http---EnH_Publishable_Report

EEECCCOOO NNN’’’HHHOOOMMMEEE PPPRRROOOJJJEEECCCTTT

Final Report Date of preparation: February 2009 Author(s): MVE with contributions from the proj ect partners Grant agreement number: EIE/05/029/SI2.419626 Project Type: SAVE Website: www.econhome.eu

With the support of

Eco n’Home Publishable Result-Orientated Report February 2009

1

TABLE OF CONTENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 3

OBJECTIVES......................................... ............................................................................................. 3 ACHIEVEMENTS................................................................................................................................ 3

Methodology and tools.................................................................................................................... 3 Experimentation .............................................................................................................................. 4 Dissemination ................................................................................................................................. 4 Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 5

LESSONS LEARNT............................................. ............................................................................... 5 The sharing of experience .............................................................................................................. 5 The energy audit with participant households... ............................................................................. 6 Replica of the service ..................................................................................................................... 6

ACTIVITIES AND IMPACT AFTER THE END OF THE ACTION ....................................................... 6

I – FOREWORD.................................................................................................................... 8

II – INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 9

III – SUPPORTING EU POLICY...........................................................................................10

IV – THE ECO N’HOME MODEL .......................... ...............................................................10

IV – THE ECO N’HOME MODEL .......................... ...............................................................11

IV.1 – COMMON METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................. 11 IV. 2 – COMMON TOOLS ................................................................................................................. 13

V – THE PILOT STUDY .......................................................................................................17

V.1 – DESCRIPTION BY PARTNER................................................................................................. 17 MVE .............................................................................................................................................. 21 E-STER......................................................................................................................................... 24 MEA .............................................................................................................................................. 26 KLIBA............................................................................................................................................ 29 GEFOSAT..................................................................................................................................... 31 EAA............................................................................................................................................... 38 LEA ............................................................................................................................................... 40 FLAME .......................................................................................................................................... 42

V.2 – RESULTS AND ANALYSIS........................................... .......................................................... 47 V.2.1 – Actual Energy and CO2 Savings compared between experimental areas....................... 47 V.2.2 – Uptake of Energy Efficiency (EE) measures .................................................................... 51 V.2.3 – Comparison between the initial potential of energy savings and realised energy savings...................................................................................................................................................... 56 V.2.4 – Level of satisfaction of the participant households .......................................................... 57 V.2.5 – Participant profiles............................................................................................................ 60 V.2.6 – Cost analysis of the service.............................................................................................. 62 V.2.7 – Lessons learnt on the service and methodology.............................................................. 65 V.2.8 – Success stories ................................................................................................................ 72

VI – REPRODUCING THE SERVICE AT A LARGER SCALE..... ........................................76

VI.1 – ACHIEVING GOALS ON ENERGY SAVINGS ....................................................................... 76 VI.2 – HOW CAN THIS TYPE OF ENERGY SERVICE BE REPRODUCED AT A LARGER SCALE? ............................................. ............................................................................................... 78

VI.2.1 – Integration of Eco n’Home to existing services and schemes......................................... 78 VI.1.2 – The Characteristics of an Energy Service....................................................................... 79

VII – CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................82

LEGAL DISCLAIMER................................... .......................................................................83


2

Eco n’Home or “How to reduce energy consumptions in household”

Programme area: Save, Equipment and Products

Status: completed

Coordinator: Maîtrisez Votre Energie (MVE), FR

Erwan Olivo E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +33 (0)1 42 87 13 55

Partners: Agenzia Energia e Ambiente di Torino, IT Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Energie (ADEME), FR Fédération Nationale des Agences Locales de Maîtrise de l'Energie (FLAME), FR GEFOSAT, FR Klimaschutz- und Energie-Beratungsagentur Heidelberg-Nachbargemeinden gGmbH (KliBA), DE e-ster bvba, BE Leicester Energy Agency (Leicester City Council), UK The Marches Energy Agency Limited, UK Agência Municipal de Energia de Almada (AGENEAL), PT

Website:

http://www.econhome.eu/

Objective: The Eco n’Home project aims to explore an innovative approach to

reducing the energy consumption in households

Benefits: Eco n’Home is a real opportunity to make available a practical service for lowering energy use in households and for raising awareness on this topic

Keywords: Home energy diagnosis, energy consumption analysis, behavioural

changes

Duration: 01/2006 – 12/2008

Budget: 1 160 108 € (EU contribution: 50%)

Contract number: EIE-05-029/SI2.419626


3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OBJECTIVES Eco n’Home is an innovative new approach to providing advice to households on energy saving and carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction in their homes and travel. This service model was developed as part of a three-year project (January 2006 – December 2008), and piloted within a sample of 863 households in six European Union (EU) Member States. A key objective of this unique model was the personalisation of advice and support based on initial guidance that goes beyond common practice in the EU. The main tasks and timescale are outlined in the diagram below: The Eco n’Home project emerged as a response to the upward trend in energy consumption within the domestic sector which is a growing concern for Europe and to the recognised ‘gap’ in delivering household energy advice, and seeks to address simultaneously ‘behavioural barriers’. The specific aims of the Eco n’Home project were to achieve, per household, an average reduction of 10-20% in energy consumption and one tonne in annual CO2 emissions. Half of the CO2 reduction was to come from changes in the home, and half was to come from transport. A key aim of the Eco n’Home service is to further progress on the delivery of Directives as translated into legislation whilst informing the development of future policies. The service also aims to strengthen the market for White Certificates. ACHIEVEMENTS Methodology and tools • The first stage was to agree the definition of the project and to find common tools to carry

it out, not by defining one common methodology in detail but rather by building on existing experience and tools of the different partners, and by doing so to reach a consensus on common output.

Jan 08

January 2006

January 2007

January 2008

December 2008

Define framework & methodology Develop diagnosis & follow-up tools Select & recruit households Audit & analyse households Follow-up households Evaluate households Evaluate project Eco n’Home Conference

Definition of tools and methodology

Experimentation

Evaluation

Dissemination


4

• Many of the participating households across the partner countries were informed of the project by way of the project flyer, through existing networks or contacts, by completing a registration or entry form, and via local media.

• Prior to the diagnostic, householders completed an initial questionnaire to determine whether they adhered to the selection criteria – these varied across the consortia but typically were that the householder had lived in their property for more than a year, and were not planning to move. Each partner attempted to recruit a cross-section of housing types and householders with varying socio-economic backgrounds.

• Each partner was provided with a complete set of tools to perform diagnostics: a check list to collect data during audit visits, a model of report and action plan to give to each participant household, a common online database to collect automatically household data throughout the experimentation, a model of individual evaluation report to assess the energy and CO2 savings due to the actions carried out by the participants, a list of data processing tools and a list of measurement devices used by Eco n’home partners.

• Each participating householder received a second audit and/or completed a follow-up questionnaire to determine what actions had been taken – this enabled each partner to estimate the final energy savings or “Negawatts” and savings in carbon dioxide emissions.

• A separate report has been completed, giving a detailed description of the methodology used by each partner to experiment the service, providing information on how the project was implemented in each experimental area.

Experimentation • 1268 households across the project consortia were initially motivated to take part in the

project. • 1098 households were eventually diagnosed • Following completion of this stage and identification of recommended actions, each

partner implemented a range of follow-up activities. These again varied across the consortia and were dependant on the target audience, but typical activities included: themed mailings, ongoing personal contact to provide specific advice, referral to grant schemes for financial assistance towards paying for the recommended energy saving measures, film showings, information packs, talks about energy and climate change, thematic meetings, internet groups and forums, press articles, and on-going monitoring of energy consumption.

• 863 households were considered for the evaluation of the Eco n’Home project as they received an audit by an Eco n’Home advisor within the given time for implementing the project.

• Of these, 522 households have participated throughout project and received an evaluation report

• On average, based upon measurements at the end of the follow-up period, the target achieved in terms of total energy consumption (housing + transport) was 9% savings per household and the reduction in CO2 emissions corresponded to 0,8 tons per household. In order to account for energy efficiency measures implemented towards the end of the follow up period, the savings for the year to follow were estimated as 11% and 1 ton per household.

Dissemination • A dedicated Eco n’Home website was created, with both public and partner-only areas.

The website contains all information on the project, including downloadable documents about the implementation and results, news and information on events, as well as case studies on the best practices in each partner area.


5

• Meetings were held in both partner and non-partner countries in order to present the project and disseminate best practice and lessons learnt.

• Organisation of a European conference, held in France in November 2008, which included a presentation of the project by the project partners and key note speeches to enrich the debate. This was attended by over 100 people representing national and international organisations, as well as some members of the public.

• A set of communication materials were created for the conference and are available in both English and French: these consisted of a project poster and flyer suitable for a wide audience, and case study posters.

• A project flyer is available in the following languages: English, French, German, Portuguese, Italian and Flemish. This flyer presents the project to households and can be used as a recruitment method and for general publicity.

• Survey on the implementation of white certificate markets in partner countries and potential links with Eco n’Home.

• Survey on partnerships & financial tools for households. • Completion of a project guide available in the following languages in both electronic and

printed versions: English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Flemish. The guide provides a detailed overview of the project and enables other organisations to replicate the service. The guide can be disseminated to energy agencies, local authorities and other relevant organisations across the project consortia.

• Compilation of communication materials including abstracts on the methodology used by the partners, the results and lessons learnt, and then topic specific abstracts on insulation, electricity, space and water heating, sustainable transport and the importance of developing partnerships. Slides packages were also created.

• Promotion of the project via media, radio, television, articles, publications, bulletins, press conferences, networks (Medener, Managenergy, ERRIN, Club EnR...), and professional journals / magazines.

Evaluation A Global Evaluation report was completed, consisting of the following: • Comparison of the results in term of savings in energy and CO2 between the

experimental areas, and comparison with performance indicators (which were to reduce energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in a minimum of 1000 households by 10 to 20% in energy and 1 tonne in emissions per household).

• Analysis of the measures implemented by the participating households • Evaluation of the level of satisfaction of the participants • Strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages of the methodology used by

partners • Global evaluation of the effectiveness of the service in each experimental area and

benefit gained by the participants • Global evaluation of the methodology used by the partners and related to the samples of

households encountered • Cost effectiveness of the action and comparison with other similar actions • Possible recommendations for a reproduction of the service and integration in existing

schemes and policies LESSONS LEARNT... The sharing of experience • Handling such an experimental initiative based on common practice of the 10 partners

taking part in the project, is not a simple and straight-forward exercise. It is almost


6

impossible to define one common methodology in detail, which each partner would have to apply. Rather, the point of developing a service like Eco n’Home is to build on existing experiences and tools of the different partners, but finding a consensus on common output. Besides, the variety of context, methodology and tool makes the scheme highly replicable, allows the bringing together of several different approaches and enables the sharing of concrete experiences.

The energy audit with participant households... • Issues around data collection – we discovered as a consortium that there are limitations

to how much data you can collect in one visit, and so, therefore, a trade-off has to be made between time and the amount and quality of data collected. Account should also be made of the assumptions made by some tools and software, for example regarding lifestyle patterns and behaviour.

• Understanding the motivations and behaviour of participants – we discovered that it is important to understand the socio-economic status of the participating household, their reason for participating in the scheme, and their attitudes towards the environment. This is particularly useful when explaining any anomalous results. In addition we found that, in some cases, implementing one small measure, e.g. switching to low energy light bulbs, increased the motivation for the householder to subsequently implement more complicated or costly measures. This “behavioural change” aspect of the project was important – for example, we also found that some householders chose to “realise” their energy savings in the form of increased thermal comfort rather than in a reduction in energy consumption.

Replica of the service • The Eco n’Home initiative could be replicated by local authorities and energy agencies,

and should be recognised at national and European levels as being an interesting tool for complying with the energy and climate policies. The Eco n’Home project guide, website and on-line tools should be used by organisations wishing to replicate the initiative, and organisations can contact the project partners for advice.

• The results from the project confirm by that laws, regulations and especially economic incentives can have a strong impact on people decisions. For example, in Leicester, UK, the 75% grant offered to participants increased both their ability to implement energy efficiency measures and increased their motivation to undertake additional behavioural changes. It is therefore ideal that any replication of the project is carried out in an incentive framework. However, care should be taken to ensure that the incentive is credible, and still allows the participant to take ownership over his or her decisions to act in an environmentally responsible manner. Ideally this action should continue even after the incentive has been removed.

ACTIVITIES AND IMPACT AFTER THE END OF THE ACTION The main activities planned for after the end of the action can be summarised as follows: • Negotiations at local and national levels with interested actors for making use of the

advice service developed in the framework of Eco n’Home. • Consideration of ways to integrate such a service within existing schemes and policies

and in collaboration with the key actors. • Presentation of the Eco n’Home project approach and results at relevant conferences • Dissemination of the project brochure / practical guide to all interested partners, and at

relevant events.


7

• Keep the Eco n’Home website active until end of year 2010 • The participants involved are stored in partner databases, and in some cases we will

continue providing advice and keep them periodically informed of new initiatives (when any).


8

I – FOREWORD The upward trend in energy consumption within the domestic sector is a growing concern for Europe. Implications for climate change, energy security, energy prices, fuel poverty and the achievement of policy objectives justify urgent action at all levels. Various approaches have been implemented in individual Member States with the aim of reducing household energy use; however, none have succeeded in effectively addressing the barriers to behavioural change and the installation of measures. The existence and nature of barriers has been well documented in research and includes trust and availability of information, values, capital cost, and how to invest often limited personal resources. Evidence suggests that providing generalised advice such as in the form of an energy audit is only a part of the solution and will not be sufficient to achieve the step-change improvements the issues demand; a mechanism for continuing this support is required. The Eco n’Home project emerged as a response to this recognised ‘gap’ in delivering household energy advice and seeks to address simultaneously ‘behavioural barriers’. A common service model, developed and piloted in over 800 households from six European countries, takes individuals through a coherent series of actions from an individual audit, to follow-up advice and support, to review. A key objective of the service has been the tailoring of advice to be relevant to the specific needs of each household. Lessons, recommendations and results demonstrate the significant successes achieved in terms of energy, carbon dioxide emissions and monetary savings but importantly, enable practitioners elsewhere to understand and make use of the model within their own contexts. As a highly replicable model, the Eco n’Home service could be implemented either as a single project or as part of an existing initiative. This brochure provides all that is needed for taking it forward: the model, tools, local methodologies and lessons learnt. Further information, including abstracts, tools and reports can be found on the project website at www.econhome.eu.


9

II – INTRODUCTION Eco n’Home is an innovative new approach to providing advice to households on energy saving and carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction in their homes and travel. This service model was developed as part of a three-year project, and piloted within a sample of 863 households in six European Union (EU) Member States. A key objective of this unique model was the personalisation of advice and support based on initial guidance that goes beyond common practice in the EU. The Eco n’Home model is designed to provide advisers with the tools to overcome barriers preventing the adoption of higher levels of energy efficiency in the domestic sector. These barriers have been well-documented and include:

- Psychological: fear of change, distrust of suppliers or products - Financial: poor incentives, lack of resources - Social: culture, values, pressures from family or friends - Information: a lack or inaccuracy of information - Behavioural: trust and credibility, time, inability to process information

The specific aims of the Eco n’Home project were to achieve, per household, an average reduction of 10-20% in energy consumption and one tonne in annual CO2 emissions. Half of the CO2 reduction was to come from changes in the home, and half was to come from transport. The project was part-funded by the European Commission’s Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) programme, which supports initiatives on energy saving and renewable energy sources. This funding was matched by local and national partnerships within each country; these sources are listed on page 28.

The consortium consists of organisations from six European countries:

France MVE (Montreuil) FLAME (network) ADEME (researcher) Gefosat (Montpellier)

Portugal AGENEAL (Almada)

Belgium e-Ster (Gent)

Italy EAA (Turin)

UK MEA (Shrewsbury) LEA (Leicester)

Germany KliBA (Heidelberg)


10

Directives supported by the project include:

• Directives on the energy-use of electrical appliances: • Directives on efficiency requirements for boilers, fridges and ballasts for fluorescent lighting • Directive 2001/77/EC on electricity production from renewable energy sources

• Directive 2002/91/EC on Energy efficiency in buildings • Directive 2005/32/EC on Eco-design of energy-using products

• Directive 2006/32/EC on Energy end-use efficiency and energy services

• Directives to improve the sustainability of transport and transport fuels

III – SUPPORTING EU POLICY The sustainable use of energy has risen up the political agenda and now plays a central role in EU policy as a means for mitigating anthropogenic climate change; at the same time contributing to agendas on security of energy supply, economic competitiveness, and environmental protection. Energy use accounts for three-quarters of total greenhouse gas emissions from anthropogenic sources, one third of which relate to transport1. Energy consumption in domestic properties accounts for 25% of total energy consumption in the EU2. Implementing existing, cost-effective technologies could reduce this share by 20%, equivalent to some 390Mtoe3. The Commission’s integrated proposal (2008) – “Climate Action: Energy for a Changing World” seeks to tackle climate change and to increase the share of renewable energies in energy consumption. This package builds on targets set in 2007 for 2020 of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 20% increase in energy efficiency, and increasing renewable energy use to 20% of total energy consumption. A framework of actions on energy efficiency was outlined in the European Commission’s 2006 Green Paper “Doing More With Less” and Energy Efficiency Action Plan. This climate package complements the collective 2008 – 2012 target of an 8% reduction in six greenhouse gases committed to on ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. A key aim of the Eco n’Home service is to further progress on the delivery of Directives as translated into legislation whilst informing the development of future policies. The service also strengthens the market for White Certificates (documents that certify that a specific energy reduction has taken place through a specified activity that is a tradable commodity for organisations with energy saving obligations).

1 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2 European Commission 3 European Commission: Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential (2006)


11

IV – THE ECO N’HOME MODEL IV.1 – COMMON METHODOLOGY Central to Eco n’Home is a common model as shown in the diagram below. This model has been piloted by project partners within their local area. The ‘Tools’ section on page 8 of this guide provides more detail on the template documents referred to throughout the text.

Initial Contact The recruitment of participant households to the project was achieved through a variety of methods, depending on local circumstances. In some cases, households had contacted the agency previously requesting energy advice. The majority of households were however sought actively such as through existing projects or databases, or by utilising one or more media channels. Household selection criteria were set by partners at the project outset: the minimum length of time the householder has resided in the property, and the minimum time they intended to stay. Application varied between agencies to take account of the population profile and requirements of funders. Energy Audit After recruiting participants, an appointed personal adviser carried out a comprehensive audit of the participant’s energy usage in their home and transport. An Eco n’Home auditing tool was designed specifically for the purpose of auditing and acted as a data collection mechanism. A wide range of data was collected on building characteristics and how energy is used: building fabric and size, heating and hot water systems, electrical appliances, air cooling systems, and vehicle model and make. Information on participants’ daily routines and behaviour was also collected including: occupancy patterns, travel patterns, electrical appliances usage and standby losses. Records of historic energy consumption data were used to calculate annual energy consumption and annual CO2 emissions. Annual energy use was adjusted for local climate based on degree day data. Audit Report The data collected in the audit was used to produce an Audit Report for each household. Included in this report was the household and transport consumption in terms of energy (kWh), CO2 emissions (kg), and costs (£ or €). It also listed a number of recommendations and illustrated the predicted changes in energy consumption, CO2 emissions and costs these would produce. Recommendations were based on the areas requiring action identified in diagnosis and an understanding of household circumstances and feasibility. Graphics and illustrations were used to enhance the report, making it more visually attractive and easier to understand.

Initial Contact

Energy Audit

Audit Report

Follow-up

Evaluation Action Plan


12

Action Plan The list of recommendations outlined in the personal report formed the basis of the Action Plan. Each recommendation was listed with predicted energy, CO2, and monetary savings. Participants indicated which measures they were interested in undertaking by ticking those measures and signing the sheet but signing was only an indication of interest rather than a commitment to undertake measures. The Action Plan proved to be a useful mechanism for both participant and adviser to clearly understand the intentions over the next year. Follow-up A twelve month period followed the signing of the Action Plan in which participants received support to help implement measures. This period was essential in helping participants overcome barriers they faced in applying any agreed actions. The majority of support provided was regular, personalised and delivered directly by their adviser and was complemented by activities that encouraged group interaction, such as events or internet exchange forums. Some personal advisers encouraged participants to monitor their energy usage, for example by frequently taking meter readings, in order to become more aware of their consumption. Evaluation The follow-up period was concluded with an evaluation process. Final energy consumption was collected and the savings achieved calculated from the baseline established at the outset. Results were presented to each participant in the form of an individual report, similar in format to the Audit Report. The Evaluation Report also provided recommendations for how energy consumption could be reduced further.


13

IV. 2 – COMMON TOOLS The Eco n’Home model provided the framework for implementing the energy advice service but due to the range of auditing tools utilised in Europe, it was essential to develop common tools for use by all partners. These tools are highly transferable and available for use by organisations in replication. Project Flyer A flyer is available in the following languages: English, French, German, Portuguese, Italian and Flemish. The flyer presents the project to households and can be used as a recruitment method. Household data collection form A comprehensive form which can be used to collect the following data during an audit:

- Household identification: name, address, type of property (e.g. detached)

- Occupancy patterns - Fuels, tariffs and energy meters - Building fabric: age of property, fabric (walls, windows, room,

floor), ventilation system - Heating and hot water system: type, efficiency, regulation,

room temperature, hot water storage - Air cooling system: type, efficiency - Light and electrical appliances: number,

efficiency, standby losses - Transportation: type and number of vehicles,

travel information

A specification for the selection of a common data processing tool

This document outlines the tools required for the diagnosis and recommendations. It also provides a brief description of some of the tools used by project partners, some of which are available free of charge.

A selection of measuring devices useful for diagnosis

This summarises the in-situ tools used by project partners to make measurements within the home. Data was collected on standby losses, electrical equipment consumption, room temperature and water flow. All methods are available for replication.


14

Household diagnosis report This is a two page template that can be used to create the Audit Report from data collected during the audit. It includes text, tables, and graphics to illustrate the participant’s current consumption and the savings predicted if recommendations were implemented.

Household Action Plan This one-page template can be used to create the Action Plan. It has space to list a number of recommendations with associated CO2 and monetary savings, as well as a space at the end for participants to sign.

Household Evaluation Report In a very similar layout to that used for diagnosis, this template can be used to produce the Evaluation Report at the end of the project. It outlines how the household energy consumption has changed over the year, including savings made on CO2 emissions, and lists actions taken and measures installed. There is space to add additional recommendations for the future.

An outline of the tools used by the Eco n’Home partners is given below.


15

Energy Survey (audit) incl. data collection and

measurements

Data-processing tools, Energy report & action plan

Follow-up & final Evaluation

E-ster E-ster’s (on-line) questionnaire prior to audit Household data collection form* Electricity monitor plugs (CE Electric meters) : stand-by measurements and electrical appliances Temperature loggers (Escort loggers) : air temperature

E-ster internal tools : light audits EPA-Belgium (software programme made for the Belgian energy administrations) : extended audits E-ster’s own report type

On-line software tool of Siemens Building Technologies (EMC) : energy monitoring

GEFOSAT Pre-audit questionnaire Household data collection form* Electricity monitor plugs (SEM16) : stand-by measurements and electrical appliances Digital thermometer : Domestic Water Heating, air temperature, humidity Laser thermometer : building envelope Distance measurer : building envelope Flow meter : Domestic water heating, water consumption

Dialogie (tool designed for the French energy information network) : building envelope, heating installation, electricity consumption Autodiag : transportation Household diagnosis report* Household action plan*

- Household evaluation report *

EAA Pre-audit questionnaire Household data collection form* Electricity monitor plugs (Energy Check 3000) : stand-by measurements and electrical appliances Thermometers : air and water temperature Distance measurer : building envelope

Lesosai : building envelope, heating installation EAA’s own calculation tool AUTOCAD : building envelope BESTCLASS : building energy certification Household diagnosis report* Household action plan*


MEA Household data collection form* Travel diary : daily transportation Electricity monitor plugs : stand-by measurements and electrical appliances

NHER (National Home Energy Rating) software : building envelope and heating installation MEA’s own tools : electricity consumption & transportation Household diagnosis report* Household action plan*



16

AGENEAL Pre-audit questionnaire Household data collection form* Electricity monitor plugs (SEM16) : stand-by measurements and electrical appliances

No specific software , AGENEAL’s own tool : Building envelope, heating installation, electricity consumption Household diagnosis report* Household action plan*


MVE Pre-audit questionnaire Household data collection form* Electricity monitor plugs (SEM16) : stand-by measurements and electrical appliances Digital thermometer : Domestic Water Heating, air temperature Distance measurer : building envelope

Dialogie (tool designed for the French energy information network) : building envelope, heating installation, electricity consumption Household diagnosis report* Household action plan*


KliBA Household data collection form* Electricity monitor plugs : stand-by measurements and electrical appliances

KliBA heating certification (KliBA’s own-developed tool) : building envelope and heating installation Sparwatt (software tool from Frankfurt, Germany) : electricity consumption KliBA’s own report type

-

FLAME Pre-audit questionnaire Household data collection form* Electricity monitor plugs (SEM16) : stand-by measurements and electrical appliances Thermometers : air and water temperature

Dialogie (tool designed for the French energy information network) : building envelope, heating installation, electricity consumption 3CL : building envelope, heating installation, electricity consumption PLANETE : software tool for energy audits on farms Cons’eau : water consumption Autodiag : transportation Household diagnosis report* Household action plan*

LEA Pre-audit questionnaire Household data collection form* Temperature loggers (HOBO Pendant data loggers) : air temperature Electricity monitor plugs : stand-by measurements and electrical appliances

NHER (National Home Energy Rating) software : building envelope and heating installation Household diagnosis report* Household action plan*


* Common tools


17

V – THE PILOT STUDY The common model and tools used in the piloting of the service are described in earlier sections of this report. As a model, the specifics of this process were flexible around the circumstances and context of each individual partner – a key advantage of Eco n’Home. A summary of how the service has been implemented in each partner area is outlined in the following section. V.1 – DESCRIPTION BY PARTNER As part of the global evaluation of the advice service provided across the different experimental area, the project partners provided a self-evaluation regarding the methodology used within the different steps which comprised the Eco n’Home service. The graph below outlines some aspects of this evaluation. However, it should be stressed that some of the partners (e-ster, LEA, Gefosat) didn’t deliver the answers to the questionnaire in order to build the present graph. The following topics were evaluated on a range from 1 to 6 (1=Very Bad to 6=Very Good) and the results obtained are presented in the figure below (‘Total Avg’ corresponds to the average of answers, rounded up).

Global Self-Evaluation of the Service Delivered by the Consortium

1

2

3

4

5

Recruitmentmethods

Adviser Energy Audit Report tools ReportClearness and

Usefulness

Follow-up GlobalEvaluation

Total Avg

MVE

Ageneal

MEA

KliBA

FLAME

In general, the strongest points in the methodology of the consortium were the effectiveness of the adviser and the energy audit (both evaluated as good). The weakest point is the follow-up (evaluated as mediocre or acceptable). The evaluation point that most of the partners agreed on was the effectiveness of the energy audit. The dubious points, for being weak or strong, are the tools used in the elaboration of the audit report, the recruitment methods and the clearness and utility of the information included in the audit report. All in all, the consortium found that there was still room for improvement, as the global evaluation was found acceptable.


18

E-ster Gefosat EAA Recruitment Households that paid for an audit

contacted the agency themselves due to concern over bills and received a comprehensive audit. Free audits were offered mainly to householders on low incomes and consisted of a basic audit. Overall, there were 128 participant households.

50 householders heard about the scheme through local press (TV and radio), local authorities and flyers. The service was free of charge.

Participants were recruited through existing databases, door-to-door visits, and public events such as holding a stall in a shopping mall. The service was free of charge.

Energy survey A questionnaire was sent out prior to audits to assess the general characteristics of the building and behavioural habits of householders. Basic audits took one hour whilst those who paid for them received a comprehensive four hour audit. During the audit, standby losses and room temperatures were measured.

A participant questionnaire was sent to households prior to the audit. The visit took about 2 hours and involved a general audit of household and transport. Energy monitor plugs were used to calculate standby losses and water temperature was also recorded. Energy bills were used to calculate energy consumption.

Questionnaires were given to participants prior to the audit to gain information on personal circumstances (i.e. motivations for taking part) and general information on building characteristics. The 1-1.5 hour survey included the collection of historical data from energy bills and of meter readings, measuring room dimensions, and water temperature. Standby losses from electrical equipment were also measured.

Reports and action plans

The report outlined a package of measures with a significant impact (30% or more) and a payback of less than 3 years. Advice on behaviour was also included.

A software tool called “Dialogie” was used to analyse information on the building fabric, the heating and hot water system, ventilation, electrical appliances, lighting, and the energy tariff. The Action Plan outlined all achievable actions and it was required that the participant signed this.

Reports focused mainly on making heating systems more efficient. Comparisons were made between participant households and more efficient buildings in order to highlight the difference in energy efficiency. It was required that participants signed the Action Plan during an appointment with the agency.

Follow-up activities Meetings were arranged for participants involving practical displays of energy efficient measures and discussions. Ongoing energy meter readings were recorded, allowing benchmarking of progress to be measured.

Regular contact was made with participants for the provision of further advice. Gefosat also organised meetings and sent out themed mailings.

EAA contacted householders regularly during the 12 month period to discuss general progress, collect meter readings and offer further advice.


19

MEA Ageneal MVE Recruitment 53 households were recruited mainly from

current and existing projects and local networks and were asked to invite friends and family. Due to involvement in other projects, many participants had environmental motivations. The service was free of charge.

100 households were selected through newspaper articles, websites, sessions at local schools and the project flyer. The service was free of charge.

30 households were recruited from an existing database and door-to-door visits. The service was free of charge.

Energy survey A full audit was carried out using the NHER (National Home Energy Rating) software. Energy monitor plugs measured electrical appliance consumption and a travel diary was used to understand participants’ travel habits.

A pre-audit questionnaire was used to obtain information on the general characteristics of the building. The survey took 1-2 hours. Standby losses were measured from electrical equipment.

Two questionnaires were circulated to participants, gathering information on motivations to take part and general characteristics of the building. The audit took 1.5 to 3 hours, which included using electricity monitor plugs, calculating standby losses and measuring room temperature.


The NHER software generated recommendations and calculated financial savings, combined with adviser experience. A lighting audit was also carried out. Recommendations were listed in the Action Plan from the easiest to more difficult and/or costly actions. Participants were requested to sign this.

The Action Plan focused on simple, low cost improvements that were easy to implement. A verbal agreement confirmed with participants that they were happy with the proposed recommendations. Action Plans were delivered by post; this meant that participants were not required to sign it.

Each participant received a report giving recommended actions, ranging from low cost options to those more expensive. The participant was required to sign the Plan at an appointment. The report took 1-1.5 days to write.

Follow-up activities A number of activities took place to maintain participants’ motivations: themed mailings, themed events (such as sustainable transport discussions), and film showings. £100 interest free loans were offered to participants as well as ongoing advice, and press articles disseminated best practice case studies. Meter readings were collected on a monthly basis.

Regular contact with the provision of technical advice was provided for all participants. Articles in local newspapers and national energy agency literature allowed for the dissemination of best practice case studies.

Regular phone calls were made to participants to discuss progress and provide advice. An internet exchange group was formed to allow the exchange of ideas and stories and for MVE to efficiently record information. Meetings were also arranged for participants to discuss issues face-to-face.


20

KliBA FLAME LEA Recruitment Vouchers offering heavily discounted

energy audits were distributed with electricity bills. 70 householders were recruited through this scheme, and a further 30 were recruited via an existing database.

300 households were recruited through a variety of methods such as through existing databases and letters. Media channels were also used: press articles, the internet, radio and TV. The most effective methods utilised were holding a press conference and sending a letter with the local mayor’s signature on it. Some agencies undertook audits for free, whilst others required a small fee.

62 households who contacted Leicester City Council regarding an energy efficient grant scheme were recruited. Many participants joined the scheme due to concern about rising energy bills, although environmental reasons were also stated.

Energy survey An initial questionnaire was completed on general house characteristics. The 1.5 to 3 hour survey included metering large electrical appliances, standby loss measurement and a transport questionnaire.

A survey collected general information on the house before the visit. During the visit, a full audit was undertaken and standby losses were measured.

A pre-audit questionnaire was completed, followed by a 1-1.5 hour audit. A NHER (National Home Energy Rating) survey was carried out and temperature loggers were left in each house.


The Heidelberg Heating Certificate was used to calculate the energy ratio of the building, evaluate its insulation quality, and suggest energy saving measures. SPARWATT, a software tool from Frankfurt, Germany, was used to measure electricity consumed by lights and appliances. A transport questionnaire calculated the costs and CO2 emissions of transport. These tools were used to advise on recommendations which give large savings (30% heating, 15% electricity). Action Plans were sent by post.

Tools used included “Dialogie” (for heating and electricity), “Autodiag” for transport emissions and “Cons’eau” for water consumption. Householders were provided with a list of recommendations containing low cost and high cost actions.

Each householder was given a schedule of works to obtain maximum reductions in energy and all measures had to be carried out as a condition of the grant scheme. An Action Plan was provided to encourage householders to make additional lifestyle changes.

Follow-up activities Ongoing personalised advice was provided as well as themed mailings (i.e. sustainable transport, energy efficiency) and events (i.e. eco-driving). Press articles were also used to disseminate case studies.

Themed letters were sent to participants every two to three months. Meetings and conferences were arranged, and the initial audit was repeated at the end of the year. One agency decided to continue the follow-up for an additional 12 months to allow participants further time to implement measures.

Meter readings were collected on a weekly basis. An information pack was used to explain the results and to signpost to other organisations, websites and grant schemes.


21

MVE Households Recruitment The participants were already made aware of environmental issues since it was not their first contact with the energy agency. MVE selected about one hundred persons from an existing database and sent them an invitation to participate in the Eco n’ Home project. These persons were also given a brief explanation about the project and were requested to fulfil certain criteria: i) live at their home for at least one year and have no plans for moving in the next three years and ii) be motivated to undertake energy efficient measures and improve their energy behaviour. The recruitment phase resulted in the selection of 30 households, based in the door-to-door contact with these persons and also in the criteria previously mentioned. The final sample included average income level families who happened to have internet access. Good / bad points and recommendations The main advantage of the method used by MVE (recruitment made through existing database) is that it can be a quick way of selecting the participants. However, the final sample of households was not fully representative of the population served by the energy agency. Mainly because the participants were already motivated to improve the energy efficiency at home and therefore what they did was to take advantage of the project ongoing at their area to find suitable means to do it. To improve the household recruitment, there could be used the local media such as newspaper, radio, TV, flyers so that to ensure that people will participate on a voluntary basis. Energy Audit Before the energy audit made to the households, MVE sent the participants two questionnaires in order to make the visit shorter and to start involving the participant since the first moment. The first questionnaire asked for the following information: i) motivation to participate (environment protection; save money; etc); ii) type of energy efficient measures they would like to implement (insulation, renewable energies, etc); iii) general characteristics of the building (rough measures, year of construction, last renovation made, type of wall, etc.); iv) type of energy used; v) type of heating system used; vi) type of electricity rate and vii) mobility habits. The second questionnaire was focused in the following information: details of the main electrical appliances; thermal comfort description (cold sensation, room temperature, radiators, regulation system, etc.) and type of lighting (number, power, etc,). After the participants returned the questionnaires to MVE two advisers carried out the energy audit, which took on average from one hour for a flat to two hours for a house. It includes the time spent in travelling (approximately 1,5 to 3 hours). After the technical visit, MVE left at the household’s electricity monitoring devices, during one month, to measure the energy consumption of the main electrical appliances (fridge, dishwasher, etc). It was also used to measure the standby losses of some electrical appliances.

The use of the electricity monitoring devices was also a good way to improve the participant’s awareness with regard to the electricity consumption of their appliances and to facilitate their job with the follow -up of the electricity consumptions at home. These devices enable the participants to realize which are the less energy efficient appliances and which percentage of the

total electricity consumption do them represent. However the use of the monitoring devices was not always well understood by the participants and the performed measurements couldn’t be use for a significant number of


22

cases. For those households, MVE had to use average values, given by the manufactures, instead of real measurements. The monitoring of the room temperature was carried out with the help of a thermometer, in order to obtain more accurate measurements and also as a way to promote the participant’s awareness on the topic of thermal comfort. In spite the fact that the average time usually spent during an energy audit is quite long, most frequently the participants had to be contacted afterwards with the propose of recovering some missing and/or additional information.

Good / bad points and recommendations One of the disadvantages pointed out by MVE is the fact that the service delivered was free of charge. This might have caused the participants not to be as accurate and effective as expected, with regard to the data provided during the action. One of the main difficulties felt by the auditors, during the technical visits, was the lack of time to go into details with the participants. A quicker approach means less time spent during the visit but a less accurate analysis. Therefore, the main issue is to find a balance between both aspects. To improve the gathering of information during the audit as well as to increase householders awareness, there could be used more awareness-raising equipment, such as a broader panel of energy measuring devices: infrared/laser thermometers to measure temperature of the wall and piping, and other specific devices in order to be able to work out better the part of each use of energy (heating, hot water, specific electricity) on the total home energy consumption. The water consumption should be included in the audit. The use of energy monitor plugs to monitor the consumption of electric appliances should be encouraged, giving better instructions so as to use them and record the data. Using energy monitor plugs enables to gather data corresponding to the energy consumed by a real use of those appliances. Energy Audit Report MVE filled in the template of D6, for each energy audit, which had to include some modifications in order to be adequate to their own use. On average, each energy audit report took MVE between 1 day to 1,5 days to be finished. It involved the use of specific software to execute the following tasks:

- Drawing of the house/flat, including its main characteristics (type of wall; type of windows; etc.);

- Enter data about the room and heating temperature, hot water system and ventilation system;

- Enter data about cooking, electrical appliances and lighting; - Enter data about the type of energy used and the applicable rates; - Occupancy data; - Enter the geographical location of each household and obtain a breakdown of the

energy consumption in that house, per type of energy (gas, electricity, renewable energy) and per use (heating, hot water, cooking, electric appliances, and lighting).

Good / bad points and recommendations The conclusion of the energy audit reports was a very time consuming task due to the several variables considered in the evaluation and the difficulties found with the use of the software “Dialogie”, that was not created in particular for the Eco n’ Home project. Furthermore, it has not been always possible to write down the audit report immediately after the technical visit. As a consequence, more time was needed to conclude this task. The energy audit report could have a lot to gain if it were used a unique tool to process the data, produce the report and acquire data on transport.


23

Action-plan After the energy audit report was completed, the participants were contacted by phone and an appointment was arranged at the energy agency. This meeting was not only to deliver the energy audit report to the participants, but also to discuss the Action-plan and to ask them to sign it. Good / bad points and recommendations The main difficulty was to define a schedule for the appointments between MVE and the participants, which would have been important to discuss the contents of the report and the action plan. Follow-up All the participants subscribed an Internet exchange group called “yahoo group”. The main objective was to promote the exchange of useful information and documentation among the participants. However this idea has turned out to be ineffective, not only due to the lack of participation and involvement of the participants but also due to the fact that the management of the online forum was very time consuming. MVE organized themed meetings aimed at the participants. At the first meeting, which was held at the beginning of the follow-up period, the plan for the coming year was presented to the participants. With the purpose of promoting frequent contacts and exchange of information among all the participants, MVE circulated a list with the contact details of every person involved in the project. At the end of the meeting a copy of that list was given to all the participants. For the second meeting, MVE invited two professionals to present various solutions for improving the energy efficiency at home, in particular with regard to insulation and ventilation issues. Other activities were developed by MVE during the follow-up period, which included for example:

- Collection of the quotes; - Request of the meter readings

These activities did not meet MVE’s expectations due to the lack of cooperation of the participants. During the follow-up period few participants contacted MVE with the purpose of obtaining advice on particular aspects of the project. The majority of the contacts with the participants were made by MVE’s advisers in order to find out about their motivation to implement the proposed measures and also about their plans for accomplishing this task. A significant part of the participants stressed the fact that one year was not enough time to implement the EE measures and that they were still planning to carry out some of those measures after the end of project. Good / bad points and recommendations The follow-up should include monthly monitoring of energy consumption. For instance the use of a simple and straight-forward tool should prevent the adviser from not receiving any feedback. The follow-up should also have more organized themed meetings. An example of a good practice consists in the organisation of local meetings, as it promotes the face-to-face contact between the householders and the advisers and is also an opportunity for the householders to exchange experiences in this field. Moreover, the invitation of local experts (e.g. installers, manufacturers, retailers, etc.) can bring more interest to these events. In general, In order to improve the follow-up, in MVE’s experimental area, there should be a stronger involvement of the local partnerships in political and financial support. The householders should be systematically in touch with professionals, such as through networking.


24

E-STER Households Recruitment The households that were granted an energy audit were chosen between two cities in Belgium: Kortrijk and Gent. In Kortrijk, people were invited through a letter from Milieudienst, the Environmental Department of the City. This mailing comprised about 600 people, from which 64 families answered and 44 took part in the follow-up of their energy consumption after the energy audit. Being that one half of these households were average income families, and the other half low income families, the latter were reached in close cooperation with welfare organisations, CAW Kortrijk and the OCMW of Kortrijk (the Local Social Welfare Organisation in Belgium), providing staff and monetary support for housing renovations. The OCMW Kortrijk also selected 12 families that had low income and faced the highest energy bills. The OCMW Gent selected 25 families, based on the same criteria. The 36 households which paid for an energy audit took the initiative to contact the energy agency, either concerned with their energy bill, with comfort problems in their house, with environmental issues, or a mixture of these concerns. The number of energy audits planned for the experimental phase was 128. Good / bad points and recommendations There were no special problems encountered with the household recruitment. Because of the co-financers, low-income families have been over represented in the total sample (about 50 % of the sample). Energy Audit A questionnaire was sent to the participants (on-line if they have internet access) in order to stimulate them and to shorten the visit. The questionnaire was incisive in the following: family composition, general characteristics of the building, types of energy used (type of heating, cooking and DHW installation), details of main electric appliances, and some questions on their behaviour regarding heating, showering, washing and drying clothes. It was also requested information on power and gas metering of the 3 years prior to the visit. There were sent two electricity meters to each household, with a list of appliances that the participants were asked to measure during one week, based on the answers to the questionnaire. The results were received directly, via e-ster’s Internet server, or given to the auditor, during the visit. After these initial steps, the audits took place, taking from one hour (simple audit) to 4 hours (extended audit, including a detailed analysis of the building envelope and the insulation). Although gathering more information, a disadvantage of the extended audits is that these took much more time than the simple energy audits, not knowing if the extra effort would pay off in terms of saved energy. In order to minimize transport time, audits were geographically clustered so that 4 to 8 audits were done per day. A checklist was used, during the audit, with questions on the building envelope, the heating and domestic water heating installation, the electric appliances and lighting. The technician also measured standby losses during the visit. In a number of cases, temperature loggers were also installed, to check if the heating installation was properly controlled (see graphic below).


25

In case of low-income families, the auditor was always accompanied by the OCMW’s social worker that was the contact person for the household involved. However, the motivation, for the participating household may be significantly lower than in the case of paid energy audits. Good / bad points and recommendations The extended energy audits carried out by e-ster, which include a detailed analysis of the building envelope and the insulation, are much more time consuming than the simple energy audit. It is questionable if this extra effort pays off in terms of saved energy. Energy Audit Report For the simple energy audits, E-STER has developed own software to process all the data (answers to the questions in the questionnaire and the auditor’s checklist, measurements) and to write a report in approximately 1 and a half, to 2 hours. For the extended audits, this was supplemented by a report generated by a software programme made for the Belgian energy administrations. Required inputs were the detailed geometry and a description of all layers of walls, roofs, floors, windows, and data about the heating and DHW installation. This report took, typically, 6 hours of work. The reports were sent by e-mail, either directly to the household (in case of a direct client of the agency) or to the contact person of the co-financer, who then presented the report to the household. In case of low-income families, the report was always presented by the social worker of the OCMW involved (some of the families couldn’t read Dutch). Both reports contained a package of measures with a significant impact (energy savings of 30 % and more), with a payback of less than 3 years, including personal advice on behaviour change, and inviting the household or the co-financer to contact the agency by phone or e-mail, if they have further questions. Good / bad points and recommendations The extended energy audit report, too, took more time than the simple energy audit report. It is also questionable if this extra effort pays off in terms of saved energy. Action-plan After the energy audit report was completed, the participants were contacted by phone and an appointment was arranged at the energy agency. This meeting was not only to deliver the energy audit report to the participants, but also to discuss the Action-plan and to ask them to sign it.


26

Follow-up In Kortrijk, a meeting was organised by the City with the participants, one month after the audits were finished. The results were discussed and people could ask specific (technical) questions on measures, advices, or any other doubts. There were displayed some of the most profitable and cheapest measures such as (special) CFL’s, efficient showerheads, different types of stand-by killers, and others. This meeting was very successful. The energy consumption of all households involved were to be monitored until July 2008 with EMC, an on-line software tool of Siemens Building Technologies, by requesting meter readings from households on a regular basis. These data will also be used for benchmarking the progress among the participants. Good / bad points and recommendations In those cases that energy audits were done for free in average-income families, the motivation of the participating household may be significantly lower than in the case where the same were paid. MEA Households Recruitment MEA invited households involved or connected with existing and past projects to participate in Eco N ’Home. These households were asked to encourage their friends, family and colleagues to also respond. Through a combination of these approaches MEA has recruited 53 households to the project. The service was free of charge. Socio-economic information was not requested from households interested in Eco N’ Home and there was therefore no selection by partners. The sample for MEA contains a broad distribution across family and household types and other socio-economic variables. It is likely however that because of their existing contact with MEA, many of the households will have already been interested in the environment and taking action. Good / bad points and recommendations The use of existing projects in the first instance means that some households may have a pre-existing interest in the environment and taking action. This is likely to be true for all Eco N’ Home households – regardless of the partner or communication methodology – otherwise they would not have agreed to participate. This is a disadvantage of using existing networks. The advantage of this recruitment methodology is that it is efficient because partners can contact a large number of households in a relatively short time. The partner is also familiar to households and therefore more likely to respond. However, the gathering of participants could have a better use of media (e.g. local radio, newspaper). Energy Audit MEA arranged a visit to all households willing to participate to perform an energy audit and complete the questionnaire. Energy monitor plugs were left with each household to enable them to measure the electricity use of appliances operating on standby and large appliances e.g. refrigerators, together with instructions and forms to record data. The appliances to be monitored varied between each household and guidance was provided by MEA during the visit. Households were also provided with a travel diary to record all journeys and modes every day for one week. No documents or tools were sent to the household before the visit. MEA arranged collection of the monitor plugs and forms at a convenient time several weeks after the first visit and provided households with a return envelope for record forms and travel diaries. The main problem was that many households did not understand how to use the plug or forgot or did not have time, even with the information sheet and an explanation from MEA


27

during the visit. In order not to delay the project and return of the energy report standard UK figures were used instead or where available, information from manufacturers for the specific model of electrical appliance. In the case of the travel diaries, some households did not have time to complete these alongside their daily activities. I think that the same problems will be common to any home energy-auditing project. Good / bad points and recommendations Many households were slow to return their documents, which delayed MEA in producing the home energy report. This problem may be related to the service being free because there is less of an incentive for the household to respond promptly. Also, because it was free, it was difficult to ask the household to do more than a few simple tasks. It was not possible to gather data on all electrical appliances because in some cases sockets were not accessible or did not exist and in others, the household did not provide the data as instructed. The installation of energy monitors should be made by the adviser instead of trusting the household with the chore, and testing of other energy monitoring equipment (e.g. smart meters, heat flow sensors). The results are not therefore very accurate in all cases. But, what matters most is that they are made aware they have a wasteful habit or appliance and that they need to take action. Time to carry out the audits was not a problem. Once a common process had been established the audit visit was relatively quick. However, much more time was required to complete the calculations for the home energy report than was anticipated, and this was caused by a lack of cooperation by some households. Energy Audit Report The National Home Energy Rating (NHER) was used to generate recommendations for energy efficiency for each household and to calculate the financial savings they would experience. MEA adapted the home energy report to display the NHER and SAP (standard assessment procedure) for each household and how this compares to the national average as a benchmark on energy use. The disadvantages of using the NHER were the training required by MEA, the expense of the training course, and expense of purchasing the

software and user licence. The NHER also does not provide figures for energy savings – only financial and CO2. It was therefore necessary to calculate these separately. In addition, the tool does not adjust savings for feedback between measures for example whether a household improves both their heating system and building fabric or just the building fabric – however, this may be common for many similar tools in other countries. Advantages were the provision of a benchmark in the form of the NHER and SAP ratings and generation of recommendations specific to each household.

MEA used its own tool for lighting. A record was made during the visit of all inefficient light fittings in each room of the household (not efficient bulbs) and a calculation made of expected savings – based on an average hours / year use. Households were advised to consider the frequency of use of each lamp when prioritising replacements in addition to other recommendations where appropriate for example the choice of lamps for fittings in cupboards and used in combination with a motion sensor. The disadvantage of this tool was the time for completion and use of an average value for actual use / year. However it offered many advantages in being easy to use, providing a figure for financial, energy and CO2 savings annually and over the lifetime of the lamps, generating a personal report and specific recommendations for each household, and providing a permanent record for MEA to return to when assisting the household in sourcing lamps to meet their requirements. There was also no additional cost to MEA either to obtain or use the tool, and it is easily transferable to other countries and projects.


28

No electronic tool was used to calculate electricity savings. Calculations were based on recordings from the energy monitor plugs and/or manufacturer details and/or average values combined with advice from households on actual use of the appliance. Methodology therefore varied between individual households. The advantages of this approach were flexibility and the use of actual data where available, however additional time was required to identify efficient alternatives to recommend and in some cases it was only possible to use average values. In the case of transport the travel diary was a very efficient and effective tool for collecting information from households. MEA was able to understand quickly the common journeys made and make recommendations on alternative modes, and also to have a picture of annual modal use and environmental impact. A follow-up diary will be issued to households at the end of the year to investigate how these daily behaviours have changed. In the majority of cases the list of recommendations was as exhaustive as possible. If an action was not viable e.g. because although the car or appliance is inefficient, it is brand new, the recommendation was omitted. Each recommendation was accompanied by an estimate of financial, energy and CO2 savings. Recommendations were listed from the easiest (standby, efficient lighting) to more difficult and / or costly actions e.g. replacement heating systems. Where solar heating was recommended this was included as a final recommendation and estimate savings calculated accounting for all other actions having been taken. The same applied to the recommendation to switch to a green electricity tariff – 50% of electricity emissions after all electricity recommendations had been taken. Good / bad points and recommendations The report should have less superfluous information – the team thinks it may have been overwhelming for some people to understand all the information. There should be an Energy and Carbon benchmarking – as in MEA’s report. Action-plan Once the action plan was complete, MEA sent to the household:

- A letter, thanking the household for participation in the project and explaining the stages over the next year;

- A copy of home energy report; - A copy of lighting audit report; - Two copies of the action plan; - A form to provide meter readings (gas and electricity only); - An instruction sheet on reading meters; - The Eco n’ Home flyer.

Households were asked to sign both copies of the action plan and return one to MEA as soon as possible, together with the completed meter reading template. This enabled the staff to have at least one meter reading after the reading recorded at the time of the visit. Households were contacted to confirm receipt of the form. No separate visit was made – largely because more time was required for visits and writing reports than originally anticipated. In an ideal world, it would have been beneficial to discuss the action plan with the household face to face. Good / bad points and recommendations It would have been better to discuss the action plan with the household, face to face. MEA has provided a personal service and answered many questions and provided support following the posting of reports. However it is likely that many could have been dealt with quicker and more effectively through a personal meeting rather than written, email or telephone correspondence.


29

Follow-up The follow-up was made in the subsequent terms:

- Visits to show range of efficient lights available supply and where necessary fit; - Radiator panels also made available at visit, but not fitted; - Monthly themed mailing (sustainable transport, energy efficiency, green electricity

tariff); - Themed events – Microgeneration , sustainable transport; - Ongoing personal contact to provide advice, as well as clinic sessions to perform

switching to green electricity tariff and provide personal advice on options; - Monthly request of meter readings (gas and electricity); - Offering of £100 interest free loan from MEA reserves toward loft and cavity wall

insulation, lighting, radiator panels and solar thermal re-payable over two years; - Referrals to appointed contractors for insulation and Microgeneration and special

prices negotiated for both; - Press article on project and case study households, progress to be followed up over

year; - Showing of the documentary ‘Inconvenient Truth’.

Good / bad points and recommendations MEA’s follow-up methodology was, in part, relevant for some participants and irrelevant to others. The follow-up should have a forward planning of how it will be achieved in practice, like making a regular phone-call to every participant, and to pre-arrange these phone calls with participants who are often busy. However, the range of methods utilised by MEA allowed participants to engage in the project through a variety of channels and provided regular contact between the participant and MEA. In general, for MEA’s experimental area, a simpler auditing and analysis procedure would have been more effective. Although the specificity of the data was useful to ensure household relevance, the process was extremely time and resource intensive and could not therefore be easily delivered at a larger scale. KLIBA Households Recruitment The delivered service was a consultancy, paid by households (a small amount), and paid by co-financers (municipality of Heidelberg and public utilities). The households were determined as follows: the Public Utilities enclosed a voucher for an energy consultation to the electricity bill of about 9,000 electricity customers. The value of the voucher (“Energy consultation in the value of 200 €”), the limited number of consultations and the customer’s own contribution of 20 € are specified on the voucher. The customers got no explanation of the project. Only 70 households were interested in an energy consultation. Then, KLIBA selected 60 people from an existing database and sent them the voucher too. They were given a brief explanation of the project. 30 households are interested to take part. Good / bad points and recommendations To understand the low response for the energy consultation offered by a voucher (a voucher was sent by the public utility together with the electricity bill), people that received the voucher with the electricity bill were asked for the reasons. 154 people sent a questionnaire back. 42% said that they noticed the voucher, 44% of them overlooked the voucher and 14% answered that they didn’t get a voucher. 48% of the persons, who noticed the voucher, had no interest for a consultation. 54% were interested, but they gave different reasons for not taking part such as the own contribution is too high (28%). The recruitment of participants could have beneficiated from the help of the local newspaper.


30

Energy Audit After making the appointment, the audit was done, which took from two hours to four hours. During the audit, a checklist was used with questions on the building envelope, on the heating and domestic water heating installation, and on the electric appliances and lighting (number, power, etc.). KLIBA collected copies of their gas/oil and electricity bills, and also measured stand-by losses. A couple of electricity meters were left during one month, to measure consumption of the main electric appliances (fridge, dishwasher etc.) Good / bad points and recommendations The energy audit could have had a better time management. The use of the energy meter enabled people to realize stand by losses and the contribution of each appliance for the total electrical energy. Energy Audit Report For building envelope and heating and hot water installations, electricity and transport, there were used different tools. For building envelope, heating and domestic hot water installations, KLIBA used the agency’s own-developed tool, the Heidelberg Heating Certificate. The Heidelberg Heating Certificate is a graded advice package, which was devised by the Heidelberg Energy Table, aimed at identifying the energy saving potentials in existing buildings. The package includes both the Building Typology and the Heating Certificate itself. The Heidelberg Building Typology distinguishes 10 very common types of building, which are classified according to their type of use and construction date. For each building type, exemplary insulation measures were presented and assessed, on the basis of their energy saving and CO2 reduction potential. Homeowners can find valuable information on future renovation measures for their building in the brochure “Heidelberg Building Typology”. The Heidelberg Heating Certificate is tailored to each building and takes into account retrofitting measures that possibly have already been carried out. The Building Typology data are all available in a computer database and are supplemented with specific building data (questionnaire). This procedure avoids a costly and time-consuming on-site inspection. The Heidelberg Heating Certificate calculates the energy ratio of the building, evaluates its insulation quality, suggests energy saving measures and assesses them with regard to their energy and cost reduction effects.

For electricity, it was used SPARWATT- a software tool from Frankfurt, Germany, which was adjusted for this particular consultation. For transportation, a questionnaire was filled, and the costs and emissions of transport were calculated according to the answers. It was need between three and six hours to complete the energy audit report. In general, it was given a package of measures with a significant impact, heating savings of 30 % and more, electricity savings of 15% and

more. Personalized advice on behaviour was also included. Each recommendation was accompanied by an estimate of financial, energy and CO2 savings. Recommendations were listed from the easiest (standby, efficient lighting) to more difficult and / or costly actions e.g. insulation of the outer wall. If possible, renewable energies e.g. solar heating systems, switching to green electricity was recommended.


31

Good / bad points and recommendations Performing calculations and generating recommendations for the reports, especially for electricity needed much more time than anticipated. Sometimes the report is too difficult to understand for the people. The report should be clear, for better understanding. Action-plan The reports were sent directly to the household by post. Together with the report, KLIBA invited the householders to a contact by phone or offer them a personal advice if they have further questions. A lot of people used this personal advice after sending the report. Follow-up Regularly (every three months) themed mailing (newsletter) was sent, regarding: about e.g. sustainable transport, energy efficiency, best practise, and subsidies for measures, offering special services e.g. Eco-Driving trainings. With this mailing, the households received, again and again, the offer for a personal advice free of charge. There was released a press article on the project, drawing attention towards successful households. In line with the Eco N’ Home project, the Ifeu Institute examined on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment of Baden-Württemberg how effective various consultation instruments in the field of electricity were in private households. This includes a comprehensive research on existing instruments, the effects achieved, etc. At the same time, two different methods were to be tested in practice:

1. Informative electricity bill: the electricity bill shows comparative values so that the users can estimate their electricity consumption.

2. Electricity saving checks: these are inspections made in the framework of the Eco n’ Home project.

The associated evaluation is made with the help of questionnaires:

- Prior to the inspection, the customers are asked about their environmental behaviour - After the inspection of the households, they are interviewed again to find out if their

behaviour has changed. Good / bad points and recommendations The response was quite good. Some people used this personal advice after the mailing. The agency got good reactions from the households, that the information was helpful and urged them to think about energy saving (again). In general, in order to improve the efficiency of the Eco n’ Home project, a better financial support is needed, for example to motivate the participants to acquire new electrical appliances. GEFOSAT Households Recruitment For GEFOSAT, there were no specific criteria to participate in the project, except those defined by the consortium. Most of households followed up by GEFOSAT were already sensitive to the financial or environmental aspects of energy savings. Related to the Languedoc Roussillon district demand, 20% of the audited housing was supposed to be social housing. However it was very difficult to involve social landlords in the participating in the project.


32

There was widespread communication about free energy advice and diagnosis in Herault: Local press and flyers left in municipality buildings, TV and radio. For all the population served by GEFOSAT, the entry was free: people interested just had to file an entry form. This entry form was sent to participants, in order to have an idea of the situation of the household. Good / bad points and recommendations The main part of households was comprised of villas owners. A lot of people are senior citizens (new comers in the area). Then, the sample is not very representative of the population. This kind of recruitment has the advantage to reveal the possibility of large energy savings. Indeed individual housing is an important source of improvement. However, this kind of people is not always ready to engage themselves in important actions of energy savings in their housing. GEFOSAT considered interesting to know how to get people more involved in energy saving. Before the initial interview, a participant meeting with councillors could be made in order to engage people in this energy saving process. Electricity monitors could be left and a pre-questionnaire could be answered during this meeting. Energy Audit GEFOSAT asked the householders to prepare copies of energy bills and house plans in

order to take it just after the initial interview and to directly constitute the report. The initial interview took from one hour for a flat to two hours for a house on average. The transport related to interviews took the auditors by surprise; they did not take into account the whole cost of transport. Indeed the distribution of households is vaster than what was initially estimated. There were left electricity monitor plugs during two or three weeks, to measure consumption of the old electric appliances. Moreover, households were often interested in knowing the consumption of

certain appliances, which consumption they were concerned about. This was the manner to make the households responsible of their consuming. During the visit, stand-by losses were measured. The orientation of the building was checked using a compass, when it seemed possible to install solar panels. A water thermometer was used to check the efficiency of the water heater. Overall, it was given an appropriate speech on energy awareness. Good / bad points and recommendations During the initial visit, it was difficult to be exhaustive with data. A balance has to be found in future initiatives between the time spent and the accuracy of recoiled data. Energy Audit Report

The main part of the information was collected during the initial interview directly through the Excel sheet on the computer. All data collected were related to the evaluation tools of D6. GEFOSAT used the software Dialogie to simulate the situation of households. The following topics are an example of a simulation procedure: enter a geographic site and occupancy; make drawing of the habitation and set characteristics of the walls and rooms; enter data about the heating and temperature


33

and hot water system, and ventilation system; enter data about cooking, electric appliances, lighting; enter data about the type of energy used and type of rates. By changing parameters, different courses of action were simulated, in order to save energy. Then, it was possible to compare actions through economical and environmental factors. Generally, all propositions were included for the calculation of achievable energy savings; except for some recommendations, which the participants couldn’t possibly afford, that could not be calculated and were not taken into account in achievable energy saving. Knowing as well as possible householders, GEFOSAT tried to propose appropriate propositions to be appropriate in this energy saving process. This approach was supposed to be as realistic as possible. Good / bad points and recommendations There was a delay between the time that the agency was supposed to make the report without losing memory of household and the time the list of measurements was received. Action-plan The participants were asked to sign the action plan that they received together with the report. Then, they were supposed to send it back. Good / bad points and recommendations Unfortunately, until the moment of this report, GEFOSAT didn’t receive a lot of action plans. It is noticeable that there is a lack of involvement from the participants along the project. Presumably, if the service weren’t free, households would feel more engaged in this process. Considering this, around 30€ for the service would have been a relevant sum. Follow-up It was offered the participants the possibility to contact the agency to have more advice and information about their situation and their will. In each community, a participant meeting was organized to make a point and to talk about global energy problems. This kind of meetings where participants can talk to their representatives is also useful to join together people who have the same problems. Flash info letters were also sent to make a check up of the project and to approach energy saving by a different way. During the follow-up period, GEFOSAT gave the participants the possibility to contact an adviser to have more information about their situation and their will. The fact that GEFOSAT had already visited the house and knew the exact situation, made these next contacts very relevant. In each community, a participant meeting is organized to make a point over the project, to collect any difficulties to implement actions and to talk about global energy problem. This kind of meeting where participant can talk to their representatives is also useful to gather together people who have the same problems to find a collective solution. Flash info letters are also sent to make a check up of the project and to approach energy saving by a different way. Due to the lack of time, only householders that have implemented big actions of insulation, for example, were visited for a 2nd time. GEFOSAT decided to collect final data by phone concerning the others householders. Finally, a letter was sent with the purpose of evaluating the level of satisfaction of the participants about the service delivered. Good / bad points and recommendations The project could be more efficient, concerning energy saving, if people were shown that they are not alone in this process. Small energy saving equipment as low energy lights and flow reducers could be sold, to show how even light actions are important.


34

AGENEAL Households Recruitment Despite the fact that the selected participants never had been involved in a similar project, the majority was strongly motivated to become more energy efficient at home. This project was the first contact with almost all the participants, except for the ones that were co-workers or friends of the staff. The selection of the households involved different approaches. Preparation of dissemination articles, that were included in the municipal bulletin and also in AGENEAL’s website to spread the message and more easily reach the inhabitants of Almada. AGENEAL distributed the project leaflets in several occasions and at various places. Both, the staff from the municipality and AGENEAL partners, were reached by dissemination (e-mail, meetings, etc.). The diffusion sessions held in some schools of Almada, on the topic of energy, were also an opportunity to publicize the project and engage more participants, also counting on children to play a crucial role when it is necessary to motivate parents to participate in this type of projects. The criteria used by AGENEAL to select the participants for the Eco n’ Home project included the following aspects: they have to live in Almada; remain in their current habitation for at least 1 year; and planning to stay in the house/flat for the next 3 years. Independently of the means used to reach the population, all the persons interested in participating had to accomplish a pre-registration, by phone, mail, or at the agency’s facilities. The resident population in Almada, 160 826 inhabitants in its municipality area, is composed in its majority by people between 25-29 years old, and 20-24 years old (average 41,3 years), with a basic level of education (34%), with high school completion (25,7%) or college educated (16,9%) – source: Portuguese National Census by INE, 2002. The sample of households of AGENEAL is short of being a good pattern of the population served by the agency, because the college education level is over represented, and the sample is slightly older than the majority. There are no official statistics regarding the whole population’s thoughts on energy savings and climate change, so this slice of information is yet inconclusive. Among the 100 households selected, different typologies can be found - from flat to house - and also a big variety of buildings, depending on the year of construction. Therefore, the main characteristics of each building can be quite distinct, depending on the type of materials used; the construction techniques implemented and also the applicable legislation at the time (ex. use or not of insulation in the walls, roof and floor; use of single or double glazed windows; etc.). Good / bad points and recommendations Regarding the household recruitment, there was not much that could be improved. All the means available were used and the response obtained was generally good. Energy Audit As previously mentioned, the participants had to execute a pre-registration (by mail, phone, etc.). After taking that first step, each participant received, at home, a pre-questionnaire that they were expected to fill out and send back, by post, to AGENEAL. The participants were asked to complete as much as possible the questionnaire, in order to reduce the duration of the visit to their home. The questionnaire asked for the following information: general characteristics of the building (year of construction, last renovation, type of wall, etc.), type of energy used, type of heating, type of hot water system, type of air cooling system, daily mobility habits, etc. The technical information asked in the pre-questionnaire included also: details of the main electric appliances, type of lighting (number, power, etc,).


35

The majority of the questionnaires were still incomplete when delivered to AGENEAL and, obviously, that increased the time spent in the visits. AGENEAL contacted all the households selected for the sample and scheduled the energy audits. Generally, if only considered the time spent by the technician to accomplish the audit (not considering the time spent for travelling from and to the place of the visit) each visit took from one to two hours, depending if it is a flat or a house. During the audit it was gathered, as much as possible, all the missing data and also checked the information previously given by the participants. The auditors, however, weren’t very experienced in energy audits. This wasn’t really important since the householders were very receptive in the beginning and, after a couple visits, the procedure became routine. In each visit, the auditor asked for copies of their gas and electricity bills and asked them to register, monthly and during one year, their gas and electricity consumptions. In order to accomplish that, in some cases, the auditor had to start by teaching them how to read the gas and electricity meters and afterwards gave them the form to record both consumptions. Another task accomplished during the visits consisted of measuring the standby loses of some electrical appliances. For that, the participants were asked to use the energy meter (SEM 16) and this way test their capacity of using the equipment, which would be necessary for the later measurements they were expected to execute at home. The energy meter (SEM 16), the form to record the energy consumption of the main electrical appliances (fridge, dishwasher, etc) and an instruction sheet on how to use the equipment were left at the households. The participants compromised to execute the measurements as quickly as possible and return the filled out form and the meter, by post, to AGENEAL. The use of the energy meter enabled people to realize the contribution of each electrical appliance for the total energy consumption at their houses. This is another positive aspect related with the energy audits – the participants’ awareness - in the sense that showed the participants which are the less and more energy consuming devices and how energy savings can be achieved if they manage to change their habits. One of the barriers that had to be overcome was the fact that not all the participants were able to finish the measurements, with the SEM 16. The main reason was the fact that some electrical appliances weren’t easily reached. Usually, these appliances (fridge; dishwasher; etc.) are inserted on the kitchen furniture and therefore it is almost impossible to get to the plug and connect the SEM 16. The solution, in this case, was the use of average values obtained from the manufacturers. Another problem encountered was that a significant number of households still had to be contacted after the energy audit had been finalized, because the time spent during the visit was insufficient to gather all the data and some important details were still missing. Good / bad points and recommendations The major disadvantage of this methodology was the time spent waiting for the participants to return the SEM 16 and the form with the measurements accomplished. Because of that, the conclusion of the audit reports suffered a delay. The fact that this type of service is free of charge can be also a disadvantage. On one hand, the participants felt less pressed to send their results promptly and as a consequence the conclusion of the reports was not as quick as initially expected and, on the other hand, the participants could only be asked to execute simple tasks, which didn’t involved too much time and became too much complicated. The duration of the audits was not always sufficient to perform an accurate analysis of the existing situation, at each household, this lead to the necessity of contacting again some of the participants to ask for missing information. It should be stressed that AGENEAL decided to offer an efficient light bulb to each participant that was distributed during the visit. In some cases, this simple action set off a very positive response from the participants, since they started right way to substitute the other non-efficient light bulbs existing in the house and, consequently, started to reduce their energy consumption at home. As for the data obtained from the participants, in particular related with the topic of transports, it


36

should have been more accurate and not only focused on their daily habits (E.g. energy consumption of the means of transportation used by the participants). Energy Audit Report AGENEAL made several modifications in the digital version of D6, adapting it both to the agency’s use and reality. After each visit the responsible person filled it out with the data recoiled during the visit. The gathered data included, for example, the main characteristics of the building (walls; windows; floor; etc.); daily occupancy of the house/flat; technical specifications of the heating and hot water systems; etc. AGENEAL didn’t use specific software to produce the audit reports. However, it was necessary to create support files that enable to conclude the calculations presented in the reports (Rep-1 and Rep-2&3). AGENEAL also used an online tool for estimating energy rates, provided by the national electric producer, EDP.

The conclusion of an audit report took us from 1 to 1.5 days. In general, the energy efficiency measures proposed to the participants focused on simple and low cost improvements (ex. elimination of the standby consumption of some electrical appliances; installation of energy efficient light bulbs; etc.), according to the household, and it was given advice on Eco-Driving and transport modal shifts. There was no information provided on energy policies in Portugal, since the project occurred before the release of the new National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (only approved in May 2008).

It should be pointed out that the project was developed on a volunteer basis and, in that sense, it was not reasonable to try and convince the participants to develop profound modifications at their houses (ex. reinforce the insulation used in the walls or in the floor; substitute single glazed by double glazed windows; buy new electrical appliances that are more energy efficient; etc.) In spite of the fact that low cost measures don’t have such an immediate impact in the reduction of the energy consumption, can be very effective in a medium/long term period. What is more important is that the participants get the impression that the proposed measures are perfectly feasible and don’t hesitate to rapidly implement it. Good / bad points and recommendations The preparation of the audit reports was much more time consuming than what was expected in the beginning of the project. The main justification for this is the fact that there was no use of any type of software to process the data and automatically generate the reports. The audit report needs to be improved and, in this experimental area, adapted to the reality of the country. The use of a common software tool by the all consortium should also have been adopted in order to obtain comparable results and decrease the lack of consistency among the different experimental areas. Action-plan Since there had been some delay in the conclusion of the audit reports, it was decided that the most efficient procedure would be to send the reports, by post, to all the participants. After sending the audit reports to the households, the participants have all been contacted, and confirmed if they had already received and read the document. AGENEAL took also the opportunity to ask for their comments and suggestions to the document and requested a closer look at the recommendations/measures proposed by AGENEAL, in order to save energy and money at home.


37

By that time, it had already been decided that the participants wouldn’t be obliged to sign an action plan, including the energy efficiency measures they will implement. Nevertheless, it was necessary to discuss with them which of the measures they were prepared to execute. Therefore, other contacts were made and a verbal agreement was established with the participants. This was the trigger that started the action at each household towards the reduction of their energy bill, and consequently to save energy and money. The participants didn’t have to sign an action plan. It was so because AGENEAL considered that, for better acceptance, there was a limited responsibility on both parts for providing a free service, and it’s a common practice for the agency to provide free service with no questions asked. However making a positive impact on some participants, it may have proved that other participants needed more responsibility on their shoulders, because they didn’t make the necessary changes to save energy. Good / bad points and recommendations The obligation of having a signed document (action plan), from each participant, wouldn’t have significantly contributed to obtain a more effective response. Since the service was free of charge, the participants don’t feel the need to do everything according to what had been written the action plan, because they didn’t invest anything to obtain the proposed results. Follow-up

During the follow-up period, AGENEAL maintained a regular contact with all the participants, mostly by phone and e-mail. The main objective of this procedure was to ensure technical advice, on EE and RUE, whenever required by the participants, but also to clarify their doubts related with the use of the energy measuring equipment left at the households, or the monthly record of the electricity and gas consumptions and other issues pointed out by the participants, for example. Based on the fact that the energy audits were very time consuming, AGENEAL realized that it was impossible to carry out a 2nd visit to each household. Therefore, the delivery of the energy audit reports and the action plans was made by post. The letter sent to all the households included a brief explanation of the

main results obtained and explained in detail on the energy audit report. This was also an opportunity to send information to the participants about EE/RUE and mobility habits and remind them to continue the monthly record of the electricity and gas consumptions. Afterwards, AGENEAL contacted all the participants, by phone, in order to confirm the reception of the reports and the action plans, but also to establish an agreement with the participants related with the energy efficiency measures they were willing to implement. The participants took also this opportunity to clarify a few questions related with the contents of the energy audit report. One year after the energy audits, AGENEAL repeated the contact made with the participants, by phone and e-mail, in order to request the monthly record of the energy consumptions, needed to evaluate the efficacy of the action plan proposed to the participants in the reduction of their energy bill. Finally, a telephone survey was developed with the purpose of evaluating the level of satisfaction of the participants about the service delivered. Again all the households were contacted and invited to participate on it. The completion of the follow up of the action will also include the dissemination of the project results. The following actions are a few examples of what AGENEAL has done:

- Prepared an article to disseminate the results of the project that included: - In the newsletter of AGENEAL (to all the other Portuguese energy agencies and other

associates);


38

- Municipal bulletin (produced by the Municipality and delivered in the mailboxes of all the inhabitants of Almada);

- Posted on-line, at AGENEAL’ website, the best practice examples (aiming at motivating people to participate in future initiatives).

Good / bad points and recommendations The main barrier to the success of this methodology was the lack of motivation that some of the participants have shown at the final stage of the follow-up period. A significant part of them didn’t finish the monthly record of the electricity and gas consumptions. Quite a few participant households would have preferred a more regular contact with AGENEAL (ex. Monthly contact) in order to reinforce their commitment to the project. Another negative aspect was that the time they had to implement the energy efficiency measures was too short and this ended up to be the main reason for them not being motivated to do it. Also the follow up phase could have been richer for the participants if some other steps of the advice service had been less time consuming. In general, the commitment of participants to the objectives of the project needs also to be worked. In general, in AGENEAL’s experimental area there are two options that need be considered in the case of replicating the action: deliver a paid service and ensure co-financing for the implementation of the EE measures proposed to the participants (e.g. grant scheme). These two aspects should contribute to motivate participants to implement the EE measures proposed by the adviser (in particular those that involve a bigger investment). EAA Households Recruitment To be sure to maximize the chances of dealing with an average sample of families, first there were organized some public encounters to explain people the project, so to create a database of people interested in. Questionnaires and phone contacts have then been used to screen and select the participants. Door to door and existing database were also used, to achieve the number of households requested. Public encounters were organized in shopping malls, as a quick way for household recruitment, with a good rate for average sample of families. Energy Audit First of all, one questionnaire was sent to the selected participants, to collect base information about: leading motivations in the project; general characteristics of the building; type of energy used; details on main electric appliances; type, nominal power and number of lightings; transportation details. After that, these raw data was tested to verify the first level concordance. Afterwards, EEA started to schedule appointments with the participant. During the audit, all the data was verified on site, and the missing data was accurately collected.

EEA collected gas and electricity meter readings and their respective bills; analysed building structures; measured the major consumptions of the appliances and the standby losses with electricity monitor plugs (a very educational way that allows people to see with their own eyes their appliances consumption upon use). Usually, the monitor plugs control lasted for about two weeks. In some cases, because of furniture disposal, it was impossible to

install and monitor cold and washing appliances, forcing the team to evaluate them in an average basis, instead of measured data.


39

Inside room temperature, as well as water temperature, was also monitored, as an instrument to educate people with regard to energy consumption awareness. Normally, an audit took from 1 up to 1,5 hour, not including staff dislocation.

EEA’s main intent, with D6, is to focus people’s attention on the importance of heating dispersions (that was one of the main issues in EEA’s experimental area), even if these kinds of interventions are the most expensive and consequently the harder to obtain. To achieve this objective, EEA prepared consumption confrontations between the specific actual situations, and the ones of well insulated buildings. Comparisons and tips were also listed for electricity consumption. The same approach was used for transportation.

Good / bad points and recommendations By knowing that it was a free service, some participants tended not to be enough accurate in the data provided (e.g. they did not provide a house map; the number of appliances wasn’t the real one; etc). Exhaustive data is needed for a good analysis, and that meant a longer audit. As for the common tools used in the preparation of the audit report, these need to be more effective and adapted to the current reality. Therefore this was a very time consuming task. Overtime spent on analysing the energy consumptions was also due to a lack of practice in the use of the software. Action-plan After reports compilations, recommendations were sent to the householders, and then they were contacted for signing the action plans. Good / bad points and recommendations The main barrier was the time needed to schedule the visits. It can also be a very time consuming task. However, the appointments are important because it allows teaching tips on EE and give householders more chances to analyse and discuss the recommendations given by the adviser. Follow-up During the initial follow-up phase, it was prepared and given to householders a 50 pages booklet (called “InfoInterventi”) summarising improving actions, materials, costs and fiscal facilities national and local regulations. It was asked householders to communicate their bimonthly consumption. Note that, by knowing that it is a free service, participants tended to be not accurate and punctual enough in the data they provide, most of the time forcing the agency to directly contact them. During this time, EEA remained at the householders’ disposal for specific tips and explanations they may need. When there were any relevant consumptions discrepancies, the agency tried to encourage the householders to do better. In the final period of the follow-up, there were carried out phone interviews to collect information relative to the project satisfaction. To calculate final consumptions and savings, it was asked householders for the whole of the consumptions readings during the follow-up (to match bimonthly provided data concordance and patching missing ones). EEA asked for confirmation/negation/variation of the signed actions, and for any other actions done. The same tools ones used to elaborate data for D6 were used to calculate new consumptions and savings. It was coded a “new” document, called “self-quick-analysis control tool”, in order to allow householders to continue to control their consumption variations, even after the end of the follow-up period and the project itself. This was assembled with the final report, and sent to householders. Finally, all data were reported in the Eco n’ Home database.


40

Good / bad points and recommendations The appointments and the contacts made with the participants, in particular during the follow-up, have to be made in a regular basis. Most of the contacts during the Follow-up period have been carried out simply by phone, making the service not as “thight-and-stressing” as it should be, towards householders. Actions that involve entire buildings (such as substitution of old central heating system, or external walls insulation) need to be accepted by the whole people living in the entire building. In general, the main improvements that could be introduced in EEA’s experimental area are related with the motivation and commitment of the participants. If the service delivered had been charged most probably the results obtained would have been improved. In order to obtain a more accurate analysis the time spent in the energy audits needed to be increased. Mostly because this will contribute to recoil more precise information about the households and would probably result in the elaboration of a more efficient action plan for each participant. LEA Households Recruitment The householders had originally contacted Leicester City Council to apply for an energy efficiency grant scheme available in their area, and they were all invited to participate in Eco N’ Home. All the householders are owner-occupiers and they live in a particular geographical area of Leicester city. A range of housing types is represented, from small terraces to detached houses. There is also a diverse mix of ages and incomes. As part of the grant scheme, an energy surveyor visited the householders and completed a full NHER (National Home Energy Rating) survey of the property. During this visit, they were given information about the grant scheme and Eco N’ Home, and were asked to complete various questionnaires. If they agreed to take part in Eco N’ Home, they were also asked to record their weekly gas and electricity meter readings, and two temperature loggers were installed in their house. A total of 62 householders took part in Eco N’ Home. Good / bad points and recommendations Most people took part in the project because they were going to receive a 75% grant towards the cost of their energy efficiency work, rather than because of environmental reasons. A sample of 9 Eco N’ Home participants took part in a behaviour change survey designed by the University of Manchester, and this showed that understanding of climate change and the impact of human activities was generally weak. Other key results from the study were that the 75% grant seemed “too good to be true”, and that the leaflet advertising lacked credibility. Finally, on a positive note, all the householders were satisfied with the grant scheme as a whole and felt that both Leicester City Council and their recommended contractors were efficient and professional. Energy Audit

During the initial visit (which typically lasted 1 - 1½ hours), the Eco N’ Home householders were asked to complete questionnaires on the use and rating of their electrical appliances and lighting, their transport use (private car and public transport) and their income / level of education. They were also asked about their motivations for taking part in the project. A full NHER survey was also undertaken – this collected information on heating, hot water, lighting, appliances and the building fabric, and calculates their current energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. After energy efficiency improvements are made, the NHER software is re-run, and associated


41

reductions in consumption, carbon dioxide and financial savings are calculated. At the initial visit, the householder was also asked to record their meter readings – this proved to be a valuable tool for awareness raising, as many participants were surprised by either how much or how little energy they were using. The meter readings were collected either over the phone or by post. There are some gaps in this information, as people took holidays, or sometimes forgot to take the reading. In addition, two temperature loggers were installed to provide half-hourly indoor temperature monitoring. These are very small and were generally placed on shelves and cupboards behind ornaments, so as not to be intrusive. There were no reported problems with the loggers. Good / bad points and recommendations The NHER software is a useful tool for calculating expected reductions in energy consumption and carbon dioxide, but makes various assumptions, for example about the lifestyle patterns of the householders. It assumes that a particular measure, for example, loft insulation, will reduce energy consumption by a particular amount. However, some research has shown that actually consumption often remains constant or sometimes increases, as householders enjoy a greater standard of thermal comfort for the same cost. It is important therefore not to rely on only one tool for measuring results, but instead utilise a range of methods that are mutually supportive. For example, we used the University of Manchester’s behaviour change survey to assess lifestyle patterns following installation of energy efficiency measures. In addition, we were unable to undertake a detailed analysis of stand-by losses. To undertake this level of analysis would have been time-consuming, and perhaps tested the patience of the householders. Energy Audit Report Process for using the NHER software:

1. During the visit, create a scale drawing of the house, giving details about room sizes, number and location of windows and doors, location of boiler and radiators, and building fabric. Complete an NHER questionnaire, which provides more detailed information about the property.

2. At the office, input the data into the software and print off a report showing current energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.

3. List the energy efficiency improvements that are going to be installed in the property, and input these changes into the software.

4. Print off a new report showing the estimated reduction in consumption and emissions. After the initial visit, information from the householder was entered onto the common online database (D5) and also onto LEA’s own in-house databases. We adapted D13 (Initial Interview Report) and completed one for each householder. This process took about 2 hours per participant (62 participants, so 124 hours in total). The information was all joined simultaneously into a package, which included the Initial Interview Report, action plans and the Evaluation Report, together with information on renewable energy, eco-driving and green energy suppliers. This pack will be given to the householder at the end of the project. Leicester City Council’s Home Energy Team has a standard list of recommended energy efficiency measures. In order of priority, these are: cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, energy saving light bulbs, draught proofing, thermostatic radiator valves (TRVs), gas

condensing boiler, boiler energy manager, double glazing and heat recovery (extractor) fans. After the initial visit, each householder is given a schedule of works, based on the current state of their house. They have to accept the entire schedule in order to obtain a grant – they cannot choose which measures they want. The schedule is designed as a complete package to obtain the maximum level of reductions in consumption and emissions possible for that property.


42

Each householder receives 4 low energy light bulbs as a standard. Leicester City Council has a recommended list of local contractors who install the energy efficiency measures and provide certificates / guarantees. Good / bad points and recommendations The advantage of this approach is that we obtained the maximum savings possible for each property. We also supported local contractors, and therefore the local economy. The scheme was extremely popular and there was sometimes a long waiting list. However, most participants were prepared to wait because the grant was so generous. Action-plan LEA asked householders to sign the schedule of works, in order to obtain their permission for undertaking the energy efficiency improvements. The documents were sent by post after the initial visit. We also required the householder to pay their share of the cost (25%) before the work began. We decided to use deliverable D9 (Action Plan) later on in the project in order to encourage householders to make additional lifestyle changes following on from their energy efficiency improvements. This procedure encouraged the Eco N’ Home participants to continue to undertake actions, which will enable a reduction of their environmental impact in the long-term. Good / bad points and recommendations The advantage of this approach is that we obtained the maximum savings possible for each property. We also supported local contractors, and therefore the local economy. The scheme was extremely popular and there was sometimes a long waiting list. However, most participants were prepared to wait because the grant was so generous. Follow-up The information pack will be sent to participants at the end of the project. This will be delivered by hand, so that we can explain the results and give the householders opportunities to ask questions. The information pack will signpost to other organisations, websites, grants schemes etc for further environmental actions. Leicestershire / Northamptonshire Energy Efficiency Advice Centre were used to disseminate results from the project to the public, as well as local media and other relevant networks / partnerships. In addition, LEA gave a presentation on Eco n’ Home at National Energy Action’s Fuel Poverty Forum meeting in Doncaster, UK in October 2007, and at the national Home Energy Conference in Birmingham, UK in May 2008. We are also planning a large-scale conference in autumn 2008, targeted particularly at architects, informing them about how to design energy efficient homes, able to meet level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. On a side note, the evaluation of LEA’s local project started in September 2007, appointing De Montfort University to analyse the results from the temperature loggers and provide summaries. The results are expected in late Summer 2008, when they will be disseminated to the participating householders. FLAME Households Recruitment This project was the first contact with most households, but a few participants from Quercy Energie and ALE Lyon that wanted energy advice contacted the agencies themselves. The participants from Quercy Energie had already been involved in other projects carried out by the agency, even though with different objectives.


43

In FLAME’s household sample, there were owners, renters, houses and flats, but there were no social housing. The service was free of charge for householders, except in the case of ALME, which received 70€ per audit, for the entire service. The recruitment was made with resource to press articles, Internet and postal mails, phone, web site, press book, press conference, radios and television. Some people were selected with help from local partners in a determined area, and others were selected from an existing database. ALME organised a first meeting on April 11th 2007 with all the participants of Eco N’ Home project, in order to present to them the main objectives and actions, and the timetable after visits too. The participants have borrowed technical books and electricity meters to go deeper into technical subjects and to follow-up their own energy consumptions. ALME has also organized a bulk buying of saving material (as example bar regulators of water) for people who were interested. The ALE Lyon, ALME and Latere household samples were representative of the population these agencies serve. The remainder samples were not. Good / bad points and recommendations The time spent during the different phases of the experimental phase needs to be reduced, as for example during the recruitment phase. However several recruitment methods proved to be successful : The press conference method was the most efficient to recruit people. From Lyon and its suburbs called “the Grand Lyon”, 400 answers were received, leading to 100 realisable audits. For the local energy agency “Heol” the most efficient recruitment way was to mail all householders a letter signed by the mayor. Energy Audit Some agencies asked the householders to collect more information as possible in order to prepare the visit, using a questionnaire. The participants from ALE Lyon, ALE Grenoble and ALME had to fill in a pre-questionnaire, which was relevant for the better performance of the energy audits. Generally, an appointment was made with the householders, in order to realise the audits. 1h00 to 3h00 (3 hours: 2 hours of visit, 1hour of interviews and analysis of invoices and 1 hour of preparation and travel) is necessary to do it. The information obtained during the audit was collected directly in the computer file, or in a paper version of the D6. Types of information collected: about electricity, gas, vehicles and water counters; temperature of hot water; house plans; composition of walls. Measures of stand-by loses were made during the visit and monitor plugs were left on some appliances (fridge, washing machine, multi-media), to measure consumption during 1or 2 weeks. The staff of auditors was a mix of inexperienced with experienced people, regarding energy audits, so this was relevant in order to stimulate the effectiveness of the advice service (except for Clé). Once the period of monitoring was finished, householders had to leave the plugs at the town hall or at the agencies, when coming for the diagnostic report. When impossible to take measurements, average consumptions were applied. It is worthy of notice that some agencies didn’t use monitor plugs. Also, photos of the houses were taken. For ALE 38 (Grenoble), in order to collect consumption data and information about actions undertaken, a questionnaire was sent to each household. To complete it, householders have to read energy and water meter, and the kilometres of their car. They had to extract consumption data from their bills and describe actions undertaken to save energy. If householders were not able to give this information to the adviser, the adviser paid a visit to the household.


44

Good / bad points and recommendations Some eco-councillors think D6 is tiresome to fill, but it gives possibility to have housing characteristics. A good point is the measurements with plugs as it has an educational effect, people can follow their consumptions, and be more involved. Energy Audit Report The entire FLAME consortium, except for Quercy Energie and AILE, used a software tool aid them in data treatment and assessment, the “Dialogie” software, for simulations already described in the GEFOSAT methodology. Quercy Energie didn’t use any software, and AILE used PLANETE, a software tool for energy audits on farms. It was also used 3CL by LATERE: the input was faster, and results better approximate the reality. “Autodiag”, from ADEME, was used for transports and “Cons’eau” for water. D6 was modified into FLAME’s own report model. With the sent report, there were two lists of recommendations:

- One list of recommendations it is possible to do, with regards to the household budget.

- One list of recommendations that would be possible to do with a bigger budget. Recommendations were most often changing the central heating boiler, using proper insulation, changing electric lamps and appliances. For the report, some agencies have decided to consider all the recommendations to calculate the kWh and CO2 savings achievable instead of other agencies that made the calculations according to the recommendations people are able to do. Even so, many people have realised that they can change their consumption just by changing their behaviour. Latere, AILE and Quercy Energie did not advice their householders on sustainable mobility habits, respectively, because: there is no public transportation and no carpooling organisation; the people live in rural areas with insufficient public transportation; there was carried out a specific farming system audit, benchmarking the tractor and a shift in the agricultural practices. The rest of the FLAME consortium did advice on sustainable mobility habits, namely: making alternative routes for the daily journeys, which privilege the use of friendly means of transportation; transport modal shifts; adopting carpooling; becoming an Eco-Driver; and other measures. Good / bad points and recommendations One of the principal disadvantages of this methodology is the number of tools to use ; Sometimes using even 3 tools makes it difficult to write a report. The tools used in audit report should be simpler and easy to use, in order to decrease the time spent in this task. The report should include concrete actions. It should also include financial information and more details, namely on the estimation of costs and benefits. Although, the energy audit report is too long, and needs to be optimised. Action-plan For some agencies, eco-councillors went to the households to return the report. For other agencies, people came to the agency with an appointment. For both, they had 1 hour of explanation about it, and had a list of contacts to work with.


45

At the end of the interview, people had to sign the action plan. However, there was no signing of action plans for some of the participants from Clé, Latere and AILE, but that was only relevant to obtain a positive response from the participants on the implementation of the proposed measures for the Latere sample. The entire FLAME partnership has given information on the energy policies available in France, and it was relevant for a positive response, for all agencies except for Clé and AILE. Good / bad points and recommendations The signing of the action plan was relevant for most of the householders, and it was important to have people to discuss the action plan and the report as well. Most of people didn’t sign immediately; they needed time to think over it. The action plan could be more effective and close to reality if it was focused in the following aspects: high-priority actions which need a minor financial investment and complementary actions. Follow-up The follow-up was carried out with resource to arranging more visits with the households, promoting themed events and mailings (eco-driving; renewable energies, etc.), Internet exchange groups, monitoring energy meters, and other measures of implementation, such as contact by mail or phone and, in the case of ALE Grenoble, a meeting with all the householders. With ALECOB, some participants have visited or phoned the Agency to have precisions on their actions. A meeting was organised for all participants, to present the results of the entire sample, and to exchange the experiences and difficulties people went through to make energy savings (for example, find an adapted material). 40 people came to this meeting. In most cases, the applied methodology didn’t seem to be suitable to obtain a suitable response from the participants, except with ALME, ALECOB and HEOL. This was due to insufficient time or staff for technical follow-up and to organize more events and visits.

One year after visits, ALME has called the families to take note of their energy and water meters or their energy bills in case the meter was not checked first year. Once the report has been done, it has been sent by e-mail or by post inviting the participants to contact us in case of technical or economical questions. Indeed, ALME has visited those families that have required a personal contact for advice or checking the actions fulfilled. In the same way, the participants were welcome at the agency’s facilities for advice about their choice and prices of equipments. It has to be remarked that it was integrated high efficient energy building approach, both in the

making of the reports and in the advising of householders. ALME aimed to follow up this project during one more year. In regards of the time spent on the diagnostic, Clé decided not realize a second visit at the households for the evaluation, except if it was necessary to obtain results. The first time, there was a phone contact with the householder to know what actions were really undertook during the one-year follow-up and the changes that have happened in the family. To follow the phone contact, the eco adviser went to collect the metering results for electricity and for houses heated by fuel. Any questions the participants had, about the consumption during the year, were answered at this moment, and at the time of the phone contact. Then the results and the report were sent by mail. Finally, for ALE 38 (Grenoble), on the households’ satisfaction evaluation, each participant was called by phone. Advisers don’t make the evaluation themselves, in order to leave the householders free to discuss. If a household couldn’t be contacted by phone, the questionnaire was sent in by email.


46

Good / bad points and recommendations The methods used during the follow-up need to be more effective and contribute to increase the participant’s involvement (e.g. promote the exchange of information between the participants, endorsement of specific events in each country...). Besides, one year to assist households is too short, and therefore longer-term support is needed. In general, the advice service should have two levels of involvement: one directed to participants with available funds for EE measures, and other for participants without such availability like those having doubts on the effectiveness of such as service service. ALME also included in their audits water savings estimates, because the potential to save water is considerable in a house. This element could also be included in future projects of energy audits.


47

V.2 – RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The Eco N’ Home action, involved a total of 863 energy audits that were made to private households in the nine experimental areas that form the consortium. During the technical visits all the relevant data for the evaluation of the experimental phase were recoiled with the cooperation from the householders (e.g. energy and gas consumptions; household data; etc.). The evaluation carried out consists of several axis of analysis:

- Evaluation of the effectiveness of the service delivered in each experimental area as regards to the methodology used by each partner, the level of satisfaction of the participants, and to the energy and CO2 savings obtained in each experimental area and in the whole consortium sample

- Analysis of the cost effectiveness of the action and comparison with other actions on energy saving for households

- Potential influences of the context in partners’ countries - Possible recommendations for the reproduction of the service, in terms of

methodology and in terms of integration to existing services and schemes Some of the main results are presented in the present report, which are provided in more details in the evaluation report. V.2.1 – Actual Energy and CO 2 Savings compared between experimental areas The figures contained in the following table exclude participants who did not return data at the end of the project. In part, this is a weakness of the project methodology, which failed to keep some participants interested for the entire project or motivated to return final data. It was also partly due to changes in a number of participants’ personal circumstances, such as moving house, that are unavoidable and do not allow accurate conclusions to be made. Overall, 40% of participants were withdrawn from this analysis. The following table shows the number of participants, in each experimental area, who have withdrawn from the project and therefore weren’t considered in the analysis of the percentage of energy savings obtained.

Total number of participants excluded from the anal ysis of the savings percentage, for each experimental area and the consortium.

MVE E-STER MEA KLIBA GEFOSAT AGENEAL EAA LEA FLAME CONSORTIUM Original sample 30 100 53 95 50 94 43 62 336 863 Nr. of withdrawn participants 15 29 11 59 12 16 1 9 189 341

% of withdrawn participants 50 29 21 62 24 17 2 15 56 40

Five targets were outlined at the beginning of the pilot study that, on average, households should have achieved through involvement in the project:

1) An overall saving of 10-20% in energy consumption 2) One tonne reduction in CO2 emissions 3) 10% saving in heating consumption 4) 300 kWh reduction in electricity consumption 5) 15% reduction in transportation energy consumption


48

All the figures presented in the following table, were calculated using the same degree-day basis so as to compare the heating consumption between the initial audit (year t-1) and the final assessment which occurred at the end of the one year follow-up period (year t). Comparison between the performance indicators of th e Eco n’ Home project and the results obtained from the analysis of the final consumptions,

for each experimental area and the consortium.

Consumption

(year t-1)

[MWh]

Savings

(year t)

[MWh]

%

Savings

(year t+1)

[MWh]

%

Emissions

(year t-1)

[t CO2]

Savings

(year t)

[tCO2]

Savings

(year t+1)

[tCO2]

Consumption

(year t-1)

[MWh]

Savings

(year t)

[MWh]

%

Savings

(year t+1)

[MWh]

%

Consumption

(year t-1)

[MWh]

Savings

(year t)

[MWh]

Savings

(year t+1)

[MWh]

Consumption

(year t-1)

[MWh]

Savings

(year t)

[MWh]

%

Savings

(year t+1)

[MWh]

%

Total 19 151 1 737 2 107 6 343 436 489 8 741 1 087 1 278 1 619 73 102 6 694 308 439

Average 36 3,27 4,0 8,5 0,8 1,0 16,4 2,1 2,6 3,04 0,141 0,2 15 0,75 1,1

Total 527 62 78 117 14 17 286 64 81 41 2 1 146 - 5 - 6

Average 35 4,13 5,2 7,8 0,9 1,2 19,1 4,3 5,4 2,75 0,144 0,1 10 -0,36 -0,4

Total 2 022 274 274 564 73 73 1 626 252 252 244 - 16 - 16 - - -

Average 28 3,86 3,86 7,9 1,0 1,0 22,9 3,6 3,6 3,44 -0,232 -0,2 - - -

Total 1 510 151 185 372 52 62 605 63 75 162 24 40 452 46 50

Average 36 3,59 4,4 8,9 1,2 1,5 14,4 1,5 1,8 3,85 0,579 1,0 11 1,33 1,4

Total 1 571 119 119 456 39 39 1 099 95 95 162 13 13 206 11 11

Average 44 3,30 3,3 12,7 1,1 1,1 31,4 2,7 2,7 4,49 0,349 0,3 6 0,56 0,6

Total 1 245 103 104 253 26 26 431 35 59 133 2 1 541 12 31

Average 33 2,71 2,7 6,7 0,7 0,7 11,4 1,4 2,4 3,49 0,075 0,1 15 0,36 0,9

Total 2 176 124 124 748 12 12 133 0,5 0,5 204 12 12 1 626 114 114

Average 28 1,61 1,6 9,7 0,2 0,2 1,7 0,01 0,01 2,65 0,156 0,2 21 1,56 1,6

Total 989 57 77 269 20 25 390 14 30 84 5 8 376 27 28

Average 24 1,37 1,8 6,6 0,5 0,6 9,3 0,3 0,7 2,00 0,116 0,2 9 0,70 0,7

Total 2 489 484 582 488 103 114 1 038 350 350 123 3 3 979 - -

Average 47 9,14 11,0 9,2 1,9 2,1 19,6 6,6 6,6 2,32 0,065 0,1 18 - -

Total 6 126 367 569 1 339 93 152 2 908 211 336 427 28 39 2 242 103 113

Average 42 2,50 4,2 9,5 0,7 1,2 19,8 1,4 2,5 2,90 0,194 0,3 15 0,72 0,9

-

5%

-

5%

7%

-4%

-

12%

7%

6%

7%

8%

34%

12%

5%

-4%

-

11%

7%

2%

7%

8%

34%

7%

15%

28%

16%

12%

9%

18%

0,4%

8%

23%

10%

13%

23%

16%

10%

9%

10%

0,4%

4%

6%

19%

11%

15%

14%

12%

8%

8%

6%

8%

8%

8%

6%

6%

9%

12%

14%

10%

Target: Save 15% on average

Transports

Target: Reduce 300 kWh on average

Specific Use of Electricity

Target: Save 10% on average

Heating

Target: Reduce 1 ton

per household (on average)

CO2

Target: Save 10 - 20% per household

(on average)

Total Energy

LEA

FLAME

KliBA

GEFOSAT

AGENEAL

EEA

E-STER

MEA

Consortium

MVE


49

Further explanation about the figures included in the above table is due in order to better understand the results of the Eco n’ Home action: Average: consumption/savings observed, on average, in each house in an experimental area or consortium sample; Total: total consumption/savings observed throughout the sample/consortium, observed in each experimental area or consortium sample; %: percentage of savings achieved, on average, in each experimental area or consortium sample (this figure can be considerate as the average savings per household in a particular sample). It has been calculated as follows: (option 1) average savings divided by average initial consumptions; or (option 2) sum of savings divided by sum of initial consumptions. Note: the percentages included in the above table were calculated from “option1” due to final data missing in some cases. We considered this option as more appropriate in order to make comparisons between experimental areas. Year t-1 : Beginning of the Eco n’ Home action; Year t : Follow up year; Year t+1 : Year after the follow up period (account for EE measures taken by the participants at the end of the follow up period). Year t savings represent savings measured at the end of the follow-up year. However, energy efficient measures implemented towards the end of the project do not contribute much, if any, savings to these figures due to the lateness of their implementation. Therefore, year t+1 savings are estimated savings for the year after the follow-up year, to take into account savings from these measures (in addition to those actually achieved in year t). This demonstrates that 12 months was often an insufficient time period in which to evaluate the full impact of the Eco n’Home project. Furthermore, these figures can still be considered as under-estimates because many participants intended to implement measures after project completion. Based upon year t figures only the target on reducing heating bills by 10% was met (the average reduction being 13% - The partners that most contributed for the results obtained by the consortium, in terms of heating consumption, were LEA, MVE and E-STER). On average, the target achieved in terms of total energy consumption was 9% per household and the reduction in the CO2 emissions corresponded to 0,8 tons per household. If year t+1 figures are taken, targets set for overall energy reduction and CO2 emissions reduction were also met; an average of 11% reduction in energy and 1 tonne of CO2 emissions. Targets on electricity and transport were not achieved although reasonable savings were made in both of these categories. The available data for each experimental area weren’t comparable in terms of costs, because some partners used a different method for calculating these figures that considered fuel rise prices throughout the project. In this sense the consortium decided that it would be more accurate to compare these figures in terms of energy consumption rather then costs. The above table illustrates the difference in savings achieved by each partner which in part can be explained by the different methodologies utilised: - LEA achieved the best reductions in overall CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and

heating consumption. To an extent, this is a consequence of the 75% grant scheme that all LEA householders participated in. Not only did this allow householders to overcome significant financial barriers but due to the condition that all identified measures must be installed, each householder installed a whole package of measures. The UK housing stock and particularly the housing stock targeted by the grant scheme, was quite energy


50

inefficient when compared with other samples; this too could have contributed to the large reductions LEA achieved.

- High savings in these categories were also achieved by E-ster. Participants were offered

a package of measures with a pay back period of less than three years; this is likely to have proved a good incentive to participants. In addition, e-ster made use of efficient data analysis and auditing tools allowing their time to be spent effectively (see the ‘Tools’ and ‘methodology’ sections for more detail).

- The highest reductions in electricity consumption were achieved by MEA who undertook

personalised ‘lighting makeovers’ in households and enabled participants to easily purchase the bulbs through MEA. Providing this extra assistance helped participants overcome barriers and resulted in a higher uptake of installations.

- Interestingly, partners who did not address the transport theme achieved significantly

better overall energy savings; probably because these advisers were most experienced, and thus concentrated, on household energy efficiency. However, including transport in the project can raise participants’ awareness of how much energy transport consumes; for a number of participants in MEA who achieved particularly good savings, this was the motivation for changing their habits. KliBA, who also achieved high reductions in transport, found eco-driving sessions to be particularly effective.

- Although some partners received lower overall results this does not necessarily mean

their methodologies were unsuccessful. EAA’s self evaluation indicated that components of their methodology should be revised; however, many participants still felt their understanding and behaviour in relation to energy reduction in their home had improved.

- While AGENEAL’s results were lower than the average, most of the measures

recommended to participants were low cost measures which created lower energy savings. The percentage of recommended measures that were realised was high when compared with other partners, therefore suggesting this was a success.

The following chart 1 compares the total energy consumption, at the beginning of the action (year t-1), with the total energy consumption after the end of the experimental phase (year t). The results correspond to average values, per household. Comparison between the initial energy consumption ( year t-1), in each experimental area, and

the final energy consumption (year t), per househol d (on average)

Total Energy[Average per household]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Consortium MVE E-STER MEA KLIBA GEFOSAT AGENEAL EEA LEA FLAME

[MW

h]

year t-1 year t


51

Based on the above chart, all the partners managed to reduce the energy consumption in their experimental areas. However, the best results were achieved by LEA (19%, per household, on average), E-STER (14%, per household, on average) and MVE (12%, per household, on average). It must be stressed that the less successful samples (EAA and AGENEAL) also correspond to the lowest average energy consumption, whilst the most successful sample (LEA) corresponds to the highest average energy consumption, as seen in the above chart. The reason for this is likely to be differences in housing stock; LEA’s sample consisted mainly of terraced or semi-detached housing compared to AGENEAL and EAA’s samples that would have consisted mainly of apartments. The chances of energy savings are therefore greater in LEA’s sample. FLAME is the exception to this rule as average energy consumption was high but energy saved relatively low. In addition, successfulness within different samples may also be attributed to participants’ social attributes (i.e. age, gender, educational level) and motivations for taking part. Analysis of this is included within the present report and in more details in the evaluation report. V.2.2 – Uptake of Energy Efficiency (EE) measures This section includes a comparison between the percentage of EE measures agreed with the participants and those effectively realized, within the consortium. The next chart compares the percentage of EE measures agreed and realized by the participants, per type of measure, within the consortium.

Proportion of technical measures agreed to in the a ction plan and implemented in the follow-up, within the Consortium.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

TOTAL building heating systems(heating, hot water,

regulation)

transport specific electricityend-uses

ventilation other

Agreed (action plan)

Realised

Note: E-STER and KLIBA weren’t considered in the analysis because there were no available data for both experimental areas related with the EE measures proposed and installed


52

Of the technical measures recommended to participants, approximately 60% of these were agreed by participants on the Action Plan and about 30% implemented during the follow-up year. This means participants were able to implement around 45% of agreed measures within 12 months. As explained previously, the number of measures installed is likely to increase after the completion of the project. Measures were categorised for the purpose of analysis. The above chart shows that the measures most likely to be agreed by participants were electricity, heating systems and ventilation measures. Electricity and heating system measures were also the most likely to be implemented (44% of the EE measures recommended on specific electricity-end-uses were realized and 36% for the heating systems), whereas ventilation measures were very unlikely to be implemented (only 6% of the EE measures recommended on ventilation were realized). Although transport measures were least likely to be agreed to on the Action Plan, the difference between this number and those implemented was very small. Unsurprisingly, the initial cost and payback periods of measures seems to have had a significant impact on the likelihood of participants implementing them. Whilst 45% of building measures were agreed to, only 19% of these were implemented during the follow-up year. In some cases, participants might have changed their decisions about these measures but it is also likely that 12 months was an insufficient time period to implement these measures. Given the high cost of installing these measures, participants may have needed extra time to consider or to financially prepare. On the other hand, the amount of agreed and implemented transport measures varied very little (by 8%). This could be due to the fact that the majority of these measures are low or no cost (i.e. reducing car mileage). The following chart shows the potential contribution of each category of energy efficiency measures to overall reductions as well as the actual contribution of each energy efficiency category to the realised energy savings (from those measures actually implemented). Overall contribution of each type measure on the potential energy savings, for the consortium

Overall contribution of each type measure on the actual energy savings, for the

consortium

building41%

heating systems (heating, hot water, regulation)

38%

transport10%

specific electricity end-uses6%

ventilation5%

other0%

Building23%

(heating systems) heating, hot water,

regulation54%

transport11%

ventilation1%

specific electricity end-uses

11%


53

Recommended Agreed % Realised %

A Draught proofing (windows, doors) 40 32 80 16 40B Fit curtains/shutters to windows 2 1 50 1 50C Floor insulation 110 43 39 7 6D Internal, external, cavity wall insulation 176 53 30 16 9

E Other insulation improvements (insulated front door, insulating radiator panels…) 44 21 48 8 18F Replace single glazing with double/triple glazing 218 91 42 32 15

G Roof/loft insulation 188 124 66 66 35

778 365 47 146 19

BU

ILD

ING

FA

BR

IC

TOTAL

EE Measures / Nr.

Measures in heating systems and building improvement dominate both charts; presumably due to the large potential for heating energy use to be reduced. However, building measures contribute much less to the realised energy savings because of the lower uptake of measures, as explained above. Electricity and transport measures, which contribute to small proportions in the potential energy savings, both increased their share in the realised energy savings as both had high rates of implementation. The influence of initial cost and pay back period is also true of measures within categories. For example, within the building fabric category the most realized measures by the participants, when compared with the initial number of recommended measures, were as follows:

- B: Fit curtains/shutters to windows (50%); - A: Draught proofing (40%); - G: Roof/loft insulation (35%).

The following table shows the results obtained by the consortium, for the measures related with the topic Building Fabric.

Recommended, Agreed and Realised measures on the to pic of Building Fabric, within the consortium

Achieving a high level of insulation can significantly reduce heat loss in buildings. Many suitable measures are available at an affordable cost and are cost effective, making recommendations feasible. Types of insulation recommended were: loft, cavity wall, solid wall, floor and insulating radiator panels. Heat loss from windows and doors can be reduced by installing double glazing or secondary glazing, draught proofing and fitting curtains.

The same analysis has been made regarding heating and domestic hot water, specific electricity, and transport, showing similar results.


54

Recommended Agreed % Realised %A Control temperature in hot water tank/cylinder (thermostat…) 13 6 46 1 8B Domestic hot water improvement 39 19 49 26 67C Fit solar thermal system (heating and/or domestic hot water) 126 53 42 11 9D Fit water saving equipment (low flow shower head, water savings gadgets) 73 52 71 27 37E Heating & system distribution improvement 1 0 0 0 0

FImprove control of heating system (heating controls, room thermosat, outdoor sensor, thermostatic radiator vaves, programmer/timer) 192 140 73 91 47

G Install efficient wood boiler / stove / insert (pellet, logs, etc) 65 34 52 11 17H Install heat pump 11 3 27 1 9I Install storage heater 2 1 50 0 0K Insulate hot water tank/cylinder 3 2 67 0 0L Lower heating temperature 37 27 73 9 24

MOther heating & domestic hot water improvements (smart use of water/solar thermal system/wood heating system, lower speed of circulator pump...) 16 16 100 10 63

N Pipe insulation 59 53 90 21 36O Remove heaters/radiators 0 1 - 1 -P Replace electric radiators with more efficient ones 10 5 50 2 20Q Replace existing boiler with a condensing/low temperature model 189 114 60 76 40R Replace storage heater with new 11 8 73 1 9S System & distribution improvement 13 3 23 3 23

860 537 62 291 34

HE

AT

ING

& D

WH

SY

ST

EM

TOTAL

EE Measures / Nr.

Recommended, Agreed and Realised measures on the to pic Heating & DWH System, within the

consortium

The most realized measures by the participants, when compared with the initial number of recommended measures, were as follows:

- B: Domestic hot water improvement (67%); - M: Other heating & domestic hot water improvements (63%); - F: Improve control of heating system (47%).

Heating houses to a comfortable temperature consumes the majority of domestic energy in many countries; ensuring a high efficiency and effective regulation is therefore very important. To improve the efficiency of heating systems the most common recommendation was to replace an existing boiler with a condensing model. Other recommendations, such as replacing, downsizing or removing heaters or radiators, were recommended where appropriate.

Better regulation and control of heating systems was recommended, where appropriate, for example through installing a full set of heating controls: a room thermostat, thermostatic radiator valves (TRVs) and a programmer/timer. An important aspect of effectively using heating controls is to improve participants’ understanding of how to use them; this alone can achieve significant savings in some cases.

Renewable energy systems were recommended where the household had expressed interest, or there was significant opportunity for emissions reduction. Technologies included biomass (wood pellet boiler, wood stove) and air source heat pumps. Actions to reduce energy consumed through ventilation were advised where necessary. This included the installation of a natural ventilation system or changing settings in order to increase efficiency of heating and cooling.


55


A Cold appliances improvement 41 10 24 15 37

B Install micrgeneration source (wind turbine, photovoltaic panels…) 16 3 19 3 19

C Lighting appliances improvement 37 22 59 26 70

DOther improvements on electricity usage (rational use of electric equipment, replace seal on fridge door, dry clothes outside instead of using tumble dryer,wash clothes at 30-40 degrees, reduce use of electrical equipment, etc, etc) 43 35 81 10 23

E Replace electrical appliance with a more efficient model (fridge, freeze, washing machine, tumble dryer…) 315 146 46 50 16

F Replace light bulbs (halogen, incandescent) with low energy light bulbs 397 367 92 241 61

G Turn appliance off standby 246 208 85 162 66

H Washing appliances improvement 23 3 13 4 17

1118 794 71 511 46

SP

EC

IFIC

EL

EC

TR

ICIT

Y E

ND

US

ES

EE Measures / Nr.

TOTAL

Installing a condensing boiler, as recommended for improvements of space heating efficiency, also reduces the energy consumed in heating water. Further recommendations included upgrading the hot water tank, pipe and tank insulation, and installing a hot water tank thermostat. In some cases partners chose to undertake an audit of water usage in addition to energy. Recommendations for improving system efficiency or regulation were included in the report, for example by installing a water saving device such as a water-

saving shower head. Solar hot water systems were suggested in households with a reasonable hot water demand and where this system would be feasible.

Recommended, Agreed and Realised measures on the to pic Specific Electricity End-Uses, within the consortium


- C: Lighting appliances improvement (70%); - G: Turn appliance off standby (66%); - F: Replace light bulbs (halogen, incandescent) with low energy light bulbs (61%).

The first step to reduce electrical consumption is by addressing a number of behavioural issues such as: only using appliances when needed, not using standby mode on appliances and turning lights off when not in use. Furthermore, replacing electrical appliances or lighting with more efficient models can be very effective at reducing consumption. Low energy light bulbs were always recommended (where appropriate and not already installed) due to their low cost and

short pay-back period. It was also advised that inefficient kitchen appliances be replaced with newer, efficient models (energy ratings up to A++). Households interested in reducing their carbon emissions from electricity usage were advised on micro-generation technologies such as solar photovoltaic panels (PV) or a micro-wind turbine. Where not feasible, participants were advised instead to switch to a ‘green electricity’ tariff’.


56


AMake car usage more sustainable (eco-driving, use of biofuels, turn off air conditionning...) 67 35 52 33 49

B Reduce annual mileage 128 55 43 41 32C Replace existing car with more efficient model 65 11 17 7 11D Use alternative modes of transport (bike, public transport…) 51 18 35 18 35E Use carpooling 16 4 25 1 6

327 123 38 100 31TOTAL

TR

AN

SP

OR

T

EE Measures / Nr.

Recommended, Agreed and Realised measures on the to pic Transports, within the consortium.


- A: Make car usage more sustainable (49%); - D: Use alternative modes of transport (35%); - B: Reduce annual mileage (32%).

These were measures with no initial cost involved, therefore it was expected that a significant branch of the consortium sample decided to realize it.

The Eco n’Home project aimed to achieve 50% of carbon savings in transport. Questions were therefore posed to participants to understand their transport usage and daily patterns as the basis for personalised advice on improving sustainability. Types of advice included how daily or regular journeys could be replaced by alternative modes of transport, reducing the number of journeys or total journey distance by a target amount over the year, eco-driving, alternative fuels, and replacing the existing vehicle with a more climate-friendly model. Information on how to achieve these targets was provided, as well as information on the environmental, health and cost

benefits from these changes. V.2.3 – Comparison between the initial potential of energy savings and realised energy savings The energy savings potential was compared with the savings that actually occurred, for each experimental area. As for in section V.2.2, E-STER and KLIBA weren’t considered in the current analysis Comparison between the energy savings potential and the realized savings, per experimental

area (considering all types of measures proposed).

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

AGENEAL GEFOSAT EEA MEA LEA MVE FLAME

MWh

Potential savings Realized savings


57

Based on the chart it is clear that FLAME, which corresponded to the biggest sample in the consortium, had also the highest savings potential regarding the proposed EE measures (about 3 000 MWh), which corresponded to approximately half of the total percentage of the consortium sample (53%). However, this potential was largely overestimated, since the realized measures corresponded to real savings of approximately 370 MWh (which represents 12% of the initial potential savings). Despite that fact, it corresponds to the second best overall savings achieved in the different experimental areas. MVE’s experimental area, which represented the smallest sample in the consortium, had the second highest savings potential (825 MWh). This result is probably a consequence of the high number of EE measures recommended to the participants, in particular related with the topics of building fabric and heating & DHW. Nevertheless, the realized savings corresponded to 62 MWh (only 8% of the initial potential savings). The potential savings for MEA’s and LEA’s experimental areas corresponded to approximately 550 MWh and 600 MWh, respectively. For MEA the most recommended measures were related with the topics of building fabric and also specific use of electricity. As for LEA, the potential energy savings are related with the measures recommend on the topic of heating & DHW. Most likely due to the type of measures proposed and the financial grant provided by LEA, this experimental area achieved one of the best ratios of proposed versus realized measures, reaching 484 MWh out of 581 MWh (83%). MEA’s experimental area achieved only 135 MWh from the initial 554 MWh (24%). The potential energy savings regarding EEA’s sample represented 366 MWh and is a result of the measures recommended to the participants being mostly on the topic of specific use of electricity. At the end of the follow-up, the real savings corresponded to 57 MWh (16% of the initial potential savings). In GEFOSAT’s experimental area the potential energy savings corresponded to 256 MWh and, as for EEA, this is related mostly with the measures proposed to the participants on the topic of specific use of electricity. The realized energy savings corresponded to 103 MWh (40% of the initial potential savings). Finally, AGENEAL had the smallest contribution on the total potential savings of the consortium (30 MWh). This can be justified by the fact that the measures recommended to the participants focused almost exclusively on the topic of specific use of electricity and therefore the potential linked with this type of measure is considerably inferior than the potential savings of other type of measures (e.g. roof/loft insulation; improvements in the heating system control, etc). Opposite to every other experimental area, the potential savings were overly underestimated, reaching 124 MWh, almost four times the initial assumption. V.2.4 – Level of satisfaction of the participant ho useholds Another important aspect of the evaluation that allows evaluating the success of the Eco n’ Home action is related with the level of satisfaction of the consortium sample with regard to the service delivered. Based on the results of an evaluation questionnaire sent out to the participants, the following items were considered:

- Awareness of the participants on the topic of energy, after the participation in the project;

- Change in the energy behaviour of the participants, as a consequence of their involvement in the project;


58

- Global evaluation of the service delivered by the Eco n’ Home partners ((e.g. technical visit; energy audit report; follow-up; etc.).

The total number of households involved in the survey was 444 as shown in the table below, which represents about 51% of the total sample of households originally involved in the action. Number of households that compose the original samp le and which were involved in the evaluation survey, for each experimental area

MVE E-STER MEA KLIBA GEFOSAT AGENEAL EEA LEA FLAME TOTAL

ORIGINAL SAMPLE 30 100 53 95 50 94 43 62 336 863

DELIVERED THE EVALUATION

QUESTIONNAIRE 16 28 36 57 29 77 38 30 133 444

Out of the 444 participants who completed the questionnaire, 88% said that their knowledge of energy had increased (in particular, their awareness on how to reduce energy consumption in their home and transport), and 71% said that their behaviour in relation to energy use had changed.

The following chart illustrates the ways in which participant behaviour changed as a result

of involvement in the project: The evaluation questionnaire also determined participants’ satisfaction with the overall project. As seen in the graph below, the majority of participants evaluated the service as at least ‘acceptable’ (91%) and 69% of householders thought the project was ‘good’ or ‘very good’. No data was obtained from LEA hence the absence of data displayed on the graph.

I turn out the light w hen leaving the room

I replace broken bulbs by energy-savinglights

I sw itch off my TV directly at the apparatus

I sw itch off the display of my computerw hen I pause for more than 10 minutes

I use the bike or public transport or I go byfoot on my w ay to school/w ork

I ow n a fridge w ith energy efficiency classA (or better)

I’m a member of a car-sharing-pool

I cook w ith caps upon the jars

After charging my mobile phone I don’t leavethe connector in the pow er outlet

The energy saving function is activated atmy computer

Other

Changes in the energy behavior of the Eco N' Home p articipants (Consortium)

13%

16%

15%

9%5%9%

2%

9%

12%

6% 4%


59

Global Evaluation of the Delivered Service

43%

50%56%

48%

21%

37%

55%

26%

47%

26%

44%

7%

26%32%

40%

23%

33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

CONSORTIUM

MVE

E-STE

RMEA

KLIBA

GEFOSAT

AGENEALEEA

LEA

FLAM

E

Very bad

Bad

Mediocre

Acceptable

Good

Very Good

In addition to the evaluation the participants made of the service they were provided, which differ between experimental areas, they were also asked about the possibility of being charged. The charge of such a service is questionable and this issue has been raised by the consortium (see ‘methodology’ and ‘lessons’ sections). The following graphs show the answers of the participants with regard to this question.

50% 58%

93%

63% 64% 56%

29%48%

50% 48%

7%

38% 36%44%

71%

52%

MVE

MEA

KLiBA

GEFOSAT

AGENEALEAA

LEA

FLAM

E

NO

YES

13%

50%

72%

22%

82%

29%

37%

39%

28%

45%

16%

20%

35%

37%

11%

33%

53%100%

34%

13%27%

MVE

MEA

KLiBA

GEFOSAT

AGENEALEAA

LEA

FLAM

E

Other

50-100€

25€ - 50€

5€ - 25 €

Share of participants who agreed to pay for the service

Charge suggested by the participants who agreed to pay for the service


60

V.2.5 – Participant profiles Based on the survey aimed at the participants together with the results in energy and CO2 saved, different profiles were defined per experimental area and put together in order to identify the main features that have contributed for the better results obtained by the participants in Eco n’Home. In order to better understand the reasons for the differences observed between the experimental areas, we established a comparison between the profiles of these participants and pointed out some aspects that might have been essential to determine the final results of the experimental phase. To do so, the following steps were undertaken. First, all the participants who did not complete the survey aimed at evaluating their level of satisfaction were excluded from the analysis as no data were available. Then, the second criterion consisted of excluding the participants whose energy consumption had increased since we assumed that either they lost interest in the project – a weakness of the service - and/or went through changes in personal circumstances. Finally, as shown in the following tables, a specific profile (profile 3) was set allowing for the participants who achieved the targets of the project i.e. energy savings: 10% - 20% per household, per year; Reduction in the CO2 emissions: 1 ton per household, per year.

Number of households included in the profile of the participants who achieved the targets of the project, in terms of energy savings and CO2 emi ssions (Profile 3), per experimental area.

MVE E-STER MEA KLIBA GEFOSAT AGENEAL EEA LEA FLAME TOTAL Total sample (survey completed)

12 14 30 19 25 54 36 26 52 268

Profile 3 7 6 14 7 9 24 5 21 14 107

% 58 43 47 37 36 44 14 81 27 -


61

Profile of the participants of achieved the targets of the project, in terms of energy and CO2 emissio ns, per experimental area.

AGENEAL MVE EEA LEA KLIBA MEA GEFOSAT ESTER

Indicators Profile 3 Profile 3 Profile 3 Profile 3 Profile 3 Profil e 3 Profile 3 Profile 3Age-group 35-44 45-60 and >61 - > 61 45-60 45-60 and >61 45 - 60 45 - 60

Level of educationMaster degree Bachelor degree

Some school(No degree)

High schoolcompletion Master degree Bachelor degree Master degree Master degree

ProfessionEmployed position(working mainly at a desk)

Retired or unable to work through illness

Responsible for ordinary shoppingand looking after the home, or without any current occupation , not working

Retired or unable to workthrough illness

Employed Professional (employed doctor, lawyer, accountant, architect)

Retired or unable to work through illness

Middle management, other management

Employed position, working mainly at a desk

Average family income1500-2000 €

1500-2000 €>5000 € 2500-3000 € 1000 - 1500 € 1500 - 2000 €

1500-2000 €>5000 € 2500-3000 € 4500-5000 €

Household location - - - - - - - -

Main/secondary home - - - - - - - -

Household type Flat House Flat House Flat House House House

Owner/tenant Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner

Period of ownership Short (1-5 years) 1-5 and > 15 years Medium (6-14 years) - Long (> 15 years) Short (1-5 years) and Long (> 15 years)Medium (6 - 14 years) Long (> 15 years)

Environmental organization member - - - - - - - -

Climate change - - - - - - - -

Save energy at home/Tackle climate change Proper way Proper way Imroper way Proper way Proper way Proper way Proper way Proper way

Save energy/Overcome man made climate change - - - - - - - -

Main reason to participateClimate/environmentprotection

Climate/environmentprotection

Financial savings Financial savingsClimate/environmentprotection



Financial savingsClimate/environment protectionTechnical problems

Recruitment - - - - - - - -

Global evaluation of the tehnical visit Very good Good Acceptable - Good Good Very good Good

Clearness of the audit report Good Very good Acceptable Very good/Good Good Very good Good Good/Very good

Follow-up Good/Acceptable Very good Acceptable Good/Acceptable/Mediocre -

Very good Good Mediocre

Global evaluation of the service Good Good Acceptable - Very good Good Good Good

Expected the EE measures the energy audit report - - - - - - - -

Increased the knowledge on the topic energy - - - - - - - -

Changed the energy behaviour Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Had previous plans to invest in EE measures Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Feasibility of the EE measures short/medium term Yes, all Yes, partly Yes, partly Yes, all Yes, partly Yes, partly Yes, partly Yes, partly


62

The differences between the experimental areas are obviously related with the type of methodology followed by each partner, the different approaches and tools used for the data analysis and also with social aspects involved in the Eco n’ Home action, which differ from country to country. It was therefore difficult to draw any proper conclusions, but rather seek a few explanations: The profile obtained for LEA, which corresponds to the experimental area that achieved the best results, demonstrates that the sample is composed by elder participants (> 61 years old), who are retired or unable to work through illness. This aspect can be relevant to justify the results obtained in this experimental, because the participants were for sure more available to commit to the project goals. Even though their average income is low, these participants beneficiated from a grant scheme available in their area (received a 75% grant towards the cost of their energy efficiency work). This opportunity was obviously essential to gather their interest in the project and achieve by far the best results in the all consortium. The opposite situation was observed in EEA’s sample. Only 14% of the participants achieved the proposed targets. In this case there isn’t a significant difference between this sample and all the others. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that in general the service delivered by EEA was evaluated as acceptable by the majority of the participants. This indicates that there must have been some negative aspects pointed out by the participants, regarding the several steps of the experimental phase, which might have lead to less motivation from the participants and, subsequently, a lower percentage of participants included in this profile. With regard to the other samples, the most significant differences are related with the average income of the families. This aspect might have influenced the behaviour of the participants, in particular, when it comes to their availability to implement the EE measure proposed by the energy adviser. V.2.6 – Cost analysis of the service Based upon the total costs of implementing the Eco n’Home service and total number of households having received advice, we were able to calculate an average cost per household. This assessment had to rely on the costs stated by each partner, including recruitment, auditing, follow-up assistance and evaluation. Except from some measuring instruments and transport costs, the cost of these phases mainly consists of staff costs. According to partners’ statement the global cost of the service is 310.000 € corresponding to an average 400€ per household.

Assessment of average costs per household for recru itment , audit reporting and follow-up (€/household)

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

MVE

e-ste

rM

EAKlib

a

GEFOSAT

AGENEALEAA

LEA

FLAME

Conso

rtium


63

The table below is due in order to have a better understanding of the average time spent per household to provide the Eco n’Home service.

Assessment of average time spent per household for each task

PARTNER Recruitment1 Audit2 Report3 Follow up4 Total/hh

MVE 2,60 13,90 22,10 13,40 52,00 extended audit 0,20 3,75 6,00 0,50 10,45

e-ster simple audit 0,20 1,25 1,75 0,50 3,70

MEA 0,38 2,00 4,00 5,00 11,38 KliBA 0,42 4,50 3,00 1,50 9,42 GEFOSAT 0,50 2,00 3,50 1,50 7,50 AGENEAL 0,43 3,50 9,50 2,00 15,43 EAA 0,56 2,25 9,00 6,00 17,81 LEA 0,25 2,25 3,00 0,75 6,25 FLAME 0,57 4,00 7,25 5,00 16,82

Consortium 0,53 3,57 6,56 3,33 13,99 1 including negotiation with co-financers, phone calls, communication, etc 2 including preparation of the visit + visit itself 3 including data-processing, writing of the report, and discussion of action plan with the household 4 including all follow-up activities, and individual evaluations Large variations can be observed between partners, due to variations in methodology and local specificities. Then, the service has also been assessed in term of cost-effectiveness, as shown in the graph below, by calculating the cost (€) without including any benefits per amount of energy saved (kWh). This was done by dividing the total costs of implementing the project (staff costs based upon recruitment, auditing, follow-up assistance and evaluation) divided by total energy savings achieved. This method gives an indication of the cost-effectiveness of the project but cannot be relied upon to provide a wholly accurate analysis as such an analysis is extremely difficult to carry out.

Assessment of average costs per saved kWh (€/kWh)

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

MVEe-

ster

MEAKlib

a

GEFOSAT

AGENEALEAA

LEA

FLAM

E

Conso

rtium

[ € /

KW

h sa

ved] year t

year t+1


64

Savings made in the follow-up year (year t) are estimated at €0.18 per kWh saved whilst those accounted for in year t+1 are estimated at €0.15 per kWh saved (0,8€/kg eq.CO2 saved on the first year and 0,6€/ kg eq.CO2 saved/year if we take the estimated savings for year t+1). However, savings can be considered to be under-estimated due to the expected implementation of measures after project completion. These figures exclude any savings made by excluded participants (those who did not return final data – see previously) whilst still accounting for costs associated with their involvement. As shown in the graph below, extrapolating these results to all participants would increase the cost-efficiency to €0.12 per kWh saved on the year t and €0.10 per kWh saved for year t+1.

It is likely that a high-scale or long-term replication of this service would reduce costs by an estimated 10% due to a higher efficiency of methods used (partners have reported the household recruitment alone to have taken between 5 and 10% of the time they spent on experimentation, and some tools to be quite inadequate for this kind of service (cf. advantages/disadvantages of the methodology used in each experimental area). Therefore cost efficiency is likely to be €0.13 per kWh saved (for year t+1 savings, not including extrapolation). As already said, the vast majority of costs spent in the project were staff costs. Therefore, reducing time needed on the service is the most effective way to reduce costs associated with it. Differences in cost-effectiveness between the partners can be seen in both graphs. Some differences can be accounted for by methodologies and experiences, contexts and ongoing policies at local and/or national levels, whilst some is due to circumstances (difficulties with dealing with households, staff turnover, etc). Similarly, results obtained from different partners show that the percentage of savings achieved is not directly related to the average time spent per household. Instead, those most experienced and those who used the most effective methodologies (as outlined previously) were most cost-effective. As regards to comparison with other services (such as telephone or online services), Eco n’Home is quite expensive. However, for such a complete service, including a visit, audit report, follow-up and evaluation, it can be considered to be reasonably cost-effective.

Assessment of average costs per saved kWh ( €/kWh) by extrapolating measured savings to the whole sample

0,0

0,1

0,1

0,2

0,2

0,3

0,3

0,4

MVE

e-ste

rM

EAKlib

a

GEFOSAT

AGENEALEAA

LEA

FLAM

E

Consortiu

m

[ € /

KW

h sa

ved]

year t

year t+1


65

Furthermore, Eco n’Home has a significant impact on the kind of actions that the households choose to implement to reduce their consumptions. As site audits allow advisors to have an overview of the situation, they can thus produce adapted recommendations and design suitable schedules of works, with knowledge of the families’ habits and situations. Finally, comparison of the Eco n’Home service with other energy efficiency services for households must be considered with caution as for instance in terms of savings made, we would have needed to have a longer follow up period to be able to evaluate results properly. V.2.7 – Lessons learnt on the service and methodolo gy The breadth of experience in providing household energy advice gained in the course of implementation together with the global analysis of the service means that collectively the partners are well placed to identify some of the key lessons and to advise on replication. Organisations wishing to replicate the project can integrate these lessons into the common model in order to create the optimum framework for their context and circumstances. More detail can be found within the ‘Global Evaluation Report’ available from the project website. Use strong recruitment methods The first challenge encountered in delivering the service is the recruitment of participant households. Effectiveness and time required depend on local circumstances such as the rationale behind the decision to implement the Eco n’Home model, funding and the existence of contact networks such as of households involved in past or current initiatives. In the case of Eco n’Home, the average time spent on recruitment per household varies from 15 minutes to 2,5 hours. Such differences can have strong consequences on the cost-effectiveness of the service. One important difference between observed recruitment methods is that in some cases the service was directly proposed to targeted households, whereas in other cases households had to actively contact the partners to apply for the service. In the prospect of a large-scale or long term replication, recruitment should consume a little time as possible. Approaches that proved less successful during the pilot include public events, door-to-door and speculative letter writing. Incentives can be helpful as a way of encouraging participation such as special offers or grants. If media outlets are used, it is recommended to use a variety of methods such as TV, radio and newspapers. This allows reaching households who would not have contacted the ‘service developer’ by themselves. It can also ensure that the applicants are willing to participate on a voluntary basis and so they are motivated. Use effective auditing and data collection methods A trade-off between time spent, accuracy, and effectiveness The initial audit and data collection stage of the project were found to be time consuming and fraught with difficulties. In order to reduce the average audit time it is important to be realistic about the level of detail sought; it may be necessary to simplify the process to suit the period available. In fact, there are limitations to how much data you can collect in one visit, and so, therefore, a trade-off has to be made between time and the amount and quality of data collected. It is therefore recommended advisers ask participants to fill out a pre-audit questionnaire and request basic information such as energy bills and house plans before the audit. Collecting this data after the audit proved difficult and time consuming as advisers often had to re-contact participants on numerous occasions. This meant a lot of time was then required to complete the calculations than was anticipated and this was even more difficult by sometimes a lack of cooperation by some households. Therefore, some basic information should not be overlooked during the audit which has to be prepared beforehand. For instance, the adviser has to ensure that there is sufficient ‘background information’ on the


66

participants that will help suggest reasons for any discrepancies in the results. As a minimum, along with receiving the energy bills and houses plans, this should include age and number of occupants, type of house – size and tenure, the type and age of the heating system, the number of lights and appliances and the householder’s occupancy pattern. To help with the latter, ask participants to fill in a diary of a typical week. However, requesting such amount of personal information should not be too heavy for the householder. The pre-audit questionnaire should be designed so that data can be captured easily by the householder. Two means for getting these back can be by post or though Internet like with an on-line form. Finally, a minimum fulfilment of the pre-audit questionnaire can be required to launch the audit visit. Additionally, results obtained from different partners as shown in the graph below show that the percentage of savings achieved is not directly related to the average time spent per household on the audit. Instead, those most experienced in the field of global energy audits for households were most cost-effective. It can also be stressed that, for instance, the extended (ex.) audits undertaken by e-ster (cf. ‘methodology’) did not seem to generate consequently higher savings than for simple audits (s). Therefore, the relevance of in-depth audits is questionable.

Assessment of the percentage of savings achieved in function of the time spent on the audit, in average for each partner.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

MVE

e-st

er (e

x)

e-st

er (s

)M

EAKlib

a

GEFOSAT

AGENEALEAA

LEA

FLAM

E

Conso

rtium

One of the key success factors beside the used of effective tools and experience concerning the time-efficiency of the audit is, as said above, the level of preparation for it. The lack of complete data Problems were also encountered with the lack of complete historic energy records retained by participants. This can be overcome by establishing contact between the adviser and energy utilities, where possible, to obtain accurate figures on past consumption based on meter readings. How to produce an effective diagnosis? The process of diagnosis, involving calculations and use of auditing software, can take longer than anticipated. The collection of reliable household data, production of clear notes, together with special staff training on particular tools and software to avoid mistakes and inefficient use of resources, will all help to reduce this time. The more complex the software is the more experienced the advisor needs to be. This also affects the time spent on this task. Partners reported that a ‘complex’ tool – not appropriate or the use of two many different tools e.g. one for electricity, one for heating, etc – also tends to increase the delay


67

between the audit visit and the moment by which the report is produced and presented to the household, which implies a loss of time and accuracy, but also it may affect the involvement and motivation of participants. Account should also be made of the assumptions made by some tools and software, for example regarding lifestyle patterns and behaviour (see below). This can be partly avoided by using for instance “smart meters” or energy monitor plugs (cf. ‘methodology’) to measure the electricity use of appliances (not possible to gather data on all electrical appliances because sockets may not be accessible), etc. These tools, which also have an educational effect to the participants, can be left in homes for a certain period of time Also, even if it sounds trivial, taking pictures during the audit can be a memory prompt after the visit. Produce a meaningful Audit Report From their report, participants should be able to gain a useful and relevant understanding of their energy consumption and how to reduce it. It should be attractive, not too technical and utilise graphics. These graphics should highlight the differences in energy consumption, energy bills and carbon footprint that the implementation of recommendations would cause. At the start, providing participants with free or low cost measures such as low energy light bulbs can help to show the impact of small-scale actions and increase their motivation for implementing larger measures. Use the Action Plan The purpose of the Action Plan is to present the recommendations to the household in a simple format and to enable them to understand the impact in terms of savings. Whilst signing the Action Plan should indicate the participant’s intentions, some participants were reluctant to sign it due to a perceived commitment. Confirming to the participant that signing does not lead to a formal commitment should prevent this. This document is particularly important where the service was provided free of charge, in order to increase participant motivation. It is also a useful tool during evaluation to see clearly what was decided upon and what had been implemented. Implement an effective follow-up This was a key phase of the service which made Eco n’Home different from more common services of energy advice for households. It has to ensure that households are provided with sufficient support and information to carry out actions. Feedback on best activities An effective follow up would include a number of ongoing activities, such as: - Regular contact between the adviser and householder: even with the best intentions,

participants can often need frequent prompts and correspondence from advisers. It is recommended that at the project outset the involvement required by the participant is clearly explained.

- Monitoring the energy consumption through regular meter readings: participants should be encouraged to record their energy use, for example through regular meter readings. This allows them to become more aware of their consumption and more likely to change it. As with the beginning of the project, it can be very difficult to get this information from participants (meter readings). Whilst the pilot study did not make use of meter reading tools (example of e-ster, cf. methodology) due to costs, these could be used in replication to ensure accuracy. Without these tools, the best way to avoid errors and difficulties at the end of follow-up is to maintain a good relationship and close contact throughout. It is important to make sure that the meter readings are taken at the same time each week,


68

and that the participants are able to read their meters by producing a guide giving instructions.

- Providing practical support where possible: low cost energy saving measures, e.g. low energy lights and flow reducers, could be provided to participants to show the impact of small-scale actions on energy consumption. In some cases the provision of one low energy light bulb helped the householder replace all their lights with low-energy bulbs. Similarly, “smart meters” or tools that are left in participants’ home can have an educational effect as people realise the extent of their energy consumption.

- Encouraging communication between participants e.g. by setting-up an internet exchange forum, or by utilising success stories to help inspire others in similar situations

- Activities such as themed mailings, events, film showings - Involving a network of professionals to enable the implementation of measures such as

the connection of families with recommended contractors. The organisation of Bulk buying can also be an appropriate way to encourage people to buy energy saving equipment for a cheaper price.

Cost and feasibility of measures The best measures for good results are, as expected, those related to the more complex and expensive actions, such as wall insulation and heating system improvement. Costs are an important factor in making actions real but, moreover, complexity represents the real barrier to implementing actions mainly because they lack personal and objective support from professionals – added value of the Eco n’Home service, or because they do not depend only on the householder’s choice, as for people living in flats. In addition to this, laws, regulations and incentives have and may have a strong impact on people decisions, especially during the follow-up. So the service should be fitted on specific laws and regulation. The effects of the time spent on the follow-up on the average number of implemented measures have been studied as shown in the graph below. Concerning partners for whom the number of improvements action could be evaluated, it seems the average number of implemented measures is correlated with time assigned to follow-up, with the exception of LEA. The Eco n’Home participants were offered a free audit and access to a grant that would pay 75% of the costs of their recommended energy efficiency measures. From a positive stance, this ensured that LEA had good take-up of the service and implementation of the measures. However, care needs to be taken when marketing energy efficiency grant schemes – some householders are likely to think that the 75% grant is “too good to be true”, and may dismiss the offer.


69

Assessment of the average number of implemented mea sures per hour spent and per household (number of measures per household divided by average time spent per household on

follow-up)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

MVE

MEA

GEFOSAT

AGENEALEAA

LEA

FLAM

E

Indeed, LEA designed a schedule of work for each household, and the participant had to accept this ‘package’ in order to obtain a grant. A list or recommended contractors was also provided with, and householders had to agree and pay their share of the total cost in order to trigger the energy efficiency works to begin in the house. Several outstanding success factors in methodology (cf. ‘methodology’) leading to effective uptake of measures in different energy uses have been in some way identified in the analysis of the results. For example regarding heating, the package of measures designed by LEA to obtain the grant gave priority to insulation and the installation of a new heating system and a set of heating controls. As for E-ster, the recommendation of a package of measures of high impact and short pay-back period together with specific involvement of social welfare organisations in the implementation of actions also proved very successful. Some causes of success to lower domestic hot water consumption were for example E-ster who managed to generate significant savings through the promotion of particularly cheap, profitable and simple measures such as efficient showerheads or improvements of control of temperature. The ‘lighting makeover’ offered by MEA helped sufficiently reduce the electricity consumption for lighting. Some barriers were overcome by allowing participants to easily buy economic bulbs through the agency. As already stated, leaving energy monitor plugs to each household and asking for a set of measurements appeared to be a good way to raise participants’ awareness. It also makes families take part in the audit process, so they can see by themselves how consuming the main appliances are and so detect their wasteful habits. Finally, including the topic of transport to this type of service can be an interesting way to raise participants’ awareness on how consuming their transport habits are - even though we can more or less assume as regards to our experience that households are mainly interested by energy savings at home rather than in transport. For instance MEA did do by encouraging travel diaries to participants. As for KliBA, the offer of eco-driving training showed particularly rewarding. Both ideas can be complementary ways to address the transport issue. Produce a useful Evaluation Report The Evaluation Report is the final feedback participants will receive on their actions; it therefore needs to be positive and rewarding by highlighting their successes and achievements. A similar format to that of the Audit Report should be used to maintain consistency and aid understanding. Recommendations for future savings should be included to encourage householders to further reduce their consumption after project completion.


70

If it is still difficult to obtain the relevant information for the evaluation report, it is a good idea to remind participants of its value. Even if they have not implemented many measures, they may be surprised by how much energy they have saved through simple behavioural changes. Understand participant’s motivation, behaviour, and socio-economic status We discovered that it is important to understand the socio-economic status of the participating household, their reason and motivation for participating in the scheme, and their attitudes towards the environment. Relationship between the advisor and participant household To ensure effective delivery throughout the project, it is important to understand the participant’s motivation for involvement from the outset of the project. This is a crucial part of developing a positive relationship between the adviser and household and allows more feasible recommendations to be made. It is important that the adviser has an understanding of the participant’s motivation for being involved and their personal circumstances. A householder motivated primarily for financial reasons, for example, may be interested in a different package of actions than if motivated by environmental concern. In addition to possessing good technical skills, it is important that the adviser can listen to the participant’s needs and be pragmatic in terms of offering suitable advice, and be aware of specific aims or problems that the householder may have. Efficiency of measures and behavioural change In addition we found that, in some cases, implementing one small measure, e.g. switching to low energy light bulbs, increased the motivation for the householder to subsequently implement more complicated or costly measures. This “behavioural change” aspect of the project was important – for example, will also found that some householders chose to “realise” their energy savings in the form of increased thermal comfort rather than in a reduction in energy consumption. Free or payable service? Motivations can also differ between participants who paid for the service and those who received it for free. Experience suggests that those paying are generally more likely to be co-operative and act upon the advice given, even though, direct contacts, free service and advisors skills are key points in gaining people trust, resulting in great aid in forming and increasing behavioural habits and change. On the other hand, the free service model has shown its limitations in people active participation in making suggest actions real, exactly because it is a free service: i.e. people may feel not “forced” in obtaining results. In cases where the householders were not paying for the service, they seemed to put less value on it, and were sometimes not very accurate with the data they provided, or prompt when responding to actions. However, in the case of a service intended for low-income families, it is not realistic to propose it as a paying service. Relate climate change to individual circumstances It is not only knowledge and understanding but also the attitudes of householders that determine their behaviour, particularly in relation to the environment. Attitudes can be addressed effectively by relating the problem of climate change and peak oil to the difference individual actions can make. Information on climate change should ideally accompany literature on the advice service; it should be written avoiding jargon or overly scientific explanations and with a positive tone.


71

Integrate the social aspect in similar initiatives (cf. presentation of Françoise BARTIAUX, doctor in Demography at the Catholic University of Leuven)

Dealing with households is a difficult task since it involves other parameters beside the pure technical implementation side, which can be more sensitive. Energy issues at household level must be tackled considering the household as a whole, having in mind their possible reluctance to commit, doubts they may have, for example about the effectiveness of the recommendations, together with social and financial barriers they may have faced. The breadth of experience in providing household energy advice gained in the course of implementation means that collectively the partners were well placed to identify some of the key lessons and to advise on replication. Organisations wishing to replicate the project can integrate these lessons into the common model in order to create the optimum framework for their context and circumstances. Utilise partnerships Financial support that each Eco n’Home partner received from the European Commission’s Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) programme, was supplemented by local and national partnerships, to cover the project costs. More specific partnerships from both public and private sectors were made for households directly, in order to help them implement EE measures throughout the project implementation. A survey on partnerships that have been formed in Eco n’Home was carried out and is available on the project website. Also, some are described in the ‘methodology’ section. Why create a Partnership? 1. They can help with delivery of the project and dissemination of the results 2. They may have existing financial tools or grant schemes, which could be utilised 3. They may have access to networks, and support organisations 4. The project can gain national and international recognition 5. It prevents duplication of work, resources and time 6. In the case of Eco n’Home, partnerships with energy utilities were created to help stimulate the White Certificate market. A broad overview of the kind of partnership to be formed is provided below.


72

V.2.8 – Success stories Energy efficiency in an old house (MVE, France)

Before involvement in the Eco n’Home project this householder had already contacted MVE due to concern over their high fuel bills. The house, like many in the area, was built in the early 1900s and possessed low levels of energy efficiency such as poor insulation levels. Although upgrading insulation was not a viable option, MVE was able to make many other suggestions for improvement. Firstly, they made a number of no-cost recommendations such as lowering the thermostat from 22ºC to 19/20ºC, alone reducing gas consumption by almost 30%. Efficiency of the heating system was then vastly improved by the installation of a new condensing boiler and a solar hot water system was installed to reduce CO2 emissions. Furthermore, the householder is replacing all light bulbs with low energy bulbs, switching off electrical appliances when not in use and plans to install double glazing. The householder was

able to obtain financial help from tax credits and Montreuil Municipality. So far, annual energy consumption has been reduced from 28,895 kWh to 20,423 kWh; a saving of 30%. This saving is expected to rise to 45% as a result of measures installed at the end of the follow-up year. Insulation: a key element of refurbishment (KliBA, Germany) Whilst refurbishing their house, one householder was keen to optimise energy efficiency within the building and therefore was keen to be involved in the project. The house, typical of those in Heidelberg, had an annual gas consumption of 35,000 kWh before the audit. The audit showed heat loss areas in the building primarily to be the outer walls (32%) and the roof (17%). Some heat was also being lost through the windows (9%) and through the cellar (5%). After advice from KliBA, the householder installed 22cm of roof insulation and 16cm of wall insulation; saving a total of 17,000 kWh and 3.6 tCO2 annually. Other insulation and draught proofing measures will be installed over the coming months, reducing the overall energy consumption by 68%. KliBA helped the household to obtain subsidies from the City Administration and a special loan programme. These grants have reduced the initial cost of measures, meaning that these costs will be paid back through savings in fuel bills in only eight years. Overcoming financial barriers (LEA, UK) A local resident in Leicester took part in the Eco n’Home project primarily due to concerns over fuel bills. Further motivation stemmed from an interest in reducing their impact on the environment and becoming more energy efficient. An initial audit by LEA found the householder was spending £830 per year on their gas and electricity bills and a further £1,170 on their car’s fuel costs. LEA assisted the household in identifying a range of actions which would considerably reduce their energy consumption: installing a new condensing boiler, a package of new heating controls, loft insulation and six low energy light bulbs. LEA was able to obtain a 75% grant for the householder through Leicester’s SRB6 grant scheme, helping the householder to overcome significant financial barriers. The measures undertaken


73

helped the householder to reduce their annual energy consumption by 11,501 kWh, almost halving their fuel bills and saving 3.2 tonnes of CO2. Analysis by the University of Manchester also showed the participant to have increased energy efficiency awareness and thus to have implemented behavioural changes such as switching off light bulbs when not in use. Through increased awareness the participant also reduced their transportation energy use by 10%. Massive CO2 reductions in family home (FLAME, France)

A family living in a 1968 house in Alsace renovated their property in 2003 at which stage they installed a number of energy efficient measures: double glazing, loft insulation and floor insulation. Even after installing these measures, the family was keen to improve their energy efficiency further and so took part in the Eco n’Home project. After their initial audit a range of measures were recommended: insulating hot water pipes, installing low energy light bulbs and programming heating controls. Although these measures were reasonably easy and cheap to install, costing only €82, they generated a 48% reduction in energy consumption and €1,116 in annual fuel bills. After receiving advice on their transport usage, the family also began to use public transport more frequently. Overall, the family’s annual carbon footprint was reduced by an immense 5.6 tCO2.

Energy saving householder inspires neighbours (EAA, Italy) One householder in Turin, Italy, was interested in participating in Eco n’Home due to concerns over both fuel bills and climate change. The initial audit of the apartment carried out by EAA highlighted that domestic hot water should be the focus of recommendations. The householder could not switch to a non- electric system but decided to replace the boiler with a more efficient model with less storage capacity. The participant also replaced their fridge with an A+ rated model, replaced light bulbs with low energy bulbs and reduced standby losses on electrical appliances by installing plugs with separate switches. In total, the householders have reduced their energy consumption by 0.23tCO2 per year. In addition to replacing their own boiler, the householder encouraged all residents in the same building to replace the central heating boiler system to a more efficient system that also uses a less polluting fuel. This is to be replaced after summer 2009 to allow householders to financially prepare for such an installation. Efficient electrical appliances significantly reduce CO2 emissions (AGENEAL, Portugal) Before joining the Eco n’Home project, a householder in Almada, Portugal, had begun to install low energy light bulbs in their house in an attempt to reduce their energy bills. However, with unsatisfactory results, the householder was keen to participate in the project to explore further ways of reducing their energy and in particular, their electricity consumption. Following the initial audit by AGENEAL, a number of recommendations were proposed to reduce electricity consumption: replacing remaining incandescent lights bulbs with low energy bulbs, and replacing white appliances such as the fridge and freezer with efficient models. The householder soon implemented these measures along with making a considerable effort to implement behavioural changes such as turning off appliances and


74

lighting when not needed. These actions reduced electricity consumption by 823 kWh annually, corresponding to an annual reduction in CO2 emissions of 500kg. Advice provided on eco-driving and mobility habits led to a 15% reduction in transport energy use. Cycling to success! (FLAME, France)

One family from Alsace involved in the Eco n’Home project showed a strong motivation to change their habits after deciding to ride a bicycle or take public transport on daily journeys instead of using the car. This reduced their transportation energy consumption by an incredible 45%. ALME, the local energy agency (part of FLAME), also recommended seven energy saving measures in the house, six of which were implemented in the follow-up year and one was to be installed later. These actions included using electrical appliances less, swapping bulbs for low energy

alternatives, installing water saving devices, insulating hot water pipes and better use of heating controls. These savings reduced their household energy consumption by 25% and reduced their overall CO2 emissions by 6.2 tonnes annually. 30% reduction in 500 year old, UN protected house (E-Ster, Belgium) Reducing energy consumption in old buildings is a difficult task. In this case it was particularly tricky because the house is 500 years old, protected by the Belgian Administration for Monuments and is situated within a UN World Heritage site. Any alterations to the visual exterior of the house are therefore under stringent restrictions, for example replacing windows with double glazing would not be permitted. Despite this situation, the Eco n’Home service was able to overcome these difficulties and produce excellent energy savings. The gas consumption was reduced by 32% by installing a new condensing boiler for heating and hot water production, along with an effective weather-dependent control system. Electricity consumption was reduced by 28% after cutting standby losses (mainly from the computer) and replacing light bulbs with low energy light bulbs. Therefore, the annual household consumption has been reduced by 30%. Tapping into the sun (MEA, UK)

One householder in Shrewsbury was keen to reduce their energy consumption due to environmental concerns. Prior to involvement in the Eco n’Home project they had installed loft insulation, replaced appliances with ‘A’ rated models and fitted low energy light bulbs. The initial audit by MEA began by focusing on behavioural changes such as switching off appliances and washing clothes at a lower temperature. Due to the house being in a conservation area there was little that could be done on the walls or windows of the property but the household has now replaced the very

inefficient boiler with an efficient, condensing model. After negotiations with the local planning department (due to the historic location) a solar thermal system has been installed to contribute to the hot water requirement. The householder also switched their electricity to a green tariff, roughly halving their household CO2 emissions from 5.18 to 2.54 tonnes. After realising the large contribution of their annual car mileage to overall CO2 emissions, the


75

participants reduced their car mileage by a staggering 40% due to careful journey planning and intensive usage of other transport modes. Insulation improvement and changing heating system (Gefosat, France) A householder in Lunel, France, decided to participate in Eco n’Home because they wanted to improve energy efficiency in their house and was particularly concerned about the inefficiency of the old gas boiler. The technical adviser from Gefosat carried out a full energy audit on the house and two main areas for energy saving were identified: a lack of insulation and an inefficient heating system. The householder soon implemented the relevant recommendations by installing cellulose roof insulation, replacing the boiler with a more efficient model and installing heating controls to better regulate the heating system. These measures are saving the householder €900 per year (20,000 kWh) as well as reducing their CO2 emissions by 5.5 tonnes per year.


76

VI – REPRODUCING THE SERVICE AT A LARGER SCALE The elements provided in this section got valuable and remarkable input from the presentations and debates which took place at the Eco n’Home final conference.

VI.1 – ACHIEVING GOALS ON ENERGY SAVINGS The Need for a New Approach In terms of informing the policy debate, it is evident that over the last three decades any improvements in efficiency have been wiped out by the increase in demand for energy services. Achieving the types of reduction that we are talking about (a target of a 60-80% reduction in CO2 in the European Union!) does not, therefore, need just more of the same, but something completely different. We need to consider what the world will look like with an 60-80% cut in CO2, while at the same time there is growth in the number of homes. To this end, a range of new technologies, such as fuel cells and light emitting diode (LED) lighting, will be very useful, but what is really needed is the much more widespread application of technologies that already exist and much more efficient appliances and so on. To bring in new and existing technologies requires a change in service model. Market Transformation – Example of the UK by Mark HINNELS (Senior researcher at Oxford University) at the Eco n’Home final conference – Before there is intervention in the market, the distribution of efficiency is relatively random and when you introduce labelling, a market for efficiency is introduced where no market existed before. With appliances, for example, we saw that manufacturers chose to withdraw the worst appliances from the market and different approaches, such as technology procurement and rebates, were needed to lead to the introduction of new technologies, with progressive efficiency standards then being used to improve the market. This combined approach is what we call market transformation – the combination of information, incentives and regulation.


77

As well as labelling, other approaches are needed for houses. However, the basic approach of changing the market can be applied to the housing market. Advice on homes is therefore part of a larger market transformation in the context of an 80% reduction in CO2 (a target of an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050 was signed into law in the UK). The Cost of Changing Some of the housing stock might therefore need to move quite a long way in terms of energy labelling and the cost of this has been estimated to range from GBP200 billion to GBP430 billion over four decades, depending on how the transformation is achieved. If the transformation is done simply by going in and doing the things that need to be done, it will be expensive. If it is done when the house is already being refurbished, it is cheaper. We therefore need to be able to transform refurbishments that will happen over the next four decades from high carbon refurbishments to low carbon refurbishments. However, this is possible because GPB23.9 billion is already being spent each year on the repair, maintenance and improvement of housing in the UK and £5 billion would make those refurbishments low carbon. This should be relatively easy to finance, even in the current market. On a very long-term basis, it is in fact in the lender’s interest to provide that additional amount of money as it is future-proofing the value of the asset. Action Needed to Bring About Change Bringing about this kind of change involves a variety of policy changes. A key issue was that the label was supposed to provide information and create a market where there was previously a lack of information at the point of sale. One would argue that making that information available on a public website is a necessary part of completing this task. Government is currently resistant to this because of confidentiality reasons despite the actual house prices being publicly available. Stamp duty and regulation are other possible tools that could be used. Implications for Advice We need to consider whether advice is best delivered in the longer term by the public sector and the Government might play a better role by stimulating a private market for advice. To achieve an 80% cut in emissions, as well as behavioural changes, very significant intervention and refurbishment is required. At some point, the relationship on advice will have to be handed on from the public sector to the private sector because the value of that fulfilment will get bigger and bigger as time goes on. In the UK, a business has already been set up for this, called Simply Green, where will be taken the responsibility and management of the customer relationship. The supply industry at the moment is not good at service delivery.


78

VI.2 – HOW CAN THIS TYPE OF ENERGY SERVICE BE REPRODUCED AT A LARGER SCALE? VI.2.1 – Integration of Eco n’Home to existing serv ices and schemes Adaptation to target groups The site visit, personalized report and follow-up included in Eco n’Home make this service particularly time consuming. However, it overcomes some of the barriers to reaching categories of the public to which most energy efficiency services for households don’t address. A reproduction of the service should thus be focused on these targets to which usual services are not adapted. Several categories of ‘preferential targets’ should be distinguished. The future replication of the service could therefore take a variety of modes in order to be adapted to each type of situation. Time barrier In some cases, the main barrier that prevents householders in implementing energy efficiency actions would be the time needed to get information, find the correct appliance or choose a professional to undertake works. In these cases, the service could take the form of a consultancy paid by household as an ‘all-included’ service. Consultants would then undertake a set of actions agreed by the householders. Depending on the policies in force, audits could be set as a condition to obtain better help for investment in improvement actions, and possible grants could be related to the type of agreed actions. In such a plan, investments would be made by consultants, which would make easier the valuation of the service in a future market of energy saving certificates4. Investment barrier Families who must face low incomes and high energy bills can be a strategic target of this type of service. In this case the service must be free of charge for the families and paid by authorities and social welfare organisations, or any entity to which fuel poverty is costly. It must also be associated with strong help for investment, to allow low-income families to react to recommendations. Such a service, together with investment in energy efficiency actions, would be a way for authorities and social welfare organisations to invest in the prevention of unpaid energy bills rather than to take them in charge. This kind of possibility would thus be profitable for every party. The selection of households should here be made by social organisations. This would allow reaching families who probably wouldn’t have spontaneously consulted an energy advisor, knowing that they couldn’t invest in the recommended measures. A matching service could also be aimed to social landlords. The audit and implementation of a set of measures could then be set as a condition for financial incentives. ‘Premium version’ of less comprehensive services Organisations whose main activity is a less comprehensive service of energy advice for households can choose to suggest this service to households for whom it appears to be appropriate. A part of the service could then be paid by the government or local authorities as part of their environmental policies. A contribution of households to the financing of the service would lower its cost for public authorities and possibly improve families’ involvement in the process. Subscription to this type of service and the implementation of a set of measures could be set as conditions to obtain better help for investment in improvement actions.

4 cf. Note on the potential use of White Certificates in the Eco n’Home Project.


79

Links with energy saving certificates A high-scale replication of this type of service could potentially interfere with a future market of energy saving certificates. Associating the service with financial help for the implementation of improvement measures would allow financing entities to claim possible certificates generated by the actions. Undertaking the actions would also make consultants likely to claim certificate or to form partnerships (e.g. with equipment suppliers). Besides, this kind of audits could ideally be a precondition to obtain white certificates from an investment. This would be a way to control that the measures awarded by certificates are pertinent. This also would incidentally enlarge opportunities of partnerships with energy suppliers. VI.1.2 – The Characteristics of an Energy Service What would be the characteristics of an energy service? How would it be financed? Would there be advice on one side and the market on the other or would there be one structure for all the required activities? Key Requirements – Example in Alsace, France, by Claude LIVERNAUX (ADEME) at the Eco n’Home final conference – Ten years ago, the Alsace region wanted to offer people a complete service and launched a large regional study, where it was found difficult to create a structure that looks after the needs of businesses, ‘local authorities’ and individuals all at the same time. However it was necessary to develop different approaches for each of them. This experience has been carried out through a partnership between ADEME, the ‘regional authority’ and the ‘caisse des dépôts’ (public investor). Regarding individuals, four level of action can be distinguished: - Awareness raising for which the regional environment needs to be considered and there

needs to be precise goals and a clear message that is repeated over and over again, through the set-up of an awareness raising program together with a well identified and neutral service targeted to individuals (Energy advice centre : “Espace info-Energie”).

- You need to have the diagnosis and the investment in the work. You also need to have a complete service. Raising awareness is important and you have to provide an effective service to people. As regards diagnosis, you need to be able to advise people of the diagnosis at the first stage. A network of independent consultants was created, which is co-financed by ADEME and the region - the audit costs 500 Euros of which 400 Euros are financed. The recommendations are given to individuals by priority of cost and are compatible with low energy consumption.

- The investment in the work: working with banks. The banks were involved and this required a quality guarantee, where you have labels, the involvement of professionals and certifications. Bankers need something that helps them understand whether the project is done or not. It was set out what investment was needed and which techniques would be used, enabling the banker to understand the quality of the work that was being done.

- The implementation of the work: working on refurbishment. Refurbishment that you do yourself and refurbishment done by professionals are two different things. If you do it yourself, you need further assistance, and the consultant would do some follow-up inspections to see that the work was done well and that the materials used were of good condition. Another good example is the work that is being done with providers of building materials, which are organising training sessions for individuals. Developing this form of


80

partnerships enable to ensure that the implementation of the work will correspond to low energy consumption standards.

Providing Advice – Example of the UK by Mark HINNELS (Oxford University) at the Eco n’Home final conference – In the UK, there has been developed an advice structure for several decades, linked to national Government. We also have a bottom-up approach, where energy agencies are often linked to local and regional councils. The problem with that, given the target of an 80% reduction in CO2, is firstly that a lot of agencies are focused on vulnerable groups and do not advise higher income households. Secondly, it would not be possible to create a large-scale operation because branding and thinking is done at a regional level. You need a capability to create volume in order to bring down costs. Thirdly, there is the issue of state aids, where if Government agencies do work that is in competition with private companies, the Government money they receive is a state aid. In the UK, an agency has to make at least three recommendations to avoid this situation and making three recommendations leads to the householder not making a decision. In fact, the Australian Government has now decided that this work should be carried out in the private sector and is currently creating a private sector market. Working on a Different Scale – by Gérard MAGNIN (Energie Cités) at the Eco n’Home final conference – We need to look at the “whole service” including the financial aspects and how we help people i.e. form the starting point of identifying the problem to the final solving of the problem. The fundamental question is scale and an effort has to be made to disconnect ourselves from our current habits. We have all been using too much energy and are now in a context where we need to raise awareness. We have the 2050 targets and the need to reduce emissions, for example. The creation of the energy information sites were an outstanding first step but we have to stop thinking that the future will just be a continuation of the present, since today’s energy, financial and economic crisis will force us to rethink everything. This is a global problem that needs a global approach – what we call the Green New Deal. In a new economy that is oriented towards sustainability and questions of economy and low carbon, we will have new markets and activities, and we will need to work on a different scale. The public sector alone, because of today’s happening crisis, will not be able to meet the demand for housing refurbishment. It is not a question of the public sector versus the private sector. The public sector has to set rules and perhaps help from time to time and set out the financial framework. However, it is the market actors who need to develop things because that is where tomorrow’s new jobs will be. We need to bring something in at a wider scale for energy control and create trades and professions that will be taken on and financed by the private sector. Providing Information on an In-The-Home Basis – by Mark HINNELS (Oxford University) at the Eco n’Home final conference – There is very close relationship between this issue of how to provide advice and the findings of the work that has just been done in Eco n’Home. It is essential that advice moves from being telephone based to in-the-home based and that we start connecting behaviour with the home as an asset, and with the car, so that we can start to develop an understanding of carbon and energy in the population as a whole.


81

Learning from the Work Carried Out – by Mark HINNELS (Oxford University) at the Eco n’Home final conference – We need to bring out a lot more information in the work that has been done in terms of what we do in a world where we need to make an 80% reduction in CO2 and look at how some of the programmes achieved a very high level of conversion. It is clear, for example, that finance is hugely important. Targeting is also a key issue and it would be interesting to look deeper into other ongoing initiative (as into the ECOFYS work – cf. final conference) on that. Implementing Community-Scale Programmes – by Mark HINNELS (Oxford University) at the Eco n’Home final conference – While not covered in the project, we also need to look at community-scale programmes, where not only is it cheaper to assess homes, but within communities people hear others talking about refurbishment and that is a very powerful element. The work done through Eco n’Home could be classed as an ‘event’, with follow up taking place later, and we need to get better at converting an event into a relationship. By putting things online, we can have a continual relationship with households so that if they did not do conversions shortly after the survey, we can keep in touch with them. At some point, that might then turn into another conversion. Delivering an impartial advice service? To which extent should the public sector provide advice? How should we deal with the private market offer? Service offers on the market are becoming more and more important for instance from the installers of boilers and insulation. There is something wrong in this chain of events. A so-called service should provide someone to help each individual from the starting point of identifying the problem to the final solving of the problems, from an independent point of view. That cannot be the installer (neither the energy utility in other similar cases whose core activity is to sale energy). There is a need for “someone” to interface with the customer in order to provide an impartial advice. Putting it another way, we have lessons to learn from retail, where you have a producer of kit and somebody who is independent that advises on that kit. There is no natural retail environment at the moment and a new, retail-based approach is needed. Kit manufacturers cannot do this kind of consultative selling as they do not provide impartial advice or advice for the whole house. Nobody would trust an energy company in matters concerning the saving of energy. This issue of public private and neutral expertise is tricky and has to be dealt with at a political level. Also, the market will not structure itself properly without appropriate regulation. Additionally, local authorities and local agencies are very well placed to organise the market at the community level. It is perhaps not a case of the public sector and the private sector – there is also the local authority. People are dealt with on an individual basis and we have to create a momentum and make people feel they belong to that movement. There is a plan to inject billions of Euros into the European Economy and part of this will be to make it more environmentally friendly. We can therefore imagine how powerful public authorities could be in terms of trying to move the economy onto a new track.


82

VII – CONCLUSION The Eco n’Home initiative could be repeated by local authorities or even at national and European level, as being an interesting tool to complying with the energy and climate policies. The increasingly attentions and policies on energy saving topics, from now on, have a one more arrow at the bow that can be considered in helping Administrations manage actions aimed at tackling climate changes. In addition, laws, regulations and especially economic incentives have and may have a strong impact on people decisions. Under this light, it can be suggested that any replica of the project should be carried out in an incentive framework, suggesting a direct local/national/European economic support. A balance and even a synergy could probably be found between regulations and incentives. For example, measures made compulsory by a minimum legal level of performance could be partly paid for if a significantly better level is reached, following the recommendations of an audit. The Eco n’Home project has been thought and realised exactly with the replication concept in mind, and now that it is achieved, all tools and documentation are available for use and thinking by anyone who would be interested in implementing this kind of service through other energy and climate projects such as in municipalities, energy agency, etc. It is therefore very important that any municipality in the EU for example be at least informed of such a project, so that they can consider it when implementing their own energy projects. The Eco n’Home project could be easily included or integrated with other projects at any scale. It should be stressed out that a project like Eco n’Home, when officially implemented by a Municipality, can be helpful on two different sides. Firstly, it helps achieve energy and climate change targets at local and national levels. Secondly, such a service, if ruled by an Administration, can also be useful to provide jobs.


83

LEGAL DISCLAIMER The sole responsibility for the content of this Publishable Result-Oriented Report lies with the authors. It does not represent the opinion of the Community. The European Commission is not responsible fsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

http---EnH_Publishable_Report

Documents

Transcript of http---EnH_Publishable_Report