Results of the Energy Efficiency Watch Project: Progress in Energy Efficiency Policies in EU Member States

Transcription

1 Results of the Energy Efficiency Watch Project: Progress in Energy Efficiency Policies in EU Member States Dr. Stefan Thomas Director, Research Group Energy, Transport and Climate Policy for Climate, Environment and Energy, Germany Daniel Becker, Ecofys Christiane Egger, OÖ Energiesparverband IEPPEC 2016 Amsterdam, 8 June 2016

2 The : A leading applied research institute on energy, climate, resources Est.1991, owner: Govt. of North Rhine-Westphalia 120+ scientists in Wuppertal and Berlin Examples of projects on energy efficiency: Energy Efficiency Watch: Inventory of energy efficiency policies in the 28 EU Member States to implement the Energy Efficiency Direc?ve, Funding: European Commission 75 % efficiency- watch.org EMEEES: Development of methods for calcula?ng energy savings under the Energy Services Direc?ve, Funding: European Commission 75 %, Member States energy- savings.eu COMBI: Development of methods and values for Mul?ple Benefits of energy efficiency, Funding: European Commission project.eu 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 1

3 Energy efficiency watch (EEW): Constant feedback on progress in national energy efficiency policy Managing partners Three phases: EEW 1: EEW 2: EEW 3: Co-financed by: 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 2

4 EEW 3 Competence Centre - Overview Input phase Analysis + Conclusion phase Dissemination phase Expert Survey 3.8 Brochure 3.3 Document screening 28 Country Reports Key Policy Conclusions 10 Case Studies Business Feedback Loop Stakeholder Report Consultation 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 3

5 28 Country reports: Structure of content Title: Energy Efficiency Policies in Europe: Analysis of Energy Efficiency Action Plans and Policies in EU Member States 2014 Structure Key Points and Recommendations (2 pages) Introduction Sectoral Progress Recommendations Policy Developments according to official documents (5-6 pages) Overarching Energy Efficiency Governance Framework Public Sector Residential Sector Buildings Residential Sector Appliances Industry, Tertiary Sector and Agriculture Transport Sector Policy Developments according to the Expert Survey (2 pages) Business Stakeholders Point of View (1 page) (5 selected countries only) Good Practices (1/2 page) 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 4

6 Document screening and analysis: Policy developments according to official documents Background Document screening is based on - comparison of 2 nd and 3 rd NEEAPs - MS communications on Art. 4, 5, 7 EED - ODYSSEE-MURE - for selected countries: additional documents Objective Presenting changes of policies after 2011 Basis: 2011 status (more detailed than in EEW2 country reports) Sectors analysed: - Overarching EE Governance Framework - Public Sector - Residential Sector Buildings - Residential Sector Appliances - Industry, Tertiary Sector, and Agriculture - Transport Sector 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 5

7 Document screening and analysis: Review and presentation of results Document screening reviewed by national experts and cross-checked by Ecofys Compared to EEW2, EEW3 document screening much more informative: - naming specific policy measures and short description - indicating whether they have been abandoned/weakened, improved, or are new: measure is ongoing without significant changes, measure is new, measure was abandoned, measure ongoing but significantly improved, measure ongoing but significantly weakened. 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 6

8 Background & objective of the expert survey objective of the survey: views of experts and stakeholders on the actual, "real-life" progress in energy efficiency policies in their respective country since the second NEEAPs more than 1100 experts from all 28 member states consulted - with questionnaires and oral interviews - between January and May 2015 survey carried out by the OÖ Energiesparverband (in co-operation with the University of Linz), with contributions from ECEEE, Fedarene and Energy Cities similar survey carried out in June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 7

9 Approach & methodology: Elements of the EEW survey Quantitative survey - questionnaire (online or at main European conferences) - quantitative information on energy efficiency progress - "snapshot picture" completed questionnaires Qualitative survey - qualitative information on energy efficiency progress - oral interviews with 3 experts per member state based on an interview guideline carried out by 3 European networks (FEDARENE, ECEEE, Energy Cities) 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 8

10 Business stakeholder feedback To get full picture: feedback from business stakeholders a.o. five national workshops: Italy Poland Denmark Germany Croatia Quite different set-up per country But also agreement on joint necessities and recommendations 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 9

11 28 Country reports: Key findings (1) Overarching energy efficiency governance framework Art. 3 targets (and several long-term 2050, e.g. DE, FI, FR), many new EEOs or strengthened (DK, FR, IT), but also weakened (UK) Energy agencies already in 2011; depts. more staff (CZ, DE), also less (NL) EE Funds up (DE, ES, FR, IE, IT, SK, SI), some down (BG, DK) More ESCO market support (CZ, DK, EE, GR, IT, PT, (UK)) Little change on energy taxation (PT increased VAT: 6 -> 23%) Good practice case studies: EEOs in Italy and Denmark Public sector Was sector best addressed with EE policies (lead by example, procurement, buildings) in 2011 (EEW2) => most programmes ongoing or slightly improved However, many countries lack clear strategies and targets for the sector Some new soft loan or grant schemes for municipalities (CZ, DK, HU, IT, PL) or stopped (LV) Good practice case study: Public procurement in the Netherlands 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 10

12 28 Country reports: Key findings (2) Residential sector buildings MEPS/Codes and EPC in force, but EE level and updating frequency varies Loans & grants already in 2011, some recent upgrades (BG, DE, FR, HR, LU, SK), others reduced e.g. due to crisis (ES, IE, PT) Audits&advice improved in some MS (DK, LT, MT), reduced in others (GR) Training improved in some MS (EE, ES, FR, GR), also with BuildUp Good practice case studies: loans&grants (DE, SK), codes (DK), coordination (NL) Residential sector appliances Most MS rely on EcoDesign and EU label; little info on market surveillance Few financial incentive programmes (FR, IT, HR, SI) Many but not all MS have info campaigns, databases (TopTen and others) Very little mention of training for retail staff and other actors Good practice case study: Nordic market surveillance 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 11

13 28 Country reports: Key findings (3) Industry, tertiary sector and agriculture Transposing mandatory audits for non-smes, EcoDesign&Labeling some effect Many MS have financial incentives or loans for audits, energy management or investments (new schemes in DE, EE, FR, GR, PL), also under EEOs, others reduced (FR, IE, IT, MT, RO) Some voluntary agreements (BE, EE, FI, LV, LU, NL, UK), some abandoned (EEOs instead, DK; SE due to state aid rules) Few EE networks (DE, IE) or energy manager obligations (IT, RO) Good practice case studies: Network (IE); EEOs in Italy; loans (SK) Transport sector Weakest sectoral policy in 2011; few changes: Vehicle taxes based on emissions (BE, CY), road pricing (BE), support for EVs (many), also for modal shift; EEOs in FR; SUMPs (many) Good practice case study: Car registration tax (LV) 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 12

14 Further results from the quantitative survey: Completed questionnaires by MS (quantitative survey) Austria 38 Italy 77 Belgium 32 Latvia 19 Bulgaria 23 Lithuania 23 Croatia 48 Lux 14 Cyprus 15 Malta 14 Czech Rep. 31 NL 30 Denmark 47 Poland 25 Estonia 15 Portugal 58 Finland 27 Romania 26 France 51 Slovak Rep. 17 Germany 83 Slovenia 38 Greece 43 Spain 66 Hungary 25 Sweden 39 Ireland 28 UK 144 Total March 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 13

15 Completed questionnaires by sectors (quantitative survey) 19% 29% business sector 21% universities/research organisations public sector 31% energy agencies 18 March 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 14

16 How should the results be seen? Perceptions of experts on the relative progress in energy efficiency policy implementation in their own countries since 2011 but not: the absolute levels of energy efficiency and energy efficiency policies in each country and not: what people think about other countries and not: the opinion of the authors of the study 18 March 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 15

17 "Pictures" of the member states (1): Example: Luxembourg Lux: overall ambition of the energy efficiency policies Lux: progress of the energy efficiency policies in the last 3 years 14% 14% 36% 29% 7% 21% 14% 65% generally, rather low ambitious in a few sectors, less so in most others ambitious in a range of sectors, less so in a few others generally, rather high no or very little progress a few additional policies a range of additional policies many additional policies 18 March 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 16

18 "Pictures" of the member states (2): Example: Luxembourg Lux: achievement of national 1.5 % energy savings target (EED) Lux: on track towards the "NZEB" obligation 8% 33% 31% 59% 61% 8% not aware of this target I don't know target is likely not to be achieved target is likely to be achieved No, we are lagging much behind Yes, the implementation is well underway 18 March 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 17

19 Progress indicators ranking Austria 5 Italy 13 Belgium 13 Latvia 15 Bulgaria 23 Lithuania 9 Croatia 10 Lux 10 Cyprus 5 Malta 25 Czech Rep. 15 NL 19 Denmark 1 Poland 22 Estonia 3 Portugal 21 Finland 2 Romania 20 France 12 Slovak Rep. 15 Germany 5 Slovenia 5 Greece 24 Spain 28 Hungary 26 Sweden 4 Ireland 15 UK March 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 18

20 Progress indicators 2015 ranking - comparison 2012 Austria 5 13 Italy Belgium Latvia Bulgaria Lithuania 9 18 Croatia 10 Lux 10 3 Cyprus 5 22 Malta 25 3 Czech Rep NL Denmark 1 2 Poland Estonia 3 3 Portugal 21 6 Finland 2 1 Romania France Slovak Rep Germany 5 6 Slovenia 5 7 Greece Spain Hungary Sweden 4 9 Ireland UK March 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 19

21 How do you rate overall ambition of the energy efficiency policies in your country? EU28 Denmark Estonia Finland Sweden Germany Slovenia Lux Lithuania 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Romania Greece NL Belgium UK Poland Hungary Spain generally, rather low ambitious in a few sectors, less so in most others ambitious in a range of sectors, less so in a few others generally, rather high STEFAN THOMAS page page 20 Institute

22 Will your country achieve the annual target of new savings of 1.5 % of the energy sales to final consumers? EU28 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech R. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Lux Malta NL Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% target is likely not be achieved target is likely be achieved not aware of this target 18 March 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 21

23 Is your country on track to meet the obligation that all new buildings must be "nearly zero-energy buildings" by 2020? EU28 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech R. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Lux Malta NL Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No, we are lagging much behind Yes, the implementation is well underway I don't know 18 March 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 22

24 EU 28: measures which should be introduced on EU level 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% European CO2-tax A large European energy efficiency fund Stricter minimum standards for buildings and appliances Mandatory implementation of costeffective measures Yes No 18 March 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 23

25 Task 3.5: Developing 10 case studies: Background Case studies shall represent good examples for remarkable policies provide inspiration for the development of new innovative and ambitious policies trigger the transfer of similar policies to other EU countries 10 case studies described on 4 pages per example based on a reporting template will form a chapter in the feedback-loop Report 5 case studies (summaries) are presented in the brochure Case study selection covering different EU countries, all sectors and various types of policy instruments takes into account feedback from participants in the eceee informal EEW session 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 24

26 EEW3: 10 case studies of good practice policies: Overview! # Policy example Country Sector Instrument type Energy Manager Obligation and White EEO/White certificates 1 IT All sectors Certificate Scheme Energy management EEO 2 Danish Energy Efficiency Obligation Scheme DK All sectors Audits Financing Residential 3 KfW programmes DE Financial incentives Buildings Information Industry Financing Slovak Energy Efficiency and Renewable 4 SK Residential Audits Energy Finance Facility (SLOVSEFF) Buidlings Advice 5 Car registration tax LV Transport Taxation 6 Building Code Denmark DK Buildings Regulation 7 Energiesprong (Energy Leap) NL Buildings Innovation Network Programme 8 Large Industry Energy Network (LIEN) IE Industry Information Advice Network 9 Nordic Market Surveillance DK, FI, SE, Products Regional cooperation NO, IS Appliances on market surveillance 10 Sustainable Public Procurement NL Public Sector Bulk purchasing Appliances BAT promotion 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 25

27 Energy efficiency obligation scheme in Denmark Key characteristics Obligated parties Target sector Actions targeted Duration Overall target Overall aim of the policy Innovativeness Energy distribution companies: electricity, district heating, natural gas, heating oil All energy sectors All actions targeted leading to energy savings Most common measures: advice and/or subsidies for enterprises and households Started in 2006, current period runs from , agreement is renegotiated every three years 2.4% of total energy consumption measured as the first year savings relative to annual final energy consumption Promoting cost-effective energy savings in all end-user sectors Promotion of Best Available Technologies High target level Very cost-effective and low administration costs (simple documentation procedures) High public acceptance Combination with energy audits 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 26

28 Sustainable public procurement in the Netherlands Key characteristics Type of policy Target sector Actions targeted Mandatory for central public tendering, guiding policy for regional and local governments (voluntary) Central, regional and local government Duration 3 years: Overall target Overall aim of the policy Innovativeness 45 product groups (e.g. paper, hardware, green spaces) No quantitative targets General objective: reach ambitious sustainability targets through social and environmental public purchasing criteria for 45 product groups Reducing the environmental and social footprint of governmental purchasing by leveraging and using purchase power of government (60 billion EUR per year) Stimulating the market for sustainable products and services Simple and easily replicable policy: criteria can be easily used by all public purchasers Source: pianoo June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 27

29 28 Country reports: Overall conclusions (1) More new or improved than abandoned or weakened policies enough to achieve Art. 7 targets (Art. 3 seems to be within reach due to economic crisis )? Speed of implementation too slow - some progress, but not at the necessary speed, re-inforcement of EU policies remains key Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes take time to implement and ramp up to levels required to meet the 1.5% target Alternative measures and all policy implementation suffer from lack of funding and staff: - EE policy still seen as a burden, not an investment? - Debt crisis / financial stability pact? 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 28

30 28 Country reports: Overall conclusions (2) survey showed enormous disparity among MS in levels of ambition and progress of energy efficiency policies ups and downs in policy progress - 2 main reasons in the last 3 years: austerity policy and political changes (EU policy ensures that there is at least minimum progress!) "older" policy instruments perceived to have most impact (energy efficiency requirements and certification of buildings, product labelling) the focus put on building renovation in the past years shows some impact, however, continues to be a key area for action with a package of financing and regulatory instruments with the paradigm shift of decentralisation and the changing role of energy consumers to prosumers, the involvement of the regional and local level gets even more important 18 March 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 29

31 Key policy conclusions: All stakeholders want energy efficiency policies, provided they are effective Key policy conclusions provide both general recommendations applying to all efficiency directives Developing positive European and national narratives on energy efficiency Better communication and higher effectiveness of energy efficiency policies Fostering innovative business models Introducing binding and specific targets and effective financial instruments Plus: Detailed recommendations on EED, EPBD, EcoDesign and Labelling 8 June 2016 STEFAN THOMAS page 30

32 Thank you for your attention!