Abstract
The Portuguese energy efficiency programs are usually run through grant awards that support energy efficient technologies, which require the establishment of rational investment plans considering distinct budget level inputs to each program. The current evaluation of energy efficiency programs mainly relies on the economic analysis of demand-side programs and projects. One of the weaknesses of this type of approach is that it cannot capture the complexities of decision-making processes, mainly relying on the device costs targeted for funding. This paper aims at developing a methodological framework to support public authorities in investment planning for energy efficiency programs based on portfolio theory explicitly considering the energy spent in the manufacturing and installation of each energy efficient technology. The applicability of the methodology herein proposed is illustrated by considering the potential investment in distinct portfolios of industrial lighting systems. Finally, a new solution methodology for computing possibly efficient solutions is also suggested which allows exploring distinct types of investment strategies, according to the public investor’s preferences. Our findings suggest that LED lamps and T5 technologies should be considered as a valid option for replacing T8 and HPS technologies. Additionally, despite the investment cost involved in the installation of light control systems, they should be elected for funding. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the substitution of T8 and Halogen lamps with LED lamps has never been considered with the modelling framework used in spite of being effectively selected for public support, highlighting the need of adopting approaches that encompass a life-cycle perspective.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A solution is “possibly” efficient to an interval MOLP problem if it is efficient for at least one feasible combination of the objective function coefficients.
Available at: http://www.wiod.org/.
The computation of the net present value of costs of energy savings should theoretically include the forecast of energy prices. Nevertheless, in practice this is difficult to predict since energy prices fluctuate at unexpected rate.
A highly conservative strategy assumes that the DM is more risk averse, being more concerned with risk than return. Hence, a higher weight is given to the attainment of the risk ideal target than to the return ideal target (i.e. \(\updelta_{1} = \partial_{1}\) = 0.8 and \(\delta_{2} = \partial_{2}\) = 0.2, respectively). Furthermore, coefficients are considered to be closer to a worst case scenario, i.e. \(\lambda_{1}\) = φi \(\eta_{i} = 0. 8\), for all i = 1, …, 9, and \(\lambda_{2}\) = 0.2.
A highly aggressive strategy assumes that the DM is more risk prone, being more concerned with return than risk. Hence, a higher weight is given to the attainment of the return ideal target than to the risk ideal target (i.e. \(\delta_{1} = \partial_{1} = 0.2\) and \(\delta_{2} = \partial_{2}\) = 0.8, respectively). Furthermore, coefficients are considered to be closer to a best case scenario, i.e. \(\lambda_{1}\) = φi = \(\eta_{i}\) = 0.2, for alli = 1, …, 9, and \(\lambda _{2}\) = 0.8.
E.g. for the case of L2 the value of 5% obtained irrespective of the strategy followed is obtained considering the following expression (25% + 25% + 0% + 0% + 4% + 0% + 0% + 0% + 0% + 0% + 0%)/11.
Abbreviations
- BAT:
-
Best available technology
- BAU:
-
Business as usual
- DM:
-
Decision-maker
- EE:
-
Energy efficient
- EIO-LCA:
-
Economic input–output life-cycle analysis
- EPBT:
-
Energy payback time
- GHG:
-
Greenhouse gas
- HPS:
-
High pressure steam lamps
- IO:
-
Input–output
- LCA:
-
Life-cycle analysis
- LED:
-
Lighting emitting diode
- MOLP:
-
Multiobjective linear programming
- P-LCA:
-
Process-based LCA
- RES:
-
Renewable energy systems
- SIR:
-
Savings to investment ratio
- TFL:
-
Tubular fluorescent lamps
References
Algarin JV, Hawkins TR, Marriott J, Scott Matthews H, Khanna V (2015) Disaggregating the power generation sector for input-output life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 19(4):666–675
Ando AW, Fraterrigo J, Guntenspergen G, Howlader A, Mallory M, Olker JH, Stickley S (2018) When portfolio theory can help environmental investment planning to reduce climate risk to future environmental outcomes—and when it cannot. Conserv Lett 11(6):e12596
Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M, Mistretta M (2011) Energy and environmental benefits in public buildings as a result of retrofit actions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(1):460–470
Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manage Sci 17(4):141–164
Carvalho A, Antunes C, Freire F, Henriques C (2016) A multi-objective interactive approach to assess economic-energy-environment trade-offs in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 54:1429–1442
CEC & CPUC (1983) Standard practice for cost–benefit analysis of conservation and load management programs. California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission
CEC & CPUC (1987) Standard practice manual: economic analysis of demand-side management programs. California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission
Chinneck JW, Ramadan K (2000) Linear programming with interval coefficients. J Oper Res Soc 51(2):209–220
CPUC (2001) California standard practice manual: economic analysis of demand-side programs and projects. California Public Utilities Commission
Crawford RH (2009) Life cycle energy and greenhouse emissions analysis of wind turbines and the effect of size on energy yield. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13(9):2653–2660
Cunha J, Ferreira PV (2014) Designing electricity generation portfolios using the mean-variance approach. Int J Sustain Energy Plan Manag 4:17–30
Dutil Y, Rousse D (2012) Energy costs of energy savings in buildings: a Review. Sustainability 4(8):1711–1732
ELSAM (1993) Decision criteria on the demand side: integrated resource planning in the Danish electric utilities. The IRP project, ELSAM (ISBN 87-87090-17-1)
ERSE (2018) Parâmetros do PPEC 2017-2018, no âmbito dos artigos 21.º e 22.º das regras do PPEC. http://www.erse.pt/pt/planodepromocaodaeficiencianoconsumoppec/ppec17-18/Documents/E.Parâmetros2017-2018.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2019
European Commission (2017) Energy efficiency: energy efficiency directive. Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-directive. Accessed 1 Dec 2019
European Commission (2019a) Energy strategy and energy union: 2030 energy strategy. Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/2030-energy-strategy. Accessed 1 Dec 2019
European Commission (2019b) Energy strategy and energy union: clean energy for all Europeans. Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/clean-energy-all-europeans. Accessed 1 Dec 2019
Forouli A, Doukas H, Nikas A, Sampedro J, Van de Ven DJ (2019a) Identifying optimal technological portfolios for European power generation towards climate change mitigation: a robust portfolio analysis approach. Util Policy 57:33–42
Forouli A, Gkonis N, Nikas A, Siskos E, Doukas H, Tourkolias C (2019b) Energy efficiency promotion in Greece in light of risk: evaluating policies as portfolio assets. Energy 170:818–831
Gabriel SA, Kumar S, Ordóñez J, Nasserian A (2006) A multiobjective optimization model for project selection with probabilistic considerations. Socio- Econ Plan Sci 40(4):297–313
Glensk B, Madlener R (2013) Multi-period portfolio optimization of power generation assets. Oper Res Decis 23(4):21–38
Gupta P, Mehlawat M, Inuiguchi M, Chandra S (2014) Fuzzy portfolio optimization. Advances in hybrid multi-criteria methodologies, vol 316. Springer, Berlin
Hendrickson C, Horvath A, Joshi S, Lave L (1998) Economic input-output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Policy Anal 32(7):184A–191A
Hendrickson C, Lave L, Matthews H (2006) Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services: an input–output approach. Resources for the Future Press, Washington
Henriques CO, Coelho D (2017) A multiobjective interval portfolio formulation approach for supporting the selection of energy efficient lighting technologies. In: Proceedings of 2017 6th international conference on environment, energy and biotechnology (ICEEB2017), vol 101, pp 9–17
Henriques CO, Neves MED (2019) A multiobjective interval portfolio framework for supporting investor’s preferences under different risk assumptions. J Oper Res Soc 70(10):1639–1661
Henriques CO, Luque M, Marcenaro-Gutierrez OD, Lopez-Agudo LA (2019) A multiobjective interval programming model to explore the trade-offs among different aspects of job satisfaction under different scenarios. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 66:35–46
Henriques CO, Inuiguchi M, Luque M, Figueira JRF (2020) New conditions for testing necessarily/possibly efficiency of non-degenerate basic solutions based on the tolerance approach. Eur J Oper Res 283(1):341–355
International Energy Agency (2015) Energy climate and change, world energy outlook special report. OECD/IEA, Paris
Inuiguchi M, Kume Y (1991) Goal programming problems with interval coefficients and target intervals. Eur J Oper Res 52(3):345–360
Kara G, Özmen A, Weber GW (2019) Stability advances in robust portfolio optimization under parallelepiped uncertainty. CEJOR 27(1):241–261
Knoke T, Paul C, Härtl F, Castro LM, Calvas B, Hildebrandt P (2015) Optimizing agricultural land-use portfolios with scarce data—a non-stochastic model. Ecol Econ 120:250–259
Konno H, Yamazaki H (1991) Mean-absolute deviation portfolio optimization model and its applications to Tokyo stock market. Manag Sci 37(5):519–531
Kumar I, Tyner WE, Sinha KC (2016) Input–output life cycle environmental assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from utility scale wind energy in the United States. Energy Policy 89:294–301
Lee W, Kim H, Park J, Roh J, Chae M (2013) Development of investment strategies of energy efficiency programs in Korea. J Int Council Electr Eng 3(1):38–44
Lehr U, Nitsch J, Kratzat M, Lutz C, Edler D (2008) Renewable energy and employment in Germany. Energy Policy 36(1):108–117
Lenzen M (2009) Dealing with double-counting in tiered hybrid life-cycle inventories: a few comments. J Clean Prod 17(15):1382–1384
Lenzen M, Wachsmann U (2004) Wind energy converters in Brazil and Germany: an example for geographical variability in LCA. Appl Energy 77(2):119–130
Madlener R (2012) Portfolio optimization of power generation assets. In: Zheng QP et al (eds) Handbook of CO2 in power systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 275–296
Mansini R, Speranza MG (1999) Heuristic algorithms for the portfolio selection problem with minimum transaction lots. Eur J Oper Res 114(2):219–233
Matthies BD, Kalliokoski T, Ekholm T, Hoen HF, Valsta LT (2015) Risk, reward, and payments for ecosystem services: a portfolio approach to ecosystem services and forestland investment. Ecosyst Serv 16:1–12
Miller R, Blair P (2009) Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press, New York
Neves LP, Martins AG, Antunes CH, Dias LC (2008) A multi-criteria decision approach to sorting actions for promoting energy efficiency. Energy Policy 36(7):2351–2363
Nomura N, Inaba A, Tonooka Y, Akai M (2001) Life-cycle emission of oxidic gases from power-generation systems. Appl Energy 68(2):215–227
Oliveira C, Antunes CH (2007) Multiple objective linear programming models with interval coefficients–an illustrated overview. Eur J Oper Res 181(3):1434–1463
Oliveira C, Antunes CH (2009) An interactive method of tackling uncertainty in interval multiple objective linear programming. J Math Sci 161(6):854–866
Piano S, Mayumi K (2017) Toward an integrated assessment of the performance of photovoltaic power stations for electricity generation. Appl Energy 186:167–174
Portuguese Government (2013) National Energy Efficiency Action Plan. Portugal: Portuguese Ministerial Order n.º 20
Prakash R, Bhat IK (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions estimation for small hydropower schemes in India. Energy 44(1):498–508
Recanati F, Guariso G (2018) An optimization model for the planning of agroecosystems: trading off socio-economic feasibility and biodiversity. Ecol Eng 117:194–204
Rocha P (2012) Avaliação do sistema tarifário português na perspetiva de incentivo à eficiência energética. University of Oporto, Oporto
Rudolf M, Wolter HJ, Zimmermann H (1999) A linear model for tracking error minimization. J Bank Finance 23(1):85–103
Schlomann B, Rohde C, Plotz P (2015) Dimensions of energy efficiency in a political context. Energy Effi 8(1):97–115
Singh V, Henriques C, Martins A (2018a) Fostering investment on energy efficient appliances in India—a multi-perspective economic input-output lifecycle assessment. Energy 149:1022–1035
Singh VK, Henriques CO, Martins AG (2018b) A multiperspective assessment of best available energy end-use technologies in India’s households. Process Integr Optim Sustain 3(1):89–99
Singh VK, Henriques CO, Martins AG (2019) A multiobjective optimization approach to support end-use energy efficiency policy design–the case-study of India. Int J Sustain Energy Plan Manag 23:55–68
Soneji H (2008) Life cycle energy comparison of compact fluorescent and incandescent light bulbs. Lund University, Sweden
SRCi (1996) European B/C Analysis Methodology (EUBC)—A Guidebook For B/C Evaluation of DSM and Energy Efficiency Services Programmes. A Project Advisory Committee and SRC International ApS, Prepared for the European Commission (DG XIIV)
Strømman AH, Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2009) Approaches to correct for double counting in tiered hybrid life cycle inventories. J Clean Prod 17(2):248–254
Suh S (2006) Reply: downstream cut-offs in integrated hybrid life-cycle assessment. Ecol Econ 59(1):7–12
Timmer M, Erumban AA, Gouma R, Los B, Temurshoev U, de Vries GJ, Pindyuk O (2012) The world input-output database (WIOD): contents, sources and methods (No. 20120401). Institute for International and Development Economics
Trachanas GP, Forouli A, Gkonis N, Doukas H (2018) Hedging uncertainty in energy efficiency strategies: a minimax regret analysis. Operational Research, 1-16
Van de Ven DJ, Sampedro J, Johnson FX, Bailis R, Forouli A, Nikas A, Yu S, Pardo G, de Jalón SG, Wise M, Doukas H (2019) Integrated policy assessment and optimisation over multiple sustainable development goals in Eastern Africa. Environ Res Lett 14(9):094001
Voorspools KR, Brouwers EA, D’haeseleer W (2000) Energy content and indirect greenhouse gas emissions embedded in ‘emission-free’power plants: results for the low countries. Appl Energy 67(3):307–330
Welz T, Hischier R, Hilty L (2011) Environmental impacts of lighting technologies—life cycle assessment and sensitivity analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev 31(3):334–343
Wiedmann TO, Suh S, Feng K, Lenzen M, Acquaye A, Scott K, Barrett JR (2011) Application of hybrid life cycle approaches to emerging energy technologies – the case of wind power in the UK. Environ Sci Technol 45:5900–5907
Wierzbicki AP (1980) The use of reference objectives in multiobjective optimization. In: Fandel G, Gal T (eds) Multiple criteria decision making theory and application. Springer, Berlin, pp 468–486
Young MR (1998) A minimax portfolio selection rule with linear programming solution. Manag Sci 44(5):673–683
Zancanella P, Bertoldi P, Boza-Kiss B (2018) Energy efficiency, the value of buildings and the payment default risk. Accessed 1 Dec 2019. http://revalue-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/JRC_EE-value-of-buildings-and-payment-default-risk_2018.pdf
Zhang J, Cai L, Ma L (2017) Energy performance of wind power in China: a comparison among inland, coastal and offshore wind farms. J Clean Prod 143:836–842
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by the European Regional Development Fund in the framework of COMPETE 2020 Programme through project UID/MULTI/00308/2020 and the FCT Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology within project T4ENERTEC (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-029820) (IIA - 02/SAICT/2016).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Henriques, C.O., Coelho, D.H. & Neves, M.E.D. Investment planning in energy efficiency programs: a portfolio based approach. Oper Res Int J 22, 615–649 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-020-00566-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-020-00566-6
Keywords
- Multiobjective interval portfolio programming
- Energy efficient lighting systems
- Economic input–output life-cycle assessment
- Energy payback time