement.

Scenario Total amount of GHG

emissions (MtCO2eq) in

2020

Reductions

compared to

emissions of BAU

in year 2020

(MtCO2eq)

Population in

2020

Million people

Ratio reductions

tCO2eq per capita

BAU 91,23 0 20,9 0

Opt 75,21 16,02 20,9 0,766

Pes 85,72 5,01 20,9 0,263

For flexibility the grades was assigned with the SMART procedure. The assessment was

based on information coming from the national report of Romania for PROMITHEAS-4

project.

For flexibility the scenarios are compared towards the incentives and the options that they

offer to target groups. The Opt scenario offers more options (financial subsidies, loans with

low interest rate) compared to the other two ones. The scenarios were evaluated by assessing

the following grades: for BAU – 5, for Opt – 6 and for Pes – 5.

For stringency for non-compliance and non-participation the SMART procedure was used

again.


18

For stringency for non-compliance, the scenarios do not foresee penalties, fees on any other

sanctions. The scenarios were evaluated by assessing to the grade 4.

Figure 3: Grades for political acceptability.

Criterion 3: Feasibility of implementation

For the third sub-criterion financial feasibility the assignment of grades followed the

SMART procedure.

For the implementation network capacity, the all scenarios have a good performance.

The existing implementation network provides the necessary information for climate change

policy issues in Romania. For the first sub-criterion - implementation network capacity the

grades 7 for BAU, 9 for Opt and 8 for Pes were assigned to the scenarios.

The implementation network has the capacity to implement the policies because has the good

trained personnel and also the appropriate technological infrastructure.

There are official reports regarding climate change policy issues for Romania. These reports

are updated regularly. For the - Romanian Energy Regulatory Authority the last annual

report available is for 20111.

The web-sites are friendly and the information is directly accessible.

The following entities form the Romanian implementation network:

- Ministry of Economy, Trade and Business Environment2;

- Ministry of Environment and Forests3;

- National Environmental Protection Agency4;

- Natural Agency of Mineral Resources5;

- Romanian Energy Regulatory Authority 6;

1 http://www.anre.ro/informatii.php?id=1114 2 http://www.minind.ro/ 3 www.mmediu.ro/ 4 www.anpm.ro 5 www.anrm.ro


19

- Romanian Transmission and System Operator - Transelectrica7.

For administrative feasibility, the scenarios have a poor performance. For Administrative

feasibility sub-criterion the grades 5, 5 and 5 are assigned to the scenarios because

bureaucratic procedures are still numerous.

For financial feasibility, the scenarios have again poor performance. The country has limited

incentives for the existing policy instruments. Foreign investments for climate change policy

projects can become significant revenue for the government so as to proceed with a better

monitoring, management and support towards relevant issues. The current policy portfolio

does not perform well under this sub-criterion. The introduction of a levy and a better policy

framework for JI projects may improve the situation. This is more likely to happen under the

Opt scenario. The grades are: BAU – 5, Opt – 7, Pes – 5.

Figure 4: Grades for feasibility of implementation.

RReessuullttss

The results for each scenario are presented in Table 17.

6 www.anre.ro 7 www.transelectrica.ro


20

Figure 5: Scenarios prioritization.

Table 10: AMS results for each scenario.

Scenarios Criteria

BAU Opt Pes

Direct contribution to GHG emission reductions (0,833) 0 83,300 28,651

Indirect environmental effects (0,167) 0 16,700 5.899

Environmental performance (0,168) - A 0 100,00 34,549

Cost efficiency (0,474) 0 47,300 16,878

Dynamic cost efficiency (0,183) 3,029 12,141 3,029

Competitiveness (0,085) 1,885 4,731 1,885

Equity (0,175) 0 17,500 6,008

Flexibility (0,051) 1.395 2,210 1,395

Stringency for non-compliance (0,032) 1,133 1,133 1,133

Political acceptability (0,738) - B 7,442 85,015 30,329

Implementation network capacity (0,309) 6,065 15,225 9,610

Administrative feasibility (0,581) 19,367 19,367 19,367

Financial feasibility (0,110) 2,439 6,122 2,439

Feasibility of implementation (0,094) - C 27,871 40,713 31,416

Total (A+B+C) 8,571 83,368 31,140

The results for each scenario are presented in Table 17. The final grades demonstrate which

of the three M/A policy portfolios has the better performance in responding to the climate

change needs of the country taking into consideration the national framework.

The Opt scenario has a better environmental outcomes compared to the other two, higher

feasibility of implementation, but performs inadequately in the Political acceptability.


21

RReeffeerreenncceess

1. Evaluating policy options for increasing the RES-E penetration in Greece, Harry D.

Kambezidis, Barbara Kasselouri , Popi Konidari, www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

2. A multi-criteria evaluation method for climate change mitigation policy instruments

Popi Konidari, Dimitrios Mavrakis, www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

3. Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Climate Policy Interactions, POPI KONIDARI and

DIMITRIOSMAVRAKIS, JOURNAL OF MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS

4. The AMS software, available on the E-class Platform of the Promitheas -4 Project: “Knowledge

transfer and research needs for preparing mitigation/adaptation policy portfolios”,

http://www.promitheasnet.kepa.uoa.gr/eclass/index.php?logout=yes

5. Nair Gireesh, Mahapatra Krushna, 2011. Policy instruments to promote building energy efficiency

from an end-user point of view. ECEEE 2011, Summer Study – Energy efficiency First: The

foundation of a low-carbon society.

6. Park Cheol-Woo, Kwon Kye-Si, Kim Wook-Bae, Min Byung-Kwon, Park Sung-Jun, Sung In-Ha,

Yoon Young Sik, Lee Kyung-Soo, Lee Jong-Hang and Seok Jongwon, 2009. Energy Consumption

Reduction Technology in Manufacturing – A selective Review of Policies, Standards, and Research.

International Journal of Precision Engineering and manufacturing, Vol. 10, No.5, pp. 151-173.

7. European Commission, 2008. DIRECTIVE 2008/101/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include

aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the

Community. Available at: http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:008:0003:0021:EN:PDF

8. Sumner Jenny, Bird Lori, and Smith Hillary, 2009. Carbon Taxes: A Review of Experience and

Policy Design Considerations. Prepared under Task No. SAO9.2034. Available at:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47312.pdf

9. Economic Policy Committee, 2008

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences/energy2011nov/doc/session5/joyce_euroace_long_v

ersion_2011_11_30.ppt#27

10. ECN, 1999. Energy efficiency Action Plan – Policy Action Plan for Promotion of End-Use Energy

Efficiency in the Czech Republic to 2010. Available at:

http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/1999/c99065.pdf


22

CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONNSS

In this report, the authors developed three Mitigation / Adaptation climate change policy

scenarios for Romania and assessed them.

The result of the assessment presents the best policy portfolio for Romania, in terms of

achieving the national 2020 targets: 20% emission reductions (base year 1989), 19% increase

of the energy efficiency (base year 2005) and 24% share of RES in the final energy

consumption.

The three developed scenarios, named Business as Usual (BAU), Optimistic (OPT) and

Pessimistic (PES) have the characteristics described below:

BAU scenario

The BAU scenario concerns the time evolution of the already implemented mitigation and

adaptation policy instruments in Romania, until the year 2050 and serves as the reference

against which the outcomes of the other scenarios are compared.

The currently implemented Romanian mitigation policy has three main components: i)

penetration of RES in the national energy mix, ii) support to increase energy efficiency; iii)

GHG emission reductions through JI, GIS and EU-ETS. Concerning the adaptation policy, the

main instrument is the preliminary assessment of flood risks and the respective prevention

measures, if needed.

OPT scenario

The Optimistic scenario concerns the time evolution of an enhanced mitigation /

adaptation policy portfolio that Romania will implement during the time interval 2011 –

2050. This enhanced policy portfolio takes into account the policy instruments adopted after

1st January 2011 as well as plans for the country and supports: i) the introduction of efficient

technologies in almost all sectors targeting to the maximum reduction of GHG emissions

through the maximum exploitation of the potential of the country in energy efficiency and

renewable energy sources and ii) the necessary infrastructure for the adaptation of the

country towards the minimum – in size and extent – expected climate change impacts.

This policy portfolio includes a more supportive policy framework for RES compared to

that of BAU through the new Energy Law, additional policy instruments for encouraging

energy efficiency (energy performance standards of buildings, energy labeling of energy-

related products) and for promoting the use of biofuels in the transport and agricultural

sectors. Emission trading through the EU-ETs and JI is promoted further, while policy

instruments for promoting carbon capture and storage technologies are considered. Policy

instruments for water and forest management are also part of this policy portfolio.

PES scenario

The Pessimistic scenario concerns the time evolution of a mitigation / adaptation policy

portfolio that the country will implement up to 2050. It is structured by: i) the

mitigation/adaptation policy instruments that the country has set into force after 1st January

2011; ii) no other additional policy instruments apart from those already decided to be

implemented and in line with the EU climate change policy; the EU policy instruments will

be adjusted to the needs and priorities of the examined country and iii) the minimum

exploitation of the potential of Romania in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources

by limiting the possible technological options only to the energy and transport sector and to

wind and hydropower. These are the sectors with the highest potential in energy efficiency

and these are the most promising for the country types of RES.

For this policy portfolio the introduction of additional policy instruments compared to BAU

is restricted only to the transport sector and to a fewer number compared to the OPT scenario.

As for adaptation only the already implemented Flood Directive is included.


23

Outcomes of LEAP model

Energy demand in year 2020 showed that the OPT scenario will have lower levels than the

Pessimistic, while the BAU will have the highest. The same order is observed in the

Transformation branch and for the GHG emissions of the sectors.

Regarding the Romanian 2020 targets: i) the 8% GHG emissions reduction is hardly

achieved8, even with the OPT scenario; ii) the share of RES in the final energy consumption

reaches a 17,7% which is the same for all three scenarios; iii) for the increase in energy

efficiency the BAU scenario stands out with 9,4%, the PES with 14,9%, while OPT is

surpassing the target by achieving 25,5%, against the 19% of the target.

The OPT scenario continuously presented the best – in terms of mitigation policy - energy

demand results, followed by the PES and leaving the BAU with the highest and worse.

Assessment outcomes 9

The three scenarios (BAU, OPT and PES) were assessed with the AMS multicriteria

method, against three criteria: i. environmental performance (amount of GHG emissions and

secondary environmental effects); ii. political acceptability (attitude of the involved entities –

target groups) and iii. feasibility of implementation (applicability of the policy portfolio from

the point of the governmental and national pertinent entities).

Under the first criterion, OPT received the highest mark even if the GHG emission

reduction target is not fully achieved because this policy portfolio is closer in achieving the

national commitments when compared to the other two.

Under the second criterion, the OPT scenario was by far the policy portfolio with the higher

performance in political acceptability compared to the other two. OPT offers financial

benefits and handles fairer target groups, supports innovative technologies and methods

compared to the other two policy mixtures. However, all scenarios score low in stringency for

non-compliance and in flexibility, since they do not include the necessary rules and

influencing mechanisms for transgressors.

Under the third criterion, OPT appears to have a more capable implementation network

able to provide the necessary information of the respective policy instruments, to handle

sufficient the administrative matters and with adequate financial means for its

implementation. ,

In this report, the component of adaptation in climate change policy is not fully developed

since the country hasn’t set an adequate framework to reduce its vulnerability to climate

change. Moreover, the design and assessment of relevant policy instruments require data

related with the frequency of extreme events, water resources and use, low-income groups,

biodiversity, the health sector, etc., which are not available at the moment.

Concluding with the assessment process the OPT policy portfolio is the best to achieve the

climate change targets of Romania for year 2020. The BAU scenario does not achieve

sufficiently the Romanian national targets, while the PES scenario although it reaches the

targets it is has less political acceptability and more difficulties to be implemented compared

to the OPT scenario.

8 2000 is considered the base year in this report, since data were not available before this year. 9 The assessment outcomes depend on the level of expertise of the person who makes the assessment, as well as

the degree of justification concerning the sub-criteria.

Evaluation of Mitigation / Adaptation nge policy ... Romania.pdfmitigation/adaptation policy...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of Mitigation / Adaptation nge policy ... Romania.pdfmitigation/adaptation policy...