Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples The Flanders (BE) regional utility obligations Ann Collys Ministry of Flanders Department of Natural Resources and Energy 3 March European Parliament

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples History RUE-fund as a recommendation of CCEG groups of municipalities paid 0,25 Euro per MWh sold voluntary agreements with the Government of Flanders problems: –limited control by the Government –no energy saving target –limited evaluation

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Legal framework Flemish Parliament Act of 17 July 2000 (implementation of the directive) Decree of 29 March 2002 (amended by the decision of 26 September 2003) imposes RUE public service obligations on the electricity grid operators

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Legal framework Primary energy saving target for end users every year Low Voltage clients (<= 1000V) –1% of the electricity supplied for the year 2003 –2% and 2,1% for the years 2004 and 2005 –2,2% for the calendars years 2006 en 2007 –1% as of 2008 High Voltage clients (> 1000V) –target of 1% each year

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Legal Framework Target in the years 2004 up to 2007 includes the implementation of the resolution of the Flemish Parliament: –in : every head of the family must receive a free voucher which can be exchanged for an energy saving light bulb, energy saving shower head or an energy meter –in : every other member of the family receives a voucher for an energy saving light bulb

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Other commitments Distribution grid operators must have special attention for: –“protected” clients –municipalities –external organisations

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Plan with RUE actions Each grid operator submits a plan with RUE actions for the next year each year before 1 June Actions must contain: –financial support (e.g. premium) –awareness-raising and information campaigns –proposal for the calculation of the energy savings

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Plan with RUE actions department evaluates and (dis)approves the method for the calculation of the energy savings Not only actions for electricity savings, but for all kind of fuels Primary energy saving = electricity saving *2,5

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Examples Action Premium Saving/year Energy saving bulb free 168 kWh Energy saving shower free 1311 kWh Condensing boiler125 Euro 7800 kWh Solar boiler 625 Euro 2410 kWh Roof insulation 1,25 Euro/m kWh/m 2

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Control and evaluation grid operator must draw up an evaluation report every year before 1 May on the execution of the actions during the previous year administration must present a report to the Flemish regulator (VREG) Flemish regulator starts the legal procedure for the collecting of the fines if the targets are not achieved

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Financing the RUE actions Public Service Obligation: costs are incorporated in de electricity tariffs if the target is not achieved: fine amounts tot 10 Euro cent for every kWh of primary energy that is not saved up to the target fines are not incorporated in the tariffs

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Results 2003

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Results 2003

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Results 2003

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Domestic clients Premiums: Amount: 2,86 million Euro Primary energy savings: 76,72 GWhp cost effectiveness: av. 3,7 €cent/kWhp between 0,5 and 113 €cent/kWhp excl. actions for protected clients

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Protected clients 0,25 €cent/kWhp1,7 €cent/kWhp Cost effectiveness 190,368 GWhp38,166 GWhp Primary Energy Saving 0,5 M€0,7 M€ Costs Premiums Energy saving showerhead Light energy saving bulb

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Domestic Actions TOP +6 premiums TOP +6 energy saving TOP +6 cost effectiveness Energy saving light bulbs Energy saving showerhead Energy saving light bulbs Tube insulation Condensing boilers High eff. boilers Roof insulation Super insulating glazing Roof insulation Energy saving light bulbs Roof insulation Super insulating glazing High eff. boilers Energ saving showerhead Radiator foil

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Non-household clients Premiums: Amount: 4,73 million Euro Primary energy saving: 457,718 GWhp Cost effectiveness: av. 1,03 €cent/kWhp between 0,25 en 152 €cent/kWhp

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Non-household clients

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples RUE plans 2004 Target: –LV: 316 GWh HV: 235 GWh Budget: 30,2 million Euro new domestic actions: –ventilation –advice on plan new non-domestic actions: –new lighting –insulation measures

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples RUE plans 2005 Target: –LS: 351 GWh HS: 228 GWh Budget: 25,8 million Euro New actions: –home automation –loans free of interest for condensing boilers in municipalities

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Advantages Energy saving target is quantitative Grid operators are stimulated to take cost effective actions Financing of the actions is arranged Thorough control and evaluation is possible

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Disadvantages No uniform actions in Flanders Conditions to get the premium differ for the same measure Protected clients are hard to reach Their is an overlap with other instruments such as benchmarking covenant, tax deduction,...

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Conclusions All network managers reached their target in 2003, except one for high voltage the target was reached with less budget than planned

Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples Conclusions Target for high voltage is harder to achieve, especially for small network managers The targets for 2004 will also be achieved An evaluation of the RUE public service obligations is planned in 2005