Electric kettles are found in almost every household in the European Union. Within the preparatory study to establish the Ecodesign Working Plan 2015–2017, the electricity consumption of this product group in Europe was estimated at 20 to 33 TWh in 2012, with an energy-saving potential of more than 20%. This led to an Ecodesign preparatory study on kettles in 2020 to analyse the potential role of environmental policy-making for electric kettles in Europe in more detail. Based on elements from this study, this paper reviews worldwide policies covering this product group, methods to assess its energy efficiency and analyses of the potential of technical improvements to enhance energy efficiency. A method is suggested for measuring the power of kettles, and corresponding power-temperature measurements of selected kettles are presented. Overall, the findings indicate that technical optimization alone has a limited potential to improve the energy efficiency of kettles and to highlight the absence of a standard for measuring the energy consumption of electric kettles. However, user-related aspects of operating kettles offer a substantial saving potential. Heating too much water or at higher than required temperatures increase the energy consumption and related energy costs of private households. This could provide leverage for policy makers to improve the market and to reduce the environmental impact of this product group beyond mere technical optimization of energy efficiency, including aspects related to circular economy and energy sufficiency.

New energy technologies may fail to make the transition to the market once research funding has ended due to a lack of private engagement to conclude their development. Extending public funding to cover such experimental developments could be one way to improve this transition. However, identifying promising research and development (R&D) proposals for this purpose is a difficult task for the following reasons: Close-to-market implementations regularly require substantial resources while public budgets are limited; the allocation of public funds needs to be fair, open, and documented; the evaluation is complex and subject to public sector regulations for public engagement in R&D funding. This calls for a rigorous evaluation process. This paper proposes an operational three-staged decision support system (DSS) to assist decision-makers in public funding institutions in the ex-ante evaluation of R&D proposals for large-scale close-to-market projects in energy research. The system was developed based on a review of literature and related approaches from practice combined with a series of workshops with practitioners from German public funding institutions. The results confirm that the decision-making process is a complex one that is not limited to simply scoring R&D proposals. Decision-makers also have to deal with various additional issues such as determining the state of technological development, verifying market failures or considering existing funding portfolios. The DSS that is suggested in this paper is unique in the sense that it goes beyond mere multi-criteria aggregation procedures and addresses these issues as well to help guide decision-makers in public institutions through the evaluation process.

Despite its high share in national energy demand, the tertiary sector is an undifferentiated residual in the energy balances of most countries. To develop effective policy measures for enhancing energy efficiency, policymakers need a sound understanding of how the energy demand is structured. To date, only a few studies assess energy demand in the tertiary sector quantitatively. This paper aims to close this gap by introducing an integrated model that transparently breaks down the energy demand according to statistical subsectors, energy carriers and end-uses. The model combines a technology-based bottom-up with a top-down approach and applies it to a case study on Germany based on survey data from companies. Model validity is analyzed using a set of indicators. The results for Germany show that the model is consistent with the national energy balance showing an aggregate deviation of only 1%. The results for 2019 indicate that electricity demand in Germany’s tertiary sector is dominated by lighting (35%), information and communication technologies (33%) and the provision of mechanical energy (9%), while fuel demand is mainly due to space heating (78%), followed by mechanical energy (15%).

The ‘Federal Funding Scheme for Energy and Resource Efficiency in the Economy’ (EEE) is a key programme supporting German companies in their transition to climate neutrality. The multi-measure programme funds various technologies through different funding modules, including technology-open funding. This paper presents results from five evaluation rounds (2019–2023) for the first time, extending the empirical basis on funding scheme evaluations for industrial energy efficiency. The methodological framework consists of quantitative and qualitative key performance indicators (KPIs) categorized by core evaluation areas. Particular attention is paid to the results on greenhouse gas savings and funding efficiency. As a second focus, recommendations from the evaluation for future energy and resource efficiency programmes are outlined. The KPI analysis reveals no substantial need for structural revisions: With 2.9 billion euros in funding, the EEE supported 9.7 billion euros in investments from 2019 to 2023. It achieved calculated annual gross GHG savings of nearly 7 million tonnes of CO ₂ -eq. The evaluation also offers key insights: Establishing a streamlined target system with realistic objectives is important to avoid trade-offs between multiple aims. A stable funding environment, short processing times and clear guidelines support accessibility. Considering evaluation requirements during programme design can enhance data quality for ex-post analyses. Reaching underrepresented groups can be enhanced by engaging multipliers, using new communication channels, and offering targeted support for SMEs. Finally, the evaluation shows that while a technology-open funding approach supports significant savings, technology-focused funding promotes broader engagement and future funding opportunities, underscoring the validity of both approaches in the funding landscape.