|| EUROPEAN COMMISSION ||

Brussels, 8.1.2014

SWD(2013) 541 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Progress Report on energy efficiency in the European Union

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Progress Report on the application of Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services and on the application of Directive 2004/8/EC on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market

{COM(2013) 938 final}

table of contents

1 Introduction. 8

1.1 Overall analysis of the energy consumption in the EU.. 10

1.2 Developments in the national Energy Efficiency Action Plans. 16

1.3 Developments on energy efficiency according to the national Energy Efficiency Action Plans 16

2 Developments in improving energy efficiency in energy supply. 20

2.1 Measures in the EEAPs addressing energy efficiency of supply. 20

2.1.1 Introduction. 20

2.1.2 Measures to promote or extend the use of district heating. 20

2.1.3 Measures or strategies to improve the efficiency of electricity generation. 21

2.1.4 Measures addressing electricity transmission and distribution losses. 22

2.1.5 Voluntary agreements for supply-side savings. 23

2.1.6 Measures facilitating demand-side management 23

2.1.7 Measures addressing energy efficiency in the supply of oil and gas. 23

2.1.8 Measures to promote greater competition among energy suppliers. 24

2.1.9 Measures to advance the development of smart metering infrastructure. 24

2.1.10 Measures in the EEAPs to promote cogeneration. 25

2.2 Report on the implementation of the CHP Directive. 27

2.2.1 Introduction. 27

2.2.2 State of transposition of the CHP Directive. 28

2.2.3 Progress towards realising national potentials. 28

2.2.4 Quantity and share of CHP in 2010. 34

2.2.5 Barriers to high-efficiency cogeneration. 37

2.2.6 Systems of Guarantees of Origin. 37

2.2.7 Access to electricity grid and grid system rules. 38

2.2.8 Support schemes for cogeneration. 38

2.3 Evaluating savings achieved by supply-side measures. 40

2.4 Conclusions. 41

3 Improving energy efficiency in end-use consumption. 44

3.1 Overall coverage of sectors. 44

3.2 Buildings. 48

3.2.1 Existing buildings. 49

3.2.2 New buildings. 50

3.2.3 Public buildings. 50

3.2.4 Role of the EPBD.. 52

3.2.5 Skills in the building sector 52

3.3 Industry. 56

3.4 Transport 60

3.5 Agriculture. 65

3.6 Horizontal measures. 66

3.7 The exemplary role of the public sector 74

3.8 Provision of information and advice to end-users. 76

3.9 Final energy savings achieved up to 2010 and forecast for 2016 and 2020. 79

3.10 Primary energy savings targets for 2020 given in the EEAPs. 81

3.11 Estimated 2020 savings impact arising from the ESD.. 82

4 Overview of financing instruments. 85

4.1 Innovative and traditional schemes. 85

4.2 Financing tools in the building sector 86

4.3 The use of EU Funds to finance energy efficiency programmes. 87

4.4 Public-private funding mechanism.. 88

4.5 Conclusion. 90

5 Conclusions. 92

Annex 1 EEAP Country Summaries. 97

Austria. 97

Belgium.. 101

Bulgaria. 104

Cyprus. 108

Czech Republic. 111

Denmark. 116

Estonia. 119

Finland. 123

France. 126

Germany. 130

Greece. 133

Hungary. 137

Ireland. 140

Italy. 144

Latvia. 148

Lithuania. 152

Luxembourg. 155

Malta. 159

Poland. 162

Portugal 166

Romania. 170

Slovakia. 174

Slovenia. 179

Spain. 182

Sweden. 186

The Netherlands. 189

United Kingdom.. 192

Croatia. 195

Annex 2 - Overview of different methodologies used by Member States to calculate final energy savings in the Second EEAPs. 199

Annex 3 - Overview of 2020 energy savings and energy consumption targets given in the second EEAPs 206

Annex 4 - Second Progress Report on the Implementation of the Cogeneration Directive 211

1. Progress towards realizing national potentials for high-efficiency cogeneration (Article 11(1)(a) 213

1.1. Introduction. 213

1.2. Scope: Member State information included. 214

1.3. Methodological assumptions. 215

1.4. Progress compared to the potential 216

1.5. Quantity and share of CHP in 2010. 220

1.6. Evolution from 2000 to 2010. 224

1.6.1. Electricity production. 224

1.6.2. Heat production. 225

1.6.3. Electricity capacity. 226

1.6.4. Heat capacity. 227

1.7. Analysis by technology and fuel 228

1.8. Primary Energy Savings and CO2 emissions reductions. 230

1.9. Conclusions. 231

2. Barriers. 232

2.1. Introduction. 232

2.2. Evolution of the barriers compared with barriers reported in the 1st set of Member States reports. 233

2.3. Assessment of the barriers. 236

2.4. Barriers in relation to administrative procedures (authorization, coordination among competent authorities, streamlined simplified procedures, etc.); 236

2.5. Barriers in relation to the electricity grid system and tariff issues (including specific measures for small scale and micro cogeneration units); 243

2.6. Other barriers (internalisation of external costs, energy prices, financial & technical barriers, etc.) 249

3. System of Guarantees of Origin (GO) 256

3.1. Existence of GO schemes. 256

3.2. Individual assessment of National GO schemes. 261

3.3. Assessment for the EU as a whole. 263

4. Grid system rules, access to electricity grid. 263

4.1. The responses to on priority access. 263

4.2. The guarantees of origin and priority dispatch. 266

4.3. Connection rules. 268

5. Support schemes. 270

6. CHP Country Summaries. 300

6.1. Austria. 300

6.2. Belgium.. 300

6.3. Bulgaria. 301

6.4. Cyprus. 302

6.5. Czech Republic. 303

6.6. Denmark. 305

6.7. Estonia. 310

6.8. Finland. 310

6.9. France. 312

6.10. Germany. 313

6.11. Greece. 314

6.12. Hungary. 317

6.13. Ireland. 318

6.14. Italy. 319

6.15. Latvia. 322

6.16. Lithuania. 325

6.17. Luxemburg. 327

6.18. Malta. 327

6.19. Netherlands. 327

6.20. Poland. 328

6.21. Portugal 329

6.22. Romania. 329

6.23. Slovakia. 332

1 Introduction

At the 17 June 2010 meeting of the European Council, Heads of State and Government of the EU Member States reaffirmed their will to achieve the objective of saving 20% of the EU's primary energy consumption compared to projections for 2020. Energy efficiency thus constitutes one of the cornerstones of the European Union's 2020 strategy.

In order to achieve the transition of the European Union towards a more energy-resource efficient economy, the Commission proposes to act at different levels. As set out in the Energy Efficiency Plan 2011[1], areas of action include low energy consumption in the construction, industry and transport sectors, while ensuring appropriate national and European financial support, and enhancing the scope of the monitoring.

In accordance with Article 14(2) of Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services (Energy Services Directive, ESD), Member States were required to prepare a second national Energy Efficiency Action Plan (EEAP) and to notify it to the Commission no later than 30 June 2011.

The importance of the EEAPs was highlighted as they set a solid and comprehensive framework for energy efficiency policies and measures. In fact, in line with the provisions of Article 14(2) of the ESD, the purpose of the EEAPs is to report on progress on energy end-use efficiency targets, energy efficiency improvement measures implemented to achieve the targets, as well as to report on complying with the provisions on the exemplary role of the public sector, and on the provision of information and advice to final customers.

Consequently, the EEAPs were designated to become a central tool for mainstreaming energy efficiency in all relevant policy areas. Therefore, since the entry into force (2006) and the first reporting period (2007) of the ESD, an expansion of the original scope of the EEAPs has taken place.

Before the 2011 submission of the second EEAPs, the Commission – taking into consideration the new strategic requirements – made available a non-compulsory guide and template to assist Member States in the preparation of the reports. In line with this, Member States adopted the guidelines to differing extents, resulting in different level of detail on both energy end-use and supply side measures. While most of the Member States generally opted to follow the structure of the template, some (for example those with comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction strategies) tended to report in a different structure.

This Progress Report concludes the Commission's assessment and reporting on the second EEAPs in response to its obligation under Article 14(5) of the ESD. It comes later than foreseen as in January 2012 the analysis would have been partial due to the fact that not all Member States had submitted their EEAPs in accordance with the deadline set out in Article 14(2) of the ESD. The comprehensive assessment of the second round of ESD reporting only became possible once all Member States notified the Commission on the submission of their second EEAP.

The use of high-efficiency cogeneration offers considerable potential to achieve energy savings in the EU. This potential has not yet been realised. Directive 2004/8/EC on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market (the CHP Directive or the Cogeneration Directive) aims to facilitate the installation and operation of cogeneration facilities in order to save energy and combat climate change. The CHP Directive should, in the short term, make it possible to consolidate existing cogeneration installations and promote new plants, and in the longer term, create the necessary framework for high efficiency cogeneration to reduce emissions.

In accordance with Article 11 of the CHP Directive, the Commission is required to report periodically on progress towards the CHP Directive's goals. This CHP progress report is summarised in section 2.2 and it is presented in its entirety in Annex 4 of this report.It has to be noted that the ESD and the CHP Directive will be almost entirely repealed by the new Energy Efficiency Directive[2] with effect from 5 June 2014. However, the obligation to set a target under Article 4 of the ESD will not be repealed until 1 January 2017.

The Report is structured as follows: After providing an overview of progress in energy efficiency in the EU (Chapter 2), including in relation to cogeneration, developments in improving energy efficiency in energy supply are reviewed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 provides an evaluation of efforts to improve energy efficiency in energy end-use consumption (including in the buildings, industry, transport and agriculture sectors, as well as horizontal, public sector and information and awareness raising measures). Final energy savings achieved up to 2010 and forecast until 2016 and 2020 are evaluated, and the overall impact of ESD related national policy measures addressing end-use consumption on the 2020 target are estimated. In Chapter 5 an overview is provided of financing instruments supporting the implementation of energy efficiency measures.

Annex 1 to this report includes assessments of the individual second EEAPs. Annex 2 provides an overview of various methodologies based on the ESD as applied by different Member States to calculate final energy savings in the second EEAP. Annex 3 sets out the 2020 targets for energy efficiency as stated by certain Member States in their second EEAPs in 2011-2012. Annex 4 provides a detailed overview of the Commission's analysis of the second progress reports on the implementation of the Cogeneration Directive.

In this report, all the overview analyses are based on the data provided in 2011 and 2012 by the EU-27 in their second national EEAPs and national CHP progress reports as required by Directives 2006/32/EC and 2004/8/EC. As Croatia submitted its first national EEAP in April 2013, despite not being required to do so by the Directives, Annex 1 of this report also includes an assessment of the Croatian national EEAP.

General overview of the progress in energy efficiency

1.1 Overall analysis of the energy consumption in the EU

The EU's primary energy consumption (gross inland consumption[3] minus non-energy uses[4]) followed a slightly decreasing trend over the last years (-0.3% on average for the years 2005 to 2008) (see Figure 1). The downturn because of the economic and financial crisis had an impact on lowering overall energy consumption. However, the latest movements of energy consumption can mainly be attributed to structural effects on top of technology-driven increases in energy efficiency and policy induced energy savings. Latest primary energy consumption figures for 2011 suggest that primary energy consumption is again decreasing, following the sluggish recovery of major European economies.

With a 2011 energy consumption of 1583 Mtoe, the EU-27 was still far from its its overall 20% energy efficiency objective for 2020 which implies a primary energy consumption of 1474 Mtoe[5] (Article 3 of the Energy Efficiency Directive) (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: EU 27 primary energy consumption (Mtoe)

Figure 2: EU 27 primary energy consumption 2011 and 2020 energy efficiency target (Mtoe)

EU target: 1474 Mtoe

Gross inland consumption minus non-energy uses. Source 2010 figures: Eurostat

It should be noted that the energy consumption effects still differ considerably from Member State to Member State (see Figure ) and that the overall statistics do not allow for separated structural and policy-induced energy saving effects.

Figure 3 : Energy consumption 2008-2011 by country (Mtoe)

Source: Eurostat

The trends in the overall final energy consumption mirror the pattern of the primary energy aggregate (see Figure ), dropping from 1110 Mtoe in 2009 to 1103 Mtoe in 2011 (Figure 4). When looking at the sectoral display of final energy consumption, it emerges that the reduced overall primary and final energy consumption can be mainly attributed to the significantly decreased energy consumption in the industrial sector (see Figure 5), whereas the transport sector only followed a minimally decreasing trend (- 0.1 % over the years 2005 to 2011). Less impacted by the economic effects, energy consumption in the services and residential sectors continued to follow an increasing trend (2.1% and 0.4%, respectively, over the years 2005 to 2011).

Figure 4: EU 27 final energy consumption (Mtoe)

Source: Eurostat

Figure 5: EU 27 sectoral energy consumption (Mtoe)

Source: Eurostat

1.2 Developments in the national Energy Efficiency Action Plans

The second reporting period indicated an overall improvement in the quality of action plans submitted. More Member States (over half of the 27) presented coherent and comprehensive EEAPs qualifying as ambitious strategies. High quality strategies presented in the EEAPs were typically backed by institutional and financial provisions, demonstrating a holistic view with regard to the scope and to the actions of individual measures. Ambitious strategies would also identify priority end-use sectors and policy tools, adopt a portfolio approach combining a mix of instruments and delivery mechanisms to achieve targets, perform better than the 9% indicative target required under the ESD or set themselves higher national targets than the indicative 9% target.

In the first reporting period, the EEAPs of Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and the UK were deemed as high quality strategies. In the second reporting period, the group of Member States presenting ambitious EEAPs included Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK. However, the remainder of the second EEAPs still demonstrate either an unambitious or a business-as-usual scenario, often taking a piecemeal approach to energy savings measures with fragmented and stand-alone energy efficiency measures targeting a sector or end-use.

For most Member States, the second EEAPs represent a significant progression in energy savings efforts. Generally, reports provide greater detail on medium-term national energy savings strategies, on energy efficiency measures and on evaluation methodologies than were provided in the first set of EEAPs. While many Member States retain existing 2016 energy savings targets, some indicate higher levels of forecast savings than envisaged in the first reports, either due to increased policy activity or due to a re-evaluation of the effectiveness of existing policies.

1.3 Developments on energy efficiency according to the national Energy Efficiency Action Plans

The figures presented in the second EEAPs indicate a high level of energy savings achieved since 2008, with Member States generally exceeding intermediate targets. EEAP figures show that most expect savings in 2016 to be significantly in excess of the ESD indicative target. Various EEAPs state national energy efficiency or energy consumption targets for 2020. These are typically economy-wide targets incorporating savings from sectors outside the scope of the ESD. National targets are variously expressed in terms of savings, intensity and consumption limits, in either primary or final energy units. Some provide an estimate or forecast of ESD-related energy savings in 2020 as a result of implementing measures listed in their action plans.

Questions arise, however, with regard to the divergence of methodologies used to calculate savings and the extent to which published savings figures reflect the level of energy saving efforts. For some Member States declared and forecast savings include all savings due to increased energy efficiency in the economy, while for others an attempt is made to include only quantifiable policy-induced savings in their declared and forecast figures. This presents difficulties with regard to the assessment of overall energy savings in the EU that can be attributed to reported measures. These issues are addressed later in this document.

There is much variance among the EEAPs in terms of the types of measures presented and level of detail provided. For some, the measures described represent broad strategic objectives, while others provide more detail on specific actions addressing particular aspects of energy consumption in a sector or end-use.

The influence of the economic crisis on energy savings activities is referred to in some national plans. Some EEAPs mention that funds did not materialise for specific programmes, while one Member State highlights the possibility of significant policy changes in the near future arising from its participation in the European financial stability programme.

The impact of the recession on calculated intermediate savings is highlighted by a number of Member States, with negative savings recorded in parts of some industry sectors. One Member State offers an alternative calculation of total national savings in order to adjust for apparent distortions in savings figures due to recessionary effects. Although recession is identified as an impediment to the progression of certain energy efficiency measures and as a cause of reduced energy savings in several plans, most of these plans do not identify energy efficiency as a means of assisting economic recovery.

The focus of the ESD is on savings in energy end-use. It excludes most energy efficiency measures on the supply side and measures to improve the energy efficiency of participants in the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). At the same time, many of the second EEAPs provide details of activities undertaken or planned to improve the energy efficiency of energy supply. As in the case of measures targeting energy end-use, the level of detail provided and topics covered varies between Member States. Communicated supply side interventions include the development of high efficiency, large and small-scale CHP, expansion and modernisation of district heating systems, use of renewable energy sources, retirement of old inefficient plants, and efforts to reduce transmission and distribution losses.

Buildings represent the largest single share of energy savings potential in the EU and achieving energy efficiency improvements in the sector is a priority target for the Member States. Almost all the Member States reported, in their second EEAPs, measures covering new and existing buildings on the one hand, and residential and tertiary buildings on the other hand. The savings achieved by building regulations make up a significant part of total national savings for some of those who provide bottom-up calculations, with some including early savings resulting from regulations implemented since 1995. As in the first reporting period, the residential sector is a key feature of the second EEAPs as well. Programmes for the refurbishment of residential panel buildings (characterised by overall low efficiency) featured in the first EEAP of almost all new Member States. A continuation of this positive trend is reflected in second EEAP, in which extensive building renovation programmes are reported by 17 of the Member States.

In the first reporting period a small subset of EEAPs did not include measures aimed at improving the energy performance of buildings. In connection to the link established between the ESD and the recast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive[6] (EPBD), all of the second EEAPs contain reference to measures on the energy performance of buildings. Most second EEAPs referred to the recast EPBD either as a general framework or as a key requirement to be met, with over half of the Member States opting to report on relevant articles of the EPBD in the second EEAP. However, there is space for improvement with respect to the presentation of results achieved with these measures.

In the industry sector overall savings are lower than expected in a number of Member States as the effects of the economic situation affect the energy productivity of some manufacturing plants during the period. Financial measures that offer loans or subsidies for energy efficiency investments are the most common type of measures to encourage energy efficiency in the sector. Continuing the trend observed in the first EEAPs, an increasing number of Member States are committing to putting in place voluntary agreements in manufacturing to encourage larger energy users to adopt energy management systems and pursue their own energy savings plans.

Similarly to the first reporting period, the second round of EEAPs reflects that the transport sector is still not an area of emphasis for energy savings in the EU Member States. As with the first EEAPs, the number of second EEAPs presents clear and consistent strategies to achieve more environmentally friendly and energy saving modes of transport remains modest. At the same time, it is a cause for concern that some Member States report high savings in transport without presenting clear and consistent transport strategies. This is a similar characteristic with the first EEAPs, where savings overestimates, primarily concerning transport measures, were also detected.

It is a positive development that more Member States present measures supporting the areas of public transport, mobility management and eco-driving than in the first reporting period. Fiscal incentives targeting passenger or freight vehicles also remain an important group of measures in the second EEAPs. More Member States include spatial planning provisions related to transport in their second EEAP than did in the first reporting period. At the same time, the fact that some Member States still report large-scale infrastructure projects where it is unclear how these projects themselves will deliver energy savings, and present ordinary technical inspection of vehicles as energy efficiency measures are remaining weaknesses in the second reporting period.

As in the first reporting period, agriculture has received relatively little attention in the second EEAPs. While in the review of the first EEAPs four Member States were highlighted as demonstrating interesting measures and packages in agriculture, in the second reporting period more than a third of the Member States included agricultural measures in their National Energy Efficiency Action Plans.

The second EEAP of most Member States includes dedicated sections describing activities aimed at improving the energy efficiency of the public sector. However, the level of implementation details presented varies between Member States. Only half of the Member States suggested the fulfilment of the requirement of choosing two of the six proposed public procurement measures set out in Annex VI of the ESD. Others followed a similar approach observed in the first EEAPs, often referring to public procurement action plans, energy efficiency criteria and guidelines, remaining unclear if these would introduce an obligation.

In the second reporting period about a third of the Member States were found to provide a strong set of diverse information measures. These action plans represent good practice in the coordination of a wide range of information efforts, providing consistent messages properly tailored to the end-users targeted, and in terms of using different channels of information distribution. Some remaining problems found in other second EEAPs include limited detail on implementation, as well as on possible effectiveness and impact, and in some cases failure to designate information measures.

On a positive note, the second reporting period seems to demonstrate an improvement in terms of reporting on the actions undertaken by market operators in the provision of more information and advice to final costumers on end-use energy efficiency.

The increase in the number of advanced metering and billing initiatives is a positive trend in the EU. Compared to the first reporting period more Member States address metering and billing in their second EEAP. In connection to metering and billing, regulatory instruments combined with financial incentives, as well as inclusion among the obligations of energy service companies have been reported in some second EEAPs. The number of smart metering schemes has been increasing, with the pilot phase of smart meters, large-scale rollout of smart meters or widespread use of intelligent meters reported by nearly a third of the Member States in their second National Energy Efficiency Action Plans.

Some Member States include in their savings calculations of the effects of EU legislation, such as implementing regulations relating to Ecodesign and the Energy labelling.

In terms of financing energy saving measures, the use of EU funds as well as revenues from the sale of Assigned Amount Units[7] (AAUs) under the Kyoto Protocol have been reported by a group of new Member States. At the same time efforts to increase the involvement of the private sector in the financing of energy efficiency improvements are also on the rise throughout the EU.

The number of promising horizontal measures has increased from the first to the second reporting period. In line with this, energy savings obligations now form a key part of efforts to encourage accelerated rates of energy savings. Established white certificate schemes were reported as being already operating in five Member States. Two other member States report in their second EEAP the upcoming introduction of such schemesEEAP. Energy Services Companies (ESCOs) remain a further key area of financing energy efficiency in the EU. In line with this, a number of Member States indicate the provision of model contracts, the introduction of legislation or the removal of legal barriers to open energy services in the public sector to ESCOs. At the same time, as it was observed in the first reporting period, many of the ESCO related measures reported contain little detail about concrete actions to be undertaken.

As the above overview of progress in energy efficiency in the EU indicates, various positive developments occurred between the first and second round of reporting under the ESD. The widespread use of the guide and template provided by the Commission has contributed to the overall improved quality of the EEAPs. However, a group of Member States could improve their reporting even further by providing more detail on measures and their concrete implementation, as well as by clarifying methodologies used to quantify energy savings. The second round of reporting indicates that there is still space for improving information provision in the EEAPs to demonstrate whether and how Member States can reach the energy savings target.

2 Developments in improving energy efficiency in energy supply

The ESD provides a legal framework for improving the efficiency of energy end-use in the European Union. The Directive requires Member States to establish end-use energy savings targets, to put in place measures to achieve those targets and promote energy services, and to report on progress in a series of EEAPs. Including supply-side measures in a EEAP is beyond the reporting requirements of the Directive. However, in the guide and template issued by the Commission to the Member States to assist them in the compilation of their EEAPs, Member States were encouraged to report all energy savings activities, including activities improving the efficiency of the supply, transmission and distribution of energy. A dedicated section addressing measures to improve the energy efficiency of supply was envisaged.

This section therefore provides an overview of progress in improving the energy efficiency of energy supply in the European Union. The information is drawn from two sources: the second round of EEAPs from the 27 Member States submitted in accordance with the requirements of the ESD; and the national CHP Progress Reports submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Cogeneration Directive.

2.1 Measures in the EEAPs addressing energy efficiency of supply

2.1.1 Introduction

This section gives an overview of energy savings measures on the supply side as presented in the EEAPs of the 27 Member States. As including supply-side measures is beyond the reporting requirements of the Directive, the section does not reflect the full level of effort applied by the Member States to improve supply-side energy efficiency.

It has to be noted that a number of larger Member States, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, do not address supply-side energy efficiency or address it only to the extent to which it leads to end-use savings. EEAPs that incorporate more comprehensive reports of energy efficiency activities in energy supply include those of Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Slovenia and Spain. Cyprus describes planned energy savings measures in supply and quantifies expected savings. The Czech Republic outlines its primary energy savings strategy but does not detail supply-side savings. Poland includes some measures relevant to the supply of energy in its descriptions of end-use savings measures.

2.1.2 Measures to promote or extend the use of district heating

Eleven Member States mention or give detail about measures that promote the use of district heating or that provide investment in refurbishment or expansion of district heating equipment and networks. The Estonian EEAP states that local authorities can designate parts of their territories as district heating regions, in which consumers are provided with heat from the network and the use of other sources of energy is restricted. Additional measures in Estonia include a heat price regulation, which incorporates minimum efficiency coefficients for heat generation by fuel source and maximum heat loss values for pipelines, and financial support for the upgrade of district heating networks. In Austria, two statutory instruments allow for the provision of subsidies for new and upgraded district heating plants and distribution systems. The Länder implement national district heating targets using their own methods, which include compulsory connections. In Denmark, a subsidy available for replacing old boilers in households will only be paid for a connection to a district heating network if the house is located in a designated district heating area. Legal minimum requirements relating to the efficiency of the distribution of thermal energy have been established in the Czech Republic. The Greek EEAP mentions on-going and completed projects expanding installed district heating in the country, and building regulations accelerating the use of renewables in new buildings allow the use of district heating as an alternative to renewable sources.

The Latvian EEAP indicates that as a result of recent measures undertaken to improve the energy efficiency of district heating networks in Riga, losses have fallen by 13%. The commissioning of a new cogeneration plant in Riga ensures that over 90% of heat consumed in the city is generated by high-efficiency CHP. However, there are high levels of heat losses in district heating networks in other parts of the country. The report states that the high levels of necessary funding, the lack of financing options for local authorities and low capital turnover inhibit the implementation of measures to address the significant heat losses. However, a programme has been put in place using cohesion funds to finance the construction or modification of heat plants and heat distribution networks. Under the programme two projects have been completed to-date. Measures promoting district heating in Sweden include a district heating research programme partly funded by the state, and a grant for households with electric heating to assist conversion to district heating. In Slovenia distribution losses in 2008 were 14% of total gross heat generated. Local suppliers of district heat are required to show in their development plans how they will address losses without passing on costs to their customers. An on-going measure to reduce heat network and distribution losses is outlined in the Hungarian EEAP.

2.1.3 Measures or strategies to improve the efficiency of electricity generation

Increased energy efficiency in the generation of electricity may be achieved by upgrading existing power generation facilities, replacement of older, less efficient plants with new highly efficient power stations, or increasing the share of high-efficiency plant, including generation capacity in the form of non-combustible renewables such as wind, solar photovoltaic or hydroelectricity. These energy efficiency improvements may be achieved naturally or may be achieved through the effects of national or EU policy efforts to improve efficiency of electricity generation or increase the use of renewables in primary energy consumption. The EEAPs of a number of Member States, including Denmark, Ireland and Spain, foresee an improved efficiency in electricity generation sectors through an increased share of renewables in their installed generation capacity.

Spain records significant energy savings in electricity generation in the period from 2007 to 2010 which it attributes to a reduction in own-use consumption in power plants and changes in the shares of fuel types used in generation. The reduction in own-use consumption of power plants is explained by increased shares of wind and solar, which require less energy for auxiliary services. Future savings in electricity generation will be achieved principally by increases in the shares of renewables and gas in the generation mix. Greece lists a number of planned upgrades of existing power stations that should lead to an increase in the efficiency of electricity generation. In Malta, additional capacity is being added to a new combined cycle plant which will lead to a reduction in output from an older inefficient plant. New onshore and offshore wind farms will also increase the efficiency of electricity generation. In Ireland savings are also expected through the replacement of 1300 MW of existing plant with high-efficiency combined cycle gas turbines and additional wind capacity up to 2020, and the phasing out of all oil-fired plants. The Latvian EEAP details modifications undertaken and planned at a number of hydroelectric plants and combined cycle plants with cogeneration, which increase their capacity and improve overall efficiency. The draft Slovenian National Energy Programme prioritises the construction of cogeneration plants and plants that use less polluting fuels such as natural gas to replace old less efficient plant over the coming years and to meet expected increases in electricity demand. Refurbishment and expansion of hydroelectric infrastructure is planned. A 25% increase in national electricity generation between 2008 and 2020 is expected to bring about only a 5% increase in total primary fuel consumption at power plants.

2.1.4 Measures addressing electricity transmission and distribution losses

Electricity transmission and distribution losses include all losses occurring in delivering electric energy generated at points of supply to electricity consumers. Losses are, for the most part, attributable to technical characteristics of the electrical network, but may also include some non-technical losses. According to Eurostat, transmission and distribution losses in the EU in 2010, at 16.6 Mtoe, amounted to around 5.8% of gross electricity output[8].

An investment plan in Italy foresees an expansion of the transmission network to accommodate more renewables in the south of the country and to enable greater interconnection between the mainland and Sardinia and Sicily. The expansion will also facilitate higher import capacity through connections with neighbouring countries to the north. Italy lists among the planned actions to reduce losses in distribution networks the reduction in the length of distribution lines, the increased use of low-loss components, in particular transformers, the increasing of the power factor at the sites of large consumers, and the increasing of the voltage levels of distribution networks around the county to standard values of 15kV or 20kV. The report highlights, however, some of the financial and technical difficulties associated with changing the voltage of distribution networks, and describes the adverse effect on efficiency of the trend towards the installation of aluminium cables that have higher resistance and greater losses than traditional copper cabling. In Ireland a transmission loss factor applied to generators should encourage investors to locate new power plants in areas close to the existing transmission network. However, the Irish EEAP highlights the challenge of reducing transmission losses in an environment where promotion of wind power leads to the development of wind turbine installations in areas that have good wind resource but less developed networks. The EEAP states that Ireland will consider investing in reducing the 2% transmission losses only if a benefit to the consumer can be shown to outweigh investment costs. However, it does make a commitment to reduce the loss adjustment factor in its distribution networks from 7.3% in 2012 to 7.1% in 2014. Spain expects the total transmission and distribution losses in 2020 to decrease by 0.4% to 7.7% between 2010 and 2020 through upgrade of infrastructure and greater distribution of generation capacity. Estonia encourages greater efficiency in transmission and distribution networks through network charges applied to network operators and through the establishment of minimum quality requirements for network services. In Poland support is available only for network upgrade projects that will deliver at least a 30% reduction in energy losses. Listed actions include replacing low-efficiency transformers, shortening of very long distances and changing the cross-section of conducting wires. A Greek transmission system development study foresees the development of new transmission lines and improvement of existing ones as well as a greater level of interconnection with neighbouring countries leading to a reduction in the use of oil for domestically generated electricity. Additionally, a greater level of interconnection with the Greek islands is anticipated. In Malta a 200MW interconnector with mainland Europe, currently under construction, is expected to lead to a reduction in output from Malta's inefficient main power plant. Cyprus plans to achieve energy savings through improving the power factor at electricity sub-stations and construction of new lines between power plants and cities. In Latvia it is planned to reconstruct two or three 110kV sub-stations every year using lower maintenance equipment. It is envisaged that a number of measures including reconstruction of power lines and transformer sub-stations, and replacement of transformers will improve the efficiency of the network in the coming years.

2.1.5 Voluntary agreements for supply-side savings

Several Member States have in place voluntary agreements with energy suppliers or network operators, whereby organisations are committed to achieving agreed levels of energy savings. The extent to which supply-side savings may contribute to an organisation’s savings figure is not always clear from the EEAPs. Finland has a dedicated energy agreements programme for energy producers covering 90% of electricity generation and 80% of heat production. Companies which sign up commit to integrating the improvement of energy efficiency into management processes, setting company-specific targets related to energy efficiency and submitting annual reports. In return, funding is provided for energy audits, and investment aid is considered on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, sellers and distributors of energy who are committed to achieving energy savings among their consumers through voluntary agreements may also count own-use savings towards their commitments. In Denmark, network and distribution companies are under obligation to deliver defined quantities of energy savings. While most of the savings are achieved in end-use, savings made in transmission and distribution networks may also count towards their obligations. In 2010 these savings amounted to around 5% of total savings obligations. Ireland now has a new voluntary agreements programme in place that requires energy suppliers to achieve a defined amount of energy savings. The EEAP does not indicate if supply-side side savings may count towards suppliers' targets. Austria also has voluntary agreements with energy suppliers in place, although the extent to which these have led to supply-side savings is unclear as only end-use savings arising from the agreements have been quantified in the EEAP. Italy’s white certificate scheme incorporates savings achieved through the installation of micro-CHP systems. The obligations scheme in Slovenia requires energy suppliers to achieve a saving equivalent to 1% of the previous year’s energy sales. Savings may be claimed for the refurbishment of district heating sub-stations.

2.1.6 Measures facilitating demand-side management

Demand side management can reduce peak loads by encouraging large electricity consumers to shift energy consumption to off-peak times. Demand side management can thereby reduce the need for relatively inefficient peaking power plants and improve the overall efficiency of power supply. Only one Member State provides a detailed description of a demand side management programme. Ireland has a winter peak demand reduction scheme in place for a number of years through which industrial and commercial consumers are rewarded for meeting their commitments to reduce their own peak demand.

2.1.7 Measures addressing energy efficiency in the supply of oil and gas

While the greatest opportunities for supply-side energy efficiency, and the emphasis of supply-side measures in the EEAPs, are related to the generation and supply of electricity, opportunities exist to improve the efficiency in the supply of other fuels through the improvements in the recovery and transmission of gas and increased efficiency in oil refineries.

The EEAP for Estonia mentions a national plan to increase the efficiency of the use and extraction of oil shale. The Danish EEAP refers to an action plan aimed at improving the efficiency of oil and gas recovery in the North Sea. Latvia is undertaking a modernisation of its underground gas storage facility and is planning to invest in upgrading some of its gas network to improve safety, but the extent to which these activities may produce energy savings is not specified in the report. Spain highlights the adverse influence of the increase in the share of diesel vehicles and the stricter specifications of transport fuels with regard to sulphur content on the energy consumption of oil refineries in recent years. Although no measures are detailed, the Spanish EEAP states that it is anticipated that any losses in efficiency arising from a continuation of these developments will be compensated for by improvements in production technologies for cleaner fuels.

2.1.8 Measures to promote greater competition among energy suppliers

As well as providing consumers with greater choice and reducing costs, measures promoting greater competition among energy suppliers can improve overall efficiency as suppliers undertake cost-effective energy efficiency actions to remain competitive. Very few EEAPs contain information about measures designed to increase competition in the supply of energy.

Ireland's EEAP identifies the establishment of an all-island electricity market incorporating Northern Ireland as a measure to promote competition. The report states that a number of measures were put in place to address issues arising from having two dominant players in the market, and that a fully deregulated retail electricity market has been achieved. In Estonia the electricity market is open only for consumers with annual consumption of more than 2GWh, but it is envisaged that a market open for all consumers will be achieved by 2013.

The German EEAP describes how the measuring and metering sector in Germany has been liberalised so that metering no longer has to be carried out by the network operator. The opening of the sector to competition allows consumers to get more precise information about their electricity and gas use and enables the proliferation of new metering technologies.

2.1.9 Measures to advance the development of smart metering infrastructure

A smart grid is an upgraded electricity network to which a digital communications layer enabling interaction and transfer of information between electricity suppliers and consumers has been added. Smart grids, in combination with smart meters, will provide the supplier with the opportunity to employ time-dependent tariffs and can give the consumer the incentive to use energy more efficiently.

A broad measure outlining support for smart grids planned for 2012 is presented in the Polish EEAP. It incorporates support for information actions, feasibility studies, development of standards and pilot programmes for smart lighting and energy storage. The Irish EEAP contains a commitment to develop smart grids to integrate more renewable energy and further develop demand side management. The importance of smart grids in enabling the integration of renewable electricity sources and facilitating demand-side management is also mentioned in the French EEAP. In France research funding has been dedicated to smart grid research as part of its digital economy development programme. Latvia has developed a smart network concept to establish a common understanding of the meaning of smart grids and to create a basis for examining the need to implement smart grids and assessing its technical possibilities. The benefits of smart networks are outlined in its report but an assessment of the levels of investment required has yet to be undertaken. The Italian EEAP recognises the importance of applying greater intelligence to its distribution network over the coming years, and with infrastructure already in place to read 32 million meters remotely, it sees Italy as a major player in the implementation of future smart grid technologies. Sweden has completed a preliminary study of a demonstration smart grid project applied to a district in Stockholm. The study examined technical aspects and market models, and aimed to identify the potential for commercial products and services that could arise from the project within the next five years. Slovenia has also undertaken a study of advanced metering infrastructure as a first step in the development of a smart grid infrastructure.

2.1.10 Measures in the EEAPs to promote cogeneration

As the EEAPs respond to the requirements of the ESD Directive and these reporting requirements differ from those of the CHP Directive, they do not contain the same level of detail with respect to aspects of the promotion of high-efficiency cogeneration as is contained in the Member States’ latest national CHP progress reports summarised in Annex 5.

Spain describes a number of broad measures to promote high-efficiency CHP. These include financial aid for feasibility studies for new plants and for energy audits of existing plants, as well as support for new plants larger than 150kWe in non-industrial applications. In the Czech Republic, organisations with a heat source above a defined thermal capacity are required by law to examine the viability of installing high-efficiency cogeneration facilities in the event of a significant change or a necessary replacement of the heat source. Additionally, cogeneration is supported by a favourable feed-in tariff for installations with a capacity of up to 5MWe. In Austria, the CHP Act facilitates investment grants for CHP systems providing district heating. Support is offered for the construction of new CHP plants in Estonia that burn renewables, waste, peat and retort gases from oil shale processing. Support is also available for new plants burning other fuels if their electrical capacity does not exceed 10MW. Ireland sets a 2020 target for installed CHP, although its CHP investment support programme ended in 2010. In Cyprus, a new scheme to promote high-efficiency cogeneration is in place, where levels of capital subsidy are dependent on the economic sector in which the plant is employed and on the size of plant. However, the report comments that only around half of the identified CHP potential up to 2020 is likely to be realised due to a low level of interest, the climatic conditions on the island and the lack of availability of gas. The Greek EEAP mentions the transposition of the CHP Directive into national law, the availability of subsidies for high-efficiency CHP and the implementation of Guarantees of Origin certificates. Latvia has made public financing available from the cohesion fund for the development of cogeneration plants using renewable fuels. However, no projects financed by this measure have been completed. Legislation in Latvia also allows cogeneration plants using renewables to choose between receiving a guaranteed payment for electricity capacity and selling electricity generated with a mandatory buy-back of electricity capacity. In Malta loans at preferential rates are available to the hospitality sector for investing in energy efficiency including CHP. A CHP programme for larger energy users is also in place and has had a number of applicants, but none has yet been approved. In Slovenia it is envisaged in the national energy programme that CHP will have an 18% share of gross energy use in 2020, rising to 23% in 2030. Measures that support increased use of CHP include a guaranteed purchase price or a support premium for electricity generated and sold from high-efficiency CHP plants, financial incentives in the form of loans and grants for businesses investing in CHP, and a requirement for state-owned companies to reinvest 15% of annual profits in energy efficiency, renewables or CHP. Although structural funds have been available since 2007 in Slovakia for the development of high-efficiency CHP, it is stated in the EEAP that uptake among businesses has been slow due to the amount of administration required to receive funding. Businesses have been opting instead to apply for support from a new renewables and high-efficiency cogeneration programme that came into effect in 2010. The effectiveness of the new programme has not yet been assessed, however. Measures to promote increased use of CHP in Italy include investment loans at attractive rates, financed from a revolving fund for plants and the availability of tradable white certificates for savings brought about as a result of installing high-efficiency cogeneration plants.

In the Wallonia region of Belgium two separate investment subsidy programmes exist, for the public and private sectors respectively, for CHP investments that can demonstrate at least a 10% energy saving. Additionally, Wallonia uses its green certificate system to promote CHP. The availability of grants for cogeneration for buildings and for industry is also mentioned in the plan for the Brussels region, and green certificates are issued for electricity generated from CHP. The Brussels region uses a multiplier coefficient when calculating green certificates allocated to gas-fired cogeneration facilities in collective housing blocks to provide an additional support to CHP. In the Flanders region of Belgium cogeneration certificates are issued to CHP facilities based on the amount of primary energy deemed to have been saved. A quantity of certificates must be acquired by electricity suppliers in the region that is in proportion to the amount of electricity they sell. The price of a cogeneration certificate has recently been raised by the Flemish government to provide further incentive, and the action plan indicates that the current support mechanism for cogeneration is undergoing a thorough review. Other relevant measures in Flanders include a 20% subsidy for micro-CHP plants installed by local authorities and tax incentives for investment in CHP in the agriculture sector.

Some Member States that provide no information about supply-side energy efficiency activities do describe in their EEAPs actions to promote CHP among end-users. Significant growth in installed CHP in the horticulture sector in the Netherlands over a number of years has been achieved as a result of a successful voluntary agreements programme in the sector supported by a number of financial measures. A feed-in tariff is used to promote small CHP in Luxembourg. Measures to promote CHP uptake in industry and in hospitals are mentioned in the first Portuguese EEAP, but no detail is given in the second report. The German EEAP describes a support programme for small CHP up to 50kWe and support for CHP in industry as part of the industry voluntary agreements programme.

Table 1 Overview of supply-side measures contained in the second EEAP[9]

Member State || Measures addressing electrical transmission and distribution losses || Measures promoting high efficiency cogeneration || Measures prioritising other high efficiency generation plants, including wind, PV || Measures to encourage district heating or improve its efficiency || Measures to promote load management || Measures to promote or develop smart grids || Measures addressing the efficiency of the supply of oil and gas || Voluntary Agreements encouraging supply-side savings || Measures aimed at promoting greater competition among suppliers

AT || || X || || X || || || || ||

BE || || X[10] || || || || || || ||

BG || X || X || || X || || X || || ||

CY || X || X || X || || || || || ||

CZ || || X || X || X || || || || ||

DK || X || || || X[11] || || || X || X ||

EE || X || X || || X || || || X || || X

FI || || || || || || || || X ||

FR || || || || || || X || || ||

DE || || X[12] || || || || || || || X

GR || X || X || X || X || || || || ||

HU || || || || X || || || || ||

IE || X || || X || || X || X || || X || X

IT || X || X || X || || || X || || ||

LT || X || X || X || X || || X || X || ||

LV || || X || || || || || || ||

LU || || X || || || || || || ||

MT || X || X || || || || X || || ||

NL || || X || || || || || || ||

PL || X || || || X || || X || || ||

PT || || X || || || || || || ||

RO || || || || || || || || ||

SK || || X || || || || || || ||

SI || || X || X || X || || X || || X ||

ES || || X || X || || || || || ||

SE || || || || X || || X || || ||

UK || || || || || || X || || ||

2.2 Report on the implementation of the CHP Directive

2.2.1 Introduction

This section summarises the most recent progress on the implementation of the CHP Directive and, therefore, on the use of high-efficiency cogeneration by Member States. The progress report itself is presented in its entirety in Annex 5 of this report. A summary is given here to provide a more integrated view of overall progress in supply-side energy efficiency in the EU.

The report is compiled from reports received from the Member States updating progress since the first progress reports that were due in 2007[13]. A questionnaire was circulated among Member States to assist them to provide the information to meet the reporting requirements of the CHP Directive. Much of the progress report reflects the responses to this questionnaire. The progress report does not provide a complete view of developments as no reports were received from the Czech Republic, Germany, Luxembourg or Romania. For several other Member States the information provided was incomplete.

2.2.2 State of transposition of the CHP Directive

All Member States reported that the CHP Directive has been fully transposed into national law, either in their first or second progress reports or in the intervening period. The process of establishing fully operational systems of Guarantees of Origin (GO) as required under Article 5 has not been completed by all Member States. Ireland reported that it was working on the detailed framework relating to its GO system. In Malta, decision 2008/952/EC, establishing a harmonised methodology for the calculation of electricity from cogeneration, is yet to be implemented. In Cyprus, a GO system was to be adopted in 2011. Estonia plans to improve the legal basis of its GO system. For Luxembourg, the GO system was not fully implemented when its first progress report was submitted, and a second progress report has not been received. While Austria reports that the CHP Directive is fully transposed, an amendment to its Cogeneration Act is planned to enable its GO system to be administered.

2.2.3 Progress towards realising national potentials

Member States were required to assess progress made in promoting cogeneration, including the extent to which they had acheived their national economic potentials. The depth and level of detail of this assessment varied from Member State to Member State and depended, among other things, on whether Member States provided quantitative data on the evolution of cogeneration capacities, outputs, fuel inputs, and CO2 and primary energy savings for the period 2000-2010 as requested by the Commission in its template spread sheet. Based on the data provided, progress was assessed in the period up to 2010 and furthermore against the national potentials when those were identified by Member States either in the first set of national reports that included national potential analyses and the first progress report, or in the second progress report. Since the identification of national potentials was not done consistently by all Member States, especially not always in the three time horizons of 2010, 2015 and 2020 required by the Directive, or some Member States did not identified a potential, for the sake of a comprehensive analysis, and comparison, national economic potentials have been identified in the TIMES energy system model developed by the Joint Research Centre on behalf of the Commission. Using data provided for the shares of cogeneration in the second progress reports, the Commission looked at to what extent Member States realised their 2010 potentials in 2009 and 2010. Where it had data available, the Commission also assessed whether the progress realised by 2010 represented a sufficient trajectory towards the longer term potential in 2020. The Commission also looked at the overall trend of development, in particular in the period since the first progress reports.

The table 2 shows the national economic potentials for cogeneration, expressed in TWh of electricity produced from cogeneration. These potentials are provided for the 23 Member States that submitted the information of sheet 1 of the spread sheet[14]. Two sets of estimates are provided. The first set is derived from the national reports and spread sheet templates as analysed in the previous progress report. The second set of estimates is derived from a modelling exercise using the TIMES energy system model conducted by the Joint Research Centre.

It should be noted that the two approaches (national reports on the one hand and TIMES modelling on the other hand) are fundamentally different. The potentials recorded in the national reports (and consolidated in the previous progress report), on the one hand, are typically based on national models or bottom-up estimation of the potential. The potentials derived from the TIMES model, on the other hand, are based on an EU-wide optimisation model that simulates possible futures of the entire European energy system. The TIMES model may therefore overlook specific local circumstances that are taken into account in the national reports. In some cases, therefore, there may be a significant difference between the potentials from the national reports and the potentials from the TIMES model. In addition, in some cases, there may be different definitions of the baseline, as is the case, for example, for Slovakia. However, in that case, although the baseline of the estimates is different, the increments to 2015 and 2020 are more similar. For that reason, as mentioned before, the comparisons in the remainder of the chapter will focus mostly on the increments.

Table 2: Economic potentials for cogeneration in 23 Member States, expressed in electricity generated from cogeneration [TWh/y], as taken from national reports and TIMES modelling

Note: The base year is based on the national reports, in which it was defined as “2007 or latest”. In most cases, 2007 was used by the Member States. For national reports in which the exact base year was not specified, 2007 was assumed for the remainder of the analysis.

The table 3 presents the amount of electricity actually generated from cogeneration in the years 2009 and 2010. The left half of the table shows the amounts stated in the spread sheets accompanying the questionnaires. The right half of the table contrasts these numbers with the data from Eurostat. The numbers are not fully comparable as the reporting under the Cogeneration Directive includes only high-efficiency cogeneration, while Eurostat includes all cogeneration.

In both sources, one can observe that electricity generation from cogeneration has remained more or less unchanged between the base year and 2009. On the other hand, there has been a moderate increase between 2009 and 2010. According to the spread-sheets accompanying the questionnaires, the increase was around 9 TWh. According to Eurostat, the increase was around 23 TWh. As mentioned before, the Eurostat data includes also low-efficiency cogeneration, and covers a larger set of Member States.

Table 3: Realisation of electricity produced from cogeneration in 2009 and 2010, from the current questionnaire and compared with Eurostat [TWh/y]

Note: the base year realisation for Bulgaria and Germany is in italics, because the number was taken from the national report, and not from the spread-sheet submitted in this round.

The table 4 compares these increments in electricity generation from cogeneration, with the potential increments shown earlier (potentials from national reports, TIMES, PRIMES Baseline 2009 and PRIMES Energy Efficiency).

Table 4: Comparison of economic potential with realisation in 2010, expressed in electricity produced from cogeneration [TWh/y]

* Legend: + potential was realised; – cogeneration output decreased; 0 potential was partially realised.

The lack of growth in 2009 and the relatively limited growth in 2010 may be partly or wholly due to the economic crisis, which led to a drop in electricity demand and a slow-down or standstill in new electricity generation investment. Six countries (Greece, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia) explicitly mention the crisis as a factor in their national reports and/or questionnaires.

The 2010 figures for electricity produced from cogeneration in 19 Member States for which figures are available indicate that overall 23% of the 2010 potential identified in the TIMES model has been realised. In their first national reports 16 of these Member States quantified economic potential for cogeneration for 2010. In 2010 these Member States achieved 18% of the combined overall 2010 potential identified in their national reports.

As regards the breakdown by sectors of CHP electricity capacity, a comprehensive study of the evolution of CHP up to 2010 was not possible due to missing data and incomplete time series supplied by some Member States. Figure 6 shows the breakdown by sector of CHP electricity capacity in 2009 for 15 Member States for which data was available. Total electrical capacity of CHP in these Member States in 2009 was 56.6 GW.

Figure 6 Breakdown by sector of electricity capacity from CHP in 15 Member States in 2009

Figure 7 presents a breakdown of the shares of different CHP technologies installed in the Member States in 2009. From the data supplied by the Member States a slight increase in the share of combined cycle gas turbines in total CHP electricity capacity since 2000 is apparent.

Figure 7 Breakdown by technology of electricity capacity from CHP in 2009

Figure 8 shows the shares in 2009 of each input fuel type used in CHP plants installed in Member States for which data was available. The time series data available shows an on-going increase in the share of natural gas as a fuel in the period since 2000.

Figure 8 Shares of CHP input fuel type in 2009

2.2.4 Quantity and share of CHP in 2010

The following table provides an overview of the quantity and share of electricity from CHP in absolute terms (both capacity and production) and as a share of the market, in both 2009 and 2010. These values are provided for the 23 countries for which the data of sheet 1 of the spread-sheet was available. For comparison, the share of cogeneration in gross electricity generation from Eurostat is also shown.

Table 5: Quantity and share of CHP in electricity production (based on spread-sheets submitted)

Figure 9: Quantity and share of CHP in electricity generation (based on spread-sheets submitted)

Overall, the percentage data reported by the Member States is relatively well aligned with the data collected by Eurostat.

CHP penetration in 2009/2010 ranges from around 0% in islands and Greece to more than 30% in Finland and the Netherlands. The share in France is high because France has only included fossil fuel power plants in the total (i.e. excluding nuclear, hydro, etc.).

Likewise for heat, the following table provides an overview of the quantity and share of electricity from CHP in absolute terms (both capacity and production) and as a share of the market, in both 2009 and 2010.

As regards primary energy savings (PES) and CO2 emission reduction, for the subset of Member States which provided adequate data for 2010 (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom), the increase in electricity production from CHP since the base year 2007 has been 9.149 TWh/y, as shown earlier in this chapter. This would result in additional 0.5 Mtoe/y of PES and 1.3 Mt/y of CO2 emissions reductions[15]. These savings are relatively low since – as mentioned before – the bulk of the potential was expected to be realised after 2010.

As part of the spread-sheets, some Member States also submitted information on PES, as summarised in the following table. Note that roughly half of the savings are concentrated in Greece, which leads to the conclusion that different methodologies have been used by different Member States. The same holds for the incremental PES (difference between 2007 and 2010). Total incremental PES are 1.6 Mtoe/y, but most of this is concentrated in Sweden, which again points to methodological differences.

Table 6: Primary Energy Savings 2010 according to Member States’ reports (spread sheets)

Note: The 2010 number for the Netherlands is in italics because 2009 data was used.

A more complete way of estimating the PES of CHP is to consider the CHP production as recorded by Eurostat, since this includes all Member States. Electricity production from CHP in Eurostat increased from 365 TWh/y in 2007 to 393 TWh/y in 2010, i.e. an increase of 27 TWh/y. Using the same technical coefficients as before, this would represent an additional PES of 1.5 Mtoe/y, and CO2 emissions reductions of 3.8 Mt/t. This would mean that roughly half of the 2010 potential is achieved.

2.2.5 Barriers to high-efficiency cogeneration

Member States were asked by means of a questionnaire to identify current barriers to high-efficiency cogeneration in their jurisdictions. Member States were asked to describe barriers in the following categories:

· Barriers related to administrative procedures;

· Barriers related to the grid system and tariff issues;

· Other barriers.

Barriers were also identified in the first round national reports. The total number of barriers for the sub-sample of 19 Member States that have included barrier analysis in their reports has decrease slightly from 101 to 97. However, the plain mention of a barrier in a national report is treated as a barrier in this analysis. With this in mind, a decrease of around 4% of barriers does not seem very relevant. Although between the two reporting rounds there is a slight decrease in the number of barriers (from 101 to 97), there is an increase of relevance of the most cited barriers and a more remarkable loose of ground of the least cited barriers[16]. In this section, the conclusions as regards the most important barriers identified are presented.

The two most cited barriers in both the first and second round of National reports are “fuel prices” and “heating or cooling demand”.

A barrier that was not very relevant in the first round of reports “rest of infrastructures not prepared” is now mentioned by ten countries (a number of countries quite close to the most cited barriers, see row 30). Under this heading are clustered all the barriers mentioned by the Member States that somehow mention that the lack of an already deployed network of district heating, the lack of distribution network of natural gas or some related problems, are an hindrance to further expansion of cogeneration.

The barriers that seem to be losing ground are “lack of promotion”, “risk/economic justification”, “access to/availability of fuels”, “uncertainties due to the ETS” and “lack of expertise”. The barriers that gain weight are “fuel prices”, “heating or cooling demand”, “lack of financial resources”, “rest of infrastructure not prepared”, “lack of awareness (by potential end users)”, and “maturity of the technologies”. The high weight of the barriers “complexity of the law” and “heating and cooling demand” did not experience change in both rounds of reporting.

2.2.6 Systems of Guarantees of Origin

According to the CHP Directive, Member States must ensure that the guarantee of origin (GO) of the electricity enables producers to show that the electricity sold is produced from high-efficiency cogeneration. A GO should identify:

· The lower calorific value of the fuel from which the electricity was produced, the use of the heat generated, and the dates and places of production;

· The amount of electricity from high-efficiency cogeneration that the guarantee represents;

· The primary energy savings calculated using harmonised efficiency values established by the Commission.

Of the Member States that have reported, all except Ireland indicated that they have fully operational GO systems in place. In other Member States GO systems appear to be robust and comprehensive. No need has been expressed by any Member State for a review of threshold values used to calculate electricity from cogeneration, cogeneration efficiency or primary energy savings.

2.2.7 Access to electricity grid and grid system rules

In the questionnaire circulated among Member States to assist them in compiling their latest progress reports, Member States were asked to indicate if there is priority access to the grid for high-efficiency CHP, and if so, to describe how it is facilitated. They were asked to indicate if priority access was linked with a GO scheme. They were requested to describe how high-efficiency CHP is distinguished for the purpose of priority dispatch. They were asked to describe the connection rules and identify if there were any specific rules for small-scale and micro-CHP.

Of the Member States that responded to the questions, twelve have priority grid access while six have some kind of assisted access. Italy, Malta and the United Kingdom do not appear to have priority access for cogeneration. Priority access is linked with the GO scheme in four Member States, while two more specifically state that priority access is not linked to GO. Sixteen Member States did not indicate if there is a link with their GO systems.

Ten Member States reported clear criteria for distinguishing high-efficiency CHP for the purpose of priority dispatch based on meeting the energy saving criteria specified in the CHP Directive, either by being registered in the GO system or by stating that they meet the CHP Directive requirements. Two Member States described criteria that may have had the same effect but the descriptions were not explicit. There is no priority despatch in the United Kingdom. For eight Member States the response was not clear.

Five Member States reported preferential access to the grid for cogeneration, but preferential access was not necessarily for all classes of generators. Austria reported that no preferential access is given but that all generators have easy access to a connection. The United Kingdom and the Flanders region of Belgium reported that no priority access is given to cogeneration plants. Eleven Member States provided no information.

2.2.8 Support schemes for cogeneration

In the questionnaire circulated to the Member States, they were asked to identify and describe support schemes in place to promote CHP so as to provide an overview of support schemes reported, sorted according to broad categories of measures.

Fourteen Member States provide support in the form of a feed-in tariff or a guaranteed purchase price for electricity generated. In Finland a feed-in tariff system supporting small-scale cogeneration from biogas or wood was introduced in 2011. Up to 2013 France will provide a purchase guarantee for 20 years for 800MWe of new biomass cogeneration plants. In Ireland a renewable energy feed-in tariff guaranteed for 15 years will help achieve target by installed capacities of 100MWe biomass CHP and 50MWe of CHP from anaerobic digestion. Latvia provides guaranteed compulsory purchase of electricity generated from CHP at a fixed price and also provides for the right to receive guaranteed payment for installed electrical capacity. In Slovakia a fixed price is paid for electricity from CHP, usually for 15 years, but this can be supplemented by an additional payment if the plant produces electricity at a cost that is greater than the fixed tariff. In Slovenia, plants up to 1MWe may choose to receive a guaranteed purchase price or to sell their electricity on the open market and receive operating support when their forecast reference costs exceed the forecast reference market price of electricity. Plants larger than 1MWe cannot receive a fixed tariff but can qualify for operating support if their costs exceed market rates. Cyprus assures a minimum price for electricity generated or the first 20 years of operation of eligible CHP plants.

Thirteen Member States reported that assistance is available in the form of capital grants. Cyprus offers grants of up to 30% of investments for plants up to 1MWe using renewable fuels. Austria has made EUR 50 million available in investment subsidies for cogeneration plants since 2007. In Denmark production-independent subsidies are financed through the electricity price charged to consumers. A scheme to provide grants to support the development of CHP in Ireland was discontinued in 2010.

A certificate scheme was reported by four Member States. Italy grants qualifying plants an exemption from an obligation to purchase green certificates, which must be purchased by all other electricity generating facilities that use non-renewable fuels. In Italy plants can also receive white certificates based on the amount of primary energy they are deemed to have saved. Sweden has an electricity certificate scheme, which enables producers of electricity from CHP to sell certificates to other electricity suppliers, who are obliged to buy a quantity of certificates determined by the amount of electricity they sell.

Four Member States reported favourable energy tax rates or energy tax exemptions for energy from cogeneration. In Finland heat production from cogeneration is subject to just half the CO2 tax rate applicable to heat from other sources. In the Netherlands CHP plants generating electricity with an electrical yield greater than 30% are exempt from an environmental tax.

Six Member States reported measures that provide business taxes exemptions or reductions, or enhanced fiscal allowances for investment. Reduced federal taxes and tax deductions are applicable to investments in the Wallonia region in Belgium while tax deductions of 13.5% of total investment are also available from the federal state. A tax rebate is available in the Netherlands through its Energy Investment Allowance programme. Enhanced capital allowances for CHP investments are available in France, Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Table 7 Overview of support schemes for CHP according to assessment of most recent round of national reports

Member State || Feed-in tariff/ guaranteed purchase price || Certificate scheme || Capital grants || Energy tax exemption || Accelerated fiscal allowances for investment || Business tax exemption

AT || || || X || || ||

BE || || X || X || || X ||

BG || X || || || || ||

CY || X || || X || || ||

CZ || || || || || ||

DK || X || || X || || || X

EE || X || || X || || ||

FI || X || || X || X || ||

FR || X || || || X || X || X

DE || || || || || ||

EL || X || || X || || ||

HU || || || || || ||

IE || X || || || || X ||

IT || || X || || || ||

LT || || || || || ||

LV || X || || X || || ||

LU || || || || || ||

MT || || || || || ||

NL || || || X || X || X ||

PL || || X || X || || ||

PT || X || || || || ||

RO || || || || || ||

SK || X || || X || || ||

SI || X || || || || ||

ES || X || || X || || ||

SE || || X || || || ||

UK || X || || X || X || X || X

2.3 Evaluating savings achieved by supply-side measures

Energy savings achieved in the supply, transmission or distribution of energy cannot be counted towards the 2016 indicative target in the ESD. For many of the Member States that describe supply-side energy efficiency measures in their EEAPs, the savings achieved or expected to be achieved by the measures are not fully quantified. In some cases, for example Poland, savings associated with measures addressing energy efficiency in energy transmission and distribution, CHP and heating systems are incorporated into end-use savings figures. For some Member States savings are given for some measures related to energy supply, such as district heating measures, but measures addressing efficiency in electricity generation and transmission are not addressed, such that overall national primary energy savings cannot be assessed.

Some Member States provide primary energy consumption or savings forecasts or targets for 2016 or 2020. For instance Denmark, Ireland and Spain give primary energy consumption targets for 2020; Hungary provides a forecast of 2020 primary energy consumption, while Cyprus and Malta describe 2020 primary energy savings forecasts in their EEAPs. These forecasts and targets take into account primary savings expected to be achieved as a result of end-use energy efficiency improvements within and outside the scope of the Directive, as well as supply-side savings.

Generally, however, a breakdown of the proportion of total national savings attributable to energy supply and energy end-use is not given. Exceptions include Spain, where supply-side measures account for 32% of the 2020 forecast savings and Ireland, where they make up 13% of the 2020 primary energy savings. Cyprus expects that the use of gas in electricity generation from 2015 onwards will account for around 59% of its total primary energy savings. Some Member States, such as the Czech Republic and Poland, give savings figures for measures related to supply, but these figures do not necessarily represent the total supply-side savings as all measures related to supply may not be addressed in the reports. Romania quantifies savings for some supply-side measures, but the reference time-frame differs from that of the ESD savings. As the reports do not provide sufficient supply-side data, and as no supply-side figures are available for some of the larger Member States, it is not possible to assess from the second round of EEAPs the overall level of savings achieved or forecast for the EU energy supply sector or the likely contribution of supply-side savings to the EU 2020 primary energy savings target.

With regard to savings achieved as a result of measures to promote CHP specifically, the progress report on CHP contained in Annex 5 to this document estimates annual savings of between 1 Mtoe and 2 Mtoe per annum in primary energy consumption for Member States that provided reports. This estimate excludes the savings of those Member States that did not provide reports. The CHP update reports from Member States, however, do not provide any energy savings figures, nor indeed were they requested to provide them in the questionnaire from the Commission. The EEAPs from the Member States also generally provide few insights into the amount of energy saved specifically as a result of the deployment of CHP. In some cases measures described support several energy-saving technologies, not just CHP. In others, aggregate top-down savings figures are given according to sector, incorporating savings achieved by all measures addressed at that sector. Additionally, the methods used by Member States to quantify savings vary considerably. This aspect is dealt with in greater detail later in this report.

Overall, the existing reporting mechanisms for both the ESD and the CHP Directive do not provide sufficient information for evaluating energy savings arising from supply-side energy efficiency measures.

2.4 Conclusions

National plans that incorporate supply-side measures into national energy efficiency activities demonstrate a cohesive, strategic approach to achieving national savings goals. While the majority of Member States include measures in their EEAPs that improve the efficiency of energy supply, most do not provide a comprehensive analysis of the future of energy supply or of measures to improve its efficiency. Most EEAPs do not, therefore, give a complete overview of past and future energy efficiency developments. However, it is evident from the EEAPs that many Member States recognise that measures addressing energy supply will be an important part of their commitments to help the EU achieve its 2020 energy savings targets.

Despite the lack of a comprehensive section addressing energy efficiency of supply in many EEAPs, various of them provide details of measures to improve the energy efficiency of district heating systems and to extend their use to a greater number of consumers. Measures include capital investment programmes for refurbishments and extensions, designated district heating areas and compulsory use in buildings of district heating facilities in the locality. A number of EEAPs and several of the national CHP reports highlight the high levels of funding needed for investment in district heating networks and the current scarcity of financing options.

In many of the EEAPs details of measures addressing energy efficiency in the transmission and distribution of electricity are given. Measures related to transmission typically involve expansion of networks to enable greater inter-connection and to increase capacity, thereby indirectly providing opportunity for increased energy efficiency. Measures related to electricity distribution include activities to replace or upgrade inefficient network components, replace or reduce lengths of lines, and install power factor correction equipment.

Many Member States foresee primary energy savings arising as a result of the decommissioning of older inefficient electricity generation capacity and its replacement with modern high-efficiency installations. Furthermore, primary savings will be achieved through the increased share of renewables and the favourable calculation of primary energy equivalent for electricity generated from wind and solar photovoltaic installations. Some EEAPs also detail measures to upgrade existing power plants and thereby improve their efficiency. Although market liberalisation and unbundling of network energy services are not referred to in most of the EEAPs, greater competition will accelerate energy efficiency improvement of the electricity generation capacity of many Member States.

Commitments are made by a number of Member States to the development of smart grids. Measures undertaken to-date, however, tend to be small-scale research programmes or restricted roll-out of smart meters in pilot programmes to examine potential and to prepare for larger-scale implementation at a later stage. The savings potential of demand side management measures is not reflected in the EEAPs. It is to be hoped that the roll-out of smart networks will facilitate greater use of demand side management than is evident from the Member States’ reports.

Many Member States have now, or will have in the near future, voluntary agreements or energy efficiency obligations schemes, whereby energy suppliers or network operators are required to deliver agreed levels of energy savings. Whether supply-side savings may count towards agreed savings targets, and the extent to which these savings contribute towards total expected savings from these schemes, is not clear from most EEAPs.

In this report two different sets of information are analysed to assess measures implemented by Member States to promote the use of high-efficiency CHP. Unfortunately, the two sources of information do not complement each other well, and putting the two together to form a better picture of CHP developments in the Member States is difficult. National CHP reports were received from all but one Member State and several that were received contained incomplete information. While a complete set of EEAPs has been received, the level of detail provided does not address the reporting requirements of the CHP Directive, and several Member States provide no information in their EEAPs about the promotion of CHP. The reporting timeframes for the two sets of national reports are also different. The most recent progress report provides an update on developments since 2009, while the EEAPs report on progress in the 3-year intermediate period to 2010.

Most of the EEAPs do list or describe measures that promote greater use of CHP. Many of these measures are aimed at increasing the installed base of small-scale or micro-CHP plants in the facilities of end-users.

The national CHP reports provide a more comprehensive list of measures. The most frequently used measure is the provision of feed-in tariffs or guaranteed purchase prices for electricity generated by CHP. In some Member States the availability of feed-in tariffs may be dependent on the capacity of the plant or on the type of fuel used. Some Member States provide additional payments for plants in the event that they cannot produce electricity at the guaranteed purchase prices due to developments in fuel costs.

Another measure common to most of the national CHP reports examined is the provision of capital grants and subsidies for investments in cogeneration. Grants may be financed from EU structural funds, national revolving funds or through additional charges to all energy consumers.

High fuel prices, uncertainties about future price developments and changes in the spread between electricity and gas prices are the most commonly identified barriers to CHP. The reports also highlight uncertainties about the demand for heat, in particular in countries with warm climates. Several Member States now identify the lack of infrastructure, in particular the lack of a natural gas network, as a significant barrier to the development of CHP.

Figures for electricity production from CHP for 20 Member States for 2009 show that electricity production was almost at the same level as in 2007. For a smaller sub-set of Member States production figures for 2010 indicate a small growth of around 5% since 2007. The figures suggest that measures have not yet been successful in achieving the goals of the CHP Directive.

The Energy Efficiency Directive should provide a more integrated framework for reporting measures related to the CHP Directive. The reporting framework should make the contribution of savings associated with CHP-related measures to total national energy savings in each Member State more transparent. The Directive should also facilitate a more comprehensive mechanism for monitoring and reporting on progress to improve the efficiency of energy supply.

3 Improving energy efficiency in end-use consumption

3.1 Overall coverage of sectors

The buildings sector remains a priority in the second EEAPs. Actions on space heating, cooling and domestic hot water represent the highest share of energy savings reported with bottom-up methods in most of the EEAPs. Many Member States still focus their efforts on existing residential buildings (as it holds the largest potential), and almost all the EEAPs reported measures whose combination covers new and existing buildings on the one hand, and residential and tertiary buildings on the other hand. For new buildings, Member States focused mainly on standards and regulations together with incentives or demonstration projects for highly efficient buildings (low, passive or nearly zero-energy). The EPBD is a key driver, but its implementation varies according to the national context and background confirming that there is no “one size fits all” package of measures. In particular, while a majority of EEAPs includes packages of measures mainly focused on the building owners or occupants, some EEAPs presented promising comprehensive strategies to stimulate the offer of energy efficiency actions or services, and/or to raise the interest or involvement of the construction companies in energy efficiency practices and markets.

Less than half of the second EEAPs include specific objectives for energy efficiency in buildings (either for the whole stock or for existing buildings), mainly for 2016 or 2020. These objectives are expressed in terms of reduction in energy consumption (percentage, absolute figure or level of specific energy consumption in kWh/m²/a) or in terms of refurbishment target: number of buildings (Bulgaria, Czech Republic), building areas (Slovenia) or share of the stock. Some Member States have set a combination of objectives. As regards highly efficient new buildings, most of the Member States mentioned the objective set in the EPBD recast (nearly zero energy buildings by 2020), but few of them stated clear timelines or commitment.

According to governance structure, measures may be implemented at the national, regional or local level. For example, Austria presented measures reported by its federal states[17], while Spain mentioned the differences in implementing building regulations among the Autonomous Communities. Some countries have investigated the relevance of local approaches in order to encourage comprehensive renovations (e.g., Community Energy Savings Programme in the UK, Block by Block approach in the Netherlands or Arbed in Wales in the UK). These measures are recent, therefore the relevant second EEAPs do not report on results of these efforts.

Meanwhile, many Member States have highlighted the role of local authorities or bodies through different activities: local energy advice centres (e.g., Austria, Slovenia), regional or local energy planning or action plans (e.g. Estonia, Finland, France, Greece), promotion of the Covenant of Mayors (e.g., Italy, Malta) or the European Energy Awards (e.g., France, Luxembourg). While these activities have a wider scope, energy efficiency in buildings is often one of their priority fields of action. Initiatives at local level may favour integrated approaches, in which energy efficiency in buildings is only one of the criteria addressed, such as in the case of sustainable neighbourhoods or cities (Belgium, Italy, Sweden). This kind of integration can also be encouraged through planning requirements (e.g. France, Ireland and Slovenia). At the same time related descriptions mostly include general principles and no results have been presented.

The effects of the on-going financial crisis have influenced energy trends in industry since 2008. Recorded energy savings are lower than expected in a number of Member States as some of the more energy-intensive sectors in particular experience a fall in output. Financial instruments that provide grants, subsidies or loans for investment in energy efficiency are the most common type of measure recorded in the second EEAPs. Voluntary agreements in manufacturing continue to be an important means of encouraging companies to undertake long-term energy management programmes. Voluntary agreement schemes often complement other measures, whereby participant companies can qualify for investment subsidies or energy tax exemptions. The second round of EEAPs indicates that new voluntary agreements are planned in a number of Member States, while in some others progress in developing previously planned schemes is not evident. An interesting development is the introduction in a number of newer Member States of mandatory energy audits for companies with energy consumption above defined threshold levels. Although many Member States have energy efficiency measures that target enterprises of all sizes, fewer than half of the second EEAPs provide details on programmes that are tailored specifically for SMEs. Despite the fact that most of the energy consumption in the sector is accounted for by EU ETS participant installations and thereby outside the scope of the ESD, it is anticipated that industry will make a significant contribution to overall savings in 2016.

A group of Member States report on measures targeting modal shift in transport in their second EEAP. However, the number of action plans with a clear and consistent strategy towards more environmentally friendly and energy saving modes of transport remains modest. This is in contrast with the fact that some Member States expect a large proportion of their energy savings by 2016 to stem from the transport sector. Individual measures reported include support for public transport, fuel efficiency standards, eco-driving, electric vehicles, tax incentives in freight transport and in passenger vehicles, and spatial planning regulations.

The agriculture sector was characterized by the least number of reported measures and achieved and expected savings. The majority of reported activities are of financial nature complemented by information and advice, voluntary type activities, and research and development programs. Investment support (e.g. grants, subsidies, loans) is mainly provided to accelerate the introduction of efficient energy systems in greenhouses, stock farms, grain silos. Innovation programs and demonstration schemes focus on energy-efficient processes and technologies.

Apart from sector specific action, Member States also reported on horizontal measures in their second EEAP. The number of energy supplier savings obligations (EEOs) and white certificate schemes increased compared to the first ESD reporting period. A group of Member States reported on regulatory provisions in place to support the expansion of the energy services market, while others highlighted barriers to the operation of ESCOs. These included legal barriers, low consumer awareness, lack of interest by energy supply companies and lack of positive examples. Most Member States reported on energy and energy efficiency related research and research funding in their second EEAP. Related activities included the establishment of technology centres, research laboratories and programmes to enhance competitiveness, as well as research activities in connection to determining objectives for nearly zero energy buildings.

While reporting on the exemplary role of the public sector was fulfilled to varying extents by the Member States, several good practices emerged. These included the setting of quantified energy saving targets in the public sector, as well as the implementation of energy management systems and voluntary agreements for energy savings at local authorities. However, these positive examples are rather the exception. The report of only half of the Member States suggested the fulfilment of the requirement of choosing two of the six proposed procurement measures in Annex VI of the ESD. While some Member States went beyond minimum requirements and reported on steps undertaken on implementing more than the requested two measures, problems with compliance were detected in the case of a relatively larger group of Member States.

The provision of information and advice was addressed by most of the Member States in their second EEAP. Some presented a strong set of diverse information measures, often designed to complement other types of actions. This practice reflects that information provision forms and integral part of energy efficiency policy. The provision of individualized advice through free energy hotlines, comprehensive advice prior to the implementation of specific measures, and information on related subsidies has also been reported by a group of Member States. The second EEAPs also reflected the importance of energy agencies and other designated organisations as key facilitators of information provision. As for measures to improve metering and billing of individual energy consumption, a third of the Member States reported on the operation of smart meters, the planned large-scale rollout of smart meters or the pilot phase of smart metering.

An overview of total intermediate energy savings by economic sector is presented in Error! Reference source not found.10 with the forecast for 2016 in Error! Reference source not found.11.