Energy Saving Policies and Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemeenspol.eu/sites/default/files/results/D7.4 Final... · 2016. 11. 2. · Contract N°: IEE/13/824/SI2.675067 Energy Saving

Contract N°: IEE/13/824/SI2.675067

Energy Saving Policies and Energy

Efficiency Obligation Scheme

D7.4: Final Conference in Brussels

Project Coordinator: Joint Implementation Network - JIN

Responsible partner: VITO

July 2016

The sole responsibility for the content of this [webpage, publication etc.] lies with the

authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither

the EACI nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made

of the information contained therein.

Co-funded by the IEE Programme of the EU


D7.4: Final Conference in Brussels



D7.4: Final Conference in Brussels Page 1

Table of Contents

1 Agenda of the final conference........................................................................................... 2

2 Some impressions of the conference ................................................................................. 4

3 Participant List..................................................................................................................... 6

4 Group discussions on EE challenges ................................................................................... 9

4.1 White Certificates ........................................................................................................ 9

4.2 From monopoly to liberalized markets ..................................................................... 11

4.3 Deemed savings......................................................................................................... 13




1 Agenda of the final conference

ENERGY SAVING POLICIES AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY OBLIGATION SCHEMES

Final Conference Agenda

Venue: VLEVA www.vleva.eu Kortenberglaan 71 1000 Brussel Date: 13.06.2016

Date: 13 June 2016

9:30 – 10:00 Registration and Coffee

10:00-10:20

Welcome, short ENSPOL introduction and overview of the Final Conference

Vincent Berrutto, EASME

Vlasis Oikonomou, JIN, coordinator ENSPOL

10:20-10:40 General findings of the ENSPOL project

Vlasis Oikonomou, JIN

10:40-12:30

ENSPOL, NEVER-ENDING SCHOOL: INSIGHTS FROM POLICY EVALUATIONS AND CROSS-

COUNTRY EXCHANGE

Moderators: VITO, EST

Smaller group discussions on EE challenges, starting from interesting stories from

Member States (30’):

- France: Elodie Trauchessec, ADEME

- Poland: prof. T. Skoczkowski, KAPE

- Denmark: Nikolaj Nørregård Rasmussen, DEA

Break 15’

Group discussions on EE challenges:

- ENSPOL guidelines: implementation of Article 7, JIN (10’)

- Introduction to discussion, VITO (10’)

- 3 topics to be discussed: deemed savings, EE obligations ‘from monopoly to liberalized

markets’, white certificates (45’, including wrap-up)

12:30-14:00 Lunch

14:00 – 14:20 Status of Article 7 implementation

DG Energy




14:20 – 16:15

3RD EU OBSERVATORY: OBSERVATORY NETWORKS & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

WITHIN ENSPOL

Moderators: AEA, SEI

EU-Observatory (20’)

- Overview and feedback of ENSPOL activities, AEA

- Case studies: Italy, Alberto Pela, GSE

National Observatories (20’)

- Overview and feedback of ENSPOL activities, FIRE

- Case studies: Croatia, Mia Dragovic, EIHP

Stakeholder Knowledge Platform (20’)

Feedback on ENSPOL stakeholder platform, EST

BREAK 20’

Is there life after ENSPOL? The future of the ENSPOL Observatory network & stakeholder

platform (35’)

- Presentation Christian Deconninck, ATEE

- Plenary discussion, moderator SEI

16:15 – 16:30 Closure of the conference

Vlasis Oikonomou, JIN




2 Some impressions of the conference

All the information material of ENSPOL Final Conference are available in Final conference’s

webpage: http://enspol.eu/events/enspol-final-conference-13-june-2016-brussels

Article 7 of Directive 2012/27/EU on

energy efficiency

By Lelde Kiela-Vilumsone, DG ENER.C.3

ENSPOL guidelines

By Vlasis Oikonomou (ENSPOL Coordinator),

JIN Climate and Sustainability

National observatories under the ENSPOL

project

By Dario Di Santo, Italian Federation for

Energy Efficiency (FIRE)

http://enspol.eu/events/enspol-final-conference-13-june-2016-brussels




Knowledge sharing platform Article 7 EED

By Emilie Carmichael, Energy Saving Trust

(EST)

Obervatory networks & Stakeholders

engagement within ENSPOL

By Alberto Pela, Regulatory Affairs – GSE

Photos from the Final Conference




3 Participant List

ENERGY SAVING POLICIES AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY OBLIGATION SCHEMES

Final Conference List of Participants

Venue: VLEVA www.vleva.eu Kortenberglaan 71 1000 Brussel Date: 13.06.2016

Date: 13 June 2016

Name First name Company

Alessi Monica CEPS

Bassaglia Gaël GEO PLC

Bayer Edith Regulatory Assistance Project

Bean Frances Stefan Scheuer Consulting

Becker Stefan E.ON SE

Berrutto Vincent EASME

Böck Elisabeth Austrian Energy Agency

Broad Will Department of Energy and Climate Change

Bruel Renée ECF

Brunson Aurore IBGE

Carmichael Emilie EST

Cavalcanti Juliana Effy Global Services

Cosier Joseph Energy Saving Trust

Deconninck Christian ATEE

Di Santo Dario FIRE

Dr. Duvigneau Johann Ludwig Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy

Dragović Mia Energy Institute Hrvoje Požar

Duvielguerbigny arnaud COGEN Europe

Elena Taxeri CRES

Fawcett Tina OUCE




Flamos Alexandros University of Piraeus Research Center

Flamos Alexandros University of Piraeus

Georgiev Zdravko Association of Bulgarian Energy Agencies ABEA

Gkonis Nikolaos Greece

Gonçalves Stéphanie SIPLEC

Greenwood Marianne ENR'CERT

Haeder Henning EURELECTRIC

Hamdouch Jawad GEO PLC

Heerma van Voss Bas Ministry of Economic Affairs, Netherlands

Hofman Erwin JIN Climate and Sustainability

Holme Philippa Ofgem

Ioannis Vougliouklakis Greece

Izabela Kielichowska Ecofys

Jose Manuel Vega Barbero Stockholm Environment Institute at U. of York

Karásek Jirí SEVEn

Katarzyna Wardal EFIEES

Kiela-Vilumsone Lelde DG Energy

Kulevska Tsvetomira Sustainable Energy Development Agency

Lambertucci Stefano European Solar Thermal Industry Federation

Laumanns Ulrich GIZ

Moorkens Ils VITO

Pela Alberto GSE

Petersone Andzela Ministry of Economics of Latvia

Petroula Dora CAN Europe

Rasmussen Nikolaj Danish Energy Association

Renders Nele VITO, Flemish Institute for Technological Research

Romon Xavier EDF

Sakellaridis NIKOS Hellenic Electricity Distribution Network Operator

Sansoni Michele EASME




Sartre Hugues GEO PLC

Skoczkowski Tadeusz Warsaw University of Technology

Spyridaki Niki-Artemis University of Piraeus Research Center

Stubner Heiko EU ProSun

Thenius Gregor Austrian Energy Agency

Toporek Marta ClientEarth

Trauchessec Elodie ADEME

Valente Claire Department of Energy and Climate Change

Vlasis Oikonomou JIN

Vuyk Ernst Vuyk Onderzoek Ontwerp en Advies

Weglarz Arkadiusz KAPE S.A.

Willenbrock Lisanne Evolution Energie




4 Group discussions on EE challenges

4.1 White Certificates

Question 1. The evidence shows that incremental targets work. How new schemes could

increase their targets quickly and effectively? How can MS reduce their learning period

(or whether this is possible)?

Administrative issues were perceived as contributing the most to the (high) costs of WC

systems.

First the possibility to combine WC with EU ETS was explored. Participants did not agree on

this idea whereas energy efficiency is local and ETS global. It is also complicated to calculate

the effect from electricity on CO2 emissions.

The costs are the highest when setting up the EEO. The EED is only designed until 2020 but

participants perceived it as necessary to go beyond and to have a long –term, stable

framework.

On the EU level the comparability between schemes is difficult. Energy savings have

different costs in different MS. The cost of establishing a system should not be

underestimated and realising the measures costs a lot of money.

It was agreed that transparency to the broad public about the costs is necessary. But even

more about how the subsidy schemes work. The cost of energy efficiency was perceived

higher than the cost of RE.

Also the verification for EE measures is costly and there can be a lot of doubt about the

results. There is a lot of discussion on additionality and materiality and not many countries

take these factors into account transparently and comparably.

Deemed savings with low costs (low hanging fruit) are implemented already a lot. Metered

savings (in industry) are more costly. Usually during the scheme history there is a move to

metered savings.

ESCO’s are not perceived as strictly necessary at the beginning of the scheme. But you need

eligible parties to get the scheme running from the start.

Savings in households are very small while transaction costs might be considerable, should

they be in the WC scheme? Via deemed savings this can be possible.




Question 2. How to ensure cost-efficiency, both for the state as for the obliged parties?

How can the administrative costs of running the WC system be reduced? Is there any

learning curve of managing the system leading to cost reduction?

Can ICT tools be helpful?

Rising targets result in higher costs. It is not sure that the cost per energy saved also

increases in the same way. This depends on the mix of technologies implemented. An

increasing target results in two effects: (1) measures can be implemented in a more

productive way (decreasing cost); (2) the easy to do measures will have been done (resulting

in higher costs).

Question 3. For which sectors the white certificates will be eligible? The choice of sectors

eligible might influence more directly the scope of the scheme and its degree of ambition.

Countries which focus on residential would have things to learn from those who have a

broader scope

If individual housing is included, then this has to be with a proof system which is simple for

deemed savings. In industry it can be a tool for industrial development. It has to be clear

that the system cannot be perceived as state aid. IF the market price for which certificates

can be sold on the market is unsure than WC cannot be perceived as subsidy.

Question 4. Urgent messages

It is very important that these will be a continuation from the EED after 2020.

Forget additionality compared to other policies. This is very complex and costly. It was

perceived better to set targets slightly higher and to consider every energy saving.

An evaluation of schemes is needed.

Keep existing schemes and try to establish schemes in countries which do not have in force

yet.

Exchange best practices like in ENSPOL.

Establish standardized and simplified verification reporting. Baseline can be different /

methodology can be the same.

It is inconsistent not to include transport. Dedicated measures to transport are necessary.




4.2 From monopoly to liberalized markets

Context

Denmark has had an EEO for about 20 years where the obligated parties have been the

distribution companies (DSO), which are regulated monopolies. This scheme is widely

considered to be successful. However, currently politicians are proposing that the obligation

should be moved from distributors to retailers. This is in part due to their belief that this

would deliver more competition and ultimately result in cheaper energy efficiency / energy

savings, benefiting customers.

However, there are clearly a great number of risks associated with making this sort of

fundamental change to a policy, particularly in the short timescales proposed (one year).

These include:

• Uncertainty about delivery of projects which have been planned by DSOs to meet their

obligations up to 2020

• Projects within the industrial sector - which are dominant in the Danish scheme - can

take years to introduce and to demonstrate savings - how does this time scale fit with

the proposed change in obligated parties?

• Several of the retailers are not keen on this idea

• Some retailers are integrated with distribution companies, but customer numbers for

distribution are not necessarily the same as retail customers, meaning that even if the

overall organization remains the same, the obligation will change

• The impact on efficiency delivery businesses of this change

The context for discussion was set by a general presentation from Nikolaj Nørregård

Rasmussen, Dansk Engeri, about the proposed transition within the Danish EEO to the

whole meeting. At the beginning of the workshop session he gave a few more details of the

scheme, which were relevant to the discussion.

Questions

The general questions used to begin discussions were:

• Have any other countries got experience of this kind of policy re-design, whether in an

EEO or other type of policy?

• If this is going to happen, how could the transition period best be managed? What

should be done to reduce the potential adverse impacts of change and uncertainty?

How can DSO be helped to exit the market?




• Is there (good) evidence that having retailers as the obligated parties delivers more cost-

effective savings?

• Are any benefits likely to outweigh the costs / risks? What is the evidence for this?

Discussion

Both the UK and France have experience changes to who participates in their EEO - although

neither has changed as radically as the Danish proposal. In France, the extent to which

enterprises could take part in the scheme changed somewhat between phases. In the UK,

there was an experience with including large electricity generators in one phase of the EEO

(2009-2012)- this was not successful and they were removed from future phases. The UK

experience is that any major change equals ‘disaster for at least 8 months’ (in terms of large

reduction in delivered savings in this period).

There might be a ‘third way’ - as in Vermont, putting the obligation on DSO but creating an

energy utility to collect the money and deliver savings. This is something Denmark is

considering.

The general view was that it was very unusual thing to do - to change a scheme so radically.

This is particularly the case at present, when the inclusion of EEOs in EU energy efficiency

policy beyond 2020 is not yet confirmed.

Cost of the transition: there are two Danish studies about this, one official and one

unofficial. There were suggestions that it would be easier / more effective to take greater

control of distributor costs rather than shift the EEO to retailers.

Other options - the NL asked whether anyone has considered shifting the obligation to the

end user? In the NL, this might be an option if retailers are unwilling to be involved in the

EEOs. There has been experience in AT of suppliers very directly passing obligations on to

their customers: ‘if you don’t make savings we will put your energy prices up’.

ESCOs - there has been mixed development of ESCOs, with very little occurring in the UK

(where the EEO is only in the residential sector) but more in France. The French experience

is that more ESCOs arose once suppliers other than just the big gas and electricity

companies were made obligated parties.

There was little support for the change proposed in Denmark, with a straw poll at the end

of the identifying that none of the experts present thought it a good idea.




4.3 Deemed savings

Context

In general, deemed savings are applied in many Member States, because of its cost

effectiveness and easiness to use in in case of large volumes of simple and similar measures.

This holds certainly true for the buildings sector.

Question 1. The adequacy of using deemed savings

This depends on the sector we look at:

• Deemed savings are widely used in the residential sector since more quantity of data

are available. Within the residential sector, deemed saving are used to set a starting

point (ex ante evaluation) of electricity and heating consumption per household. The

obtained values are compared to metered values (ex post evaluation).This option is

more inexpensive than having meters installed in every single households.

• As far as the Industrial sector is concerned, deemed savings is less appropriate given the

variability from one industry to another.

• Regarding the transport sector, deemed savings are used too, because it is very

complicated to collect actual savings. But, not many countries deal with measures in

the transport sector.

Participants give examples of additional uses of deemed energy savings beyond the

residential sector. In some cases energy distributors host campaigns in which engineers

calculate the accuracy of deemed savings of industry, an alternative is the set up of a

measurement and verification office where they check the savings estimated in detail by

the individual companies/industry.

Question 2. What do MS use to monitor and check whether deemed savings are accurate?

Trying to obtain accurate and detailed data verify the deemed savings, can get extremely

expensive an complex. The following alternatives can be more cheap:

• To assign deemed savings scores to different types of dwellings/buildings, based on

surveys.

• Use simple and basic data so that the data collection process doesn’t become too

demanding in terms of time and money.




Generally speaking MS don’t run these types of monitoring campaigns, because the more

detailed the data we pretend to obtain, the more expensive and time demanding it will get.

Furthermore, the deeper you go on energy issues the more you get into social issues.

Some participants stated that actual consumption doesn’t reflect the total amount of

savings. So, it’s difficult to get good savings results from monitoring campaigns based on a

sample of households.

However, in some countries companies responsible for implementation of saving measures

are forced to monitor 10% of their houses where measures were put into practice.

Quality control of the installers can also be an important aspect.

Question 3. Responsibility for estimating energy savings

There was a general consensus on the fact that governmental agencies and/or bodies

should be in charge of setting initial targets that should be, in further steps, shared and

agreed by relevant stakeholders, like the obligated parties.

Documents

Energy Saving Policies and Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemeenspol.eu/sites/default/files/results/D7.4 Final... · 2016. 11. 2. · Contract N°: IEE/13/824/SI2.675067 Energy Saving