Core Theme Summary Report National Energy Efficiency ...€¦ · CA ESD Core Theme 1 Summary Report...

Core Theme Summary Report

Core Theme Summary Reports SeriesJuly 2011

1National Energy Efficiency Action Plans

2 CA ESD Core Theme 1 Summary Report

Contents

1. Abbreviations 3

2. Introduction 4

3. Lessons learned 6 3.1 NEEAPs 6

3.2 Sharing experiences 7

3.3 Monitoring and calculation methods 7

4. National Energy Efficiency Action Plans 9 4.1 Experiences on preparing 1st NEEAP 9

4.2 2nd NEEAP development 12

4.3 Sharing experience on energy efficiency programmes and measures 14

4.4 Measurement and verification of energy savings 16

5. Concluding remarks 22

CA ESD Core Theme 1 Summary Report 3

1 Abbreviations

Country code Country

AT Austria

BE Belgium

BG Bulgaria

CY Cyprus

CZ Czech Republic

DE Germany

DK Denmark

EE Estonia

EL Greece

ES Spain

FI Finland

FR France

HR Croatia

HU Hungary

IE Ireland

IT Italy

LT Lithuania

LU Luxembourg

LV Latvia

MT Malta

NL Netherlands

NO Norway

PL Poland

PT Portugal

RO Romania

SE Sweden

SI Slovenia

SK Slovakia

UK United Kingdom

Table 1. Country codes Table 2. Miscellaneous abbreviations

Abbreviation Full text

BU Bottom-up

CA ESDConcerted Action for the

Energy Services Directive

EPBDEnergy Performance of

Buildings Directive

ESD Energy Services Directive

ETS Emissions Trading System

EU European Union

IEE Intelligent Energy Europe

J Joules

kgoe kilogram oil equivalent

kWh kilowatt-hours

MS Member States

NEEAPNational Energy Efficiency

Action Plans

TD Top-down

WG Working Group


Introduction2“ All EEAPs shall describe the energy efficiency improvement

measures planned to reach the targets set out in Article

4(1) and (2), as well as comply with the provisions on the

exemplary role of the public sector and provisions of the

information and advice to final customers set out in Articles

5(1) and 7(2) respectively.”

The deadline for the 1st NEEAP was June 2007, the 2nd

NEEAP is due in June 2011 and the 3rd NEEAP in June 2014.

MS shall include in the 2nd and 3rd NEEAPs results regarding

the fulfilment of the energy savings targets. The calculations

are based on available data and are supplemented with

estimates. In Annex IV of the directive, there is a general

framework for the measurement and verification of the energy

savings including a suggested base for the monitoring and

calculation methods for use within the scope of ESD.

This report presents a summary of the work carried out during

the course of the Concerted Action for the Energy Services

Directive (CA ESD) on NEEAPs. In general, the topics handled

have covered both NEEAPs and monitoring and calculation

methods of the energy savings as well as sharing experience

of programmes and measures.

One of the requirements placed on Member States (MS) by the Energy Services Directive (ESD) is the production of National Energy Efficiency Action Plans (NEEAPs). In total, three action plans must be produced between 2007 and 2016. The minimum reporting requirements for the 1st NEEAP set out in Article 14(2) of the ESD, are as follows:


The following topics were reviewed throughout the course of

the CA ESD and different approaches were shared:

• Hindsight/lessons learned from the 1st NEEAPs

• Expectations and the need for tools to prepare the 2nd

NEEAPs

• Implementing energy efficiency programmes and

measures set out in NEEAPs

• Sharing information and experiences to encourage the

effective implementation of EEI-measures across the EU

• MS monitoring, calculation and evaluation methods for

EEI-programmes and measures

• Expectations from the harmonised calculation methods

and guidelines

• The relationship with other EU reporting obligations

Furthermore, the three CA ESD horizontal issues were

incorporated throughout:

i. Building capacity for transposition and implementation

ii. Development of EEI-programmes and measures

iii. Monitoring and calculation of energy savings

During the course of the CA ESD1, the following topics were

covered in detail by five working groups:

1. Mapping areas in the field of monitoring and calculations

2. Preparation of the 2nd NEEAP

3. Sharing experience on energy efficiency programmes

and measures

4. Measurement and calculation of energy savings for the

2nd NEEAP – a practical approach

5. Exchange of information on implementation of the ESD and

progress in preparing the 2nd NEEAP

1 CA ESD ran from June 2008 – June 2011


3 Lessons learned

3.1 NEEAPsThe review of the 1st NEEAP identified areas for improvement

and the need for guidance and/or other tools facilitating the

MS in their preparation of the 2nd NEEAPs and the possible

challenges that lay ahead. The differences between the MS

and their expectations were also clearly emphasised

following their experiences of this policy process.

During the preparation phase of the template for the 2nd

NEEAP, valuable input was provided via the CA ESD to the

Commission services entrusted with the task of developing

the template. As a result of this exchange, a far broader

understanding of how the draft NEEAP template was

perceived by MS was obtained. The majority of MS planned to

use the template at least to some extent. This also indicates

that MS representatives are interested in having, at least to

some extent, more consistent NEEAPs which will help not only

to apply the NEEAPs, but also to compare them. Nevertheless,

flexibility is still considered crucial in the future. The 2nd

NEEAP template included and encouraged reporting of

primary energy savings. However, a number of CA ESD

participants indicated that the inclusion of primary energy

reporting in NEEAPs needs further discussion and clarification.

Reporting energy savings in the 2nd NEEAP raised also a

discussion on the issue of synergies with other EC reporting

requirements. For instance, MS were invited to include

Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) reporting

in their second NEEAP. In general the CA ESD has helped to

identify some of the possible synergies in data collection.

However, it is clear at this stage that the recommended ESD

measurement methods as such would not be suitable for CO2

measurement. Streamlining of reporting requirements would

be welcomed by MS representatives but it is clear that there

are many obstacles to streamlining the reporting, elements

such as different targets (greenhouse gases, energy savings,

end-use/primary energy etc.), different reporting cycles and

different bodies responsible for the reporting obligations to

name a few. Quite a big obstacle for streamlining reporting

appears to exist both in MS and at the EU level: in many

cases, the responsibility for different reporting obligations

The 1st NEEAP was seen as a useful task for most MS representatives and the importance of the preparation of the 2nd NEEAP was also endorsed by them. The work done has provided a comprehensive overview of how the country representatives see the NEEAP in their national policy making process. The role of the NEEAPs differs from country to country. In some countries, the NEEAP is considered a strong policy tool in itself, while in other MS it is integrated into the national policy and thereby is linked to the national policy process.


lies with different ministries in different MS and also with

different bodies in the Commission. More exchange of

information and cooperation between different bodies

responsible for the different reporting obligations would

perhaps lead to an improved situation.

3.2 Sharing experiencesSharing experience is one of the key goals of the CA ESD. In

general, country representatives have been very satisfied with

the work carried out within the CA ESD. However, when asked,

many ideas of how to improve the sharing of experiences were

highlighted. Sharing experiences and improvements was a

subject covered within one of the working groups.

Improvement and strengthening of information exchange and

the sharing of experiences is an on-going part of CA ESD and

can only be truly effective in conjunction with actions at national

level. Information exchange and the sharing of experience

require willingness, commitment and resources to be truly

effective. The greatest barrier was considered to be the

existing workload for national administrations, despite

acknowledgement of the benefits.

There are also big differences between CA participants about

how they would like the sharing of experience to be organised.

About half of them would like to see sharing of experience at a

deeper level, while the other half would prefer a broad overview.

A balance between an overview of broad scale of measures

and fewer measures explored in much more depth should be

established for future work.

Transferability of success stories in EEI-measures seems

often to be possible but copying a measure 1:1 is seldom

possible. When trying to copy a measure successfully

implemented in other MS, one should be aware that the

specific framework conditions influencing the success of an

implemented measure may vary between MS. Measures may

therefore have to be adjusted to fit “home”-conditions.

For this reason, some measures that have been successfully

implemented in one MS may not always be as successful in

another MS. This also applies mainly for monitoring and

calculation methods. The lack of human and financial

capacity especially in the “giving” country can also be a

barrier to share experience bilaterally.

Examples of energy efficiency improvement measures and

programmes are available in the individual subject sections.

3.3 Monitoring and calculation methods During the course of the CA ESD, the work conducted has

resulted in an overview of the state of the play in MS relating

to the monitoring and calculation of the EEI-measures and

programmes. Furthermore, it has also demonstrated how MS

interpret different issues in the ESD. The work has shown

where MS would value more clarification or guidelines.

However flexibility and possibility of using national measurement

methods were considered crucial throughout the CA ESD.

Support for savings calculations was also welcomed.

The ESD and the work within the CA ESD has brought to light

the many different approaches to the monitoring and savings

calculation issue. It has raised the question of how much

convergence is possible or desirable at a European level in

the field of monitoring and calculation of end-use energy

savings. Experience in using Top-Down and Bottom-Up

measurement methods for saving calculations differs greatly

in MS. MS with national monitoring and calculations methods

in place are often reluctant to replace methods they consider

to be both adequate and reliable. However, it is in this field

that the exchange of information has been considered most

beneficial to participants. Due to the differences in levels of

experience and the different approaches adopted by MS, a

great deal of learning has taken place.

One key point, which was raised in the group, was that when

handling the development of future possible monitoring and

calculation tools, they should not be developed by scientists

but by the experts representing the implementing bodies

planning the measures and making the calculations in real

life. The practicability and data availability have to be the

leading criteria, and political agreement and resources are

also needed.


Measurement and calculation of energy savings is a key part

of the ESD and high interest was shown in the work done in

this field, not only in relation to the actual methods applied in

MS but also in the experts and expertise.

Some examples of approaches are presented in the section

on measurement.


National Energy Efficiency Action Plans 4The crucial document in which Member States are called to

display these elements is the (National) Energy Efficiency

Action Plan (NEEAP). This document has to be notified by

each Member State three times: on 30 June of 2007, 2011,

and 2014 (Art. 14). According to the ESD, the plans have

different reporting requirements. While the first NEEAP had

to provide only basic information on the indicative targets and

measures, the second and third plan requires additional

information, e.g., on the evaluation of the impact of the

preceding NEEAP, or on the final results with regard to the

fulfilment of the intermediate indicative energy savings target.

The minimum requirements for the first NEEAP are contained

in Art. 14.2 (ESD):

“ All EEAPs shall describe the energy efficiency improvement

measures planned to reach the targets set out in Article 4(1)

and (2), as well as to comply with the provisions on the exemplary

role of the public sector and provision of information.“

Two working groups focused specifically on the NEEAPs, one

on the review of the 1st NEEAP and the other on the general

progress made regarding the implementation of the NEEAPs

and the preparation of the 2nd NEEAP.

The following elements were reviewed:

• Experiences on preparing the 1st NEEAP

• How NEEAPs were used for the exchange of information

• The reporting cycle and the need to streamline reporting in

the future

• Support tools for the 2nd NEEAP

• 2nd NEEAP development

• Sharing information

• Lessons learned

4.1 Experiences on preparing 1st NEEAPIn general the preparation of the 1st NEEAP seemed to be a

challenging but at the same time useful process, which

resulted in the gaining of experience and knowledge and

The Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services (ESD) aims at enhancing the cost-effective improvement of energy end-use efficiency in Member States. In the context of the ESD, Member States were called to set an indicative 9% target for final energy savings to be achieved in 2016 in order to provide mechanisms, incentives and institutional, legal and financial frameworks to achieve this target. Member States were also tasked with creating the favourable conditions for the development and promotion of markets for energy services (Art. 1).


facilitated the start of collaboration between different

authorities in the countries. The time needed to develop the

NEEAP varied between MS taking anything from two weeks to

a year, putting this into perspective the national approval

processes contributed to the time difference. Just over 70%

of country representatives, indicated that the NEEAP would

be used to support the national energy policy process and two

thirds of them said that the NEEAP would be a part of the

national energy strategy.

NEEAPs used for exchange of information1st NEEAPs were also used in MS for exchange of information

and identification of good practices among the other countries.

Almost all CA participants also indicated an interest in

receiving further information on good/best practices and

lessons learned to support the development of 2nd NEEAPs.

It was cited that CA ESD is seen as the place where this kind

of sharing of experience should be done, which is also CA

ESD’s remit.

The reporting cycle and the need for streamlining reportingWith regard to the reporting cycle, most CA MS representatives

appear to agree that the present arrangement with

three-year-intervals is sufficient. The key being that reporting

should not take resources from “real” implementation work.

Integration with other reporting obligations to streamline

reporting requirements and definitions in different processes

would also be welcomed. Many participants saw a particular

need to streamline and reduce the current overlap in the

different reporting requirements under EU legislation. This is

required in order to reduce the risk of non-optimal use of

valuable resources. Also fine tuning and streamlining formats

and definitions in different EU reporting templates to

facilitate better integration and comparability was mentioned.

On the other hand, there are many obstacles to streamlining

the reporting requirements like different purpose and targets

(greenhouse gases, energy savings, end-use/primary energy

etc.), different reporting cycles, and different bodies

responsible for the reporting obligations etc. Some of the

data required exists in various reports, but occasionally data

used in one report cannot be directly transferred to another

report e.g. due to different definitions, scope etc. There were

also those of the opinion that the Action Plans and reports

should not be unified e.g. due to the existing structures and

timing for different climate and energy strategies at a

national level.

Perhaps more could be done, at both a Commission as well as

MS level, to try to improve the situation. It was identified, in

many cases, that responsibility for different reporting obligations

lie with different ministries in different MS or in different DGs

in the Commission, which further complicates the situation.

45

31

12

12Figure 1. How CA MS representatives saw the preparation process for

the 1st NEEAP

It was a good learning process on a national level 45%

It was a good start for collaboration between different authorities 12%

It was difficult because we did not have previous experience in these

types of processes 31%

Other 12%


As regards the possibility of increasing the reporting frequency

to annual reporting, the observations summarised in table 3

were made by a small sub-group in one working group session.

Support tools for the 2nd NEEAPIt was generally acknowledged that there was a need for

improvement and guidance in relation to the NEEAPs. All three

existing evaluations of the 1st NEEAPs2 also emphasised the

need for guidelines and/or a pre-structured template for future

NEEAPs. At the same time, it was clear that it would be a

challenge to develop guidance which has a good balance

between practicality and elaborateness. In the answers

received, National representatives seem unclear as to what

“a thorough analysis and evaluation of the preceding EEAP3

and results on achieving the energy savings targets” in the

2nd NEEAP means in practice. Some concrete guidance and

examples for MS would be welcomed.

52% of MS representatives would like a combination of general

guidelines and harmonised templates, thus allowing some

freedom to produce the 2nd NEEAP but including at the same

time some harmonised parts, with only 15% supporting a fully

harmonised template. This topic was discussed further, the aim

being to identify if it is possible to obtain more consistent or

clearer opinions about the content and/or format of the guidelines

or the combination of the guidelines and template for the 2nd

NEEAP. In the discussions, it was clear that in general the CA

participants would welcome at least harmonised guidelines,

including examples. Harmonisation in the overall structure,

leaving flexibility when dealing with detailed information, was

preferred e.g. in sectors/subsectors and when handling the

energy use in the field of the ETS sector.

Transparency was seen to be essential in reporting but

harmonisation was not viewed to be as necessary for all topics.

There were also views in a few MS that harmonised guidelines

for NEEAPs are not needed. It was also mentioned that the

ESD does not require harmonisation of the NEEAPs but that

the Commission recommends the MS to use a common

template once available.

When looking at the support required, it is not limited to the

tool itself (in the form of a template) but also the timing. The

development of a NEEAP should not be underestimated, and

therefore CA MS representatives considered it very important

that the guidance for the next NEEAPs be made available in

good time. The majority of CA ESD participants indicated that

the guidelines have to be available at the latest by September

2010 and half of the MS requested it earlier, at the latest by

2 Synthesis of 27 NEEAPs - SEC (2009) 889 final; EEW Final Report on the

Evaluation of National Energy Efficiency Action Plans, Wuppertal Institute

GmbH/Ralf Shüle et. al and Ecofys Germany GmbH, July 2009; port on the

NEEAPs under the Directive 2006/32/EC: analysis of the current state;

SenterNovem/Joanna van Es, R.A. Bruel, 2008

3 Preceding EEAP = 1st NEEAP

“Pros” “Cons”

More follow up Costly

Update of new legislation can be reported Must stay simple

Information on progress in MS for other MS Lack of resources, and unclear reporting responsibilities

Annual statistical data is improved Availability of data

It requires only a small additional information collection to

already existing approaches (e.g. ODYSSEE)

Only top-down sectoral savings can be included

Good practice examples helps MS to include new measures in

their national approach and NEEAP

Too much to report bottom-up on each measure

Table 3. Pros and Cons of increasing the reporting frequency


June 2010 or even before that for the 2nd NEEAP. It was seen

to be even more important that the guidelines for monitoring/

calculation/evaluation issues which are new in the 2nd

NEEAP should be made available as soon as possible, and

earlier than the final guidelines for the 2nd NEEAP format.

4.2 2nd NEEAP development2nd NEEAP templateMost CA country representatives indicated they will try to use the

2nd NEEAP template at least to some extent and the majority

of these reported that they will use it as much as possible. The

approach to streamlining the structure of the various NEEAPs

has been, at least to some degree, embraced by MS. On the other

hand, many also reserved the right to apply some modifications

to the template. It can be expected that the 2nd NEEAPs will, by

and large, follow the same structure and will therefore be more

comparable to each other than the 1st NEEAPs. Whilst there was

only one MS representative who could not say if the template

will be used, over one third of the others still could not say if

they will include primary energy savings and/or EPBD reporting

in the 2nd NEEAP; these are the optional parts that are not

included in the ESD reporting requirements.

Participants from 20 MS expected to use EC recommended

calculation methods to some extent, but most of them (16 MS)

with exceptions. In addition, five national representatives indicated

the possibility of using some methods. The main reasons for not

using the EC recommended methods were reported as: national

methods are proven methods, data availability for the recommended

methods and also lack of methods covering all national measures.

In 20 MS , participants reported that BU savings calculations will

cover at least 20–30 % of the annual final energy consumption

and almost half of these expected the share to be over 30%.

Development processBy the end of 2010, the vast majority of MS had assigned the

responsibility for organising the process to develop the 2nd

NEEAP mainly to one ministry. In addition, a team/group was

often especially assigned for the task. In general, according

to the CA ESD surveys, most of the preparation work for the

2nd NEEAP in MS was going to be performed during spring

2011. This was quite understandable if MS try to include 2010

data on energy savings in their 2nd NEEAP. A quarter of the

MS had not yet started the process (4 MS), or were in the

initial preparation phase (4 MS), at the beginning of January

2011. However, all MS reported to be starting the process by

February 2011 at the latest.

One of the strong recommendations in the guidance by the EC

when preparing the 2nd NEEAP is that the NEEAP can become

a useful policy tool and not only used for reporting in MS. This

implies a high priority of NEEAPs at a national level in energy

policy e.g. in terms of strong political commitment to clearly

defined energy efficiency targets set and strong compliance

monitoring. A huge majority of MS (26 out of 29) have given

the preparation of the 2nd NEEAP either a high priority or

importance to fulfil at least the ESD requirements but that

does not yet explicitly show how MS see the role of the NEEAP

as a policy tool at national level.

52

26

15

7

Figure 2. CA MS representatives would welcome

support when preparing the 2nd NEEAP to ensure

better mutual use and comparability between NEEAPs

General guidelines 52%

A combination of general guidelines and

harmonised template 26%

Harmonised template 15%

Other 7%


A rough mapping of the 2nd NEEAP approval processes showed

that in 22 MS the 2nd NEEAP will be finally approved by the

ministry/government that is responsible for the implementation

of the ESD. One possible aspect of the approval process is that

public consultation is performed in around a third of the MS.

CA MS representatives were of the opinion, that the situation

regarding access to expertise is quite good: the majority of MS

identified a well-functioning structure of experts. Over a third

of MS foresee some shortages of expert availability, but no

MS sees access to expertise for preparing the 2nd NEEAP as

a major problem.

New measures in the 2nd NEEAPMS are encouraged to include in their 2nd NEEAP new

measures which were not included in their 1st NEEAP. This is

obligatory where there is an expected shortfall in achieving

their ESD indicative energy saving target.

According to the replies, many MS were performing actions to

consolidate the energy efficiency measures which have been

taken so far and to step up activity in areas where new

challenges are emerging, in order to achieve the energy

efficiency targets set. Plans for the 2nd NEEAPs were very

dynamic: 20 MS already intend to include new energy efficiency

measures while 6 MS were still considering that idea. Only 3

MS explicitly had no plans to include new measures not

mentioned in the 1st NEEAP.

Among the reported 16 new measures from 9 MS special

attention is given to the sectors with the largest potential to

make energy efficiency gains, namely the existing building

stock (6 new measures) and transport sector (2 new

measures). Some measures tackle public buildings and

public procurement (3 measures), white certificates (2 new

measures), and agriculture (1 new measure). The introduction

69

21

73

Figure 3. Importance of the preparation of the 2nd

NEEAP in 29 MS

Yes, it has been given high priority 21%

Yes, it is considered important to fulfil at least

the requirements set in the Directive 69%

It is difficult to judge either way 7%

No, it appears to have a rather low priority 3%

69

21

10

Figure 4. Plans to include new measures in the 2nd

NEEAP in 29 MS

Yes 69%

No 10%

Don’t know yet 21%


of innovative tools such as smart meters (1 new measure)

and electric vehicles (1 new measure) are to be speeded up.

Lessons learned A number of CA ESD participants stressed the importance of

good coordination with and between the organisations involved

in preparing the NEEAP. The need for a project leader with overall

responsibility and allowing sufficient time for the work and thus

an early start was also stated. With regard to the experiences

gained from the process for the 1st NEEAPs some participants

also mentioned the relevance and experiences of involving

stakeholders e.g. through public consultation or sectoral workshops.

The following were considered useful and important points

for the future:

• Assure adequate resources and time for the preparation of

the 2nd NEEAP

• Appoint a team leader (an owner) for the NEEAP

• Make use of information resulting from the 1st NEEAP

evaluations.

Good practice example

The NL approach to developing the 2nd NEEAP revolved

around the establishment of a Working Group entrusted

with the task for developing the NEEAP. The Working

Group consisted of representatives from the three relevant

ministries and a project leader (NL Agency). A strict timeline

was developed allowing for three Working Group meetings.

The first Working Group meeting took place in January

2011. A pragmatic approach was adopted where experts

were called in as required and utilising national approaches

when possible in order to optimise the use of resources.

For more information see www.enr-network.org

4.3 Sharing experience on energy efficiency programmes and measures This section summarises the types of energy efficiency

improvement measures and programmes in place in MS and

how sharing of information can be enhanced.

Implemented types of EEI-measures and their importance in MSAnalysis showed that MS are implementing a wide range of

EEI-measures across the EU, the number of EEI-measures in

MS varies considerably. Over 1600 policy measures in the

field of energy efficiency can be accessed via the MURE

database and forms an excellent source of information4. No

clear trends were seen in the number of EEI-measures in MS.

The size, region or membership period in the EU seemed not

to have a clear influence on the number of EEI-measures MS

are adopting.

The Working Group included summary information on

implemented types of EEI-measures and types of measures

used in MS. The information was gathered for 13 target groups

like buildings in different sectors, households (other than

building related measures), public and commercial service

sectors, industry, agriculture, transport, energy sector and

measures targeting more than one target group (multi-

targeting). The EEI-measures were placed in 12 categories

including legislation/regulations, financial instrument like

funds and funding’s, taxes, energy efficiency tariffs,

procurement guidelines, smart metering and/or information

billing, voluntary agreements, white certificates, energy

audits, ESCO’s and other energy services for the customer

and focused information campaigns.

For each type of measure, the MS applying the type of

measure to the largest number of target groups was

determined. These MS might have the best experience of

development and implementation of EEI-measures for a

particular type of measures. However, it should be noted that

the given figures reflected only the quantity of measures in

relation to different target groups. Therefore, no conclusions

could be drawn from this regarding e.g. volume, intensity and

quality of those implemented measures or the level of

market-based activities.

The most targeted sector for EEI-measures is energy use in

buildings; the number of EEI-measures in transport and

4 MURE (http://www.isisrome.com/mure/)


agriculture were mentioned the lowest. Under the target group

‘Other’ measures were mentioned such as school children’s

training and education, financial instruments and smart metering

in the field of energy research, non-tradable energy efficiency

obligations for the energy sector and voluntary agreements

with housing co-operatives.

MS representatives seemed to be of the opinion, that the most

essential types of measures to fulfil ESD targets are legislation,

regulations, standards, financial instruments, energy audits,

focused information campaigns and taxes. Although white

certificates are important to the MS who have them already in

place, most MS don’t have white certificates and do not plan to

implement them. The same applies to energy efficiency tariffs.

The most important EEI-measures in the MSBuildings and measures with more than one target group

(multi-targeting measures) were by far the most common

target groups for the five most important measures. Financial

support and legislation/regulation were the most common

types of measure.

Further analysis demonstrates the significance of the most

important measures. The data showed that compared to each

other the top two measures cover over half the savings

generated by the top five measures. Compared to the ESD

saving target of 9% the two most important measures together,

on average, cover around 2/3 of the overall energy savings

target in any given country.

CA ESD participants perceive the important measures as being

cost-efficient, regardless of whether you are focusing on all

important measures together or on the single categories.

However, many respondents did not include administrative

costs in their estimations. Also, it has to be highlighted that

the figures provided were estimates. They could therefore

neither be compared to each other nor could further

conclusions be drawn from the collected data/information.

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

163 157130 127 117 113 107

91 82 76 7359

41 9

Figure 5. Total number of EEI-measures implemented in various target

groups related to the given 12 measure type categories in MS

Num

ber

of m

easu

res


Good practice examples and success stories in different target groups in MSMost success stories were found in the building sector, most

successful types of measures seemed to be financial

instruments. Additionally, depending on the individual

measure, there are opportunities for MS to copy successful

measures from other MS. However, it became clear, that

there are no standard or harmonised measures which can be

copied 1:1 from one MS to another. When trying to copy a

measure successfully implemented in another MS, the MS

should be aware that the specific framework conditions

influencing the success of an implemented measure may vary

between MS. Measures may therefore have to be adjusted to

fit the conditions “at home”. For this reason, some measures

that have been successfully implemented in one MS may not

always be just as successful in other MS.


ACA: Accelerated Capital Allowances Scheme (Ireland)

ACA is a tax incentive introduced in Ireland in the 2008

Irish Finance Act which provides that companies may claim

100% of the capital cost of certain energy efficient plant

and machinery against corporation tax in year of purchase.

It allows these companies to write-off 100% of eligible

energy efficiency equipment costs against profit in the first

year (normally 8 years). The purpose of the scheme is to

encourage businesses to purchase plant and machinery

that are highly energy efficient and thus make significant

savings on energy costs and reduce carbon emissions. The

Scheme is administered by the SEAI and further

information is at: http://www.seai.ie/Your_Business/

Accelerated_Capital_Allowance/

ESD implementation assessmentAccording to the the CA ESD survey from January 2011 the

implementation of the ESD is clearly underway in the MS.

16 MS representatives assessed the situation good or very good

and 12 moderate. Success in this respect is surely relative

because of the wide range of possible actions. Focus of the MS

lies on different aspects, but only one MS reports significant

problems in the implementation.

4.4 Measurement and verification of energy savingsIn the 2nd NEEAP, MS are required to report on energy

savings. Consequently, to encourage harmonisation, the ESD

provides a calculation model making use of both top-down

and bottom-up calculation methods in order to measure the

energy savings achieved.

A top-down (TD) calculation method means that the amount

of energy savings is calculated using the national or larger-

scale aggregated sectoral levels of energy savings as the

starting point. Top-down means therefore starting from

global data (e.g. national statistics for energy consumption or

sales of equipment) and then going down to more disaggregated

Targets most mentioned Ranking

Buildings (old and new) 1

Multi-targeting (more than

one target group)2

Transport

(private and public)3

Appliances 4

Energy Sector 5

Lighting 6

Measure type most

mentioned

Ranking

Financial support

(subsidies, grants)1

Legislation, Regulation 2

White Certificates,

Saving Targets3

Audits 4

Information 5

Taxes on Energy 6

Table 4. Most important EEI-measures with the highest

savings related to the ESD target in 2016 – Content and

target group


data when necessary (e.g. energy efficiency indicators) and

correlating with policy measures.

A bottom-up (BU) calculation method means that energy

savings obtained through the implementation of a specific

energy efficiency improvement measure are measured in

kilowatt-hours (kWh), in Joules (J) or in kilogram oil

equivalent (kgoe) and added to energy savings results from

other specific energy efficiency improvement measures.

Bottom-up therefore means starting from data at the level of

an energy efficiency improvement measure, mechanism or

programme, (e.g. energy savings per participants and

number of participants) and then aggregates results from all

energy efficiency improvement measures and programmes

reported by a Member State to assess its total energy savings

in a specific field.

Mapping areas in the field of monitoring and calculations (Spring 2009)Use of national measurement methods At the start of the CA ESD several countries already had at

least some BU and/or TD methods in use, however there

were more MS that did not have methods in use. MS that

already have methods in use mentioned some barriers for

sharing methods and related experiences. Lack of resources

– both human and financial – seemed to be the most crucial

factors when discussing sharing methods.

Expectations for guidelines for the calculation methodsIn general, most national representatives saw the need for

workable guiding principles on how to monitor and calculate

savings. Flexibility and the possibility to use their own national

methods was seen as crucial. In light of the different starting

points in MS within these issues, there was also a clear need

for concrete examples of savings calculations. The need for

transparency on the values and the methods used by different MS

was also raised and seen as more important than harmonisation.

Due to the lack of general guidelines and methods at the start

of the CA ESD, some MS took steps to develop national guidelines

concerning the savings calculations.

Top-Down methodsThe majority of the CA ESD participants thought that Odyssee

indicators5 could be used for calculating ESD savings – although

they also pointed out that they are not designed for ESD purposes.

The most cited advantage was that Odyssee indicators are well

known and established indicators. On the other hand, many possible

problems concerning the indicators were also mentioned. They

were cited as being suitable for measuring the development within

a country but that problems can occur when comparing countries.

In particular, problems were mentioned concerning data

availability, quality and accuracy when measuring small savings

– this would be the same concerning all Top-Down methods.

Correction factors for Top-Down methodsMany divergent opinions concerning the correction factors to be

used in TD calculations shows that there is still much need for

discussion and further investigations outside the CA ESD on this

issue. Most of the country representatives also thought that there

is still much to do concerning data quality and availability for TD

analyses including the suitability of indicators to monitor energy

savings or for using them for benchmarking within MS needs.

Primary energy reportingMore than half of the CA MS representatives would appreciate

using the work done to date to calculate ESD savings for the

20% target where appropriate. However, many strong concerns

have also been stated regarding the comparability of the two

different based targets.

Bottom-Up methodsIt was generally agreed that the measured/estimated “situation

before” if available is the best alternative for a baseline but not

always possible to obtain. If the “situation before” is not available

it very much depends on the measure, the method and data

availability in the MS which baseline is the best/possible

alternative. In that case, the baseline has to be defined and

MS representatives clearly prefer static baselines based on

stock average. There is a clear need for more discussion and

5 ODYSSEE is an IEE project which aims to monitor energy efficiency trends

and policy measures in Europe, see www.odyssee-indicators.org


concrete case examples provided outside the CA ESD for

different kind of measures, methods and situations concerning

the baselines and the base years so that the MS can adopt a

stance on these issues.

Savings calculation methods for soft measuresSoft measures are frequently applied in MS and there is general

recognition that these are difficult to measure. CA participants

indicated that they would welcome and even need guidance in this

area. It is clear that some kind of procedure to award soft measure

to the ESD savings in an easy/workable way was awaited by MS.

Benchmarking in the scope of ESDThe general conclusion for the benchmarking issue seems to

be that benchmarks would be appreciated. However, this would

need much more work or could not even be done fairly within

27 countries e.g. due to data availability and quality. At the

same time, it was also stated that benchmarking is not a tool

for calculating energy savings.

Measurement and calculation of energy savings for the 2nd NEEAP – a practical approach (Spring 2011)One of the most apparent key findings of the conducted analysis

(April – July 2010) was that a high percentage of MS were still

undecided on whether to use BU or TD methods (both

national ones and ones recommended by the EC August/2010)

for measuring and calculating energy savings according to ESD.

46

24

14

11

5 Figure 6. How MS representatives saw possible benchmarks (BM)

referred in ESD

Benchmarking would be useful within all MS in the scope of ESD 24%

Benchmarking would be useful but needs much work to be reliable

and fair within 27 MS 46%

Benchmarking would be useful but is obviously not possible in a fair

way within 27 MS 14%

Don’t know 5%

Other 11%

Table 5. What are the non-technical areas (“soft measures”)

where you think there should be harmonised methods/

guidelines to calculate energy savings?

Alternatives Number of

MS

%

Information campaigns 19 70 %

Feedback (e.g. informative

billing, smart meters,

energy consumption

monitoring)

17 63 %

Procurement guidelines

(informative)17 63 %

Transport infrastructure

development and traffic

optimisation

16 59 %

Training 14 52 %

Targeted information for

different customer groups14 52 %

Modal shift for transport 14 52 %

Procurement criteria’s

(binding)13 48 %

Market transformation 13 48 %

Other 6 22 %

Don’t know 0 0 %

Number of MS responses 27


In general, country representatives were uncertain (do not know

or did not answer at all) whether to use the BU or TD methods

recommended by the EC or national ones. Furthermore, the

percentage of uncertainty is higher in the area of BU methods

than in the area of TD methods. Those few MS that have already

gained experience in using EC recommended TD and/or BU

methods are generally more experienced in using TD methods

than BU methods. MS are most experienced with the use of TD

and BU methods in the area of industry.

According to the answers given MS seem to use TD methods

recommended by the EC at least as much as national TD

methods. Conversely, the MS clearly tend to use national BU

methods rather than EC recommended BU methods. On the

other hand, in some areas/measures (improvement of

thermal insulation in buildings, solar water heating, lighting)

more MS tend to use BU methods recommended by the EC

rather than national BU methods.

Use of national and/or EC recommended TD and BU methods13 MS representatives indicated that their country has tested

at least to some extent the EC recommended TD methods in

their national energy savings calculation system. Nearly all

replies agreed in some way regarding the practicability of the

EC TD method. The highest number of MS that have tested EC

TD methods on a national level is in industry.

As new methods for new sectors are introduced, the data gap

of non-existence of data was highlighted at every stage in the

answers. The main area of missing data is in the building

sector. The data gap together with improper indicators could

create a different picture than expected. Some methodologies

were reported to be missing for households (advisory and

consultancy services), transport (public passenger road

transport and energy efficiency by key industrial technologies),

agriculture and horizontal measures for training and workshops.

10 MS representatives assessed the practicability of national

TD methods and clearly demonstrated their faith in them. Two

thirds of the national methods have been in use for over 3 years.

Interestingly no national method has been introduced in the

last year, which perhaps also shows that countries were

waiting for the final recommendations of the TD methods by

EC. Effort on data collection for national TD method shows, in

general, moderate effort in every sector. Most participants

considered that the national TD methods are “slightly hard”,

“hard” or even “impossible” to replicate in another MS

e.g. due to following national specific circumstances.

By May–June 2010 only 8 MS had tried to test at least some EC

recommended BU methods (published preliminary in 7/2009)

for their national energy savings calculations. Of these, most

Figure 7. Experience gained in 15 MS

in using EC recommended TD methods

(April-July 2010)

In depth/long experience

regular experience

moderate experience

little experience

no experience

Num

ber

of M

S

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

12

21

3

12

2

2

4

3

2

2

3

12

4

2

3

2

3

1

4


CA ESD participants indicated (8 MS, 19 assessments of the

methods) that they considered the EU recommended method(s)

to be moderately practical. However, only 2 MS representatives

fully agreed the practicability, one method each.

As with TD methods, the problem is with data gathering.

The buildings sector in particular was commonly highlighted,

where there is a need to go to the one house level.

Data collection effort, both financial and human, is still very

early to assess. With regard to missing technologies, CHP,

photovoltaics and a formula for calculating savings for air

conditioning cooling were mentioned. Also soft measures as

indicated strongly by most of the MS earlier in the WG1.1

in spring 2009 were mentioned. CA participants were still

uncertain as to what is the right combination of national and

EC recommended BU methods as well as the introduction

of all relevant sectors in the calculation for which the

experiences are missing.

15 MS representatives assessed the practicability of national

BU methods. BU methods for national calculations have also

introduced national specifics, which creates a challenge and

barrier for possible provision of these methods to other MS or

to harmonise them into the EC version of the BU method.

Over half of the assessed national BU methods have been in

use for more than 3 years and over 30 % for 1–3 years. Only

four methods have been in use for less than one year. CA ESD

participants reported moderate effort for data gathering in

more than two thirds of replies and nearly one third describes

low effort only. The results attained when exploring the

possibility of replicating the national BU method in other MS

show that it is not easy. Only 6 of 30 reported methods are

indicated as easy or quite easy to apply in other MS. 5 methods

were assessed as not possible to be introduced into other MS.


Austria started in 2008 with the development of bottom-up

methods within a participatory process that involved all the

relevant stakeholders (the federal and regional level of

governance, the interest groups and energy utilities, etc.).

The Federal Ministry of Economy commissioned the

Austrian Energy Agency (AEA) to lead this process and to

develop the methods for the Ministry. A user-friendly

database has been developed and put in place allowing

data to be directly fed into the national measurement

system. For more information see:

http://www.monitoringstelle.at/English.490.0.html

Human and financial efforts needed are still difficult to assessEven a rough estimation of the human and financial resources

needed to establish the monitoring system and to provide

energy savings calculation for 2nd NEEAP were difficult for

MS to provide at this stage when e.g. final methods and

guidelines were not available. Over one fourth did not answer

and those who did answer pointed out the difficulty of the

estimation. Some MS representatives also reported that it is

difficult to separate these costs for ESD because normally

evaluation efforts are not only used for ESD but also serve

other national purposes. There were quite big differences

between MS estimations of the required efforts and there did

not seem to be a clear correlation between the so called

more and less experienced MS in these assessments. The

usage e.g. of the savings calculations for other purposes is

also seen in figure 8 where according to the responses from

25 MS 80% saw uses other than only ESD reporting and no

one answered they are not beneficial.

Extra support for the savings calculations would be welcomedA clear majority of the responding 24 country representatives

would welcome extra support and help regarding the ESD

energy savings calculations. Even 8 of the 11 given options

were welcomed by over 50 % of the responding MS and the

remaining 3 options were also looked for by half of the

responding MS. The most welcomed mediums and methods for


extra support were tools for collecting data and calculating

energy savings, a detailed handbook on methods and

calculations and a training course which all got support from

more than half of MS but also CA ESD and its forum were

rated highly.

Synergies and interfaces with other processes are not well known The majority of the responding MS representatives were not

well aware of the synergies with ESD energy savings

calculations and other reporting requirements such as

Effort Sharing Decision (406/2009/EC), UNFCCC and other

EU directives like EPBD. CA ESD participants would like to

have more information and/or support related to these issues.

60

20

12

8Figure 8. Usefulness of the ESD energy savings calculations in other

areas of national energy/environmental/climate policies in your country

Yes, it gives one important part of savings calculations but

only within the scope of ESD energy use 60%

Yes, it also gives a clear picture of other policies 20%

Not really, but it provides some clarification 8%

No, it is not beneficial for other national policies and only

necessary for ESD 0%

Don’t know 12%


5 Concluding remarks

• Mapping of the issues and principles considered to be in

need of clarification and/or guidelines in the field of

monitoring and calculating energy savings and response to

the work done by the Commission services on proposed

methods and their applicability from a practical perspective.

• The need for guidelines and templates for the drafting of

the 2nd NEEAP and feedback on the Commission draft

version for the 2nd NEEAP template

• Exchange of information on the energy efficiency

programmes themselves. The information gathered and

reported contributed to the preparation of the new EU

Energy Efficiency Plan (EEP) and was used in the impact

assessment on the EEP.

• MS awareness of the potential synergies with ESD energy

savings calculations and other reporting requirements

such as Effort Sharing Decision (406/2009/EC), UNFCCC

and other EU directives like EPBD

The CA has helped to identify MS issues with the implementation

of the ESD, results as well as areas or aspects of the ESD that

need to be considered when aiming for optimal implementation

of the legislation.

The network established by the CA has evolved during the

course of the action and is considered to be a strong asset

lowering the threshold to seek further contact with experts

outside the plenary meetings.

The confidential nature of the action seems to support the

willingness amongst participants to share experience of both

good and bad practices; this is extremely useful for both MS

evaluating the introduction of measures as well as for the

Commission services when looking at the development of

new policies. New Member States found guidance regarding

calculation methods from Member States with longstanding

experience in the field of measurement and verification of

energy savings useful.

All topics covered within the Core Theme have on the one hand offered MS representatives a possibility to express their needs and views and on the other hand provided the EC with an opportunity to gather and take into account opinions and information from the MS implementing bodies. Good examples of this information exchange and MS feedback used in EC processes are:


Topic Issue Outcomes Future

NEEAP • Value of NEEAPs

• 2nd NEEAP tools and guidance

• Useful task

Provided input during the

development cycle

• CA MS representatives

welcome having more

consistent NEEAPs

• NEEAPs are for MS use,

national level processes and

work needs to be taken into

account

• Continue working towards

more uniform reporting

• Streamline reporting

Measurement

methods

• Harmonisation of Energy

savings measurement methods

• Requires clarification, flexibility

and room for use of national

methods

• CA MS representatives

welcome support for savings

calculation

• Methods should be developed

by those measuring and

reporting not by scientists/

academics

Sharing

experiences

• How best to share

• Transferability of good

practices

• Identified obstacles and key

criteria for successful sharing

• Optimal level for sharing varies

• Good practices are rarely

transferable 1:1

• Sharing requires more effort

• Allow for more in-depth

discussion and review of a topic

• More exposure of good practice

examples

Table 6. Overview table

For further information please visit www.esd-ca.eu

or contact [email protected] This is an IEE funded action.

Background and Legal Disclaimer

The directive 2006/32/EC on Energy End-Use Efficiency and

Energy Services (ESD) was adopted on 5 April 2006. The

transposition date for all Member States (MS) was 17 May

2008 and the overall aim of the ESD is to enhance the

cost-effective improvement of energy end-use efficiency.

The efforts required to implement the ESD in all MS are

significant and many of them are facing common challenges.

This means that alongside the challenges posed, there are

also significant opportunities to share experience, avoid

pitfalls and build on others successful approaches.

In the context of the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) Programme,

a Concerted Action (CA) is an instrument which provides a

structured framework for information exchange between the

organisations in charge of the national transposition and

implementation of a Directive. This mechanism allows each

MS to know and understand what other MS are doing and

why. However, CA topics are only related to issues where a

directive does not require a harmonised approach but where

harmonisation is considered beneficial.

The Concerted Action for the Energy Services Directive (CA

ESD) provides a structured framework for the exchange of

information between 27 Member States, Croatia and Norway

(called together hereafter MS) during their implementation of

the Directive. Each MS can share its knowledge and experience,

and draw on that of others, in order to adopt the most

successful approaches towards implementing the ESD and

avoid pitfalls highlighted by others.

The work of the CA ESD is structured around five Core Themes:

Core Theme 1 – National Energy Efficiency Action Plans; Core

Theme 2 – The Role of the Public Sector; Core Theme 3 – The

Role of the Energy Sector; Core Theme 4 – Auditing, Metering

and Billing; Core Theme 5 – Use of Financial Instruments;

covering the key elements. This report aims to distribute the

main findings of the Core Theme 1 – National Energy Efficiency

Action Plans. It starts by summarising the results from five

working groups and provides a summary of findings at the end.

The overview provided does not necessarily reflect the positions

taken by individual participating countries. It is clear that a

wide variety of solutions are available where the implementation

of legislation is concerned, and there is no ‘silver bullet’ to

the optimal implementation of the ESD. This report does not,

in any way aim to prescribe the best action or best direction.

The sole responsibility for the content of this document 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.

Core Theme Summary Report National Energy Efficiency ...€¦ · CA ESD Core Theme 1 Summary Report...

Documents

Transcript of Core Theme Summary Report National Energy Efficiency ...€¦ · CA ESD Core Theme 1 Summary Report...