Avoid, Shift or Improve passenger transport? Impacts on the energy system

Demand-side mitigation strategies have been gaining momentum in climate change mitigation research. Still, the impact of different approaches in passenger transport, one of the largest energy demand sectors, remains unclear. We couple a transport simulation model to an energy system optimisation model, both highly disintegrated in order to compare those impacts. Our scenarios are created for the case of Germany in an interdisciplinary, qualitative–quantitative research design, going beyond techno-economic assumptions, and cover Avoid, Shift, and Improve strategies, as well as their combination. The results show that sufficiency – Avoid and Shift strategies – have the same impact as the improvement of propulsion technologies (i.e. efficiency), which is reduction of generation capacities by one quarter. This lowers energy system transformation cost accordingly, but requires different kinds of investments: Sufficiency measures require public investment for high-quality public services, while efficiency measures require individuals to purchase more expensive vehicles at their own cost. These results raise socio-political questions of system design and well-being. However, all strategies are required to unleash the full potential of climate change mitigation. •We compare sufficiency (Avoid and Shift measures) and efficiency (100% BEVs) strategy•25% energy generation capacities can be saved by either strategy•Sufficiency increases infrastructure cost, but halves private vehicle expenditures•Equitable transport policy (sufficiency) is a policy asset, rather than co-benefit•All strategies are required for swift emissions mitigation