Project No: Title: Data centre EURECA Project (EURECA)

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 35 Project No: Title: Data centre EURECA Project (EURECA) Call: H2020-EE MarketUptake Deliverable No: D5.3 Deliverable Title: Lead Beneficiary: Report on quantitative economic & impact assessment as per call targets UEL Project co-funded by the European Commission within the H2020 Program Dissemination Level PU Public PU 1

2 Page 2 of 35 Change History Issue Section Change Description Author Date 1.0 All First draft issue Rabih Bashroush 27/09/ All Update with latest progress and overall review 1.8 All Added contribution to section 5 + overall review Rabih Bashroush 23/02/2018 Mark Acton 28/02/ All Final review Rabih Bashroush 28/02/2018 2

3 Table of Contents Document Ref: EURECA-DEL-5.3-UEL Page 3 of 35 1 Executive Summary Definition of Terms Introduction Energy savings triggered by the project within its duration and beyond Expected impact Achieved impact Enabling Policy Expected impact Achieved impact Green Public Procurement Criteria for Data Centres (GPP) Ecodesign for servers and data storage products (GROW Lot 9) Environmental Management Audit Scheme - Best Environmental Management Practice on Telecommunications & ICT Services Sectors UK All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group - Parliamentary Report on Energy Consumption of the Internet European Commission DG CONNECT Green ICT & Connected European Facilities Research Directions European Commission Joint Research Centre - Best Practice Guidelines for the EU Code of Conduct on Data Centre Energy Efficiency CLC/TR : Information technology Data centre facilities and infrastructures Part 99-1: Recommended practices for energy management CLC/TR : Information technology Facilities and infrastructures - Data centre - Environmental sustainability - Recommended practices Representation on CEN / CENELEC / ETSI Coordination Group: Green Data Centres (CG GDC) Art 6, Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) Building capacities and skills Expected Impact Achieved Impact Best/Worst Case Scenario Analysis

4 Page 4 of 35 8 Conclusion and future legacy References Appendix 1 Acknowledgment Letters from the British & Irish Governments Appendix 2 EURECA feedback on the first draft of the GPP technical report

5 Page 5 of 35 1 Executive Summary This deliverable reports on the impact created by the EURECA project vs call targets. It also provides a best/worst case scenario analysis model to help public authorities understand the potential impact on Return on Investment in energy efficiency. There were three main impact areas defined for EURECA. These are summarised below, showing the expected call targets vs what was achieved by the project. Impact area Call target Achieved Energy savings triggered by the project within its duration and beyond Enabling Policy Building capacities and skills Impact 1: 15 GWh/year end-use energy savings, equating to 37.5 GWh/year primary energy savings triggered within project duration Impact 2: 26.4 GWh/year end-use energy savings, equating to 66 GWh/year primary energy savings triggered within 3 years after the end of the project Policies and strategies created/adapted to include sustainable energy issues at all governance levels, quantified as 50 data centre facilities citation/statements within the project lifetime. Market stakeholders with increased skills/capability/competencies on energy issues quantified as number of people with increased capacity: 500 via workshops, training and e- learning by Month 36. EURECA has managed to trigger GWh/year of end-use energy savings, equating to GWh/year of primary energy savings within its duration. This was achieved from working on pilots involving 337 data centres. EURECA has influenced government strategies and policies relating to 285 data centres in the UK and Ireland. Additionally, 10 major European policies, strategies and standards were also supported by EURECA. EURECA managed to train 815 stakeholders, through 10 EURECA face to face training events, 2 webinars, and 2 bespoke training events delivered at stakeholder premises. 5

6 Page 6 of 35 2 Definition of Terms Abbreviation Stands for BC/DR Business Continuity/Data Recovery C3IT EURECA partner Carbon3IT Ltd CBA Cost Benefit Analysis CBRE EURECA partner CBRE Data Centre Solutions CEN European Committee for Standardization (Comité Européen de Normalisation) CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization CERT EURECA partner Certios B.V. D1.1 Deliverable identified as number D1.1 within Work Package 1 of the EURECA project D5.5 Deliverable identified as number D5.5 within Work Package 5 of the EURECA project DEFRA Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Deliverable A formal contract deliverable item under the EURECA project DoW Description of Work. The EURECA project signed a project agreement identified as project number for a project under the call H2020-EE MarketUptake. This document contains a table with work plans, and it is this information to which this table refers EC European Commission EUE Energy Usage Effectiveness ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute EU CoC European Code of Conduct on Data Centre Energy Efficiency EURECA The Data centre EURECA Project 6

7 Page 7 of 35 Environmentally Sound A low overall environmental impact per provided Data Centre service (computation/data services) based on present day available solutions. This environmental impact includes impacts such as climate change, acidification, particulate matter, etc. but also primary energy consumption and water scarcity. GITA EURECA partner Green IT Amsterdam Green See Environmentally Sound GHG Green House Gas(ses) HHD Hoogheemraadschap van Delfland Industry Data centre and related ICT industry LCA Life Cycle Assessment MAKI EURECA partner maki Consulting GmbH OCP Open Compute Project OGCIO Office of the Government CIO Irish Government PCP Pre-Commercial Procurement PIN Prior Information Notice PPI Public Procurement of Innovative solutions PQQ Pre-Qualification Questionnaire Practice The use of a standard, framework, guideline, specification or KPI/metric PU Public dissemination level PUE Power Usage Effectiveness =Total facility Power [kw] / IT- Equipment Power [kw]) RFI Request for Information RFQ Request for Quotation RFP Request for Proposal SIG Special Interest Group TCO Total Cost of Ownership 7

8 Page 8 of 35 TU/e Technische Universiteit Eindhoven UEL EURECA partner University of East London UnITy The DEFRA and Environment Agency led procurement programme 8

9 Page 9 of 35 3 Introduction This deliverable reports on the impact achieved by the EURECA project against its set targets, namely in relation to: - Energy savings triggered by the project within its duration and beyond - Enabling Policy - Building capacities and skills Initially, there was an additional impact area, which is to get 100 data centres to adopt the European Code of Conduct on Data Centre Energy Efficiency (EU CoC). However, due to the developments that happened during the execution of the EURECA project, this impact area became less relevant (as agreed in the first periodic report). Particularly, this is due to the emergence of CLC/TR , a part of the CEN / CENELEC EN series of standards which now contains the EU CoC best practices, and the difficulties in the governance of the EU CoC scheme (see deliverable D5.4 for more information). Furthermore, the report provides a best/worst case scenario analysis model that helps member states estimate the potential impact and return from investing in increasing energy efficiency. Examples are given for the UK, Netherlands and Ireland. The report is structured as follows. Section 4 discusses the achievements against the Energy savings triggered by the project within its duration and beyond impact area. Then, section 5 discusses the impact achieved in the area of Enabling Policy. Section 6 then analysis the Building capacities and skills impact area. Worst/best case scenario analysis and modelling is then provided in section 7. And finally, section 8 rounds off the report with conclusion. 9

10 Page 10 of 35 4 Energy savings triggered by the project within its duration and beyond 4.1 Expected impact Impact 1: 15 GWh/year end-use energy savings, equating to 37.5 GWh/year primary energy savings triggered within project duration This impact relates to the action triggering 10 GWh/year of end-use energy savings per 1M of investment. For EURECA, it equated to 15 GWh/year of end-use energy savings, or 37.5 GWh/year of primary energy savings from 10 data centre projects. Impact 2: 26.4 GWh/year end-use energy savings, equating to 66 GWh/year primary energy savings triggered within 3 years after the end of the project This impact relates to the action triggering further 26 GWh/year end-use energy savings, or 66 GWh/year primary energy savings from 75 data centre projects. 4.2 Achieved impact EURECA has managed to trigger GWh/year of end-use energy savings within its duration, equating to GWh/year of primary energy savings within its duration (primary energy is calculated based on the recommended 40% European grid efficiency factor recommended by the call). This was achieved from working on pilots involving 337 data centres. EURECA supported projects in 4 EU countries impacting over 350 data centres. Out of these, 5 progressed to become full pilots in 3 EU countries, which contributed to project energy savings targets, and impacted 337 data centres. The table below summarises the pilots achievements in terms of environmental and energy savings impact. It categorises pilots under Concluded (pilots where the procurement process was completed) and In procurement (the ones that are still in the procurement process). 10

11 Page 11 of 35 TABLE 4.1 Overall savings triggered by the EURECA pilots 11

12 Page 12 of 35 Based on the calculations and measurements detailed in deliverable D5.2, EURECA pilots achieved GWh/year of end-use energy (131 GWh/year of primary energy savings). This is 300% more end-use energy savings than the 15 GWh/year target set by the project. This was achieved by adapting the EURECA strategy after the first couple of pilots to focus more on supporting major aggregations of public sector agencies and data centres rather than focusing on 10 individual data centre pilots as initially planned. This only became clear after the initial findings from the project revealed that European public sector data centres largely ran small server rooms. Instead of 10 data centre pilots, EURECA work ended up supporting 338 data centres, 337 of which contributed to energy savings (and many more that have not progressed to procurement yet, see table 11 in deliverable D5.2). For a 1.6M EU Commission investment, EURECA has helped identify annual savings of over 7.1M in public sector from energy bills alone. This is only accounting for immediate return from pilots supported by EURECA, and not the indirect savings enabled by the knowledge sharing and training activities. The table below shows the achieved vs expected impact in terms of energy savings and number of data centres involved, taking into consideration both the impact expected within EURECA s life time, and three years beyond. TABLE 4.2 EURECA energy savings impact expected vs achieved 12

13 Page 13 of 35 5 Enabling Policy 5.1 Expected impact Policies and strategies created/adapted to include sustainable energy issues at all governance levels, quantified as 50 data centre facilities citation/statements within the project lifetime. 5.2 Achieved impact EURECA s impact on policy has been far reaching. The work initially focused on influencing national data centre level policies and strategies as per the work plan, in which over 285 data centres were impacted, 216 in Ireland and 69 in the UK within the project lifetime (see D5.2 and acknowledgment letters in Appendix 1 from the UK and Ireland). However, to achieve the next order of magnitude in impact, EURECA had to influence policies and standards at European level. Below, we describe ten policies, strategies and standards already influenced and supported by EURECA at European level. This does not include EURECA inspired work conducted by various EURECA partners serving on committees (representing their own organisations views) influencing national standards, policies and strategies Green Public Procurement Criteria for Data Centres (GPP) Green Public Procurement (GPP) or green purchasing, is a European commission voluntary instrument that encourages public authorities to procure environmental sound products and services. It has a key role to play in the EU's efforts to become a more resource-efficient economy. It can help stimulate a critical mass of demand for more sustainable goods and services which otherwise would be difficult to get onto the market, providing a strong stimulus for eco-innovation [1]. GPP requires the inclusion of clear and verifiable environmental criteria for products and services in the public procurement process. The European Commission and a number of European countries have developed guidance in this area, in the form of national GPP criteria. The EU Commission is in the process of creating a new set of EU GPP for the product group Data Centres. EURECA, through its members UEL (Rabih Bashroush), CBRE (Mark Acton), 13

14 Page 14 of 35 Certios (Frank Verhagen) and C3IT (John Booth) is actively contributing to the consultation process. EURECA members named above were invited to and attended the All Hands Working Group Meeting at JRC in Seville, Spain, on Monday 15th November Additionally, EURECA partner UEL (Rabih Bashroush) was involved in various face to face consultation meetings that took place at UEL in London (e.g. on 10th March 2017) as well as phone discussions and interviews (e.g. on 19th June 2017 and 16th May 2017). EURECA partners continue to provide consultation to JRC via on the topic. On 8 th December 2017, EURECA partner UEL (Rabih Bashroush) provided a formal feedback on the initial technical report draft produced (see Appendix 2). EURECA contributed input around calculation methods (the EURECA framework [2]) and provided reliable data on the state and size of European public sector data centres. Additionally, EURECA best practice examples were shared from Ireland, Latvia, and Amsterdam. Finally, EURECA provided recommendations on the main areas where GPP criteria could have the most impact Ecodesign for servers and data storage products (GROW Lot 9) The European Commission Ecodesign Directive provides consistent EU-wide rules for improving the environmental performance of products, such as household appliances, information and communication technologies or engineering [3]. The Directive sets out minimum mandatory requirements for the energy efficiency of these products. This helps prevent creation of barriers to trade, improve product quality and environmental protection. The EU commission is currently working on a new product group, namely Servers and Data Storage Devices (DG GROW Lot 9). EURECA member UEL (Rabih Bashroush) was invited and into the consultation process. He attended the Ecodesign Consultation Forum meeting on Servers and Data Storage products (GROW Lot 9), in Brussels, on 17 February He was also phone interviewed by DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs on 13 th February 2017, and continue to provide online feedback. EURECA provided recommendations on server utilisation and idle power based on experience from pilots. In addition to sharing scientific outputs from EURECA [2], contributions included: 14

15 Page 15 of 35 - Demonstrating the risk of having one holistic metric for CPU, Memory and IO with fixed weightings to indicate server efficiency as this could penalise some server configurations targeted for specific application needs, and accordingly be misleading. - Identifying limitations in the proposed approach to idle power, which could be dependent on deployment scenarios. The suggestion was to request operators to publish idle power rather than require a specific value. - Highlighting the risk of limiting idle power, which could impact HPC servers - Suggesting that PSU and server efficiency are handled separately due to the various ways servers are deployed, not the least with the advent of OCP servers that use DC input Environmental Management Audit Scheme - Best Environmental Management Practice on Telecommunications & ICT Services Sectors The EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) is a premium management instrument developed by the European Commission for companies and other organisations to evaluate, report, and improve their environmental performance [4]. EMAS is open to every type of organisation eager to improve its environmental performance. It spans all economic and service sectors and is applicable worldwide. EMAS provides Sectoral Reference Documents (SRDs) on Best Environmental Management Practice (BEMP) that provide guidance and inspiration to organisations in specific sectors on how to further improve environmental performance. The European Commission is in the process of creating a BEMP for the telecommunication and ICT services sector. EURECA members UEL (Rabih Bashroush), CBRE (Mark Acton), DCA (Steve Hone), and C3IT (John Booth) have contributed to the consultation process and served on the advisory working group. UEL (Rabih Bashroush) and CBRE (Mark Acton) were invited to and attended the Technical Working Group meeting in Brussels on 16/17 November UEL (Rabih Bashroush), CBRE (Mark Acton), DCA (Steve Hone), and C3IT (John Booth) were invited to and attended the Technical Working Group meeting in Ispra, Italy, on 17/18 November Additionally, there were a number of phone consultations by JRC with EURECA partner UEL (Rabih Bashroush) (e.g. on 30th Oct 2015). Finally, the above EURECA partners contributed to various exchanges until the production of the technical report. EURECA provided recommendations and guidance on various aspects including: 15

16 Page 16 of 35 - Provided examples and data from EURECA pilots - The impact of software system design and the importance of holistic approach to energy efficiency [2],[5],[6],[7],[8]. - The alignment of the BEMP with best practices and standards, namely the EU CoC and EN to avoid duplication of efforts - Shaping various aspects of the BEMP UK All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group - Parliamentary Report on Energy Consumption of the Internet The UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change produced a report highlighting the environmental impact of ICT and data centres [9]. The report made a number of policy recommendations to further reduce the environmental impact of ICT. EURECA partner UEL (Rabih Bashroush) was one of the experts consulted on the report where he was interviewed face to face at UEL in London by PolicyConnect on 4th January 2018 and exchanged various s between December 2017 and February 2018 [10]. On 20 th of February, EURECA partners UEL (Rabih Bashroush), CBRE (Mark Acton), DCA (Steve Hone) and C3IT (John Booth) were invited to attend the report launch at the House of Lords, where the various MPs and Lords in attendance committed to follow up on the report recommendations. EURECA contributions included: - Providing information about the size and status of public sector data centres based on EURECA findings - Providing a EURECA case study example from Northern Ireland - Providing an overview of the challenges faced and areas where policy is needed (and what policies are already being developed) based on EURECA experience - Reviewing the overall report 16

17 Page 17 of European Commission DG CONNECT Green ICT & Connected European Facilities Research Directions The European Commission DG CONNECT is currently in the process of identifying future challenges in the area of data centre energy efficiency and innovation procurement in public sector. EURECA partners UEL (Rabih Bashroush) was approach to help deliver a report highlighting the challenges and barriers in this field and the wider are of Connected European Facilities. UEL (Rabih Bashroush) and CBRE (Mark Acton) attended face to face expert meetings in Brussels on 30 th January and 5 th February 2018 on the topic. UEL (Rabih Bashroush) participated in various phone and conversations with DG CONNECT on the topic between December 2017 and February EURECA contributions included: - Providing feedback on future research directions worth exploring based on EURECA experience (e.g. importance of having tools to support energy aware systems by design) - Providing input around the stats produced by EURECA and the barriers to adoption identified - Providing input around areas requiring EU intervention (e.g. on procurement, taxation, etc.) - Providing feedback on challenges with current funding models which in many cases mean research results from projects are not taken to market - Providing feedback and review on the overall expert reports European Commission Joint Research Centre - Best Practice Guidelines for the EU Code of Conduct on Data Centre Energy Efficiency EURECA members CBRE (Mark Acton) and C3IT (John Booth) are instrumental in the development and ongoing support for the EU Code of Conduct on Data Centre Energy Efficiency (EU CoC). 17

18 Page 18 of 35 Mark Acton (CBRE), chairs the annual Best Practice Committee hosted by European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) at which annual updates are agreed and then edits the Best Practice Guidelines document according to the agreed changes. John Booth (C3IT), screens and processes applications for the Participation Scheme administered by JRC. Both act as unpaid volunteers in these activities. EURECA contributions included: - Recommendations based on the EURECA project lessons learned and from EURECA project members are included in the suggested updates and modifications introduced at the annual review of the Best Practice Guidelines document. This has continued to inform Best Practice development and industry leadership. - Help in providing the essential support (EURECA members CBRE (Mark Acton) and C3IT (John Booth)), required to keep both the annual Best Practice updates and the JRC Participation scheme operating. Without EURECA support this may not have been possible leading to a complete lack of activity on this initiative, on which the EMAS BEMPs among others continue to depend CLC/TR : Information technology Data centre facilities and infrastructures Part 99-1: Recommended practices for energy management CLC/TR : Information technology Data centre facilities and infrastructures Part 99-1: Recommended practices for energy management technical report, is part of the EN standards series developed by CENELEC to serve as the reference document for data centre energy management best practices. EURECA member CBRE (Mark Acton) with support for the UK TCT7/3 national committee for EN development hosted by the British Standards Institute (BSI), created the initial CLC/TR document based on the Best Practice Guidelines from the EU CoC. This is also updated annually to keep in line with any changes made to the JRC Best Practice Guidelines document in order that the 2 documents remain in sync. It is suggested that both documents are not required and that merely having a single document would avoid any confusion. 18

19 Page 19 of 35 The EURECA contribution to the standard is focussed on advice from the EURECA project team members in relation to simplifying the existing Best Practices and ensuring their relevance to the Public sector CLC/TR : Information technology Facilities and infrastructures - Data centre - Environmental sustainability - Recommended practices The CLC/TR Information technology Facilities and infrastructures - Data centre - Environmental sustainability - Recommended practices technical report, which is part of the EN standards series is being developed by CENELEC to serve as the reference document for data centre environmental sustainability best practices. It is being developed by the CENELEC Technical Committee 215, WG3, and its national mirror committees. EURECA members UEL (Rabih Bashroush), CBRE (Mark Acton), C3IT (John Booth) are members of the corresponding national standardisation committee(s). CBRE (Mark Acton) is the also on the CENELEC Technical Committee 215 WG3 (TC 215), responsible for the development of the EN series of standards at the European level. EN has now been incorporated into ISO/IEC JTC 1 Study Group on Energy Efficiency of Data Centers (SD-EEDC) as a potential precursor to a global ISO Standard. EURECA contribution to the standard was around optimal hardware refresh rates based on EURECA published models [2], and the importance of rightsizing facilities based on business needs [6]. Both articles are referenced by the standard Representation on CEN / CENELEC / ETSI Coordination Group: Green Data Centres (CG GDC). EURECA members UEL (Rabih Bashroush) and CBRE (Mark Acton) are invited representatives at the CEN / CENELEC / ETSI Coordination Group: Green Data Centres (CG GDC). The aim of this group is to coordinate and harmonise data centre related standards initiatives between the CEN / CENELEC / ETSI standards bodies across Europe. The Coordination Group is a joint activity of the three ESOs which comprises representatives of the ESOs together with stakeholders of industry and EU projects. The EURECA contribution to the Coordination Group is to inform on developments and progress from the EURECA project and other data centre projects within the cluster to ensure that knowledge is effectively shared and that the standards groups were aware of 19

20 Page 20 of 35 any project details might have an impact or benefit to ongoing standards development work, as well as ensuring that any research efforts are not duplicated Art 6, Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) The 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive establishes a set of binding measures to help the EU reach its 20% energy efficiency target by Under the Directive, all EU countries are required to use energy more efficiently at all stages of the energy chain, from production to final consumption. On 30 November 2016 the Commission proposed an update to the Energy Efficiency Directive, including a new 30% energy efficiency target for 2030, and measures to update the Directive to make sure the new target is met. As part of the consultation process, EURECA partner UEL (Rabih Bashroush) submitted input to the consultation process in January This was around Art 6, and provided early feedback from lessons learned in the first few months of the EURECA project (early results from WP1). 20

21 Page 21 of 35 6 Building capacities and skills 6.1 Expected Impact Market stakeholders with increased skills/capability/competencies on energy issues quantified as number of people with increased capacity: 500 via workshops, training and e- learning by Month Achieved Impact EURECA started delivering training from the 5 th EURECA workshop in Amsterdam in M18 of the project on 29 September Overall, the EURECA project delivered training at 10 EURECA organised workshops (including 1 webinar session during the 14 th Closing event), 1 training event tailored for the Irish government, 1 for UK Government, and 1 for European cities (webinar). Table 6.1 below shows the breakdown of the number of attendees trained at each event, with a total of 815 attendees! Details of these events, including programme and attendance list are available online on the corresponding event websites on the EURECA events page ( Further analysis about the events can be found in deliverable D

22 Page 22 of 35 TABLE 6.1 EURECA training events and total number of attendees 22

23 Page 23 of 35 Breaking the data further down, overall, 46% of attendees came from public sector, vs 54% from private sector. 71% of the attendees were at Face 2 Face events, vs 29% who joined the webinars. Finally, the vast majority of attendees (80%) came from EU member states, vs 20% non-eu. This is depicted in the figures below. Attendees by Organisation Type Private Sector 54% Public Sector 46% Public Sector Private Sector Fig Training events attendees by organisation type Mode of delivery Webinar 29% Face to Face 71% Face to Face Webinar Fig Training events attendees by event type (face to face vs webinar) 23

24 Page 24 of 35 Attendees Location non-eu 20% EU 80% EU non-eu Fig Training events attendees by country of residence Further analysis of EURECA events in general (not just the ones that hosted training) can be found in deliverable D6.3 (on events), deliverable D3.2 (on knowledge sharing) and deliverable D6.3 (on dissemination). Finally, these numbers (and subsequently the analysis) do not include stakeholders whose capacities were increased in other modes of knowledge sharing. For example, working with the Irish Local Government Management Agency, UEL delivered three workshop sessions to various Count Councils IT managers (though we did not use presentations); In Amsterdam, partners worked with local authorities on various projects; etc. Similarly, these figures do not include the number of people who attended/downloaded the online training curriculum available on the EURECA website ( This number is regularly increasing and at the time of writing this section (23 rd February 2018), it stands at 195 downloads. However, given that we cannot be sure that the people who downloaded the files actually gone through them, or how many unique users downloaded the files, we decided to leave this number out of our analysis to ensure the reliability of our findings and impact. Yet, the contribution of this online platform to building the capacities and skills of stakeholders cannot be understated. 24

25 Page 25 of 35 7 Best/Worst Case Scenario Analysis Based on the models and calculations described in D5.2, we can analyse the potential impact EURECA could have in the future on various European member states, for best/worst case scenarios. Based on the data we analysed from over 350 public sector data centres in the UK, Ireland, Netherlands and Latvia (see deliverable D5.2, tables 10 & 11), as well as studies we had access to from Sweden and Italy, we estimated that on average, it costs 14K to host a server in the public sector. This accounts for facility costs (energy consumption, rent, maintenance, personnel, etc.) as well as IT (energy consumption, maintenance, support, etc. but excluding software licence costs). In terms of server count, we noticed from the data that on average, in public sector there is the equivalent of 1 server for every 20 public sector employees. Out of the 14K running cost figure, energy consumption accounted for varying proportions and exhibited a high standard deviation, varying between 5% and 33% based on the facility size, and averaging at 10%. Additionally, the increase in energy efficiency due to EURECA work varies largely depending on the baseline of the facility undertaking the work. For example, if we take the UK, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), in September 2017, the UK public sector (central and local) employed million people. Thus, according to our calculations, UK public sector hosts around 274,600 servers. And at 14K ( 12.5K) running cost per server, this tells us that the UK public sector spends around 3.4B on running server rooms and data centres. If we use a 5% electricity share figure, the annual electricity bill for UK public sector data centres can be estimated to be 340M. And if we consider 15% potential increase in energy efficiency, we get 51M savings. Dividing this figure by the average energy price in the country would give us an estimate of the KWh that could be saved. In this case, assuming a conservative average price of 0.10/KWh, annual KWh savings can be estimated to be 510 GWh/year. We used this data and information to create a model that can help member states workout their best/worst case scenarios in terms of benefits from EURECA work and increasing energy efficiency in general. Equation 1 below shows the general model.! = $!% 20!) * %, -- (1) Where,! represents the savings that could be achieved in Million $!% is the Public Sector Workforce size in Millions 25

26 !) is the total cost of running a server, which is 14K based on EURECA data * % is the Energy percentage of the total running cost (!)). and, -- is the percentage increase in energy efficiency anticipated. Document Ref: EURECA-DEL-5.3-UEL Page 26 of 35 By substituting the value of!) in equation 1, and simplifying it further, we get equation 2.! = 700 $!% * %, -- (2) We now can plot this figure for various pubic sector bodies to understand the best/worst case analysis based on the values of * % and, --. For example, for the UK with $!% = 5.492, we get Fig 7.1 below. Fig 7.1. Scenario analysis for United Kingdom Similarly, if we consider Netherlands with $!% = (based on Public Sector Labour Affairs Databank, 2014), we get Fig

27 Page 27 of 35 Fig 7.2. Scenario analysis for Netherlands And for Ireland with $!% = (based on the total public sector figure including Semi State bodies, source: CSO, 2017), we get Fig 7.3. This analysis should help public authorities understand the Return on Investment in energy efficiency based on best/worst case analysis. While the equation above shows RoI in terms of financial value, it can be easily converted to KWh savings (or even tco2 savings) by dividing the savings by the KWh price (see UK example above). 27

28 Page 28 of 35 Fig 7.3. Scenario analysis for Ireland 28

29 Page 29 of 35 8 Conclusion and future legacy Going forward, EURECA s legacy is expected to continue achieving major impact within the EU and beyond. EURECA has already contributed substantially (relative to the project funding) to the EU 2020 strategy on Climate change and energy, particularly around Greenhouse gas emissions reduction and energy efficiency improvements targets (see earlier section, and deliverable D5.2 for more data). Nationally and at European level, EURECA will continue to support various government initiatives such as in the UK (e.g. Crown Hosting Framework), Ireland (e.g. Office of the Government CIO), Germany (German EPA), Netherlands, etc. At EU level, EURECA will also continue supporting the EU Commission to help identify barriers to adoption of energy efficient data centre products and servers, as well as innovation procurement in general. Furthermore, EURECA members play key roles on the main best practices, expert groups, research clusters, and standardisation committees in the field. This will provide a major opportunity to further increase the EURECA reach and impact utilising the multiplier effect of these channels. For example, excluding policy expert committee membership (discussed in the earlier section), between them, EURECA consortium members lead on major committees such as: The EN50600 standards series (Mark Acton, technical lead); the EU Commission DG CONNECT Smart Cities Research Cluster on Data Centres (Rabih Bashroush, Coordinator); the European Code of Conduct for Data Centres Best Practice Committee (Mark Acton, Chairman); and the British Computer Society Data Centre Specialist Group (John Booth, treasurer). In terms of membership, some of the examples include: CEN/CENELEC/ETSI Coordination Group on Green Data Centres (Mark Acton, Rabih Bashroush); ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1, SC39 Sustainability For and By IT (Rabih Bashroush); BSI TCT/007/003 Telecommunications; Installation requirements Facilities and infrastructure Committee (Mark Acton, Rabih Bashroush, John Booth); BSI IST/046 Sustainability, for and by IT (Mark Acton, Rabih Bashroush, John Booth); techuk Data Centre Technical Committee (Mark Acton, vice chair); European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) STF516 (Mark Acton); CENELEC Technical Committee 215 WG3 (Mark Acton); and German EPA (Marc-Andree Wolf). Finally, internationally, EURECA partners will continue furthering their reach to transfer the lessons learned from EURECA in order to widen the project impact and take the knowledge gained forward in order to continue to underpin policy decisions. For example, EURECA partner UEL (Rabih Bashroush) is liaising with the United States Department of Energy 29

30 Page 30 of 35 Laurence Berkley National Lab on the topic, to ensure work done in Europe and the USA is cross validated; EURECA partner CBRE (Mark Acton) is regularly invited to speak at major events in Africa and the Middle East; EURECA partner DCA (Steve Hone) is liaising closely with his counterpart organisation in China; and EURECA partner C3IT (John Booth) works with various data centres in the far east and elsewhere as part of his data centre certification business. In particular EURECA member involvement in the ongoing development of international data centre standards will ensure that the legacy lives on within the fundamental benchmarks and reference points on which the sector depends. This extensive, and by no means exhaustive, EURECA network will help contribute to the lasting legacy of the project well beyond its lifetime and the geographic location of its partners. 30

31 Page 31 of 35 9 References [1] Green Public Procurement. URL: [2] R. Bashroush, "A Comprehensive Reasoning Framework for Hardware Refresh in Data Centres. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing, DOI: [3] Ecodesign. URL: [4] The EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme URL: [5] R. Bashroush, E. Woods, and A. Noureddine. "Data Center Energy Demand: What Got Us Here Won't Get Us There." IEEE Software, volume 33, issue 2, [6] R. Bashroush and E. Woods. "Architectural Principles for Energy-Aware Internet-Scale Applications." IEEE Software, volume 34, issue 3, [7] N. Jebraeili, A. Noureddine, J. Doyle, S. Islam and R. Bashroush. guml: Reasoning about Energy at Design Time by Extending UML Deployment Diagrams with Data Centre Contextual Information, in Proceedings of the 13th IEEE World Congress on Services, Hawaii, USA, June [8] S. Islam, A. Noureddine, and R. Bashroush. "Measuring energy footprint of software features", in Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC), Texas, May [9] All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change, PolicyConnect, Is Staying Online Costing the Earth?, February URL: [10] Data Centre Solutions, Leading data centre expert contributes to parliamentary report on the future of energy, 22 nd February URL: 31

32 Page 32 of 35 Appendix 1 Acknowledgment Letters from the British & Irish Governments 32

33 27 th February 2018 Dr Rabih Bashroush, EURECA Project Coordinator, London E16 2RD, United Kingdom Dear Dr Bashroush, This is to acknowledge our collaboration on the shared Government Data Centre build project. The Government s Public Service ICT strategy has now defined a strategic objective aimed at better sharing and integration of technology infrastructure. A cross-departmental working group was set up to progress the Build to Share pillar of the Public Service ICT Strategy which looks specifically at the optimal solution for Data Centre provision. This presents a significant opportunity for cross civil and public service sharing, allowing for major cost savings, while building one of Europe s exemplar data centres in terms of environmental performance. We particularly acknowledge your contribution in using your state-of-the-art research to help us develop the project business case, your support with the innovation procurement options, and your current assistance with the data centre design phase. This is a highly ambitious and significant project that we look forward to continue collaborating with you on to ensure it delivers not only the most environmentally sound data centre, but also explore cross-border collaboration with other European Member States. Yours sincerely, Barry Lowry, Government CIO OIFIG AN CIO RIALTAIS 3A Sráid an Mhéara Uachtarach Dug Spencer Baile Átha Cliath 1 D01 WP44 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CIO 3A Mayor Street Upper Spencer Dock Dublin 1 D01 WP44 Tel: +353 (0) www. per.gov.ie

34

35 Page 35 of 35 Appendix 2 EURECA feedback on the first draft of the GPP technical report 35

36 Comments on the GPP Background Report Rabih Bashroush 8 th December Feedback on the background analysis Many statements and data presented in the report are based on opinions and not supported by any references. In many cases, this led to unreliable conclusions that contradict the evidence. For example, the conclusions (on page 36) that Optimise hardware refresh rates and Avoid overprovisioning of resilience (which were greyed) had the lowest potential benefits, and which are difficult to verify and in some cases incur high life cycle costs are surprising to say the least. Again, on page 59, it is stated that: However, because efficiency and performance improve so rapidly, use of the most cost-effective solutions together with frequent replacement of servers results in an increase in impacts from manufacturing, including greater resource and toxic emission impacts. Clearly this is based on the opinion of the authors rather than evidence. It is not clear why some of the references and information on this topic, that we provided to the consultants working on the report, were not mentioned in the report (e.g. [1]). All the evidence from EURECA contradicts the above [2][3]. The above also contradicts the best practices as per the EU Code of Conduct (CoC). These are only examples, and as discussed in the meeting, there are numerous other unsubstantiated claims and conclusions. Thus, we strongly recommend that the report is reedited to remove any such claims that cannot be supported by reliable references, while including existing studies (e.g. the ones cited above), even if they contradict the pre-formed opinion of some of the authors. This is crucial to maintain the credibility of the report and gain the trust of the community in the analysis that underpins the proposed criteria. Finally, the procurement scenarios described in the report are not precise and need to be updated to reflect what happens in real life. 2 Feedback on the core criteria The core criteria are evaluated based on our experience with the public procurement exercises carried out within the EURECA project. This takes into consideration the potential added complexity to the procurement process, and the perceived environmental benefit. TS2.1 Server energy efficiency While this criterion calls for procuring the most energy efficient servers, in practice, this will have almost no impact. Servers available in the European market anyway have to meet existing requirements (e.g. Energy Star) and legislations soon to appear (e.g. Ecodesign). Additionally, according to published data by SPECpower covering over 10 years of servers, the performance of servers of the same age, and which are based on similar architectures (e.g. Intel vs PowerPC) and operating systems (e.g. Windows vs Linux), tend to have very

37 similar energy performance. This is due to the fact that the best part of server energy consumption is attributed to the processor and how it is utilised by the operating system. Yet, the choice of architecture and operating system is driven largely by application needs (e.g. native OS support, HPC requirements, mainframe, etc.). Thus, adding the burden of acquiring and comparing energy performance of servers would in reality increase the complexity of the procurement process but yield minimal benefit, if any 1. Furthermore, initiatives such as Ecodesign and Energy Star are already putting the right pressure on OEM s to keep increasing the energy efficiency of servers. Therefore, this criterion would also have little impact on OEM s. The suggestion here is to make this criterion optional and modify it to require the public sector understand their application needs, i.e., identify the right server configuration (e.g. the optimal memory size, utilisation target, number of power supplies, etc.) and quantity, which could then be specified in the tender. This would help increase server utilisation. At the same time, criterion AC2.2 IT equipment utilisation should be made mandatory. The criterion should be amended to indicate that utilisation should be based on average annual CPU utilisation (given such data is readily available through most platforms as discussed in the meeting) rather than the green grid matric (which has few issues and is difficult to calculate as per meeting discussions). When amended, this criterion has the advantage of being simple to use, while having a substantial impact on the environment (reducing the number of deployed servers and energy consumption). TS2.4 Design for durability This criterion is odd and counter intuitive! The current problem in the public sector is that most IT infrastructure is in desperate need for a refresh. According to the data we saw in the large number of data centres we evaluated [4], more than 40% of public sector servers are older than 5 years. Yet, these servers account for around 66% of the energy consumption, and cater for 7% of the compute capacity. This is a substantial amount of waste. Thus, the potential environmental benefit from this criterion is non-existing. This criterion should be amended to call for optimising the hardware refresh cycle depending on the deployment scenario (energy consumption, age, etc.) rather than specify an arbitrary number (e.g. 3 years). The models created by EURECA to optimise refresh rates [1] are now in wide use by various European public sector data centres, and thus, can be used to underpin this criterion to help identify optimal refresh cycles. TS2.7 End of life management This criterion should be taken with care. Many European countries already have regulations in place to manage end of life. There are also other IT security regulations that restrict what could be done (e.g. the need to shred hard drives in some countries). This is in addition to 1 The performance reported by benchmarks is based on standard worklets; However, when servers are deployed using real-life workload, which could be memory heavy, or I/O heavy, and after the required middleware or third-party platforms are installed, performance could differ from benchmarks.

38 already existing WEEE directive. On the other hand, you would want to ensure that the criterion is not restricting innovation (e.g. there was a case in Latvia where servers were redeployed in schools to teach ICT [3]. Thus, in its current form, this criterion would increase the burden on the public sector (due to the reporting requirement), but yield limited benefits compared to current established practices. AC2.5 Design for disassembly and repair The three years specified are met or exceeded by current practices. Thus, this criterion would have no impact. TS2.8 Cooling Management higher temperature hardware This is an interesting criterion. But, a lot of work (research) is still needed to better understand the usefulness and impact of this criterion (as discussed in the meeting when looking at fan speeds, wider impact of raising operating temperature, etc.). From a public procurement perspective, and given the relatively small size of the European public sector data centre market, and that most server OEM s are not European, we should be very careful that we are not putting the burden on the public sector to encourage OEM s to change their products and practices (which is something that can be achieved via appropriate legislations, such as Ecodesign). Thus, until there is a clear research evidence on the usefulness of this criteria, it should be made optional (Comprehensive criteria). TS3.1 Target Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) As discussed in the meeting, PUE is not an efficiency matric as it simply does not measure efficiency by definition (it doesn t measure useful work). It is also not a reliable matric to measure infrastructure overhead as the PUE value can change by merely changing the IT load, without making any changes to the M&E infrastructure. In addition, predicted design PUE has no practical meaning Indeed, we are starting to witness a shift in industry towards dropping PUE. For example, INAB announced that they no longer use PUE as basis for demonstrating energy efficiency under EN50001 certification [5]. Same thing is evolving within TIA standardisation with new matrices being considered. So, care should be taken with this criterion. Moreover, the majority of public sector data centres are rather small. PUE in such small data centres / server rooms tend to be on the higher end (due to economies of scale in terms of M&E infrastructure utilisation). Thus, the figures quoted (1.4/1.3) can be challenging to achieve within such small environments (especially if you are not in Scandinavia!). Given this is a technically flawed efficiency KPI, and that people are already starting to move away from it, an alternative should be considered. COP was one viable proposal made during the meeting to measure cooling efficiency. Another option is to measure the business useful transactions performed per KWh at the facility level, IT + M&E (see a