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 market
Date: 2014-01-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU statistics, building insulation, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy production, energy saving, energy use














EUR-Lex - 52013SC0541 - EN











|



52013SC0541

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 market /* SWD/2012/0541 final */









 || 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.
Residential and services sectors combined account for most of the reported
savings. As many Member States attribute these savings to the built environment
in general, it is difficult to separate overall savings in residential from
those in services. However, from the figures of Member States that do separate
the sectors, it is apparent that savings in residential account for over 80% of
these combined savings. Many Member States do not quantify the savings
associated with measures in the public sector. Therefore, it is not possible to
estimate their share of total savings. Some Member States did not include
savings figures associated with horizontal measures in their declared savings
due to the difficulties in quantifying them. For Member States that have
provided sector-level savings projections for 2016, increases in the shares of
savings accounted for by the industry and transport sectors are apparent. The
increasing share of industry savings in 2016 is explained by the lower than
anticipated savings recorded for 2010 arising from recessionary effects. An
increasing share of transport savings in 2016 can be attributed in part to
voluntary agreements among car manufacturers and the inclusion in some of the
forecast figures of the effects of the EU regulation governing the CO2
emissions performance standards for new passenger cars[18].
Figure 10 Achieved intermediate savings by
sector
Figure 11 Forecast savings for 2016 by
sector
3.2         Buildings
Buildings account for about 40% of the
final energy consumption in the EU, mostly for space heating, cooling and
domestic hot water. They are therefore a priority target for all the Member
States, as they also hold the largest share of the energy savings potential in
the European Union on the medium and long term (2020 and beyond)[19]. They represent a very high share of the energy savings reported with
bottom-up methods (e.g., 58% for Italy, 63% for Ireland, 71% for Slovenia and
77% for Austria)[20].
Almost all Member States reported on energy
savings related to buildings, using either bottom-up or top-down evaluation
methods. However, it is sometimes difficult to know the coverage of these
results (all buildings or only residential buildings, all end-uses or only
heating and cooling). Moreover, due to the diversity of methods and assumptions
used, these results cannot be compared nor summed up. Therefore, it is not
possible to use directly the figures presented in the EEAPs to assess the
energy savings achieved (in 2010) or expected (in 2016) at European level. 
Energy savings calculated bottom-up are
mostly based on estimates with different levels of reliability ranging from
rough estimates to detailed modelling. Very few Member States mentioned results
from ex-post evaluations or measurements. Likewise, almost none of the second EEAPs
include any detailed experience feedback, cost-benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness
indicators (only Spain presents a detailed cost/benefit analysis, which is
mostly prospective). In particular, non-energy benefits are seldom mentioned,
although they are often the key to involving decision-makers (e.g. through
employment co-benefits[21]) and building occupants (e.g. through comfort and health related
co-benefits). 
A minority of the second EEAPs include
details about concrete results in terms of number of buildings renovated and/or
level of energy performance reached. Examples of good practice include the
annual market surveys done with the covenants for buildings in the Netherlands
(including number and types of measures implemented according to building type,
based on a random sample of 70 000 residents) and the recent national
energy efficiency data-framework in the UK.
Fourteen Member States presented packages
of measures mainly consisting of incentives and information measures, focusing
on building owners or occupants[22]. Some Member States have developed more comprehensive strategies[23], including measures to stimulate the offer of energy efficiency
initiatives or services (e.g. Germany), and/or to raise the interest or
involvement of construction companies in energy efficiency practices.
Nevertheless, this is essential to meet two key challenges: Changing the pace
of the energy efficient renovation rate (which requires making the integration
of energy efficiency in refurbishment works common practice); and developing
and disseminating innovations to meet the upcoming nearly zero-energy buildings
standards.
Almost all Member States have put the
priority on the housing stock (whether explicitly or de facto), except
for Spain where the importance of cooling in tertiary buildings explains a
larger share of savings in this sector. In eastern European Member States the
focus has been mainly on multi-apartment or “block” buildings (in Bulgaria, the
Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania). 
3.2.1      Existing
buildings
Regarding existing buildings, in most
Member States there is still a significant gap between potentials (or
expectations for 2016/2020) and current achievements. Many EEAPs include recent
or upcoming measures to support more ambitious renovation programmes. Several EEAPs
mention an increased effort towards energy efficient renovations within
national recovery plans (e.g. Austria and France). The German KfW programme
stands out as one of the most successful measures for building renovations[24], which will be accompanied by a long term renovation roadmap targeting
nearly zero-energy building standards for renovation by 2050. A good example of
using monitoring feedback is the standardisation of official guidance on
renovations based on the analysis of about 150 cases combined with a Renovation
Advice Network in Finland.
Several Member States are debating the
relevance of strengthening incentives and other support measures with binding
provisions. Some EEAPs include or consider the use of such obligatory measures,
in particular for non-domestic buildings[25] and for heating systems[26]. Moreover, the UK states in its second EEAP that private landlords
may be required from 2016 to implement reasonable energy efficiency
improvements requested by tenants. From 2018 the least-efficient properties
should be improved, provided there are no net negative costs to landlords. This
appears to be the most ambitious measure in this direction. Representing an
opposing view, in its second EEAP Germany explicitly rejects the possibility of
compulsory renovations.
In addition to the energy dimension of
renovating the existing building stock, the current economic crisis and
increasing energy prices highlights the issue of fuel poverty. Nine EEAPs
comprise measures for existing buildings including social considerations
(Greece, Hungary, Latvia and Slovenia) or explicitly targeting low income
households (Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland and Luxembourg). Moreover, most
of the eastern European Member States present measures dedicated to the upgrade
of their stock of multi-family or “block” buildings (Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia), which can be considered implicitly as
measures with a social focus. Three EEAPs present a specific strategy to
alleviate fuel poverty (France, Ireland and the UK).
3.2.2      New
buildings
The main measure addressing new buildings
is the building code, with the pace of strengthening the requirements differing
per Member State. Most Member States refer to the objective of nearly
zero-energy buildings by 2020. Germany, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Malta,
the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK report on recent or upcoming tightening of
building requirements by 20% or more, often planning further additional
upgrades. Some recent or upcoming building requirements are already equivalent
to low energy buildings (France, Ireland and Italy).
However, setting building requirements does
not necessarily deliver the expected energy savings. In this context, it has to
be noted that the majority of the second EEAPs do not address the key issue of
compliance. This is especially relevant in Member States where building codes
are assumed to have brought a very large share of the energy savings achieved
so far (e.g. 76% of the bottom-up savings for Lithuania). Two EEAPs (Cyprus and
the Netherlands) have taken into account a time lag in the implementation of
new requirements when calculating related savings, and Luxembourg applied a
default 15% non-compliance rate. Measures aimed at improving compliance include
providing specific information or training to architects or building engineers
(Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg and Malta), and to building companies and private
households (Denmark); reinforcing the certification or control of the buildings
(Estonia, Finland and France); or using the energy performance certificates
(Portugal, Spain and Sweden). Slovakia conducted a review of compliance with
the specific requirements for hydraulic balancing and insulation of hot water
distribution systems, showing an increased compliance rate of 80% in 2010 (vs.
60% in 2004). The Dutch government signed an agreement with market participants
(so-called 'Lente Akkoord 2008') to support the tightening of the building
requirements, including a knowledge-transfer and promotion programme run by
trade organisations.
3.2.3      Public
buildings
The scope of measures for public buildings
varies substantially between Member States, ranging from central government
buildings only to all publicly-owned buildings and all buildings used for
public purposes. Nine Member States have defined clear objectives for energy
efficiency improvements in public buildings[27]. The building types most commonly covered include administration
buildings and offices, school and education buildings, and hospitals and
healthcare centres. Some Member States introduced measures specific to a given
type of public building, for example the program for improving energy
efficiency in buildings of cultural and historical importance in Sweden.
Measures targeting specific public building types could be a special topic for
experience sharing at European level (e.g. in the Concerted Action[28]).
As regards building requirements, only six
of the second EEAPs included clear stricter provisions for public buildings[29]. Many EEAPs announce demonstration projects for very efficient
buildings, especially for public buildings to meet the 2018 deadline for nearly
zero-energy buildings (Belgium/Flanders, Bulgaria, Italy, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). It should be noted that the German EEAP
mentions that the Federal Government will construct new buildings to the nearly
zero-energy standard from 2012 onwards.
As regards energy audits and energy
management, eight EEAPs include information about energy audits for public
buildings in compliance with the provisions of ESD Annex VI (Bulgaria, Denmark,
Finland, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta), four of which have given
details about achievements in this field (Bulgaria, Finland, France and Malta).
Eleven Member States presented measures to promote energy management (Austria,
Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Spain, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovenia
and the UK). Many of the second EEAPs emphasised measures targeting local
authorities including mandatory preparation of energy efficiency improvement
plans (Bulgaria and Romania), mandatory implementation of actions recommended
by energy efficiency labelling with payback periods of up to five years
(Denmark), promotion of the European Energy Award
approach (France and Luxembourg), and training for
energy managers in municipalities (Spain and Slovakia).
The diverse level of detail used to present
measures and the lack of comparable results makes it difficult to identify good
practices or promising measures in the public buildings sector. Nevertheless,
the following measures should be highlighted. Austria runs an extensive nation-wide renovation program for public buildings, using
energy performance contracting. Bulgaria assigned individual energy savings
targets to the owners of public and municipal buildings with a total floor area
of over 1,000 m². Italy presented budget commitments to fund energy efficiency
improvements in many central and local public administrations/ buildings.
Ireland has implemented basic energy audits and an intensive staff energy
awareness campaign combined with a review of building operation, achieving on
average about 12% reduction in CO2 emissions[30]. Sweden proposed state aid for strategic work on improving energy
efficiency in municipalities. Likewise, Malta provided local councils with
grants of 80% up to 10,000 EUR for investment in energy savings. Denmark
established voluntary agreements on energy saving activities with local
authorities and regions. France obliges urban areas with over 50,000
inhabitants to prepare a local climate action plan. Furthermore, Austria
mentioned several programmes to support local
authorities[31].
3.2.4      Role
of the EPBD
Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy
performance of buildings (EPBD and its predecessor (Directive 2002/91/EC) is
the main driver for energy efficiency policies on buildings. Most Member States
referred to the EPBD as providing either the general framework or key
requirements to be met, while the implementation varies according to the
national context.  Key EPBD provisions include Article 9 on objectives for nearly
zero energy buildings (nZEB), Articles 11, 12 and 13 on energy performance
certificates, Articles 14 and 15 on the inspection of boilers and air
conditioning systems and Article 10(2) on the requirement to draw up a list of
proposed measures and instruments including those of financial nature. 
Twelve of the second EEAPs mention
explicitly the nZEB objectives. However, the details provided show that most
Member States are at an early (or even very early) stage towards defining
specifications, timelines and strategy. The most detailed strategy is presented
by the Netherlands, which is also one of the only EEAPs to mention the
importance of occupants’ behaviour for very low-energy buildings. Moreover,
Ireland plans to implement nZEB requirements in 2016. The most concrete
measures or commitments concern the planning of demonstration projects (Czech
Republic, Estonia) and/or providing incentives for low or passive energy
buildings (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Sweden,
Slovenia and Spain,). A few Member States mentioned objectives that may go
beyond nZEB requirements: zero energy buildings (the Netherlands), positive
energy buildings (Denmark and France), climate neutral new buildings (Germany)
and the zero carbon standard (the UK). Many EEAPs highlight the importance of
R&D programmes and innovation strategies to support the challenges of
meeting the nZEB objectives (e.g. EUDP in Denmark, Energy Leap in the
Netherlands and CERBOF in Sweden), or to support the dissemination of good
practices for renovations (e.g. in Estonia).
Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) have
to be applied by all Member States. However, their implementation and use vary
substantially from one Member State to another. In many EEAPs they are
presented mostly as an information tool and it is not always clear to what
extent they include recommendations. Eleven Member States have shown good
practices through a more strategic use of EPCs, mainly as a reference for other
measures (e.g. criteria for incentives in France, Greece, Malta, the
Netherlands, Spain and the UK), for monitoring the building market (Germany) or
energy savings (Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia), or combined with a web-portal to
support the implementation of the recommendations (Sweden).
The inspection of heating and air
conditioning systems is reported in seventeen EEAPs. Most of the Member States
have given explanations about implementation, especially when choosing
alternative measures to the inspections of EPBD Articles 14 and 15 (e.g.
Estonia and Sweden). However, few Member States presented results or
achievements related to these measures[32]. Eighteen Member States have used their second EEAP for reporting
on Article 10(2) of the recast EPBD (list of existing and proposed measures and
instruments promoting the EPBD objectives), either by including notifications
in the EEAP itself or by adding a separate document.
3.2.5      Skills
in the building sector
The results expected for 2016 represent a
significant change of scale compared to the achievements reported for 2010 in
most of the second EEAPs. This implies, amongst others, a significant increase
in the workforce needed, and/or changes in the current practices of
professionals, to implement energy efficient renovation and construction works.
Key challenges in this context are the dissemination of specific good practices
in different building trades (e.g. carpenters, bricklayer, plumbers,
electricians, etc.) and the improvement of the coordination between these
professions.
Thirteen EEAPs report on training activities
for building professionals (including the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, the
Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden), seven of whom give concrete outputs or
implementation details (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland,
Luxembourg) [33]. Training
activities are more often mentioned for experts (as regards EPCs, inspections
or energy audits) and to a lesser extent for architects and building engineers
(as regards the enforcement of building codes), and for energy managers and
energy services companies. These activities are sometimes included in a more
global strategy to involve the construction industry in energy efficiency
policies.
Table 8  Measures in existing buildings and public
buildings reported in the second EEAP
   || Existing buildings || Public buildings 
 Member State || Comprehensive strategies for refurbishment markets 1 || Extensive building renovation programmes 2 || Fuel poverty criteria integrated 3 || Measures for existing public buildings 4 || Energy audits/management in public buildings 5 
 AT ||   || x ||   || x* || x 
 BE || x* ||   || x || x || x 
 BG ||   || x || x || x || x 
 CY ||   ||   ||   ||   || x 
 CZ ||   || x ||   ||   ||   
 DK || x* ||   ||   || x* || x* 
 EE || x || x ||   || x* ||   
 FI || x ||   || x || x* || x* 
 FR || x* || x || x* || x* || x* 
 DE || x* || x* ||   || x* || x* 
 EL || x || x || x || x || x 
 HU || x || x || x || x ||   
 IE ||   || x || x || x || x* 
 IT ||   ||   ||   || x* || x* 
 LV ||   ||   || x || x* || x 
 LT ||   || x || x || x || x 
 LU || x* ||   || x || x ||   
 MT ||   ||   ||   || x || x 
 PL || x || x ||   || x* || x 
 PT ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 RO ||   || x || x || x || x 
 SK ||   || x || x || x* ||   
 SI ||   || x || x || x* || x 
 ES ||   || x ||   || x || x 
 SE || x* ||   ||   || x ||   
 NL || x* || x || x ||   ||   
 UK ||   || x || x* || x* || x* 
1 – x: Comprehensive strategies (targeting
on the one hand building owners, on the other hand construction companies and
the providers of energy efficiency services), but not yet implemented. 
x*: Comprehensive strategies implemented.
2 – x: Measures aiming at deep
refurbishments. x*: First results or experience feedback reported.
3 – x: Mentioned. x*: Specific objectives /
results are included.
4 – x: Mentioned. x*: Implementation
details and / or quantitative objectives with clear commitment and / or results
achieved are presented.
5 – x: Implementation details presented.
x*: The measure covers central and local authority buildings and /or results
presented and / or promising approach.
Table 9  Measures in new buildings and EPBD
implementation reported in the second EEAP
 Member State || Significant strengthening of building codes 1 || Financial support for passive or low-energy houses 2 || Use of EPC (Energy Performance Certificates) 3 || nZEB target/strategy 4 || Measures for the inspection of boilers and air conditioning systems 5 || Separate listing for Article 10 EPBD   6 
 AT ||   || x ||   ||   ||   ||   
 BE || x || x || x ||   || x || x 
 BG ||   ||   ||   || x || x ||   
 CY ||   ||   || x || x || x ||   
 CZ ||   || x || x || x* || x ||   
 DK || x* ||   || x* || x* ||   || x 
 EE || x || x || x || x || x || x 
 FI || x ||   || x || x || x || x 
 FR || x* || x* || x* ||   || x || x 
 DE || x* || x* || x ||   ||   || x 
 GR || x ||   || x* ||   || x || x 
 HU ||   ||   || x ||   ||   || x 
 IE || x* ||   || x* || x ||   ||   
 IT || x || x || x || x || x* || x 
 LV ||   ||   || x || x || x || x 
 LT ||   ||   || x* ||   || x || x 
 LU || x || x || x* ||   ||   || x 
 MT || x ||   || x* || x ||   || x 
 PL ||   ||   || x ||   ||   || x 
 PT ||   ||   || x ||   ||   ||   
 RO ||   ||   ||   ||   || x || x 
 SK ||   ||   || x* ||   || x || x 
 SI ||   || x ||   ||   || x* ||   
 ES ||   || x || x* || x || x ||   
 SE || x || x* || x* ||   || x* || x 
 NL || x* ||   || x* || x* || x || x 
 UK || x* ||   || x* ||   ||   ||   
 
1 – x: Mentioned with a recent or upcoming
strengthening with of at least 20%. x*: Low or passive energy or similar
requirements.
2 – x: Mentioned. x*: Objectives / results
are included.
3 - x: EPC mentioned and required (mainly
used as an information tool). x*: Links between EPC and other measures and / or
special provisions about the actions recommended in EPC.    
4 – x: Mentioned with at least a few
details about current situation. x*: Clear deadlines and implementation
details.
5 – x: Mentioned. x*: Objectives / results
are included. 
6 – x: Integrated within the second EEAP or
provided as a separate document. 
3.3         Industry
The economic recession has had a significant
impact on energy consumption in the sector since the publication of the first
set of EEAPs. Energy savings have also been affected as many energy-intensive
plants operate at lower capacity due to a fall-off in demand. The contribution
of industry to ESD savings is lower than expected in many Member States with
industry savings making up around 7% of total declared intermediate savings. A
number of Member States using top-down methods to quantify declared savings
have recorded negative savings, or energy losses, in some industry sub-sectors.
These include Bulgaria Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain. The losses can be
explained by reduced manufacturing output and consequent reduced capacity and
increases in specific energy consumption. While not directly related to energy
efficiency improvement measures, the impact of structural changes on energy
consumption patterns in the sector was highlighted by Poland and Spain. Much of
the structural change may be accounted for by the recession as the share of
total industry value-added and energy consumption attributed to some
energy-intensive sectors reduces. Only some of the energy savings activities of
the sector are within the scope of the ESD as the Directive does not apply to
participants in the EU Emissions Trading System. Typically Member States have
applied a factor, representing estimated non-EU ETS companies' share of total
energy consumption of the sector, to total industry energy savings to determine
ESD-relevant savings figures. Forecast figures for 2016 indicate that Member
States expect an accelerated rate of energy savings in the sector in the next
few years.
Financial measures in the form of
subsidies, loans or tax benefits remain the most prevalent type of measure to
encourage energy efficiency in industry. Most Member States provide grants or
loans for investment in energy efficient equipment or for one-off retrofit
projects. Beneficial taxation conditions for the purchase of energy efficient
equipment are common to a number of EEAPs. In Italy a tax incentive equivalent
to 20% of the cost of high-efficiency electric motors and inverters had been
available up to 2010. In France, Ireland and the UK the tax benefit is in the
form of an enhanced capital allowance, whereby purchasers of listed equipment
can write off the full cost of their purchases in the first year of ownership
rather than over several years. Similarly, in the Netherlands deductions from
taxable profit are possible for equipment purchased from an approved list. 
Several Member States recognise industry
voluntary agreements on energy efficiency as a most effective means of
encouraging greater energy efficiency in manufacturing. Companies signing up to
voluntary agreements commit to accelerating energy savings actions within their
manufacturing operations in order to reduce energy costs and increase
competitiveness. Participants are encouraged to employ a structured approach to
energy management. Often voluntary programmes are associated with state-aided
support schemes or tax exemptions to incentivise active participation. In
Sweden, participants receive an exemption from energy tax on electricity in
return for implementing identified actions that have a return on investment of
three years or less. In the UK, participant companies can get a rebate on their
climate change levy in return for adopting agreed energy efficiency targets.
The Swedish system promotes the establishment of networks of companies with
similar manufacturing processes. Such networks can increase know-how with
respect to energy efficiency actions that are tailored for processes relevant
to each network. An important element of the Irish scheme is information
exchange, where the experiences of some participants in pursuing exemplar
projects are shared with the others. Typically, participants are required to
report regularly on activities undertaken and savings achieved in the form of
an annual report. Finland employs a web-based system for reporting purposes. In
Luxembourg a self-regulation approach is used whereby the Luxembourg business
federation monitors targets and publishes results. 
In some of the newer Member States new
voluntary agreement schemes have been introduced or are planned. A new
voluntary agreement scheme in industry has been introduced in Latvia. A start
date of 2011 is given for a voluntary agreements programme for industry in the
Czech Republic. In Lithuania, a programme is planned for 2012. However, a
voluntary agreements programme proposed for Poland in the first EEAP is not
mentioned in the second plan. In Romania, a pilot voluntary agreements project
has been initiated with support from the Netherlands, but a lack of resources
has hampered a roll-out to the wider industry sector. Progress on a planned
voluntary agreements measure in Hungary, introduced in the first action plan,
is unclear from the latest report.
It can be difficult for manufacturing
companies actively pursuing energy efficiency opportunities to assess their
performance in relation to organisations undertaking similar activities.
Benchmarking provides a means of comparing energy use to that of similar
manufacturing sites and can motivate organisations to achieve greater energy
efficiency improvement. In the Flanders region of Belgium, companies involved
in a benchmark covenant must allow external consultants to assess the extent to
which specific energy consumption values in their processes achieve world
benchmark levels and must put in place a plan that enables them to reach these
benchmarks. Benchmarking is also a key component of the long-term agreements
programme in The Netherlands where participating companies with energy
consumption greater than 0.5 PJ (12 ktoe) per annum must compare themselves
with best international benchmarks that are redefined every four years.  
An energy management system provides a
structured approach to controlling and reducing energy use and improving energy
efficiency in an organisation. Implementing an energy management system shows a
serious long-term commitment to reducing energy use. In many Member States, energy
management systems are promoted through their voluntary agreements programmes.
For some programmes, implementing an energy management system is a prerequisite
for participation in a voluntary agreement scheme. Germany cites examples of
manufacturing companies that have made considerable energy savings as a result
of implementing energy management systems and that received recognition with
the national energy agency's Energy Efficiency Award. In Romania, each site
consuming more than 1 ktoe of energy annually is legally required to implement
energy management incorporating an annual energy audit, appointment of an
energy manager and development of a programme of energy efficiency improvement.
Since the first EEAPs were published, much has happened in the area of
standardisation of energy management systems. EN16001, the European standard
for energy management systems, was introduced in 2009. Since then, the
International Organisation for Standardisation has published ISO50001, a new
international standard for energy management systems. Consequently EN 16001
will be withdrawn in 2012. Ireland sets as one of its goals the intensification
of participation of large industry in the new ISO standard. Italy also plans to
promote the new standard through information measures and training of energy
managers. A measure planned for 2012 in Slovenia promotes the adoption of the
international standard and offers financial incentives to companies
implementing energy management systems.
An energy audit is a study of energy
consumption in an organisation. An audit, typically carried out by a qualified
specialist, identifies the main consumers of energy in a company and determines
the most significant and cost-effective opportunities for energy saving. In
Austria energy audits are supported at national and federal state level. Also
in Austria energy efficiency vouchers are provided to SMEs to cover up to 90%
of the cost of energy audits.
Finland has an energy audit scheme in
addition to its voluntary agreements programme but up to 90% of audits
conducted as part of the scheme are related to energy agreements activities. In
a number of cases, a precondition for support is that the specialist conducting
the audit must hold relevant qualifications. In Finland experienced auditors
must undergo training with the national energy agency. In some Member States
new legal requirements to undertake energy audits have been imposed. In
Romania, energy audits must be undertaken every 2 years by companies consuming
between 0.2 ktoe and 1 ktoe annually. In Bulgaria, companies consuming more
than 3,000 MWh (0.26 ktoe) per year must carry out energy audits at least every
3 years and implement measures identified in the audits. In the Czech Republic,
energy audits have been mandatory since 2001 for all private organisations with
annual energy consumption greater than 35,000 GJ (0.86 ktoe), while the Energy
Efficiency Act in Slovakia establishes compulsory energy audits for industrial
sites.
The ESD foresees that Member States provide
energy audit schemes that are designed to identify potential energy efficiency
improvements to smaller energy users including small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs). Dedicated audit programmes and other schemes that are
tailored to SMEs' needs can provide support that is more suited to the energy
efficiency opportunities that exist in smaller companies. Such programmes
provide assistance to smaller companies that don't have the resources to
implement full energy management systems that are typically a precondition to
participation in a voluntary agreements programme. Dedicated SME programmes may
be in the form of information, support for energy audits, or grants or loans
for energy efficiency investments. In The Netherlands a dedicated Energy Centre
for SMEs that provides advice on energy efficiency measures has been in place
for several years. Sweden provides support through the publication of an energy
efficiency handbook for SMEs. A significant barrier to investment in energy
efficiency among SMEs is the lack of access to finance. To overcome this
barrier in the UK, a scheme, which is now finished, provided interest-free
loans to SMEs for energy efficiency investments. Although several Member States
do not provide details of programmes dedicated exclusively to SMEs, some
broader industry programmes incorporate support for SMEs as well as for larger
organisations. For instance, Finland declares that one third of the aid granted
under its energy audits programme was made available to medium-sized
enterprises. In Malta it is planned to adjust downwards the minimum spend
threshold for qualification of an existing enterprise energy grant scheme in
order to provide support to SMEs.
In some Member States where energy supplier
obligation schemes exist, specific energy efficiency actions in industry are
promoted through the schemes. In Italy the white certificates scheme is used to
promote the replacement of old electric motors and the installation of
high-efficiency co-generation plants in industrial facilities, while the French
scheme encourages the development of energy performance contracting in
industry. 
Table 10  Measures in industry reported in the
second EEAP
 Member State   || Voluntary agreements || Energy audit schemes || Promotion of energy management systems and standards || Programmes tailored for SMEs 
 AT ||   || x ||   || x 
 BE || x ||   ||   ||   
 BG || x || x || x ||   
 CY ||   ||   ||   ||   
 CZ || x || x ||   ||   
 DK ||   ||   ||   ||   
 EE ||   ||   ||   ||   
 FI || x || x ||   ||   
 FR ||   ||   ||   ||   
 DE || x ||   || x || x 
 GR ||   ||   ||   ||   
 HU ||   ||   ||   ||   
 IE || x || x || x || x 
 IT ||   || x || x || x 
 LT || x || x ||   ||   
 LV || x ||   ||   || x 
 LU || x ||   ||   ||   
 MT ||   || x ||   || x 
 NL || x ||   ||   || x 
 PL ||   || x ||   || x 
 PT || x ||   ||   ||   
 RO || x || x || x ||   
 SK ||   || x ||   ||   
 SI ||   ||   || x ||   
 ES ||   || x || x ||   
 SE || x || x ||   || x 
 UK || x ||   ||   ||   
 
3.4         Transport
Transport
accounts today for over 30% of final energy consumption in the EU. In a context
of growing demand for transport, final energy consumption by transport is
projected to increase by 5% by 2030 rising further marginally by 2050.
Transport growth is driven mainly by aviation and road freight transport.
According to business as usual scenario of the Energy Roadmap 2050[34], the EU transport
system would remain extremely dependent on the use of fossil fuels. Oil
products would still represent 88% of EU transport sector needs in 2030 and
2050.
Even though, more Member States report on
measures targeting modal shifts in their second EEAP, the number of action
plans with a clear and consistent strategy towards more environmentally
friendly and energy saving modes of transport remains modest.
Promising examples of inter-modal transport
initiatives with clear targets and/ or funding commitments feature in the
second EEAP of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden and the UK.
The annual programme of the Austrian
Climate and Energy Fund includes measures to enhance the attractiveness and
efficiency of the intermodal interface – bicycle traffic/ public passenger
transport, investment subsidies for new construction, extension or upgrading of
existing connection lines and multi-modal transport systems.
The French National transport
infrastructure scheme sets State guidelines on network improvement and provides
financial support to shift towards most environment-friendly modes of
transport. The National rail freight commitment sets the objective to enable
more than 500,000 lorries a year to be transferred to rail by 2020. Financial
support for combined transport is provided to compensate for additional costs
linked to trans-shipment.
Sweden aims to make optimal use of
different modes of transport by means of logistical solutions and strategically
located trans-shipment terminals with suitable support infrastructure. Good
examples are showcased.
The Belgian Federal second EEAP foresees
tax-related measures to promoting combined goods transport by rail by
stimulating new international connections. Germany, Hungary and Slovenia
introduced road toll systems for heavy commercial
vehicles, whereby tolls are calculated according to emission classes. Slovakia provides subsidies to transfer freight from road to
railways. The UK Government confirmed a budget of £20m for 2011/12 and £19m for
2012/13 to support the transfer of freight from road to rail and water, through
the provision of mode shift grants. Spain aims to double the share of rail
travel of passengers and goods by 2020. 
Generally, a broad variety of different
types of measures to promote environmentally friendly and sustainable transport
development can be identified in the second EEAPs both in terms of numbers and
types of applied activities. The quality and level of detail provided varies to
a huge margin between Member States. Some measures appear aspirational and it
is not always clear whether they will lead to concrete actions and energy
savings.
As in the first reporting phase,
technological measures in combination with minimum energy efficiency
requirements and labelling schemes, subsidies and fiscal incentives to promote
vehicles with fuel-efficient consumption and low-emissions as well as to
enhance the attractiveness of public transport are common types of activities
in transport.
Comprehensive strategies and packages in
transport including sets of complementing instruments (regulatory, financial
and fiscal interventions, information and training, infrastructure) targeting
vehicle efficiency, modal shift towards efficient forms of transportation,
transport logistics, infrastructure and behaviour are reported by some Member
States. Promising examples of good practices in Austria, Belgium (Flanders),
Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain and the UK are presented
below.
A range of different measures were taken in
regard to transport by the Austrian Government and the federal states. These
include, inter alia: reduction of speed, 'park & ride', expansion of
public passenger transport systems, bicycle infrastructure, shifting transport
of goods, electro-mobility, 'bike & ride', car-sharing and bicycle parking
stations.
The Flemish second Energy Efficiency Action
Plan features the Flemish Mobility Plan to be revised by end of 2012. The
programme contains various innovative and complementary measures to control
mobility demand and promote modal shift: investment in dynamic transport
management, improvement of traffic flow and speed optimisation by applying a
"reduced disruption" approach, set up of e-Government Coordination
Unit to implement Information and Communication Technology (ICT) projects for
the supply of integrated public services, including call-up bus service in
rural areas, implementation of company transport plans funded via Commuting
Fund (Pendelfonds), bicycle allowance granted by an employer to its
employees, improvement of public passenger railway network, investment on main
inland waterway network and application of telematics on navigable waterways.
As part of the Danish Government’s
long-term objective for independence from fossil fuels, the strategy
Sustainable transport from 2008 includes a number of CO2 reduction
measures in form of increased public transport, a green car tax and better fuel
technologies. The strategy sets out the overall framework and principles for
the development of a green transport policy and contains a number of specific
initiatives. It is a broad agreement whose primary content is an investment
plan.
The German Federal government’s fuel
strategy of 2004 constitutes a strategic concept up to
2020 supporting market launch in Germany of alternative or renewable fuels as
well as innovative drive technologies. It also comprises the Passenger Vehicle
Energy Consumption Labelling Ordinance (Pkw-EnVKV).
Ireland introduced the Smarter Travel
Policy (Government's Sustainable Transport Policy 2009-2020). Its aim is to
reduce overall travel demand, maximise efficiency of transport networks, reduce
reliance on fossil fuels and transport emissions as well as to improve
accessibility to transport. Promising measures under this strategy are the mobility
management plans in schools, workplaces and at home. Examples are Taisce’s
Green Schools Travel programme, an initiative to deliver workplace travel plans
in Ireland’s biggest one hundred employers by the end of 2012 and pilot
exercises in personalised travel planning.
The EEAP of Lithuania presents the National
Strategy for transport and communications scheduled for 2011. The programme
incorporates organisational, legal and economic measures. The following key
activities are envisaged: upgrade vehicle fleets with 'eco-vehicles', support
for public transport, including bike sharing programmes, guidelines for
efficient car-sharing and system introduction, draft legislation for eco-taxes,
along with information campaigns promoting eco-driving.
As reported in the second action plan of Portugal,
a Strategic Transport Plan is currently being drawn up by the Government. Plans
for urban mobility in office parks and industrial parks as well as a traffic
management platform for major urban centres have already been introduced.
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans have to be prepared by all Spanish cities with more than 50,000
inhabitants and the majority of those that fall within big city category.
Measures included are the introduction of bicycle systems for public use and at
least 20,000 electric bicycles for work, the intention to increase the share of
rail travel of passengers and goods as well as of maritime transport. School
travel programmes to promote walking, cycling or public transport and Company
Transport Plans, including for centres of activity (e.g. airports, industrial
zones, education or health centres, shopping centres) are further features of the
second EEAP. In 2020, all companies with more than 100 employees should have
transport plans in place for their employees (some 15,000 companies).
The second UK EEAP presents a well-balanced
Strategy to reduce GHG emissions from transport integrated within its wider
policy context, which focuses on the decarbonisation of the economy (2008 UK
Climate Change Act). The Government's Local Transport White Paper was
published January 2011. It includes the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, which
provides £560m to support local sustainable travel measures, e.g. walking,
cycling or public transport. ICT solutions to provide fast and effective alternatives
to travel are reported to enable people to work at home, attend meetings
remotely through audio or video conferencing or to do their shopping online.
The second EEAPs of Austria, Belgium,
Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and the
UK include good integrated packages aimed at increasing the use of public
transport. The following common types of complementing support measures could
be identified in the action plans: modernisation of the public passenger
transport system, including infrastructure, vehicle fleet and services provided
(e.g. by means of enhanced spatial planning and traffic concepts, extension of
public transport routes and increased frequency of public service), 'park &
ride', 'bike & ride', congestion and parking charges, information and
awareness campaigns targeting behavioural change.
Greece commits to increase the percentage
of public transport use from present 26.6% in 2008 to 35% in 2016, Malta
targets a modal shift of 8% from use of private cars to use of public
transport. The action plans of both Member States describe comprehensive
packages of measures to implement the objectives, including infrastructure and
service improvement, parking near to bus stops and metro stations, innovative
information systems for travelling public (e.g. real time information at bus
stops and online as well as to receive full timetables for each route by SMS).
The requirement to establish business
travel plans, activity travel plans (for cultural, commercial or sports event)
and school travel plans by businesses, institutions and public administrations
to encourage the use of public transport or alternative means of transport are
reported in the second EEAPs of Belgium Federal, Greece and Portugal as well as
the second EEAP of Brussels-Capital Region. Promising instruments are free
train travel for commuting civil servants, the extension of tax deductibility
of travel-to-work costs involving travel on foot, by bicycle, by public
transport, etc., subscription to shared vehicle systems and bicycle grants.
Similar measures are implemented in France
and Slovenia: In France the employer is responsible for half of the cost of the
public transport season ticket for its employees. Slovenia provides for a
relief on registration of private vehicles and/ or on annual road tax for
vehicle users in the event of usage of a public transport ticket.
In the second EEAPs of Bulgaria, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania
and the Netherlands fragmented (mostly investment programmes for modernisation
of rolling stock, fleet replacement and infrastructure improvements), vaguely
described, just planned or no measures at all could be identified. 
Spatial planning provisions are included in
the second EEAPs of Austria, Brussels-Capital Region, Estonia, Finland, France,
Hungary, Ireland and Sweden. They range from comprehensive strategies, such as mandatory
Urban Travel Schemes in France for urban transport areas of more than 100,000
inhabitants setting out principles for organising transport of persons and
goods, traffic flow and parking, to single measures. Examples are the
establishment of low traffic or low emission zones (e.g. Brussels-Capital
Region, Hungary) and the creation of special lanes for public transport (e.g.
Brussels-Capital Region).
Mobility management and traffic demand
management initiatives to introducing intelligent transport systems and
telematics form part of the action plans of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.
Eco-driving measures, in various forms,
have been identified in the second EEAPs of Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, the Netherlands Poland,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. They range from information
campaigns to raise awareness, increase motivation and target behaviour change
towards economical ways of driving, training and feedback for smart and
fuel-efficient driving for private and professional drivers, to introducing
eco-driving as mandatory part of driving tests (e.g. Finland, Greece,
Lithuania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden).
Tax incentives/disincentives for passenger
and freight vehicles are included in the second EEAPs of Belgium, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the
Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and UK. Support
schemes and funding provisions for electric vehicles and the necessary
supporting infrastructure form part of the action plans of Belgium, Cyprus,
Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the
UK.
The following Member States report on
Voluntary Agreements (VAs), e.g. on car manufacturers' commitment to reducing
CO2 emissions covering the transport sector: Czech Republic,
Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. 
Table 11  Measures in transport reported in the
second EEAP
 Member State || Comprehensive strategies / packages in transport || Fuel efficiency || Support for public transport || Spatial planning provisions || Mobility management/ traffic demand management || Eco-driving || Modal shift (passenger and freight transport) || Tax incentives/ disincentives: passenger vehicles || Tax incentives/ disincentives: freight vehicles || Electric vehicles || Sector covered by VA(s) || Clear funding commitment 
 AT || x || x || x || x || x || x || x ||   ||   ||   ||   || x 
 BE || Fl ||   || B, Fe, W || B || Fe ||   || Fe || B, Fl, W || B, Fl, W || Fe ||   || Fe, Fl 
 BG || x || x || x ||   || x || x || x ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 CY ||   || x || x ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || x ||   || x 
 CZ || x || x || x ||   ||   || x || x ||   ||   ||   || x ||   
 DK || x || x ||   ||   ||   || x ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 EE ||   || x || x || x || x || x || x ||   ||   || x ||   ||   
 FI || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x ||   || x || x 
 FR || x || x || x || x ||   || x || x || x || x ||   || x || x 
 DE || x || x || x ||   || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x 
 GR || x || x || x ||   || x || x || x || x || x || x ||   ||   
 HU ||   ||   || x || x ||   ||   || x ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 IE || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x ||   || x 
 IT ||   || x ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || x || x ||   ||   || x 
 LV ||   ||   || x ||   ||   ||   ||   || x ||   ||   ||   ||   
 LT || x || x || x ||   || x || x || x ||   ||   ||   ||   || x 
 LU ||   || x ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || x || x ||   ||   ||   
 MT || x || x || x ||   || x || x || x || x ||   || x ||   || x 
 PL ||   || x || x ||   || x || x || x ||   ||   ||   ||   || x 
 PT || x || x || x ||   || x ||   || x || x ||   ||   ||   ||   
 RO ||   || x ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 SK ||   || x || x ||   || x || x || x || x ||   ||   ||   || x 
 SI ||   || x || x ||   || x || x || x || x || x || x ||   ||   
 ES || x || x || x ||   || x || x || x || x || x || x ||   ||   
 SE ||   || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x ||   ||   
 NL ||   || x ||   ||   || x || x ||   || x || x || x || x || x 
 UK || x || x || x ||   || x || x || x || x || x || x || x || x 
Legend:
Fe – Belgium Federal
B – Brussels-Capital Region
Fl – Flanders
W – Wallonia
3.5         Agriculture
Based on the number of reported measures
and the associated achieved and expected savings, the agricultural sector (including
horticulture, forestry and fisheries) has been the least popular for the
implementation of energy efficiency actions. The exceptions are the Dutch and
Finish second EEAPs. From all the 27 Member States reviewed only 10 (Flanders/
Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Malta, the
Netherlands and Spain) present agriculture related activities with a maximum of
only five measures reported.
Most commonly the reported activities are
financial in nature, complemented by information and advice as well as
voluntary type activities, research and development programmes. The majority of
measures are targeted at energy-efficient heating systems (including
co-generation and conversion to renewable energy sources), energy savings in
buildings and facilities, improvement of agricultural processes and crop
cultivation in general, as well as the purchase of energy-efficient equipment. 
Investment support (e.g. grants, subsidies,
loans) is mainly provided to accelerate the introduction of efficient energy
systems in greenhouses, stock farms, grain silos, etc. (e.g. regulating
systems, heat shields, boiler house improvement, and heat recovery). Exemplary
is the state subsidy for boiler houses when switching from fossil fuels to
renewable energy sources, which is reported to be the most effective measure in
the Finish action plan in terms of generated savings.
Innovation programmes and demonstration
project schemes focus on energy-efficient processes and technologies, including
the application of renewable technologies and the development of new products
and cultivation techniques.
Examples for voluntary agreements have been
identified in the second EEAPs of Finland, France and the Netherlands, whereby
the Finish "Farm Energy Program" provides support for energy plans
and audits. The French report features long-term partnerships between energy
suppliers and greenhouse owners. The apparent success of CHP in greenhouse
cultivation is notable in the Dutch second action plan, with CHP savings accounting
for two thirds of the savings in 2010 attributed to a long-term agreement
(LTA), supported by a number of horizontal financial and fiscal measures.
The Dutch LTA for the greenhouse sector has
recently been replaced by a CO2 equalisation measure which imposes a
ceiling on emissions and a market price for CO2 based on the EU ETS
price. It will not be linked to the EU ETS but around 80 horticulture companies
will be offered the opportunity to opt out of the ETS system and join the CO2
equalisation system.
Other activities in the agricultural sector
reported in the second EEAPs include land management (for example parcelling of
fragmented parcels in order to minimize transport), technical advice and
diagnosis, as well as training and awareness rising (for example on equipment
and technical improvement).
3.6         Horizontal
measures
Information presented in the second round
of EEAPs suggests an expansion compared to the first reporting period, where
already a large number of promising horizontal measures were presented by the Member
States. In this section an overview is provided on energy supplier savings
obligations (EEOs) and white certificate schemes, the promotion of energy
services (energy service companies and third party financing), sustainable
product policy, as well as support for energy efficiency related research and
development, as reported by Member States in their second EEAP. Table 12 contains information on action and
reporting by Member States related to the specific issues. Some horizontal
measures – e.g. subsidies, fiscal measures, voluntary agreements and energy
audits – are discussed under the particular sector-specific sections. 
Energy supplier savings obligations
(EEOs) / white certificate schemes
An expansion in energy supplier obligation
schemes (EEOs) took place compared to the first round of reporting under
Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services. As part
of this policy instrument energy saving obligations are placed on some categories
of energy market operators (e.g. electricity and gas distributors or retail
energy sales companies), and achieved savings are verified by an independent
body. EEOs can be teamed with a system of tradable white certificates,
representing certified, project-based savings. EEOs and white certificates
schemes in the EU have delivered larger savings than expected, at lower than
anticipated costs[35].
A key benefit of EEO schemes is their suitability to target smaller energy
users (e.g. the residential sector). Certificates in some cases can also be
awarded for the development of renewable energies. The cost-effectiveness of
EEOs designates them as policy instrument representing good practice, probably
worthy of expansion across EU Member States. 
Established white certificate schemes are
currently operating in Denmark, France, Italy, the UK and the region of
Flanders in Belgium (without trading element in Denmark and Flanders).
As communicated in the second EEAP of the
UK, the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) scheme is to replace the Carbon
Emission Reduction Target (CERT) and the Community Energy Savings Programme
(CESP). The third obligation phase of the CERT, which began in 2008, has been
extended to December 2012 with a strengthened target and increased focus on
supporting insulation[36].
The aim of CESP, the other programme to be replaces by ECO, is to deliver
energy saving measures to domestic consumers in specific low income areas of
Great Britain[37].
The new ECO scheme is to be implemented parallel to the Green Deal market
framework. Both mechanisms rely on finance from the private sector. Improved
targeting and assisting the fuel poor is a key element of both of the new
initiatives reported in the second EEAP. In the UK participation in the energy
efficiency obligation scheme is required based on the customer base of licensed
domestic energy suppliers, as well as on amount of TWh generated per year by
electricity generators. After the expiration of CERT and CESP in 2012, ECO will
place one or more obligations on energy companies, requiring them to generate a
specific amount of credit by facilitating the installation of energy efficiency
measures in homes in Great Britain before a set deadline[38]. 
The white certificate scheme in Italy has
been operating since 2005. As stated in the second EEAP, a large part of
national policy to achieve energy efficiency targets is based on this policy
instrument. In 2007 the mechanism has been extended for the time period
2010-2012. The electricity market operator issues white certificates based on
verification of energy savings by the Italian National Agency for New
Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), and
certification by the electrical power and gas authority (AEEG). Certificates
are bankable without expiry. In case an electricity or gas distributor does not
reach its target, non-compliance may be corrected within one year if at least
60% of the target is met. Five types of certificate are available, all of which
can be traded on the market. Type V certificates represent energy savings in
the transport sector, different from electricity and natural gas and are the
only type of certificate without a cost recovery mechanism for obliged actors.
Limited availability of white certificates has arisen as a key issue limiting
the functioning of the system in the last years. Taking into account the actual
lifetime of the measures as well as including CHP and reduction in transmission
losses among eligible measures are expected to contribute to improving the scheme
through reducing scarcity of available white certificates. The second EEAP also
highlights the risk of double counting, which may arise as a result of the
overlap of white certificates and financial incentives, and recognizes the need
to distinguish between the separate schemes. 
In France the
first period of the Energy Efficiency Certificate (EEC) mechanism ran between
2006 and 2009, followed by a transitional period (from mid-2009 to end-2010)
when no energy-saving target was set. Participants in the EEC mechanism include
all sellers of electricity, gas, domestic fuel oil, LPG, district heating and
cooling, and transport fuel. France is the only Member State where transport
fuel suppliers have been placed under obligation. As communicated in the second
EEAP, Grenelle 2 renewed the EEC mechanism for a second three-year period, from
2011 onwards. Further commitment periods are to follow until 2020. The target
of the first period was exceeded, with almost 65 TWhcumac[39] of certified energy
savings as at 1 July 2009, more than 86% of which were made in the residential
sector. Over the target of the first period (54 TWhcumac) EECs
issued during the first and the transitional period are to be deducted from the
total target of the second period (amounting to 345 TWhcumac). 
Legislation on energy saving obligations
has been in place in Denmark since 2006. As communicated in the second EEAP,
savings obligations placed on energy companies is a major contributing measure
of the overall Danish energy savings programme. Distribution companies
supplying electricity, natural gas, district heating and oil fall under the
obligation to implement energy savings in end-use consumption, which otherwise
would not be implemented. In 2008 the savings target of companies was increased
from 2.95 PJ/year to 5.4 PJ/year, and in 2009 a further increase to 6.1 PJ/year
took place. Targeted end-uses include heat and electricity consumption in
households and businesses, electricity and fuel consumption in industrial
processes. Energy consumption in distribution networks also falls under the
scheme. Part of the energy savings are foreseen to be realised through
agreements with installers, craftsmen and engineers.
Energy efficiency obligations (without
certificate trading) are also in place in the Flemish Region of Belgium. From
2003 onwards electricity distribution network operators in Flanders have been
required to achieve a primary energy saving target on an annual basis, through
stimulating energy-saving investments by end-users. The target is 3.5% of total
electricity supplied for "normal" network operators and 2.5% of
electricity supplied for network operators with fewer than 2,500 final
costumers. In case of breaching of the target a fine is to be paid in the
Energy Fund. Network operators are obliged to make an extra effort to promote
the rational use of energy in low-income households. Furthermore, for the
coming year they are obliged to submit an action plan to the Flemish Energy
Agency. In order to avoid double counting the grant of subsidies for rational
energy use in existing schools is no longer quantified separately (as it was in
first regional Energy Efficiency Action Plan) because it can be assumed that
savings are largely included in the savings calculated for grants offered by network
operators.
A white certificate scheme, presented as a
separate measure in the Polish second EEAP, will begin operation in Poland in
2013. Energy companies selling electricity, heat and natural gas to final
costumers, as well as final consumers connected to the grid who are members of
the commodity exchange market form the target group of the scheme. Supported
investments include modernisation of local district heating grids and heat
sources, buildings, lighting, household appliances, as well as energy recovery
and modernisation of industrial devices and installations. Electricity produced
in cogeneration falls under a separate red certificate scheme in Poland. The
Energy Regulatory Office has been designated as the authority issuing and
redeeming white certificates. Certificates will be tradable on the commodity
exchange market or on a regulated market. The Ministry of Economy will be
responsible for the provision of a detailed list of investments which may
participate in the tender procedure, and system monitoring including
calculation of the achieved energy savings and preparation and submission of
reports to the European Commission.
As for further expansion of EEOs and white
certificates in the EU, Bulgaria presents in the second EEAP research and evaluation
of the possibilities for introducing a market for white certificates as
separate horizontal measure. Impacts of the introduction of similar schemes in
other EU countries, as well as the expediency of introduction in Bulgaria are
assessed. In Ireland legislation has been put in place allowing energy savings
obligations to be placed on energy suppliers. In line with this, as part of the
Better Energy Programme an obligation is placed on energy suppliers (supplying
over 75GWh per annum) to deliver energy savings.  Reporting by some other
Member States also reflects a move towards energy savings achieved by energy
suppliers. Austria and Greece follow a voluntary agreements based approach,
while Slovenia includes information in the second EEAP on obligations on large
energy suppliers to provide their customers with energy services.
To summarise, the expansion of energy
efficiency obligations and white certificate schemes, as reflected by intermediate
reporting under the ESD, is a welcome development in the EU. EEOs and white
certificates have not only increased in number, but the deepening of existing
schemes (e.g. improving of targeting of low income households in the UK and in
Flanders, improvement of evaluation methods in Italy, putting transport fuel suppliers
under obligation in France and the tightening of targets in Denmark) has also
occurred. These developments indicate that EEOs and white certificates promise
the achievement of higher energy savings in the EU.
Promotion of energy services, ESCOs, TPF
Most Member States included information in
their second EEAP on the status of and actions taken to promote the market for
energy services. 
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany,
Greece, Italy and Spain reported on regulatory provisions in place to support
the expansion of the energy services market.  The Slovakian second EEAP
communicated a measure consisting of drafting legislation on energy services.
In Bulgaria a fund acting as co-financing institution and guarantor in the
performance of services under energy performance contract has been established,
while Greece provided details on the Register for ESCOs. In Poland regulation
has been put in place allowing ESCOs to participate in the newly established
market for white certificates. Spain reported on changes implemented in the
regulatory framework to make energy service contracting more dynamic.
Some Member States communicated details on
programmes involving energy service contracts in the public sector. In Austria
the market for energy services is supported by a comprehensive programme to
refurbish over 200 federal property objects. Spain has also reported on the
implementation of energy service contracts in 330 buildings of the state
administration, to be extended to 2,000 public energy consumers. Furthermore,
Poland outlined plans to establish a national contact point facilitating the
establishment of ESCO contracts, focusing on the public sector and local
government units.
Well-established mechanisms for the
promotion of the energy services market already operate in a group of Member
States. Belgium demonstrated good practice in the stimulation of the ESCO
market with the creation of Fedesco by the Federal Government in 2005 and other
region specific initiatives in Flanders, Wallonia and the Brussels Capital
Region. The Hungarian second EEAP reported on building refurbishment measures
operating in the form of a state ESCO. An upcoming large-scale programme could
contribute to the expansion of the energy services market in the UK: the
proposed Green Deal market framework is to involve private firms offering
energy efficiency improvements with no upfront costs to costumers and repayment
of the investments though savings in energy bills.
The provision of model contracts has been
reported by Austria, France, Lithuania the Netherlands, and Poland. Ireland
also communicated plans to develop standard documentation for EPCs, as well as
a roll-out of ESCO pilot projects in local authorities. The French second EEAP
outlines several actions supporting the dissemination of energy performance
contracts (EPCs). These include the amendment of the public procurement law
allowing EPCs to be concluded, while other actions focus on the residential and
services sectors. EPCs are also planned to be expanded in the industry sector.
A group of Member States communicated
difficulties in connection to ESCOs. Estonia reported an existing but limited
energy services market, mainly involving street lighting services. Latvia
highlighted the barriers to the expansion of its ESCO market, including legal
matters due to the conclusion of service contracts, lack of interest by energy
supply companies, low consumer awareness and lack of positive examples. The
prevalence of legal barriers was also reported in the second EEAP of Slovenia.
Planned activities that have not yet been implemented by the Member State
include the preparation of sample contracts and the provision of expert support
for project design in the public sector.
Some Member States contained reference on
the expansion of the energy services market. Finland reported on demand-driven
growth in energy-efficient business highlighting the role of professional
operators and principles of sustainable business. Strong growth in the energy
services market has also taken place in Luxembourg in the past years, according
to its second EEAP. The Member State has communicated plans to create of an
office to further facilitate the expansion process. 
Some additional Member States also referred
to the promotion of the energy services in their second EEAPs. Cyprus reported
on the establishing a legal framework for energy audits, while Sweden
communicated the carrying out of an analysis of the energy services market.
According to the Maltese second EEAP, in the Member State there are no
significant barriers to the provision of energy services (such as energy audits
and energy efficiency improvement measures) by installers, energy advisors and
energy consultants.
Support for energy efficiency related
R&D
Most second EEAPs included information on
energy and energy efficiency related research and research funding. Sweden
communicated in its second EEAP that research activities form a significant
part of its energy efficiency policy efforts, while Austria reported that the
increase in the expenditure of public authorities on energy efficiency related
research was disproportionally high in recent years. A strong emphasis on
research and development was demonstrated in the French second EEAP. Funding
for research on smart grids, as well as for demonstration projects focusing on
new energy technologies was reported. Furthermore, funding has also been
designated for the establishment of technology innovation campuses for RES, new
energy technologies and energy efficiency. The Finish second EEAP also outlines
several research programmes including the establishment of clusters of
strategic cutting-edge expertise (SHOK), green growth and sustainable
communities.  The UK reported on research as part of a support package for the
introduction of Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles (ULEVs), while electric mobility
pilot projects were also reported to be running in Germany.
The setting up of technology centres,
research laboratories and programmes to enhance competitiveness have also been
reported by other Member States. Poland indicated the operation of the
Polish-Japan Energy Conservation Technology Centre (PJCEE) which among other
tasks conducts research and development work in energy efficiency in industry.
Research programmes on electricity systems and energy efficiency in industry in
connection to restoring competitiveness were reported to be running in Italy.
According to the Dutch second EEAP, in the Netherlands the Energy Research
Subsidy covers energy efficiency and renewable energy related research from the
idea to the market introduction phase. The Danish second EEAP refers to the
establishment of a research centre on energy savings in buildings, while the
Maltese action plan contains a measure involving the setting up of an
electrical energy and efficiency laboratory within the University of Malta. 
Spain reported on research activities in
connection to sector specific measures (e.g. fisheries and agriculture), while
the Greek, the Estonian and the Slovakian second EEAP addressed support for
research on energy and energy saving in the form of separate measures. The
Irish second EEAP informs about research activities on energy savings in the
domestic sector and in school buildings, as well as in ICT. 
In Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Latvia
research activities were mentioned in connection to the setting of objectives
with reference to Net Zero Energy Buildings. Bulgaria reported on research
activities with reference to the possible introduction of a white certificate
scheme. Funding for energy efficiency related studies and research projects are
indicated in the Belgian and the Lithuanian second EEAPs. The Hungarian second EEAP
refers to plans to strengthen and harmonize research, development and
innovation activities related to sustainable energy management, while the greater
use of European programme funds for energy related research is encouraged in
the Slovenian second EEAP.
Sustainable Product Policy
Since the first reporting period under the
ESD, product policy in the EU has undergone key developments. In 2009 the European
Parliament and the Council adopted the recast Ecodesign Directive (Directive
2009/125/EC on establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign
requirements for energy-related products) and in 2010 the recast Energy
Labelling Directive (Directive 2010/30/EU on the indication by labelling and
standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources
by energy-related products). The amendments made in the Community legislative
framework represent an expansion of earlier product policy related regulations
to include not only energy-using, but also all energy-related products in the
domestic, commercial and industry sectors[40].
Most Member
States included information on the implementation of Community sustainable
product policies in their second EEAP; however the level of detail provided on
status of implementation varied. Even less information was given on enforcement
related issues. The second EEAP of about half of Member States presented
supporting national legislation to transpose EU Directives on sustainable
product policy, included the implementation of ecodesign or energy labelling
requirements as a separate measure, or demonstrated progress in the
implementation of the Directives. Clear legislative measures for the
transposition of both recast directives for sustainable product policy were
presented by Finland, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Sweden. A third of the Member
States presented energy labelling as a separate measure, with nearly as many
addressing ecodesign requirements in a similar manner. At the same time a small
group of Member States did not include any information on sustainable product
policy in the second EEAP. 
Good practices in sustainable product
policy include the provision of information on regulatory measures to transpose
Community legislation, national measures going beyond Community requirements,
and the provision of details on enforcement and implementation. The application
of financial incentives, coordination with relevant stakeholders, and
regulation for sustainable product policy applied as part of policy packages
teamed with financial and awareness raising instruments form further areas of
good practice.
The second EEAP of a number of Member
States demonstrates some of these good practices in ecodesign and energy
labelling. Italy presents several relevant measures in detail, focusing on
solar heating panels for hot water, efficient air conditioning systems,
energy-efficient lighting and control systems, as well as the replacement of
refrigerators and freezers and washing machines for more energy-efficient
models. As part of these measures connection is established between relevant EU
legislation (on energy labelling and minimum efficiency requirements),
financing through the white certificate scheme, information programmes, as well
as agreements with industry. Other good practices appearing in the second EEAPs
include the market surveillance programme of Ireland which is currently being
designed to test products under both the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling directives.
France reports on the ahead of timetable signing of a national agreement
between the state and the Lighting Trade Union for withdrawing the least
efficient lamps from the market. Furthermore, in France financial incentives
are provided for businesses to support investment in equipment that consumes
less energy, and for ecodesign aimed at promoting ecodesigned tools and generic
products. The UK includes information in its second EEAP on progress made in
the adoption of minimum energy performance requirements and labelling for
priority products and quantifies annual net benefits that can be gained through
these measures. 
In the next reporting period more detail
should be provided by Member States on the implementation and enforcement of
sustainable product policy, demonstrating the exploration of synergies with
other policy areas. The examples of good practice identified in the second
reporting period can serve as a basis for improvement. 
Table 12  Horizontal measures reported in the
second EEAP
   ||   ||   ||   || Sustainable Product Policy 
 Member State || Energy supplier savings obligations, white certificate schemes || Promotion of energy services, ESCOs, TPF || EE related R&D || Ecodesign || Energy Labelling 
 AT ||   || x || x ||   || x 
 BE || x || x || x || x ||   
 BG || x4 || x || x3 || x || x 
 CY ||   || x ||   ||   ||   
 CZ || x4 || x || x3 || x ||   
 DK || x ||   || x ||   ||   
 EE ||   || x1 || x ||   ||   
 FI ||   || x || x || x || x 
 FR || x || x || x || x || x 
 DE ||   || x || x || x || x 
 GR ||   || x || x ||   ||   
 HU ||   || x || x2 ||   ||   
 IE || x4 || x || x ||   || x 
 IT || x || x || x || x || x 
 LV ||   || x1 || x3 ||   ||   
 LT ||   || x || x || x || x 
 LU ||   || x ||   ||   || x 
 MT ||   || x || x ||   ||   
 PL || x* || x || x ||   ||   
 PT ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 RO ||   ||   ||   ||   || x 
 SK ||   || x || x || x || x 
 SI ||   || x1 || x || x || x 
 ES ||   || x || x ||   ||   
 SE ||   || x || x || x || x 
 NL ||   || x || x ||   ||   
 UK || x || x2 || x || x || x 
Legend:
* In operation from 2013.
1 - Barriers / delays in implementation
reported.
2 - Proposal stage / Communication of plans.
3 - Research in connection to preparation
for nZEB.
4 - Investigating possibilities for
introduction.
x - In Sustainable Product Policy - supporting
national legislation presented / addressed as a separate measure / progress in
implementation demonstrated.
3.7         The exemplary role of the public sector 
The requirement to report on the exemplary
role of the public sector was fulfilled to varying extents by all the Member
States in their second EEAPs. Some Member States (e.g. Austria, Belgium,
Cyprus, Finland, Germany and Ireland) clearly communicated relevant actions undertaken.
However, reporting of most Member States often contained some gaps and, while
addressing the exemplary role of the public sector, the information provided on
actual actions undertaken was not comprehensive. Some Member States did not
communicate clear actions on all relevant ESD provisions (e.g. Czech Republic,
Hungary, Slovakia), communicated lack of success (e.g. Slovenia),In some EEAPs
the exemplary role of the public sector was found not to be well highlighted
(e.g. Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain).
The exemplary role of the public sector is one
of the key provisions of ESD, as well as of the recast EPBD. At the same time
only few Member States highlight in a concrete manner the specific role of
public buildings (beyond the display of energy performance certificates). Good
examples include the exemplary role for public buildings in the promotion of
energy services for buildings (in Belgium, with Fedesco and Belesco);
communication of good practices and achievements through websites and other medias
(in Denmark and Estonia); organisation of an annual event to communicate
savings achieved in the public buildings sector (Cyprus); a Government
Buildings Agency in charge of sharing best practices with the market and
encouraging innovation in technology, process and contract forms (the
Netherlands).
In Annex VI of
the ESD a six-item list of eligible measures for energy efficient public
procurement is outlined. Member States must ensure that at least two
requirements from the list are applied in the public sector. The second EEAP of
half of the Member States suggested the fulfilment of the requirement of
choosing two of the six proposed procurement measures. Austria, Belgium,
Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden went beyond minimum requirements
and reported on steps undertaken on implementing more than the requested two
measures. Estonia, France, Greece, Latvia, Italy and Lithuania presented with
sufficient detail two measures from those outlined in Annex VI of ESD. 
However, a
group of Member States did not communicate clearly the efforts taken to comply
with Article 5 and Annex VI of the ESD. Slovenia reported on significant delays
in implementation of relevant actions, while also in Portugal no progress was
evident in the measure on sustainable public procurement. Slovakia and Hungary
failed to present two measures from the list of eligible actions under Annex
VI. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg and Poland referred to two
eligible measures, but due to the lack of detail provided on implementation it
was not possible to assess the actual level of compliance. Both Malta and Spain
reported on relevant action plans on public contracting but did not clearly specify
eligible energy efficiency public procurement measures. In Romania, at the time
of the submission of the second EEAP the government ordinance transposing Annex
VI of the ESD was awaiting approval by the national Parliament. The second EEAP
of the Netherlands and the UK reflected significant actions undertaken in the
field of public procurement. At the same time, while these actions are likely
to contribute to fulfilling ESD requirements, the reports did not provide clear
information on the options selected in accordance with Annex VI of ESD. Ireland
reported on legislation transposing the ESD, including standards for energy
efficient procurement and the amendment of energy efficient public procurement
provisions. However, the Member State did not fully clarify which of the
requirements of Annex VI have been clear action to facilitate the exchange of
good practices between public sector bodies has been reported by a group of Member
States (e.g. Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland,
Malta and Sweden). Action constituting of programmes, projects or legal provisions
facilitating the exchange of good practice between public sector bodies was
demonstrated by Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Slovakia.
Reporting on relevant action was less clear in Bulgaria, Luxembourg and the UK.
Hungary elaborated on relevant actions in the second EEAP. However, these
appeared to be in the planning stage. In the case of Greece, Italy and Latvia
local authority participation in the Covenant of Mayors initiative of the
European Commission was found to be a circumstance potentially contributing to
the exchange of good practice within the public sector. The second EEAP of the
Czech Republic, Portugal and Spain did not provide information on facilitating
information exchange between public sector bodies.
Several measures and packages of measures
demonstrating the exemplary role of the public sector and facilitating the
exchange of good practice between public sector bodies were identified as good
practice in the second EEAPs. These included regulation requiring the use the
highest energy efficiency criteria in public tenders (e.g. in Germany) and the
application of at least two measures from Annex VI affecting different levels
of government (e.g. in Finland and Sweden), the facilitation of networking of
experts (e.g. in Finland) and appointment of green leaders in the public sector
(e.g. in Malta), the publishing of energy saving results of the public sector
(e.g. in Denmark), and the implementation of energy management systems (e.g. in
Luxembourg) and voluntary agreements (e.g. in Denmark) for energy savings at
local authorities. The setting of quantified energy savings targets in the
public sector (as it is done in Ireland) is a further area of good practice,
worthy of replication by other Member States.
In Germany
regulation requires only the highest energy efficiency criteria to be
stipulated in public tenders and life-cycle costs to be considered in the award
procedure. It facilitates this process by publishing guidelines for considering
energy conservation in public procurement. The Member State applies a
combination of measures referring to all items of Annex VI of the ESD.
In Finland
several mechanisms were established to facilitate the sharing of best practice
between public sector institutions. These include the support for the
networking of experts from local councils taking part in the voluntary energy
efficiency agreement scheme; a government resolution
obliging central government to implement three of the six measures listed in
Annex VI; local councils that are signed up to the agreement scheme
committed to implementing five of the six measures listed in Annex VI; the
Local Government Climate Campaign coordinated by the Association of Finnish
Local and Regional Authorities.
In Denmark voluntary agreements on energy saving
activities have been established with the participation of local authorities
and regions. Once a year, the Danish Energy Agency assesses and publishes the
government institutions’ energy consumption and presents it to the energy committee
of the Danish Parliament.
In Sweden a government ordinance stipulates
that every national public authority shall implement at least two out of six
recommended measures of Annex VI of the ESD. Many public bodies decide to
implement more than the requested two measures.
In Malta Green Leaders scheme has been
operating in the public sector since 2004. Green Leaders are appointed and have
a duty to create environmental awareness within their Ministries. They act as
catalysts for action to promote environmentally friendly practices including
energy efficiency measures and renewable energy. Green focal points are also
appointed in departments and sections to be closer to staff and to create a
green network.
In Luxembourg energy management systems
were implemented at the municipal level, offering significant energy saving
potential and indicating a serious, long-term commitment to energy efficiency
improvement.
The Irish
second EEAP shows a strong commitment to improve energy efficiency in the
public sector. An ambitious energy savings target has been set. Dedicated
public sector measures have been put in place and targets quantified for each.
The exemplary role of the public sector is clearly communicated.
The above
examples of good practice in establishing and demonstrating the exemplary role
of the public sector in energy saving should provide a basis for other Member
States in developing similar schemes.
3.8         Provision
of information and advice to end-users 
Most of the Member States explicitly
addressed in their second EEAP the ESD requirements regarding the provision of
information and advice. However, differences were experienced in the detail of
reporting and emphasis laid on information and advice related measures. A
number of Member States (including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Finland,
Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Sweden and the UK) demonstrated in the second EEAPs
that the provision of information and advice forms an integral part of their
energy efficiency policy. These Member States typically presented a strong set
of diverse information measures, often designed to complement other types of
actions. Good practice incorporated the establishment of a network of energy
agencies, the provision of individualized advice targeted at different actors
(residential, business and public sector), as well as information provision
obligations for energy supply companies. The use of websites as well as the
organisation of information campaigns was widespread among Member States.
Energy agencies and other designated
organisations were key facilitators of information provision. Action of these
organisations often involved different governance levels, ensuring the
provision of energy saving advice from the national to the local level. Austria
communicated on the work of regional energy agencies, energy saving
associations and energy institutes with respect to the provision of information
and advice on energy efficiency and renewable energies. Latvia reported on the
work of four regional energy agencies, while energy and climate protection
agencies were also reported to be present at the regional and local level in
Germany. A network of local energy advice centres is available to provide
advice to households in Slovenia. In the UK two institutions, the Energy Saving
Trust (targeting households) and the Carbon Trust (focusing on businesses and
organisations) were reported as the two main actors in information and advice
provision. An Energy Saving Trust was also established in Denmark, promoting
cost-effective energy savings in households, the public sector and businesses.
The Czech Republic reported on energy information and advice centres as well as
regional energy agencies. In Cyprus the Energy Service was communicated as the
promoter of information and advice regarding application for RES and energy
savings grants schemes. The Romanian second EEAP provides a list of
non-governmental actors (e.g. chambers of commerce, professional associations, and
the Energy Cities network) involved in information provision on energy
efficiency.
Establishment
of mechanisms for the provision of individualized advice was indicated by various
Member States. Germany and Belgium reported on the operation of free energy
hotlines, while individual advice is also provided in Austria from consultation
by phone to comprehensive advice prior to the implementation of specific
measures. In France the Energy Info Site network has been reported to provide
individualized advice on energy saving measures. In the UK the Energy Saving
Trust and Carbon Trust were reported as the providers of energy saving advice
on a one-to-one basis. In the Netherlands the A More with Less programme
was reported to give residential consumers customised advice on energy savings
opportunities in their homes and information about related subsidies. In Sweden
municipalities benefited from energy and climate advice services by the
Sustainable Municipalities Programme. The second EEAP of Ireland contained new
measures that provide tailored advice from experts to public sector
organisations and SMEs, complementing the existing large industry programmes.
The Italian second EEAP mentions the availability of an eco-sustainable
training involving about 50-55 thousand people every year. A website and toll-free
number have also been set up on energy efficiency and on benefiting from
available incentives. 
The role of energy
supply companies in the provision of energy
efficiency related information and advice was also addressed in the second EEAPs.
Established energy supplier obligation schemes are currently operating in Denmark,
France, Italy, the UK and the Belgian region of Flanders (see more on energy
supplier savings obligations and white certificate schemes in the section on
horizontal measures). The obligation scheme reported to operate in Slovenia requires
large energy suppliers to provide their customers with energy services,
including specific information. In Latvia a law allows distribution system
operators and traders of energy to provide final customers with energy services
(however the second EEAP notes that no such a contract has so far been
concluded). The Lithuanian second EEAP report contains the requirement for
energy companies to provide information to energy customers and municipal
authorities. In Malta information on energy efficiency measures is available on
the websites of the electricity supplier and the regulator, while Estonia
communicates that energy supply companies distribute information on energy
conservation to their customers along with utility bills. In Greece the use of
voluntary agreements and the introduction of white certificates are envisioned
in the future. Furthermore, energy companies are required to provide all
available information annually on their final consumers to the ministry
responsible for energy policy. The Romanian second EEAP gives a detailed
account on a consultation conducted with energy companies on their information
provision activities, as well as proposals to expand these. The cost
implications of the development of more complex actions are also highlighted.
Provisions of Article 13 of the ESD on
metering and informative billing of energy consumption (including the
instalment of individual meters, billing on actual energy consumption and the
provision of appropriate information on the energy bill) have been addressed by
most Member States in their second EEAP. However, different Member States
provided different level of detail in information regarding these measures.
Austria, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, and
the Netherlands reported on the application of regulatory instruments to
support the metering and billing of individual energy consumption. Austria
communicated a concrete legislative measure on the metering and billing of
individual energy consumption, which was preceded by pilot projects in order to
check and adjust implementation. Germany communicated on regulation requiring
the consumption dependent billing of heating and hot water use. This billing
practice has been connected to incentives for the economical use of energy.
Further regulatory instruments were mentioned in the German second EEAP
regarding the opening up to competition of the metering and meter reading
service market. Greece reported on the installation of electronic and
intelligent metering of electricity as a combined regulatory, financial support
and information measure. Lithuania provided a detailed account on a regulatory
measure for the installation of advanced energy meters at end-user premises. In
the Netherlands smart meters are among the obligations of energy companies to
promote end-use energy saving through information to end-users, based on actual
consumption and indicative costs.
The trial and
rollout of smart meters has also been mentioned by various Member States. In
the UK second EEAP the planned large-scale rollout of smart meters (providing
near real-time information on energy consumption) was communicated. An overall
strategy and timetable for the rollout has been set out, specifying the
expected year of completion. Ireland has also communicated on a smart meter
rollout (involving both electricity and gas meters), expected to take place
from August 2011 onwards. Malta reported on the rollout of smart meters as a
separate measure, with start and end expected end dates specified. Furthermore,
it has been reported by the Netherlands that smart meters are installed in new
buildings, during large-scale renovation, at times of regular replacement and
at the request of the final customer. In Germany support was provided for pilot
projects to investigate and test the benefits of using information technologies
such as smart metering in the energy area. In connection to the development of
smart grids, France reported on the trialling of new communicative meters. A
pilot phase subject to technical and economic review before the rollout of
meters has also been communicated by Greece and Luxembourg. Furthermore, Italy
reported on the widespread use of intelligent meters in the context of
improving the efficiency of the electricity distribution and transmission
networks.
The rest of the Member States also reported
on action relevant to Article 13. In Cyprus the sole distribution company
provided detailed electricity bills including a message concerning efforts to
save energy, while no legal obligation has been imposed on energy distributors
for promoting end-use energy efficiency. In Belgium all regions communicate
measures relevant to metering and informative billing. Denmark reported on
remote metering in government institutions, while in Finland water meters for
homes as well as office and business properties were applied in a mandatory
manner. Metering-based billing and smart metering were presented as part of
complex measures in Hungary. However, no detail on the stage of implementation
was provided. Poland devoted a separate measure to smart grids, as part of
which the implementation of smart metering was indicated in pilot areas. In
Spain a loan programme included smart meters as one of its priority areas.
More detail in reporting would have enabled
a deeper assessment of progress in the areas of metering, billing and smart
meters. For example, Latvia addressed the issue of the smart network concept in
its second EEAP; however, no details were provided on action on metering and
informative billing. The importance of these measures was highlighted in the
Swedish second EEAP. Relevant activities of a Commission for Enquiry for new
efficiency actions were mentioned; however, no specific measure has been
reported. Bulgaria also touched upon the topic of metering and billing of
individual energy consumption in second EEAP; however, no details were
communicated on results achieved since 2004. The Slovenian second EEAP
envisioned the drawing up the necessary legal basis for accelerated
introduction of active networks, introduction of smart meters and accounting
devices at electricity consumers; however, the stage of implementation was
unclear from the report.
Various aspects were identified as
weaknesses in the information and advice provision related reporting and
practice of a number of Member States (e.g. Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Portugal,
Slovakia and Spain). These included limited detail on implementation, failure
to designate information measures, as well as lack of clarity on continuation
of previously reported measures. Bulgaria appeared to devote limited attention
to information measures, while reporting was found to be limited on the size
and extent of relevant efforts in Slovakia. In the case of Portugal the
continuation or dropping of some previously reported information measures was unclear.
While Spain presented a clear communication strategy, specifying strategic
objective of communication actions, the information actions associated with the
measures were not explained in detail. For each measure, the need for an
information component has been recognised. Hungary addressed the provision of
information and advice as part of integrated measures, while the Polish report
contained a separate, strategic measure related to the provision of information
and advice. Both the Hungarian and Polish second EEAP contained a separate
section on information provisions; however, details on implementation and
timeframe were missing. 
3.9         Final
energy savings achieved up to 2010 and forecast for 2016 and 2020
In the second EEAPs submitted by the Member
States, savings achieved in the intermediate period up to 2010 and forecast
savings for 2016 are given. The reports indicate that high levels of savings
have been achieved up to 2010 and that the 9% indicative target for 2016 will
be comfortably exceeded by most Member States. The savings figures are
summarised in Table 13. Savings are expressed both in final energy units (Mtoe)
and as a percentage of the Member States’ reference energy consumption values[41]. 
Total declared final energy savings for
2010 are approximately 59 Mtoe. This figure is around 35% higher than the sum
of the intermediate energy savings targets set by the 27 Member States in their
first EEAPs submitted in 2008. Declared intermediate savings levels range from
1.8% of reference consumption in Lithuania to nearly 9% in Germany and Sweden
where the ESD indicative target for 2016 has effectively been reached at the
end of the intermediate period.
Total final energy savings of around 132
Mtoe are forecast for 2016, well in excess of the 9% indicative target of
approximately 89 Mtoe. Spain and Germany forecast the highest levels of
savings, while four Member States quantify 2016 savings that are lower than 9%
of their reference energy consumption. When comparing the savings figures of
Member States, however, it is important to consider the methods used to
calculate savings and not just the declared and forecast savings levels. A
number of different approaches were used to quantify the savings. Accordingly,
the numbers presented below can only serve as a rough indicator of the actual
EU saving impact. The national approaches are examined in more detail in Annex
3. 
Table 13  EEAP final energy saving targets and
forecasts for 2016 and declared savings for 2010 
   || 2010 target final energy        savings (primary equivalent in italics) || 2010 declared final energy savings (primary equivalent in italics) || 2016 forecast final energy savings (primary equivalent in italics) 
 Member State || Mtoe || % of reference consumption || Mtoe || % of reference consumption || Mtoe || % of reference consumption 
 Austria || 0.428 || 2.0% || 1.180 || 5.5% || 1.874 || 8.8% 
 Belgium || 0.789 || 3.0% || 1.301 || 4.9% || 2.985 || 11.4% 
 Bulgaria[42] || 0.209 || 3.0% || 0.305 || 4.4% || 1.066 || 15.3% 
 Cyprus[43] || 0.060 || 3.3% || 0.066 || 3.6% || 0.191 || 10.4% 
 Czech Republic[44] || 0.355 || 1.8% || 0.532 || 2.7% || 1.596 || 8.2% 
 Denmark || 0.449 || 3.0% || 0.664 || 4.4% || 1.285 || 8.6% 
 Estonia || 0.061 || 2.3% || 0.079 || 3.0% || 0.213 || 8.1% 
 Finland || 0.507 || 3.0% || 1.040 || 6.1% || 2.123 || 12.5% 
 France || 5.000 || 3.8% || 5.159 || 3.9% || 18.000 || 13.5% 
 Germany || 12.181 || 6.1% || 17.937 || 9.0% || 33.868 || 17.1% 
 Greece[45] || 0.439 || 2.8% || 0.794 || 5.1% || 1.415 || 9.0% 
 Hungary || 0.152 || 1.0% || 0.293 || 1.9% || 1.371 || 9.0% 
 Ireland || 0.559 || 4.5% || 0.523 || 4.2% || 1.576 || 12.6% 
 Italy || 3.066 || 2.7% || 4.102 || 3.6% || 10.880 || 9.6% 
 Latvia || 0.006 || 0.2% || 0.294 || 8.8% || 0.299 || 9.0% 
 Lithuania || 0.054 || 1.5% || 0.067 || 1.8% || 0.341 || 9.4% 
 Luxembourg || 0.045 || 2.7% || 0.128 || 7.6% || 0.238 || 14.1% 
 Malta || 0.011 || 3.0% || 0.014 || 3.8% || 0.033 || 9.0% 
 The Netherlands || 0.978 || 2.0% || 2.278 || 4.7% || 6.416 || 13.1% 
 Poland || 1.021 || 2.0% || 3.037 || 5.9% || 5.779 || 11.3% 
 Portugal || 0.344 || 1.9% || 0.662 || 3.6% || 2.240 || 12.2% 
 Romania[46] || 0.940 || 3.0% || 2.222 || 7.1% || 2.800 || 9.0% 
 Slovakia || 0.224 || 3.0% || 0.668 || 9.0% || 0.671 || 9.0% 
 Slovenia || 0.102 || 2.5% || 0.101 || 2.5% || 0.591 || 14.5% 
 Spain[47] || 2.179 || 3.0% || 4.720 || 6.5% || 13.126 || 18.1% 
 Sweden || 2.003 || 6.3% || 2.846 || 9.0% || 4.626 || 14.6% 
 The United Kingdom || 11.737 || 9.0% || 8.547 || 6.6% || 17.816 || 13.7% 
The levels of overall achieved and forecast
savings in the second EEAPs are higher than other indicators of energy
efficiency improvement rates. According to the second EEAPs, Member States that
use mostly top-down indicators declare an energy efficiency improvement of 6.6%
for the 3-year intermediate period, or an average annual improvement of over
2.1% of reference consumption. This figure is in contrast with the average rate
of final energy intensity reduction of around 1.2% recorded for the years
2000-2009 by Odyssee project[48].
The significant increase in the rate of annual improvement apparent from the EEAPs
may not be fully accounted for by an increase in policy activity, but also by
additional structural and statistical factors as well as data inconsistencies
and overlaps when aggregating the impacts of various national measures[49].
The savings of Member States calculated
using bottom-up or measure-specific methods can in many cases provide a more
accurate indication of the effectiveness of energy efficiency measures. Member
States using mostly bottom-up methods to determine their declared savings
values show savings of 5.1% of reference energy consumption up to 2010. This
figure also looks high considering that, unlike the top-down methods, bottom-up
figures should exclude autonomous savings, although they do incorporate some
early savings. A diverse set of approaches has been used to calculate bottom-up
savings, with various combinations of modelled data, measured data and
estimates. Bottom-up savings given in different EEAPs are difficult to compare
to each other as the EEAPs generally do not provide the level of detail
necessary for controlling if the methods, models and estimates used are similar
across Member States.
3.10       Primary
energy savings targets for 2020 given in the EEAPs
Various Member States declare national
energy consumption or energy savings targets for 2020 in their EEAPs. In most
cases, stated 2020 targets apply to the energy consumption of the whole economy
and not just to that of the sectors that are within the scope of the ESD. A
variety of approaches have been used to define 2020 targets. Some Member States
have set primary energy consumption targets; some have set final energy
consumption targets, while others have defined energy intensity targets.
Additionally, some countries have set 2020 national energy savings targets or
savings targets for specific sectors of their economies. A more detailed
overview of all 2020 national energy savings and energy consumption targets
mentioned in the EEAPs is given in Annex 4 of this document. Estimation of the
overall impact of the ESD-related national policy measures addressing end-use
consumption on the 2020 target.
Given the considerable difference between
the ESD approach of target setting and the overall EU objective to save 20% of
its primary energy consumption in 2020, only a tentative assessment of
ESD-related policy measures’ contribution to the overall EU target for 2020 can
be put forward. This assessment necessarily needs to be based on a set of
assumptions which might not hold true in reality. 
Targets and savings for each Member State
are converted to primary energy equivalent and are added together. A total
savings figure for 2010 is determined and a savings projection for 2016 is
calculated. An estimate is made of ESD-related energy savings impact in 2020.
The estimate combines 2020 measure-specific energy savings estimates provided
by some Member States and projections of energy savings based on the historical
trends for Member States that have not provided 2020 savings estimates. Due to
the nature and quality of the data available and the diversity of approaches
used it has been necessary to make a number of significant assumptions. These
are listed below.  
A) Calculation of primary energy
equivalent. For Member States that do not provide targets and
savings in primary energy or do not convert electricity savings into primary
equivalent, a coefficient of 2.5 is used to estimate primary energy savings
associated with electricity savings. A factor of 1.0 is used to convert all
other fuel types in end-use to primary equivalent.  
B) Shares of electricity in total
savings. Most Member States have not quantified savings by fuel type
and it is not possible to determine the proportion of total savings that are
electricity savings. Therefore, the electricity savings for each Member State
that has not converted figures into primary equivalent have been estimated by
assuming that the share of electricity savings in total savings is equal to the
share of electricity consumption in total final consumption of the Member
State. To calculate the electricity consumption shares over the period to 2020
for each Member State, electricity shares from the 2009 PRIMES baseline
projections of energy trends are used (European Commission, 2009)[50]. 
C) Estimating the rate of savings up to
2020. Most of the EEAPs evaluated do not provide an estimate of energy
savings in 2020 associated with ESD-relevant measures. To estimate the impact
of ESD-related energy savings, it is assumed that for Member States that do not
provide 2020 estimates of savings associated with ESD measures specifically,
ESD-related savings from 2016 to 2020 will increase at the same rate as they
are projected to do in the period between 2010 and 2016 in the EEAPs.  
D) Allowing for Member States that do
not provide a 2016 projection. For Member States that do not provide a
clear forecast of 2016 energy savings, the 2016 forecast figure is set to the
9% indicative target figure.  
E) Equivalence of energy savings figures
across Member States. Despite the diversity of approaches used by
Member States to calculate their declared savings figures, it is assumed that
each declared unit of energy saved is equivalent, regardless of the methodology
applied. The total energy saved in the EU27 is determined by adding together
the savings declared by each Member State.  
3.11       Estimated
2020 savings impact arising from the ESD
When the 9% indicative energy savings
targets for all Member States are added together and converted to primary
equivalent, they amount to 118 Mtoe. Extrapolating the 1% annual increase in
energy efficiency implicit in the ESD target for 2016 gives a target value of
170 Mtoe in 2020 or 13% of reference energy consumption. Declared intermediate
savings are 74 Mtoe. Forecast savings in 2016 amount to 173 Mtoe. Annual
ESD-relevant savings are estimated to grow to 241 Mtoe in primary energy
equivalent in 2020 and therefore exceed the extrapolated ESD target by 71 Mtoe.
A sensitivity analysis of the savings
forecast results has been undertaken to test the impact of some of the
assumptions made. The following adjustments to the assumptions have been made
and targets and estimated savings for each Member State have been recalculated
where relevant:
-       
For Member States that provide figures in final
energy only, the factor used to convert electricity end-use savings into
primary energy equivalent has been varied between 2.0 and 3.0;
-       
The conversion factor for other fuels has been
adjusted between 1.0 and 1.1;
-       
The share of electricity savings in total savings
has been adjusted between 30% less than the electricity share of final energy
use, and 30% more than the electricity share of final energy use;
-       
For Member States that do not provide
ESD-related savings forecasts for 2020, the rate of savings from 2016 to 2020
has been varied between 30% lower than the rate between 2016 and 2020 and 30%
higher than the rate between 2016 and 2020.
Considering worst- and best-case scenarios
for all of the above adjustments, the excess of ESD-related savings over the
extrapolated ESD target in 2020 in theoretical terms is between 56 Mtoe and 93
Mtoe in primary energy equivalent. 
However, it should be emphasised that these
calculations cannot be used for any direct comparison with the
business-as-usual scenario used for establishing the consumption impact of the EU
2020 energy efficiency target[51].
This is because of various reasons including:
-       
The ESD methodology allowed for significant
amount of early action often as old as 1991 to be counting towards the ESD
target; the analysis of the second EEAPs revealed that up to 1/3 of savings
could be coming from early actions;
-       
The top-down methodologies applied by the Member
States show significant distortion cause by the impacts of the economic crisis;
the calculation of same savings using top-down and bottom-up indicators showed
in some cases 50% difference at least partly due to statistical effect of the
economic crisis;
-       
The expected extrapolated 2020 second EEAP
savings capture most of the impact of other EU energy efficiency legislation,
in particular Energy Performance in Buildings Directive as well as Ecodesign
and Ecolabelling regulations;
-       
In some EEAPs an overlapping impact of the EU
Emissions Trading Scheme has most probably also been captured[52].
In general, from the analysis of the
information provided by the Member States in the second EEAPs, it could be
concluded that the calculations of the achieved and expected energy savings
linked to the measures included in the EEAPs based on the methodologies
established on the basis of the provisions of ESD are useful for getting better
understanding of the developments with the implementation of energy efficiency
measures. However, for the measurement of the progress towards the EU 2020
target for energy efficiency an additional set of aggregated indicators with
more transparent calculation methods is needed. 
Another conclusion from the analysis of the
national calculations of the energy savings expected for 2016 (and extrapolated
for 2020) is that at least part of these savings can be attributed to some
existing and/or new planned energy efficiency measures that have been included
in the Energy Efficiency Directive[53].
This means that this part of the measures-related impacts of the second EEAP are
already or will be soon contributing to the achievement of energy savings
assumed to be generated by the implementation of the Energy Efficiency
Directive.
4            Overview
of financing instruments 
Financial support instruments are a key
driver for energy efficiency. This section presents various good examples of
financial support measures and market mechanisms implemented by the Member
States to finance energy efficiency projects, in particular in the building
sector. This covers both traditional financing instruments and more innovative
schemes reported in the EEAPs, explaining what are the main funding issues
encountered by the Member States and how access to EU funds supported them with
the implementation of energy efficiency measures. It will also illustrate the
role played by the public and private sector in the funding process and finally
draw conclusions on good practices that can be identified across the Member
States to finance energy efficiency improvements.
4.1         Innovative and traditional schemes
The analysis of
the second EEAPs shows that Member States have adopted a wide range of financing instruments to finance energy efficiency. These financing
tools include, on the one hand, more 'traditional' schemes such as grants and loans used in combination with
other fiscal incentives, rebates on the purchase of the
most energy efficient products and the use of revolving
funds, and, on the other hand, innovative market-based instruments such as
Energy Performance Contracting (EPC), Energy Services Companies (ESCOs) and the
monetisation of surplus of AAUs  to finance energy efficiency improvements. The
use of  revenues derived from the sale of surplus AAUs to finance energy
efficiency improvements was reported in Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and
Lithuania, while Estonia, Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria have also engaged in
such transations (Point Carbon 2012)[54]
.
While all known
AAU deals were conducted through Green Investment Schemes (Point Carbon 2012)
(whereby the seller government commits itself to using the revenue for
investments that lead to verifyable GHG esmission reductions), these schemes
are implemented in a variety of ways. Poland reported in the EEAP that the
funds obtained from the sale of the AAUs were used for the Green Investment
Scheme,  resulting in helping the buyer countries (e.g. Spain) in meeting their
Kyoto obligations, while providing financial resources for projects that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in Poland. Hungary reported the use the revenues from
allowance trading in combination with other EU funds, while Latvia made a clear
distinction between these financing sources when reporting on their use. 
France reported
the use of favourable interest rates for mortgages linked to energy efficiency
criteria and the introduction of zero-rated eco-loan to finance energy retrofitting
in low-income households, lower VAT rate for renovation work and exempting from
property tax those buildings in which significant work eligible for the
Sustainable Development Tax Credit had been carried out.
Regarding fiscal incentive mechanisms Finland
reported on their "Energy Tax" system, which allows the government to
re-distribute the revenue from the tax applied on excessive energy use to
citizens according to their income. 
4.2         Financing tools in the building sector
The information provided in the EEAPs shows
that financial measures in the building sector represent the largest share of
the budget allocated by the Member States to energy efficiency. Next to
market-based mechanisms such as ESCOs and Third Party Financing (TPF) that
enable the end user to carry out energy efficiency activities without having to
provide upfront capital[55],
many EEAPs reported on the subsidies and tax incentives granted from state
funds for the energy efficient renovation of residential buildings. Some good
examples are: the 55% tax allowances for the energy upgrading of existing
buildings in Italy; the Austrian residential building subsidy scheme for
thermal insulation and renewable energy and the Development Tax Credit in
France, which allows individuals to claim a tax credit when purchasing the most
energy efficient materials or equipment. Germany
provides a large number of measures promoting the energy-related renovation of
existing buildings, the use of renewable energies through long term
low-interest loans and direct investment grants. The KfW programme described in
the EEAP can be considered one of the most successful measures for renovations,
which will be followed by a long term renovation roadmap targeting nearly
zero-energy building standards for renovation by 2050. 
In the Netherlands, the national grant
scheme "More with Less" offers grants to home owners who implement
energy-saving measures, while in Ireland "Better Energy Homes"
provides grant aid for domestic energy efficiency retrofits and advice for residential
energy users. Luxembourg and Finland have both established subsidies schemes
whereby thermal envelope refurbishment is integrated with building equipment
measures. 
With reference to domestic energy
efficiency retrofits, Denmark, Latvia, Luxembourg and the UK provide subsidies
for scrapping oil-fired boilers whilst Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands
and Portugal offer incentives for the upgrade of heating systems in existing
buildings. Poland and Romania also allocate substantial state funds for the
thermo-modernisation of housing units.
Nevertheless, whereas many Member States
mention the importance of creating a favourable environment and promoting
energy services for buildings, the general performance level in this field
remains low. The best examples presented in the second EEAPs are the detailed
analysis of the energy contracting market in Germany and the definition of
clear objectives for energy services in tertiary buildings in Spain (together
with supporting measures such as aids for energy audits to prepare contracts
and for energy efficiency investments within energy services contracts).
Most of the second EEAPs include estimates
of public budgets or investments made in buildings in 2008-2010 and planned for
2011-2016. Fewer have estimated the investments from the private sector[56]. The most frequently
mentioned difficulty encountered by the Member States towards achieving their
objectives is related to the funding needed in a time of economic crisis. This
applies both to public funding, which is affected by budgetary restrictions,
and to private sector funding, which suffers from smaller revenues and worse
financing conditions. In fact, various Member States highlighted their
difficulties in funding planned measures or less investment from the private
sector (Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Romania). 
While support for the construction sector
has often been a way for revitalising the economy, only few Member States
(Austria, France and Germany) explicitly mentioned measures for energy
efficiency in buildings related to their recovery plan. Nevertheless, access to
EU funds, market based mechanisms (obligation schemes, tax depreciation,
developing energy services market) and public-private partnerships' investments
have supported some of the Member States to overcome the funding problems
regarding energy efficiency improvements.
4.3         The use of EU Funds to finance energy efficiency
programmes
Considerable resources to finance energy
efficiency measures as reported in the 27 EEAPs have been made available at EU level through various
instruments aimed at assisting Member States in supporting the implementation
of energy efficiency projects and facilitating the associated investments.
EU Cohesion policy
funding has increasingly focused on investments in energy efficiency and
renewables in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth and the related 20-20-20 targets. In support of these
objectives, an amendment to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Regulation
in 2009 allowed all Member States to allocate up to 4% of their national
allocation to energy efficiency and renewables in the residential sector.[57]
In this context, EU Structural Funds available for eastern European Member States
play a significant role in financing energy efficiency projects, as highlighted
in the EEAPs of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia, as well as in the EEAPs of France, Greece,
Italy and Malta. Furthermore, the use of the ERDF for the improvement of energy
efficiency in public buildings and utility facilities was highlighted in the EEAPs
of Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
Some Member States that
meet the relevant criteria are also offered the possibility to invest some of
their Structural Funds allocations in financial instruments in support of urban
development and energy efficiency programmes, through the Joint European
Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas (JESSICA) initiative[58]. These
financial instruments invest in public-private partnerships and other projects
included in integrated plans for sustainable urban development. Although not
all the EEAPs reported information related to energy efficiency projects
financed by this initiative, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany,
Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the  UK have made use of
this financial mechanism either in the form of  a Holding Fund (HF) or Urban
Development Fund (UDF).[59]
To complement the JESSICA
facility, the ELENA Technical Assistance Facility (launched in 2009) aims at
providing co-financing to local and regional authorities for the development
and launch of sustainable energy investments in their territories. About a
third of these investments address the buildings sector and energy performance
contracting. The use of the ELENA financial mechanism was highlighted in
France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and in the UK
and has also been used to co-finance the EU Covenant of Mayors activities
within various cities across the Member States[60].
Support from the EU
Funds is expected to increase in the upcoming years, as Member States will have
to devote a substantial share of their European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
allocations to support investments in the fields of energy efficiency and
renewable energy: at least 20%  in more developed regions, 15% in transition
regions, and 12% in less developed regions (this share will go up to 15%, if a
Member State decides to use also the Cohesion Fund for the same purpose).
4.4         Public-private funding
mechanism
The strong supporting role of the public
sector in financing energy efficiency improvements was highlighted by most
Member States. However, budget contribution from the private sector is still
relatively small.
Many EEAPs mentioned the use of
public-private partnerships (PPP) or energy performance contracting, which uses
cost savings from reduced energy consumption to repay the cost of putting in
place energy conservation measures, as an important instrument, although few EEAPs
report a significant uptake of these tools (beyond demonstration projects). 
With regards to PPP, Germany reported on
successful examples being awarded the "Good Practice Energy
Efficiency" label of the German Energy Agency. The agreement signed
between the Energy Agency in Berlin and the Romanian Agency for Energy
Conservation represents a mechanism for sharing relevant experience. Austria and Belgium have created a specific agency to develop
performance contracting in public buildings (respectively the Federal Real Estate Contracting and Fedesco), while Estonia has established a centralised service (State Real Estate
Ltd.) to supervise the energy efficiency actions for public buildings. Spain has set specific objectives regarding the number of public
sites (central and local administrations) to be covered by energy services
contracts with ESCOs. A third of the EEAPs mentioned measures in order to
create more favourable conditions for performance contracting or other energy
services especially through the drafting of model contracts (Finland, France,
Hungary, Italy, Poland and Romania)[61]
and/or to support pilot projects (Estonia, Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg).
To increase energy
efficiency levels in across sectors (e.g. industry, public sector, SME's) some
Member States (Germany, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands Poland, Romania,
Slovenia, and the UK), have also launched energy efficiency funds at national level.
Moreover, the EEAPs of Bulgaria and Romania include
measures that build on existing credit lines for energy efficiency projects
from international financing institutions.
Other alternative funding mechanisms
reported in the EEAPs are the Public Sector Energy
Efficiency Loans managed by a private bank (UK) and a bonus/malus system
where part of the regular funding assigned to certain administrations or
institutions is frozen unless they meet specific carbon or energy efficiency
targets (France and the UK). 
A popular approach for public support is to
provide financial incentives (e.g. soft loans and financial guarantees[62]) as opposed to direct
aids (e.g. subsidies and tax credits). This is perceived as creating higher
leverage effect or ensuring better sustainability of funding (e.g. through
revolving funds).
Market-based approaches also include an
increased role of energy companies through obligation schemes (e.g. the Region
of Flanders in Belgium[63],
Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and the UK),
facilitating alternative financing solutions (e.g. Public-Households
Partnership in the Brussels Capital Region in Belgium; cost recovery mechanisms
for landlords in France and the Netherlands; Pays As You Save scheme in
Ireland; accelerated tax depreciation for tenants in Luxembourg), or explicitly
addressing market failures through enhanced information activities (Sweden) or
voluntary agreements[64].
Another common option is to use dedicated funds possibly based on contributions
on energy tariffs (the Walloon Region in Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia,
Greece, Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia)[65].
In the UK, the Green Deal, expected to be
operational from late 2012, will enable energy efficiency retrofit in homes and
businesses to be financed through energy bill savings and, if successfully
implemented, would contribute to further support the development of the energy
services market.
As for good practice in fiscal incentives,
the Enhanced Capital Allowance (ECA) scheme reported in the UK EEAP enables
businesses to claim 100% first year capital allowance on the purchase of energy
saving equipment on the Energy Technologies List. A similar scheme is applied
in the Netherlands, where an additional allowance on taxable profit is provided
when designated energy efficient equipment for the generation of renewable
energy is purchased. Furthermore, in the UK, as part of the Climate Change
Agreements, a tax rebate is provided on the Climate Change Levy for steps taken
to improve energy efficiency. 
Finally, taxes on energy and transport are
widely applied among Member States. Some examples reported in EEAPs include
Germany's Ecological Tax Reform (increased petroleum tax rates on motor and
heating fuels and a tax on electricity), Denmark's green tax reform and green
car tax, Italy's transport tax (comprising of emission specific car tax paid
when the vehicle is registered, vehicle tax to be paid annually and fuel tax on
transport fuels) and Ireland's carbon tax on petrol and diesel.
4.5         Conclusion
The analysis of the second EEAPs indicates that the majority of Member States apply a combination of grants,
loans, fiscal incentives and market mechanisms to finance energy efficiency
improvement measures, mainly in the building sector. 
However, many of the second EEAPs did not
include data on the effectiveness of most of the reported financial
instruments, which made it difficult to assess the scale of actual investments
carried out and the related actually achieved energy savings. This could be due
to a lack of sufficient ex-ante and ex-post evaluations or monitoring during
the implementation of these financial instruments.
While public-private partnerships for
energy efficiency can provide effective means to realise energy efficiency
investments, the involvement of the private sector in the funding process still
seems to be limited.
Although ESCOs and energy performance
contracting[66]
are increasingly common in Member States, due to different legislative and
regulatory frameworks in place, different maturity of the commercial financial
market and the energy services market, their uptake varies significantly
between the different countries[67].
It has also become clear that public
finance continues to be needed to kick-start the private finance market for
energy efficiency. In this context, the use of EU Structural and Cohesion Funds
by member states remains crucial to finance energy efficiency improvements.

Table 14  Financing tools reported in the second EEAP
 Member State   || Grants   || Soft loans   || Tax incentives   || Sale of AAUs to finance EE || Energy Performance Contracting || EU Structural and Cohesion Funds 
 AT || x || x || x ||   || X ||   
 BE || x || x || x ||   || X ||   
 BG || x || x ||   || x || X || x 
 CY || x || x ||   ||   ||   ||   
 CZ || x || x || x || x || X || x 
 DK || x ||   || x ||   ||   ||   
 EE || x || x || x || x ||   || x 
 FI || x || x || x ||   ||   ||   
 FR || x || x || x ||   || X || x 
 DE || x || x || x ||   || X ||   
 GR || x || x || x ||   ||   || x 
 HU || x || x ||   || x ||   || x 
 IE || x ||   || x ||   || X ||   
 IT || x || x || x ||   || X || x 
 LV || x || x || x || x || X || x 
 LT || x || x || x || x || X || x 
 LU || x || x || x ||   ||   ||   
 MT || x || x || x ||   || X || x 
 PL || x || x ||   || x || X || x 
 PT || x ||   || x ||   || X || x 
 RO || x || x || x ||   || X || x 
 SK || x || x || x || x ||   || x 
 SI || x || x || x ||   || X || x 
 ES || x || x || x ||   || X ||   
 SE || x ||   || x ||   || X ||   
 NL || x || x || x ||   || X ||   
 UK || x || x || x ||   || X || x 
5            Conclusions
Measures to improve energy efficiency in
energy supply
As indicated, the ESD does not oblige
Member States to report measures addressed at improving the energy efficiency
of energy supply. Moreover, savings achieved in the energy supply sector cannot
be counted towards ESD end-use energy savings targets. However, the Commission
has recommended that supply-side energy efficiency measures be incorporated
into national plans. All Member States have listed some measures that are
relevant to supply-side energy efficiency in their latest round of EEAPs. Many
have dedicated sections in the EEAPs describing or outlining strategies or
measures aimed at improving particular aspects of energy efficiency in supply.
However, few provide a comprehensive national plan for energy savings covering
the whole economy that fully incorporates a plan to improve supply-side energy
efficiency. Most have focused only on supply-side measures that are most
relevant to end-use efficiency.
Many EEAPs provide details of national
efforts to improve the energy efficiency of district heating systems or to
ensure more widespread use of existing network. Some EEAPs give details of
plans to extend electricity transmission networks to facilitate greater
interconnectivity, to provide for increased demand, and to accommodate more
generation capacity from renewables. A number of Member States describe in
their plans efforts to improve electricity distribution systems through
technical modifications and replacement of network components. A significant improvement
in the energy efficiency of electricity generation capacity is foreseen by some
Member States through the replacement of old power stations with new efficient
ones and the increase in the share of electricity produced from renewable
sources. While some of the plans provide information about efforts to further
the development of smart grids, listed activities are generally small-scale
research projects or pilot roll-out programmes for smart meters. In some Member
States achieving greater energy efficiency in supply is incentivised through
voluntary agreements with energy suppliers whereby supply-side savings can
count towards suppliers' energy savings commitments.
Most of the EEAPs contain details of
measures to promote the increased use of high-efficiency CHP. Many of the
measures listed are aimed at incentivising small-scale or micro-cogeneration in
end-use. The national CHP reports provide a better overview of policies put in
place and actions undertaken to promote cogeneration, although CHP reports from
a number of Member States have not been received.
The CHP national reports indicate that the
most common type of support for CHP is a fixed feed-in tariff or guaranteed
purchase price for electricity produced by cogeneration. Measures that provide
capital grants for investment in high-efficiency CHP are common to most of the
Member States that provided reports. Tax exemptions or favourable conditions
for writing off capital costs are used to provide additional incentives for
investment in cogeneration. In some countries CHP is further supported through
existing green certificate or white certificate schemes.
The CHP national reports indicate that the
most significant barriers to the growth in cogeneration are high fuel prices
and fluctuations in the difference between electricity and input fuel prices,
uncertainty about the level of heat demand. In several countries the lack of
suitable infrastructure, in particular the lack of a natural gas network, is
seen as a significant barrier to CHP development.
Based on the limited figures available from
the CHP national reports it is apparent that, despite all measures, there has
been very little growth in the amount of electricity generated from CHP
facilities in the Member States since 2007. 
Measures to improve energy efficiency in
end-use consumption
Most Member States do not include inputs
from assessments of savings potentials in buildings, the key sector for
achieving energy savings in the EU. Furthermore, none of them referred to any
kind of potentials when presenting objectives or results. At the same time,
Member States have assessed energy savings expected in 2016 (and sometimes in
2020) of the measures presented in this field. For many of them, the resulting
estimates mean a large increase in savings between 2010 and 2016, which implies
a significant change of scale (often a 5 to 10-fold in annual rate of actions
or savings). This raises critical issues regarding the availability of funding
and skilled staff. 
No Member State has reported technical problems
which would impede the realization of the energy savings potential, indicating
the availability of technical solutions. Main difficulties reported are linked
to funding and/or the involvement of building owners. The supply side of energy
efficiency in buildings is seldom analysed, but some Member States have
presented measures to support the involvement of building professionals and the
development of new offers.
As regards existing buildings, three main
challenges emerge: 
1) Avoiding lost opportunities (ensuring
that criteria for energy efficiency are taken into account when regular
refurbishments take place): the use of requirements for existing buildings
seems still to be insufficient in this respect in many Member States.
2) Increasing the rate of refurbishments
(volume of actions): funding remains a key issue, as highlighted in the second EEAPs,
especially with the crisis affecting both the public budgets and the private
investment capacities. Innovative mechanisms aim at guarantying the investments
and/or favouring cost recovery over the action lifetime. Their actual leverage
effect could be one of the keys to support the needed change of scale.
3) Reaching a high level of energy
performance and avoiding possible lock-in effects (quality of the actions): an
increasing number of incentives are linked to global performance requirements.
However incentives whose amount is based on the type of action still remain the
main practice.
In addition to the energy dimension of the
upgrade of the building stock, the context of economic crisis and increasing
energy prices has raised the acuteness of the issue of fuel poverty. This has
been addressed more or less explicitly in a growing number of EEAPs.
As regards new buildings, regulation
remains the leading instrument. The new objective of nearly Zero Energy
Buildings will likely represent a breakthrough for the construction industry.
Forerunners have indeed emphasised measures supporting R&D and the
dissemination of innovation. In the meantime, compliance is seldom discussed,
while it is of upmost importance to ensure the effectiveness of regulations.
Another issue rarely addressed in the second EEAPs is that the more efficient
the buildings, the bigger the influence of behaviour.
Furthermore, there is sometimes a large
discrepancy between the savings reported for 2010 and the ones for 2016 in
buildings, while there are very few explanations about how the change of scale
will be accomplished: this shows the necessity of defining detailed and
comprehensive roadmaps for energy efficiency in buildings. Besides funding
mechanisms, training activities are another key area not addressed enough in
many second EEAPs. The Build Up Skills initiative could be a European supporting
measure to change this trend.
Intermediate savings figures for various
Member States show that economic growth has a significant influence on energy
efficiency progress in the industry sector. A prolonged period of recession
experienced by several Member States since submitting their first EEAPs has
resulted in lower than expected rates of energy savings in the sector. The EEAPs
anticipate that industry will account for a greater proportion of the total
savings in the future. The ability of all Member States in the EU to return to
positive growth will be an important factor in determining whether energy
savings targets for the industry sector will be met. 
Voluntary agreements in manufacturing, in
which large industrial energy users commit to a programme of energy savings and
to putting in place energy management systems, have proven to be a successful
means of encouraging the sector to pursue its own energy savings opportunities.
Member States that do not have such agreements in place are encouraged to
establish programmes that assist industry energy users to adopt a more
strategic approach to energy management. Voluntary agreements programmes can
complement existing financial measures such as grants and loans for energy
efficiency investments in industry, and can provide a platform for dissemination
and exchange of information on rational energy use. 
The ESD requires Member States to provide
small energy users, including SMEs, with access to energy audit programmes that
can help them to identify and address energy savings opportunities. Many EEAPs
do not clarify whether national energy audit programmes exist or are accessible
to SMEs. While some EEAPs mention energy audit programmes for industry, the
extent to which these are suited to the specific requirements of SMEs is not
clear. Member States should ensure that audit schemes are in place that are
accessible to SMEs and these should be described in the EEAPs. In addition, it
is recommended that information and supports for SMEs be tailored to suit the
needs of small energy users. 
As regards the transport sector, clear,
consistent strategies towards more energy saving modes of transport remain
limited. This is especially worrying because in some Member States the
transport sector is highlighted as a major contributor of energy savings
towards 2016. At the same time the review of the second EEAPs did reveal some
positive practices in the transport sector. These include measures aimed at
increasing the use of public transport, as well as inter-modal transport
initiatives, with relevant actions reported by about a third of the Member
States.
Based on information provided in the second
EEAPs agriculture is the least favoured sector for implementing energy saving
measures, with only ten Member States reporting relevant policy initiatives.
Successful programmes communicated by the Member States include the state
subsidy for fuel switch to renewables in boiler houses in Finland, and the use
of CHP in greenhouse cultivation in the Netherlands. 
With relevance to the exemplary role of the
public sector, clearer reporting and better compliance with public procurement
requirements (as set out in Annex VI of the ESD) is a key issue, as only half
of the Member States demonstrated fulfilment of these requirements.
Furthermore, while positive examples such as setting quantified energy saving
targets in the public sector (in Ireland), implementation of energy management
systems and voluntary agreements for energy savings at local authorities (in
Luxembourg and Denmark respectively) have been reported, the expansion of these
good practices among Member States would be necessary. 
About third of the Member States
demonstrated in their second EEAP that the provision of information and advice
forms an integral part of their energy efficiency policy, presenting a strong
set of diverse information measures complementing other types of action.
However, limited detail on implementation and failure to designate information
measures remain a problem in some cases. Measures related to informative
metering and billing are becoming more widespread, with a third of the Member
States reporting on the use, planned rollout or pilot phase of smart meters. 
Financing instruments
Many promising financing tools to finance
energy efficiency programmes have been identified across the second EEAPs.
These instruments range from financing energy efficiency projects through the
sale of AAUs as reported in the EEAPs of some new Member States, as well as the
use of EPC and revolving funds. Energy tax systems are applied on excessive
energy use parallel to more traditional financing mechanisms such as favourable
loans, grants and tax incentives, especially in the residential sector. 
Overall, among the second EEAPs, the use of
EU Structural Funds to finance energy efficiency programmes is clearly visible.
As a result of the recent increased EU Cohesion policy funding on energy
efficiency and renewables, many Member States will be able to focus even more
on financing energy efficiency programmes in the residential sector.   
Financial measures in the building sector
represent the largest share of the budget allocated by the Member States to
energy efficiency. Energy certification of buildings plays a major role in this
context and it has been clearly emphasised in many EEAPs.
Although the majority of the Member States have
opted to report separately on the requirements of EPBD, many measures promoting
the objective of the directive have been reported in the second EEAPs. These
range from financial incentives to encourage the construction of nearly zero
energy buildings and various instruments to promote energy efficiency measures
in existing buildings. These include long term low-interest loans and grants
for the installation of systems which utilise renewable energies for space
heating, hot water production or electricity generation.
In the public sector, a large amount of
funds have been allocated through Operational Programmes to improve energy
efficiency in buildings and utility facilities. Significant national funding
has also been provided by some Member States to co-finance energy efficiency
investments in public infrastructure. However, overall, private investment
contribution is still very low compared to national/EU funding.
Achieved and forecasted savings
Many different approaches have been applied
in the EEAPs to calculate savings achieved in 2010 and savings forecast for
2016. Some Member States choose to show only savings that can be attributed to
measures by providing bottom-up figures only, while others declare top-down
figures incorporating all energy efficiency improvements whatever their origin.
Some EEAPs present top-down figures for all sectors complemented by bottom-up
figures for measures for which savings can be assessed. Some add top-down
figures for some sectors to bottom-up calculations for others to determine
total savings. In some EEAPs no information or inadequate detail is provided
about how the savings figures were determined. Top-down methods are generally
in line with those recommended by the Commission while bottom-up methods are
typically national methods that are described with varying levels of detail in
the EEAPs. 
Given the different approaches used to
calculate savings, the different interpretations of qualifying savings, the
very high levels of savings declared by a number of Member States, and the lack
of information about calculation methods in some cases, it is difficult to
quantify overall savings and assess the extent to which these can be attributed
to energy efficiency policy measures undertaken by the Member States. Nonetheless,
summing up declared intermediate figures for the 27 Member States gives
approximately 59 Mtoe of annual final energy savings up to 2010. In most cases intermediate
figures exceed targets given in the first EEAPs. Total forecast final energy savings
for 2016 amount to around 132 Mtoe, equivalent to 13.3% of reference energy
consumption for all Member States. 
The figures on their own indicate that
savings are well ahead of ESD targets. However, a clear relationship between
the quantities of savings stated in the reports and the quality of policy
measures presented in them is not discernible. Also, given the differences in
calculation methodologies, the performance of Member States relative to each
other cannot be determined by comparing their percentage savings figures alone.
Figures should provide a better indication of the level of energy savings
activities in each Member State. A greater effort must be made by Member
States, with the assistance of the Commission, to ensure a more harmonised approach
to calculating energy savings is applied in the next round of EEAPs.
An approach to estimating the contribution
of ESD-related savings to the EU 2020 primary energy savings target has been
developed based on the energy savings patterns given in the EEAPs. By leaving
aside differences in methodologies and by assuming that all savings figures
given in the national plans are correct and that each unit of savings declared
is the same regardless of calculation method, an ESD-related primary energy
savings figure of between 211 Mtoe and 287 Mtoe in 2020 has been estimated.
This estimate excludes savings that may be achieved by economic sectors outside
the scope of the ESD. Just as forecast savings exceed the ESD indicative target
for 2016, the estimated ESD-related primary energy savings are between 56 Mtoe
and 93 Mtoe in excess of the ESD target extrapolated to 2020. The accuracy of
the estimates is of course highly dependent on the reliability and
comparability of savings figures from the EEAPs.
Annex 1         EEAP
Country Summaries
Austria
Summary
The Austrian EEAP provides a good overview of
current energy efficiency efforts in the Member State. Figures for 2010
indicate that energy savings achieved by measures exceeded the intermediate
target by a factor almost 3[68],
indicating a strong performance since 2007. Most of the savings are accounted
for by measures addressing energy use in residential buildings, with relatively
small contributions from other sectors. 
The descriptions of some of the measures are,
however, insufficient. The report lists comprehensive sets of information
measures and measures addressing energy efficiency in the public sector.
However, quantified savings due to these measures in the public sector are low.
The too brief descriptions of measures, coupled with relatively low savings
calculated using bottom-up methods, make it difficult to assess energy
efficiency achievements in the transport and industry/SME sectors. 
Austria has chosen to measure progress
towards its energy savings target using bottom-up methods and thereby endeavours
to include only savings achieved by policy measures. Achievement of the 2016
savings forecast relies heavily on the contribution of energy efficiency
measures implemented well before 2008[69].
While the bottom-up projection of savings in 2016 shows a small shortfall with
respect to the 2016 target, Austria could demonstrate that the target can be
achieved by measures with minimal additional effort. 
General evaluation
Austria's second EEAP provides an update of
energy efficiency progress in the Member State since 2007. It presents energy
savings in 2010 attributable to measures and forecasts savings in 2016. It
provides brief descriptions of measures, explains some of the energy savings
calculation methodologies, and gives more detail on selected aspects of the
ESD.
Austria uses bottom-up methods to quantify
energy savings and validates some of its figures using top-down methods. A
comprehensive set of top-down indicators, based on recommended methods, is
presented in the document. The report estimates intermediate savings that are
far ahead of target. However, most of the savings are accounted for by early
actions undertaken already in the period 1991 to 2007. Bottom-up calculations
are made using national methods that are broadly similar to Commission
recommended methods. 
For the sub-sector dominating the savings (heating
and hot water in households) the bottom-up savings are a multiple of those
quantified using top-down methods. The report suggests that high rebound
effects in households account for the difference. Currently implemented
measures are projected to achieve savings that are slightly lower than the 9%
indicative target of 80,400 TJ. The projection does not take into account
savings achieved by any future measures or autonomous savings. 
Measures aimed at improving energy efficiency
in buildings account for most of the bottom-up savings. Those measures include
subsidies, building standards and energy advice for households. Financial
support measures in forms of soft loans and/or grants to improve the thermal
quality of residential buildings as well as heating systems account for most of
the savings. Three measures address the provision of such public support to
private households for renovation of existing and for new buildings. The too
brief descriptions provided for each do not make it clear how they differ from
each other nor how they interact. Reporting requirements of the EPBD are not
directly addressed. No specific target concerning buildings has been presented,
despite some very good measures for this sector, including tightening of the
building codes requirements for both renovation and new buildings. 
The EEAP does not include a comprehensive
overview of supply-side measures as such. However, some measures related to
district heating and CHP systems are thereby described. The report indicates
that subsidies are provided for district heating systems, pipelines and
distribution networks. In addition, investment grants are available for new CHP
plants and subsidies for existing CHP facilities that provide public district
heating. Additionally, federal states use different instruments to promote and
extend district heating systems, including compulsory connections in some
cases.
For industry and SMEs (32% of final
energy consumption) savings are attributed to one listed measure only, which consists
in providing advice, information and subsidies to enterprises, The measure is
not sufficiently described.  Elsewhere in the document an 'energy efficiency
voucher' for SMEs is briefly explained, the availability of energy audits is
described, and savings attributed to energy audits in 2010 are quantified. It
is unclear if these are part of recorded industry savings.
The EEAP gives a very brief description of a
number of measures addressing energy efficiency in the transport sector (32%
of final consumption). For the most part, savings cannot be quantified
using bottom-up methods. Top-down calculations presented elsewhere in the
report suggest small energy efficiency improvements in 2008. 
A number of horizontal measures are listed,
ranging from fiscal measures such as energy taxes and excise duty to
information measures such as training and energy labelling. For two of those measures,
energy savings are recorded but no descriptions are given.  
Voluntary agreements with a number of energy
distributors and energy sales companies have been put in place whereby
companies are induced to achieve specific savings targets using measures that
can be freely selected by them. The company targets are given and the achieved
savings in 2010, adjusted for double-counting, are quantified in the report.
The extent to which member companies have achieved their targets is not
clarified, nor is it clear how the savings have been incorporated in overall
bottom-up savings figures.
The exemplary role of the public sector is
highlighted in the EEAP with most of the energy saving measures introduced
already before ESD entered into force. These comprise extensive renovation of
public buildings through contracting and procurement of products and services
as part of the federal real estate contracting, the central federal procurement
agency as well as actions undertaken by the regions ("Länder"). For
the public sector measures presented, a total of only 0,278 PJ savings could be
measured in 2010. The exchange of good practices between public sector bodies
is facilitated and enabled by several listed information and advice actions.
The obligations related to Annex VI of ESD on public procurement have been
fulfilled. 
The Federal Procurement Act governs public
procurement in Austria[70]
and since 2007 environmental aspects, including energy efficiency criteria have
to be considered in the award procedure. It has not been specified in the EEAP
if Austria facilitates this process by publishing clear guidelines on energy
efficiency and energy savings as possible criteria in competitive tendering. On
a more general level, the action plan for sustainable public procurement of
2010 serves as a guideline for procurement of environmentally friendly products
and services.
Provisions of information and advice form an
integral part of implemented actions. Regional energy agencies, energy saving
associations and energy institutes serve as focal points and competence centres
for energy efficiency. Information is made available by a wide range of
advertising and information campaigns, on federal and state level as well as by
energy utilities. 'Klima:aktiv' is the most comprehensive climate protection
initiative. Several "Länder" and energy utilities offer individual
advice or internet services. The measures range from provision of information
by phone to comprehensive advice prior to implementation of specific measures
often linked to residential building subsidies offered by "Länder".
Strengths 
·        
The EEAP presents a realistic strategy of
implementing EE in all economic sectors, but relies almost exclusively on
savings in residential buildings. Implementing measures are accompanied by
several information and advice actions that help to address knowledge and
awareness gaps.
·        
The calculations presented indicate that Austria
has exceeded its 2010 intermediate energy savings target considerably, aiming
to show the success of the national energy efficiency strategy, though early actions
dating back to 1991 are included.
·        
Austria has successfully introduced an energy
performance contracting programme for public buildings. Although with low
savings reported so far, it can be expected to generate more savings in the
future.
·        
Austria has chosen to assess the progress
towards energy savings targets using bottom up methods and thereby has
endeavoured to include only savings achieved by energy efficiency measures in
declared savings data. 
Weaknesses
·        
Not all measures have been described in clear
way. Descriptions of many measures listed are inadequate (e.g. G.1, V.2, I.1)
or are completely missing (e.g. H.6, H.7). Three measures are categorised as
"subsidies" for the residential sector. None of these subsidies has
been sufficiently explained and the differences, synergy and possible overlap
between them are unclear.
·        
The achievement of the calculated ESD targets is
heavily dependent on the building shell and heating savings in the residential
sector, with approximately 80% of the 2010 declared savings being attributed to
energy savings in these buildings. The proportion of savings achieved by
transport and industry (with almost 2/3 of final consumption) and the number of
measures addressing these sectors are relatively small (approximately 12%). 
·        
Combined savings attributed to measures
implemented in the public sector amount to less than 0.5% of the 2016 target.
Considering the exemplary role of the public sector, and given the good
practices in the sector, a higher level of savings would be anticipated. 
·        
For the industry/SME sector, the top-down
savings figure is very low when compared to the 2005 industry energy
consumption figures given in EEAP1, excluding EU ETS participants. Again, the
figure is lower than the bottom-up figure for the sector. The top-down figure
suggests that EE improvement in the industry sector has been slow. 
Recommendations for improvement
·        
Austria could provide more comprehensive
descriptions of some important measures that have been implemented. The
differences between measures that provide subsidies to enhance the thermal
quality and heating systems of buildings, for example, should be clearer. 
·        
Where measures are grouped together to assess
total savings, some indication could be given on which of the measure(s) has
been the most critical in achieving the aggregate saving. 
·        
Comprehensive assessment of achievable savings
should be made in transport (providing grounds for essential assumptions e.g.
"price-induced export of gasoline/diesel" due to "motor fuel
tourism", mainly near the German border), but also in the supply sector as
well as in industry.
·        
A comprehensive assessment of the savings
achieved by measures in the public sector would be useful.
·        
Greater effort should be made to reconcile
top-down results with bottom-up savings. In some cases, the savings results
from the top-down analysis are lower than those given by bottom-up methods. It could
suggest that figures may be inaccurate due to rebound effects, or measurement
or calculation errors. In the case of heating in households, higher bottom-up
savings are attributed to rebound, but the level of rebound effects necessary
to account for the difference would be very high. As attainment of the 2016
target is heavily dependent on households achieving projections calculated
using bottom-up methods, a significant error in the calculation could
jeopardise the achievement of the ESD target, requiring stronger efforts in
other sectors.
·        
With the methodology chosen to measure energy
savings using bottom-up calculation (including early actions), the projection
of savings attributable to existing measures in 2016 shows a shortfall with
respect to the 9% target. Austria may need to put in place some new measures or
adjust existing measures to achieve greater savings in order to reach its ESD
target for final energy savings in 2016 and the future 2020 target for primary
energy savings as required by the new Energy Efficiency Directive.
Belgium
Summary 
An overall
improvement in Belgian reporting compared to first EEAP is the provision of an
umbrella country level action plan with the aim to summarize the Federal and
the three regional Energy Efficiency Action Plans (EEAPs). The national energy
saving targets is reported to be the sum of respective regional targets in
order to meet Belgium's obligation as a Member State. All the regional/federal parts
of the Plan have been are structured according to the template and method
recommended by the Commission.  However, they still differ in detail, consolidation
of applied methods and described measures. This reflects the fact that the
overall country strategy is a set of parallel strategies alongside each other.
The fact the federal and regional documents comprising the overall second EEAP
are still not sufficiently integrated creates some lack of clarity on the overall
national targets and the savings achieved.
On the positive
side, each of the EEAPs contains various good practices that capture the spirit
of the ESD, especially in the public and transport sector. The federal part and
all four regional parts well address the public sector and information
provision obligations. Integrated packages of measures where the comprising
elements (e.g. regulatory, financial, information measures) mutually support
each other represent a further strong aspect of Belgian energy efficiency
policy, as outlined in second EEAP.
General evaluation
Intermediate 2010 energy saving targets have
been adopted by all regions within their second reports. Belgium declares with
its second EEAP that the national targets for 2010 and 2016 amount to the sum
of respective regional targets. The absolute saving figures for all second EEAP
are henceforth reported in final energy and expressed in the same unit.
The methodology to quantify energy savings
varies according to region and sector leading to figures being presented in
final energy consumption and/ or primary energy equivalent. A top-down approach
is used to quantify some savings and bottom-up for others. A combination of EC
recommended and national methodology is applied. It is not possible to
determine the contribution of early measures or autonomous effects. The
methodology, underlying assumptions and data, is documented in various degree
of detail in the annexed EEAPs.
Overall, the Belgian second EEAP,  the four
EEAPs for the Federal State and the regions of Brussels-Capital, Flanders and
Wallonia are in line with and build upon their first action plans. The new
reports refer back to the first and provide an evaluation. Compared to the
first action plan, the Flemish second EEAP introduced five new measures. In the
case of the Walloon Region a large improvement of the second EEAP compared to the
first EEAP is that it quantifies savings for a wide range of measures and
aggregates and compiles the 137 single actions of the first action plan within
new measure packages.
All three Belgian regions have opted to
fulfil EPBD-reporting requirements within their second EEAP and list those
instruments and measures that directly contribute to improving energy
efficiency in buildings in order to meet the commitment as set out in Article
10(2)(1) of the EPBD. Brussels-Capital, Flanders and Wallonia have already
transposed Articles 14 and 15 on inspection for heating and air-conditioning
into regional legislation, and there is therefore no reporting requirement on
alternative equivalent measures (as set out in paragraphs 14.4 and 15.4).
As indicated by all four Belgian EEAPs,
provision of information and advice forms an integral part of implemented
measures with a clear focus on buildings and transport. The plans include
numerous information provision actions, which are often part of integrated
packages that include financial support (subsidies, tax incentives) to promote
implementation of certain regulatory provisions. Measures target citizens,
companies and market operators to inform final customers on energy end-use
efficiency and on how to change consumer behaviour. Information and advice
measures also include dissemination of knowledge regarding the energy services
market, metering, green certificates, audits, as well as certification and
accreditation of energy experts.
The exemplary role of the public sector is
clearly highlighted in all four Belgian EEAPs for Federal and regional level.
The Federal EEAP includes Fedesco, a government agency created in 2005 to
promote TPF in Federal buildings, and Belesco, a non-profit organisation
gathering main operators on the recently created energy services market to
share experiences and disseminating information about ESCOs. Further measures
are the application of EMAS and the promotion of public transport: 70,000 civil
servants receive a free season ticket for rail commuting and can apply for a
cycling allowance. Exchange of best-practices between public sector
organisations is institutionalised between State and Federal regions through
ENOVER/CONCERE consultative groups.
All four action plans refer to public
procurement geared towards energy efficiency to fulfil the obligations under
Article 5 of the ESD by introducing a combination of measures which refer to
all items of Annex VI. This process is facilitated by publishing guidelines for
considering energy conservation in public procurement. The Federal government
introduced the Federal Action Plan for Sustainable Procurement (2009-2011).
Furthermore, practical support for purchasers is provided by the unit
'Purchasing policy and Advice' and sustainable development units have been
established within each Federal government department.
None of the EEAPs for the regions in
Belgium describe strategies to address all aspects of the energy efficiency of
supply. However, the plans for Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels-Capital do have
significant measures promoting greater use of CHP. In Flanders, a cogeneration
certificate system exists whereby certificates are issued to CHP facilities
according to the amount of energy they are deemed to have saved. Energy
suppliers are required to acquire a quantity of cogeneration certificates that
is in proportion to the amount of energy they supply. Flanders also provides
subsidies to local authorities installing micro-CHP plants and tax incentives
to the agriculture sector for investment in CHP. In Wallonia, the region's
green certificate scheme is used to support CHP. Additionally, investment
subsidies are available in Wallonia for both private and public sectors for
applications that can demonstrate energy savings of at least 10%. In Brussels-Capital,
grants for cogeneration are available and its green certificate system is also
applied to CHP. A multiplier coefficient is used to calculate green
certificates to be allocated to gas-fired CHP installations in collective
housing blocks in Brussels to provide further incentive.
Strengths
·        
A national EEAP is presented for Belgium
summarizing the main points of the three regional and the Federal second EEAP
in a unified way according to the template provided by the EU Commission. This
contributed to delivering five well-structured and clear documents.
·        
The Belgian EEAP underlines the strong
performance of Flanders and Wallonia with respect to 2010 intermediate target
of the ESD. The EEAP contains a number of good practices, especially in the
public and transport sector (TPF in Federal buildings through Fedesco; Belesco
to promote the energy services market; extensive renovation of public buildings
through promotional programmes, contracting and procurement; application of
EMAS and promotion of public transport).
·        
Provision of information and advice with a clear
focus on buildings and transport forms an integral part of implemented measures
presented by all plans. The actions are often part of integrated packages that
include financial support to promote implementation of certain regulatory
provisions. Measures target citizens, companies and market operators and
embrace dissemination of knowledge regarding the energy services market,
metering, green certificates, audits, certificates and accreditation of energy
experts.
Weaknesses
·        
While an "umbrella document" is
presented and the information has been organised according to the template and
methods recommended by the European Commission, the EEAP is not fully integrated
to form a single national strategy and to allow an easier judgement on
feasibility of achieving the national level energy saving targets.
·        
The summary document presents intermediate and
final indicative targets, as well as related savings achieved and expected
according to regions, with no national overall energy savings for 2010 and 2016
communicated. Calculation of the overall achieved and expected savings in
Belgium is difficult, inter alia because of the lack of data for the
Region of Brussels-Capital.
·        
The combined result of measures implemented in
different parts of the country is not fully clear. The fact that the different
regions use different saving calculation methodologies also reflects that the
overall country strategy is a set of parallel strategies alongside each other,
adding to the complexity of measuring and verifying impacts at the level of the
country.
Recommendations for improvement
·        
Consistency and consolidation of the summarizing
national EEAP and accompanying four EEAPs for the Federal State and the three
regions (Brussels-Capital, Flanders and Wallonia) should be improved further,
to collate the described measures in a coherent single national strategy and to
allow judgement on feasibility and appropriateness of the group of proposed
actions.
·        
The "umbrella document" should focus
on the overall national targets and the improve reporting on the achieved
national savings at the level of the the country.
Bulgaria
Summary
According to calculations supplied in the
second EEAP, Bulgaria has exceeded its intermediate 2010 energy saving target
by almost 50%. However, the trends reported for the transport sector make it
difficult to understand this large amount of savings. While sufficient detail
is provided for the top-down calculations, hardly any information is available
on the bottom-up ones. 
A comprehensive set of measures (regulatory,
financing, information, etc.) are presented in all end-use sectors, including
transport and agriculture, which can be highly effective if properly
implemented. However, the second EEAP provides scarce elements on important
operational details – including implementing provisions, monitoring and control
– making it difficult to assess the potential effectiveness of the measures.
The second EEAP does not seem overly
ambitious, but includes a wide variety of measures targeting all end-use
sectors. 
General evaluation
The second EEAP targets for 2010 and 2016
(final energy) amount to 2430 GWh and 7291 GWh respectively and have not been
recalculated since the first EEAP. In 2010 the achieved savings reported amount
to 3549 GWh[71],
exceeding the intermediate target by almost 50%. The projected 2013 savings
amount to 5892 GWh.
The largest amount of savings (top-down
calculations) comes from the transport and industrial sectors that together
account for almost two thirds of the expected savings in 2016. However, the
second EEAP does not include any details about concrete results or achievements
from the few measures in the transport and industrial sectors announced in the
first EEAP.
There are no significant changes in the
second EEAP with respect to the first EEAP. The major new measures in the
second EEAP include individual energy savings targets assigned to energy
traders and owners of large public buildings and industrial sites; using the
Structural Funds for co-financing energy efficiency measures; measures in the
transport sector (insufficient level of details) and the national strategy for
nearly-zero energy buildings (nZEB). Various measures have been pursued in
another form, which actually shows some progress in the respective field (e.g.,
loans in the agricultural sector). Various more specific measures have been
added, most of them related to the transposition and implementation of European
legislation (e.g. EcoDesign). 
For public buildings and industrial sites, a
combination of energy saving obligations, mandatory audits and energy
management is envisaged in the second EEAP. The imposition of individual energy
saving targets seems to be a key measure for Bulgaria in the coming years. At
this stage, no sufficient details are provided about the design and/or actual
implementation of the measure, neither about any possible interactions with
other policies, such as voluntary agreements in place.
Bulgaria has reported some measures with
relevance to the EPBD implementation without explicitly opting for fulfilling
the EPBD reporting requirements within the second EEAP. No measures are reported
in the private service sector. It remains uncertain whether any concrete output
has been achieved since the start of the first preparatory period for the nZEB,
while there seems to be an intention to have national targets starting from
2011. The only clear objective of the second EEAP with respect to nZEB is the
development of pilot projects for public buildings in the period 2011-2013.
The second EEAP clearly highlights the
exemplary role of the public sector. Thirteen measures are described for the
public sector (no reference to private service sector), mainly targeted on
buildings (nine measures, out of which three target electricity consumption).
The lack of details about implementation, funding and results makes it
difficult to assess whether these expected results are realistic or
overestimated.
While very few measures explicitly and
directly aim at information and advice of final customers, it should be
emphasised that the second EEAP relies strongly on measures encouraging or
imposing energy audits in the residential, public and industrial sectors. A
strong focus is placed on expert workgroups or networks of actors to assist the
development of energy efficiency plans in different areas or sectors.
Furthermore, measures are included that aim at stimulating energy services,
encompassing legal definitions, measurement methods, conditions and procedure
for energy performance contracts as well as financing instruments, and
potentially the individual energy savings targets that are expected to induce
the provision of energy services.
The EEAP briefly mentions several
supply-side energy efficiency measures that are planned or are being
implemented. Listed measures include feed-in tariffs for renewables and
high-efficiency cogeneration, the creation of a 'power exchange', advanced
regulatory approaches to stimulate energy efficiency in the energy supply
sector, information and training measures, loans and grants for decentralised
electricity production including cogeneration. Further general measures related
to transmission and distribution of energy are mentioned, including
strengthening the role of the energy regulator and promoting investments in new
technological solutions such as smart grids, smart meters and demand side
management. The plan also mentions extending the existing Energy Efficiency Act
to apply to the energy sector, mandatory energy audits for installations, and
the development of an energy efficiency programme for the sector. The report
states that it is planned to actively support high efficiency cogeneration and
to stabilise and develop the district heating sector but details or a timetable
are not given. The EEAP includes a description of a grant scheme for commercial
energy users that supports the implementation of energy savings technologies
including renewable energy technologies and cogeneration.
Strengths
·        
Well-structured EEAP that attempts to provide a
comprehensive set of measures in all end-use sectors, including transport and
agriculture.
·        
The background of the Bulgarian situation is well
presented, explaining the main trends observed in energy consumption and
highlighting relevant specific factors that have an impact on energy
consumption.
·        
The top-down monitoring is clearly described.
Main data used are included for most of the calculations. Adding analysis to
explain the top-down calculations and making link policies and measures
implemented so far that could explain the observed results would greatly
increase the quality of the EEAP. 
·        
An effort has been made to estimate budgets or
additional financing needs for most of the measures, but it remains unclear
whether some of the reported figures are financial commitments or estimates of
financing needs without clear commitment to secure them. The sources of the
corresponding funding and the mechanisms to allocate and provide the funding
are often described in a qualitative manner. In case of grants or loans, no
detail is given about the amount per action or beneficiary, the eligibility
criteria, the exact financing mechanism (in case of loans), total lending
activity to date, etc.
·        
Intentions to use various Operation Programmes
under the Structural Funds to implement energy efficiency measures in different
sectors.
Weaknesses
·        
The size of the main energy efficiency
programmes included in the second EEAP and assumed to be financed with the EU
Cohesion Policy Funds seems to be small compared to the needs.
·        
The second EEAP stays at a rather general level
with a wide range of regulatory measures (mostly implementing EU legislation),
plans and programmes, but no indication as to the concrete activities and tasks
to enforce existing legislation and/or to implement the existing plans and
programmes. It remains unclear whether measures that run since 2006 have so far
delivered concrete outcomes.
·        
There is no clear presentation of the strategies
defined for each end-use sector and often it is not obvious what measures could
be considered as umbrella policies and what the implementation measures are. It
remains to be seen how all these measures will deliver together.
·        
The objectives and principles of the measures
are often well-described, but there is insufficient degree of detail about
results to date, even for measures running for several years. For example, the
second EEAP includes a lot of regulations, but gives no details about their
implementation, especially about how they are monitored and how compliance is
ensured. This raises some doubts about the implementation of the measures, and
to what extent they will actually achieve the expected savings.
·        
The second EEAP appears to be postponing a lot
of practical action for beyond 2012. It remains to be seen how the gap between
the small numbers of demonstration projects and the ambitious objectives for
the coming years will be filled up.
·        
Adding analysis to the top-down results is of
particular importance for the transport sector holding the highest share of
top-down savings, while at the same time the list of measures reported for this
sector reveals that they are mostly expected to deliver savings from 2011 or
2012 onwards.
·        
The information on key measures (such as the new
obligation scheme and the renovation programme) is insufficient, as is the
outline of the role of the key bodies (MEET and EEA).
·        
No details about the bottom-up evaluations of
the measures. The description of the measures often include an assessment of
savings (mostly expected savings for 2016), however it is almost never
explained how these figures have been calculated. Only a few measures include
some information about this, such as energy audits for large buildings. Indeed,
it seems that most of the savings (large residential buildings, public sector, and
industry) have been or will be based on energy audits: this should be
clarified.
·        
In the service sector all measures seem to be
focused on public buildings and no measures appear to target private tertiary
buildings.
Recommendations for improvement
·        
The EEAP should provide more details on the
actual outcomes and results from measures already in place. The report should
also be more explicit about the concrete activities and tasks envisaged to
deploy existing measures, especially in the case of regulatory measures (incl.
enforcing existing legislation) and/or planning and programming. 
·        
It is recommended to consider significant
increase of the scale of the programmes co-financed from the EU Cohesion Policy
Funds addressing energy efficiency in buildings. In particular, the programmes
addressing existing multi-apartment buildings should be significantly
strengthened as this sector probably represents the biggest potential for
energy saving in Bulgaria.
·        
The actions expected to encourage private sector
financing contribution should be explained especially as regards planned
actions ensure the actual availability of such private financing. 
·        
A short presentation of sectoral strategies
(e.g. energy efficiency in residential buildings, in industry, etc.) would
improve the structure of the EEAP.
Cyprus
Summary
The strategy presented in the Cypriot second EEAP
is clear, coherent and feasible. With reported savings calculated by bottom-up
national methodologies in final energy, and based solely on implemented
measures, Cyprus achieves its targets of 3,3% by 2010 and 10% by 2016. The
presented regulatory, financial, information and training type measures complement
each other and cover all sectors of the economy. They are well-described
following the EC's guide and template.
The actions focus on those sectors with the
highest energy saving potential (buildings, transport and industry), but the
proportion of quantified savings achieved by transport and industry are still
comparatively small with the biggest contribution (about 85%) stemming from the
residential sector.
General evaluation
The second EEAP confirms the final energy
saving targets of the first EEAP. Already in the first action plan, Cyprus
clearly committed to a 10% target for 2016, which represents 185.000 toe. For
2010, the first Cypriot EEAP indicated the intermediate target of approximately
3,3%, i.e. 60.000 toe. The reference consumption is the average of the
yearly final energy consumption from 2001 till 2005 and represents 1.842.730 toe.
Cyprus set its national primary energy saving
target for 2020 as a reduction by 463 ktoe compared to a business-as-usual
scenario[72].
With the second EEAP Cyprus also submits an action plan for primary energy
savings until 2020, presenting additional measures other than those implemented
by 2010 with the key strategy to use natural gas in power generation
(transformation) after 2015. Also, the potential for savings in road transport
is deemed remarkable.
The Cypriot second EEAP is a follow-up of the
first EEAP and presents energy saving information for all sectors referred to
in the first action plan (residential, tertiary [public and commercial],
industry [incl. agriculture], transport, horizontal). The second EEAP refers
back to and reviews the first EEAP, lists all measures as presented in the
first action plan, along with the estimated savings according to the first
reporting phase, and compares them to the calculated savings for 2010 and 2016
of the second reporting period.
The evaluation of the first EEAP reveals
that, although, the targets for 2010 and 2016 have been/ will be most probably achieved,
most individual quantitative estimates for single measures were not confirmed.
This is mainly due to the fact that a number of actions included in the first
plan have not yet been implemented, or implementation thereof started later
than foreseen, or quantification was impossible due to lack of data.
The savings declared for 2010 (65 ktoe) and
forecast for 2016 (190 ktoe) in the overview section of the EEAP include only
those achieved by existing measures. The impact of planned measures has not
been included in these figures. This may imply that Cyprus has the potential to
exceed savings forecasts if planned measures are properly implemented.
In calculating energy savings, national
bottom-up methodologies were applied in the majority of cases, due to data
limitations in applying the Commission's recommended methods. No top-down
approach was used to quantify eligible savings. The methodology, underlying
assumptions and data are described and detailed per measure.
Even though enterprises and industries make a
contribution towards the achievement of the targets, the investments made in
these sectors appear to be short-lived (in the industrial sector in
particular). Moreover, subsidies have been granted for fourteen energy saving
investments implemented by enterprises which are subject to ETS and as such
cannot be counted towards the ESD 2016 target for final energy savings. These
savings can however be counted towards the primary energy target for 2020. The
energy savings resulting from these investments reached 5.200 toe in 2010.
In the transport sector not all programmed measures
have been implemented yet and the resulting savings are quite limited as
compared to the savings' potential for the sector.
Cyprus opted to fulfil EPBD-reporting
requirements as part of the second EEAP though no target or strategy to promote
nearly-zero energy buildings (nZEB) has yet been established. At this stage, Cyprus
has not indicated those instruments and measures to promote improved energy
efficiency in buildings as required under Article 10(2) of the EPBD.
Cyprus appears to comply with the ESD special
provisions regarding the exemplary role of the public sector and the provision
of information and advice. Cyprus has prepared the initial Action Plan for
Green Public Procurement to be implemented in 2007-2009. In 2010 the
Environment Department proceeded to revise the Action Plan according to the EC
GPP Toolkit by including the new categories and criteria proposed. The revised
plan lays down more specific targets for RES, e.g. conditions for signing
public procurement contracts for the use of RES, cogeneration, and energy
savings measures. The plan has been completed and is about to be submitted to
the Cabinet of Ministers for approval.
The Energy Service of the Ministry for
Commerce, Industry and Tourism is overseeing the ESD target and is responsible
for the ESD public sector integration control. It is also nominated for the
implementation of the independent control systems according to EPBD and the
supervision and calculation of energy savings relating to the primary energy
savings target. The Energy Service promotes information and advice regarding
application for grants schemes for RES and energy savings since 2004. The
measures implemented include preparation and distribution of publications on
different end-use energy savings technologies and guides for citizens
concerning application for the grants schemes, organising events and
exhibitions for providing information on energy savings to the public,
businesses and other market actors, carrying out media campaigns, and annual
energy savings awards.
The second EEAP of Cyprus contains a
separate chapter on primary energy savings measures, which have been
implemented or planned in energy production and supply, and distribution and
transfer. The report highlights barriers to the penetration of high efficiency
cogeneration of heat and power, including the lack of interest in investing in
the technology, climatic conditions and the lack of natural gas in the energy
mix. To reverse this trend, the need for additional grant schemes for small and
very small high efficiency cogeneration systems is pointed out in the report. A
grant scheme is operating in Cyprus to encourage the use of renewable energy,
including independent photovoltaic systems, in the residential, tertiary and
agriculture sectors.
Strengths
·        
The second EEAP of Cyprus presents a clear and
coherent strategy, with well-coordinated, realistic measures implemented and
accrued savings in all economic sectors. Policy continuity is demonstrated with
actions revised in 2010, and continued with improved schemes based on
experience.
·        
The plan appears to be realistic, with a 10%
target set for 2016, which is transparently defined with all underlying data
such as conversion factors for electricity put forward. A primary energy
savings target is defined for 2020 with clear measures to achieve that
especially as regards improving efficiency of power generation. Whenever
possible, expected savings for 2020 are projected per measure.
·        
Despite the fact that savings
were quantified for implemented measures only, from the description of measures
it seems that achieving the 2016 target for final energy savings as defined by
ESD sounds feasible. The second EEAP lists all measures as presented in the
first EEAP and compares estimated savings with calculated savings for 2010 and
2016 of the second reporting period.
·        
The report acknowledges and identifies
shortcomings with respect to data necessary to quantify savings.
·        
The role of the public sector is clearly
demonstrated and, according to the second EEAP, the
Action Plan for Green Public Procurement in Cyprus appears to be well applied. 
·        
The EEAP includes a number of useful measures on
information dissemination and training implemented in all sectors which help to
address any knowledge and awareness gaps.
Weaknesses
·        
The proportion of measured savings achieved in
the transport and industry sectors is comparatively small. For example,
according to data provided on the second EEAP, the transport sector accounted
for 54.6% of the final energy consumption in Cyprus in year 2010 but it only
contributes with 2.12% to the expected 2020 savings.
·        
The potential for facilitating energy saving
through the introduction of smart metering and related energy services is not
addressed in the second EEAP. Furthermore, the system
for energy audits and the provision of energy services, which could
significantly help with the implementation of many other measures of the second
EEAP, seem to be still at an early stage of development.
Recommendations for improvement
·        
It is recommended to consider measures to boost
the market for energy audits and energy services including, where necessary,
suitable training programmes for energy auditors as well transparent
certification or accreditation schemes for energy service providers.
·        
It is recommended to have a more comprehensive
look at the transport and industry sectors.
Czech Republic
Summary
The EEAP presents an updated analysis of the
energy efficiency progress in Czech Republic. While it is not possible to
forecast whether the Member State will reach the 2010 ESD intermediate energy
savings target, the action plan forecasts that the Czech Republic will achieve
the new intermediate saving target sets for 2013. The second EEAP does not
report on the progress of the specific measures defined in the previous report
since no sufficient description of the measures and their savings was supplied
in the first action plan. 
In general, a description of the measure
presented in the report is provided but, for some of them, the effectiveness in
achieving energy savings is unclear since it is only based on expert estimates
and not on a methodological calculation. A number of new measures across the  Czech
economy sectors that expected to contribute towards the 2016 target have been
included in the plan.  However, some of them appear aspirational and it is not
clear whether they will lead to concrete actions contributing to the 2016
target. 
Although a significant improvement can be
noted with respect to the first EEAP, the report acknowledged shortcomings with
regards to availability of data necessary to assess the effectiveness of
measures, especially for 2009-2010. The EEAP forecasts a savings shortfall of
0.77% with respect to the 2016 target. The projected shortfall indicates that a
greater level of ambition is needed and highlights the need for the Czech
Republic to put in place additional energy savings measures especially because
the success of the policy package, the strategy and many measures announced in the
second EEAP remain uncertain.
General evaluation
The Czech Republic's second EEAP provides an
overview of national policies and strategies related to energy use, it
recalculates energy efficiency targets, it outlines measures needed to achieve
these targets and it underlines the importance to implement further programmes
in order to attain the 2016 energy savings objective. The plan also provides
some information related to the EPBD reporting requirements. The report
partially followed the template proposed by the European Commission and it is
much more substantial than the first EEAP. However, some key information to
allow a thorough evaluation is still missing.
The second EEAP report differs considerably
from the first. In the first EEAP no measures were clearly described in detail,
the report lacked an energy efficiency strategy and in many cases, no expected
savings for individual measure were committed. Without doubt, the structure and
the content of the second Czech Republic action plan have improved. The annex
of the latest EEAP reported forty-one measures across the sectors of the Czech
economy with the basis of the calculation, an explanation of the calculation
method (though in many cases it is very rough) and the value of energy saving
expected for 2008 and 2016. In the second EEAP both the 2010 and 2016 energy
savings target have been recalculated and 2016 expected savings for individual
measure can be identified (yet the reliability of the estimates in many cases
is uncertain). 
The EEAP outlines the primary energy
savings strategy and describes some measures related to the supply side but
does not provide information on primary energy savings associated with these
measures. The efficiency in the generation of electricity and heat and the
promotion of cogeneration supported by the implementation of legislative
decrees can be identified as the most significant measures. The measure related
to the distribution and transmission of thermal energy affect both primary (i.e.
transmission and outdoor distribution system) and final energy consumption (i.e.
internal distribution system) and it sets up the minimum efficiency of energy
use for internal and outdoor distribution. Overall, the successful
implementation of these measures is also depending on the legislative support
and the established framework currently in place at national level.
Due to the 2006 final energy consumption data
lacking from the first action plan, the 2010 and 2016 energy savings targets
were recalculated in the second EEAP. As a result, the intermediate target for
2010 was set at 2.18% based on the average final energy consumption for the
time frame 2002-2006. A new target for 2016 corresponding to 9% of final energy
consumption was also established. Additionally, the Member State set up an intermediate
target for 2013 as 7,009GWh and according to the calculation, the plan
forecasts the achievement of 7,408GWh or 3.28% of final energy consumption for
the period 2011-2013, overshooting the target by 0.28%. Due to a lack of global
strategy targeted specifically at primary energy savings, the Czech Republic
has not set a target for 2020. The EEAP declares that 2008 indicative target
has been reached. However, this claim is based on an assessment of 2007-2008
trends because the relevant statistical data required by the ESD were not
available.
Due to inadequate data, the Czech Republic
could apply bottom-up methods only for some measures. In general, the method
used to quantify the energy savings for the measures described in the EEAP is
top-down approach. However, when the calculation of the savings could not be
determined, an expert estimate by reference to certain literary works and
energy audits was carried out.
The report forecasts the achievement of
18,565GWh energy savings in 2016, which is 0.77% below the ESD target.
According to the second EEAP, the forecast has been made using a combination of
expert opinions, estimates and top-down calculation methods recommended by the
European Commission. It is not clear if the forecast includes only savings
attributable to measures or if autonomous changes are included. Some measures
contributing to primary energy savings – therefore outside the scope of the ESD
– have been included in the total savings.
The expected results for most of the measures
are based on rough estimates and, more importantly, some key information about
their implementation is lacking. Although further explanation is required in
order to assess the savings forecast based on estimations, the energy savings
potential in each sector up to 2016 is assessed. Almost half of the 2016
energy savings reported in the EEAP are coming from twenty-two horizontal
measures accounting for 43.6% of the 2016 expected energy savings, followed by
the household sector 28.8%, services 10.9%, industry 10.8%, transport 4.3% and
agriculture 1.6%. 
In relation to EPBD reporting requirements,
Czech Republic has not proposed an energy coefficient for nearly-zero energy
buildings and the cost optimal energy performance levels have not been
estimated.
The EEAP dedicates a specific section on the
exemplary role of the public sector. In the Czech Republic, Directive
2006/32/EC was transposed by Act No. 406/2000 on energy management and Act No
458/2000, the Energy Act. The Czech legislation contains a number of
initiatives with regards to energy saving which involve the public sector,
though no specific programmes contributing to energy savings are described. 
The action plan declares that energy audits and energy performance certificates
for buildings are used to achieve energy savings and it indicates that the Member
State has implemented public procurement measures (e) and partially implemented
measure (f) listed in Annex VI of the ESD. 
  
Strengths
·        
The EEAP has defined final energy consumption
for 2007 and 2008 according to fuel type for each sector. Additionally, the
energy savings potential for each sector up to 2016 has been declared.
·        
The Member State has set up another intermediate
target for 2013 and according to the method used to quantify the expected
savings, the target should be met.
·        
The plan acknowledges and identifies
shortcomings with respect to resources and statistical data necessary to
quantify savings and to properly assess the effectiveness of some measures.
·        
The Czech Republic has reported the energy
savings calculated for each sector separately, with and without overlaps
indicating the conversion factor for any possible overlapping for each sector. However,
the way the overlap effects have been assessed is not explained.
·        
The Member State acknowledged the necessity to
implement additional programmes to reach the 2016 energy savings target and
suggested some areas that could enhance the effectiveness of existing measures
and proposed other actions that could contribute to energy savings.
Weaknesses
·        
The forecast of energy savings for 2016 indicates
that existing measures will not be sufficient to meet the Czech Republic's ESD
target. Moreover, the description of some key new measures (e.g., measure 2.1
for the public sector, measure 3.3 for the industry), lack of details. Their
actual and effective implementation remains uncertain, which adds significant
doubts about the overall achievement of the target.
·        
Due to a lack of data for 2009 and 2010, the
evaluation is based on year-on-year trends in final energy consumption for the
years 2006-2007-2008 only. As a result, it is not possible to assess the final
energy savings contribution towards the 2010 target.
·        
The EEAP highlights several inconsistencies with
regards to the figures declared. For example, there are problems in the figures
including overlap effects for tertiary, transport and cross-cutting.
·        
Only twenty-five out of the forty-one measures
described are showing savings for 2008. For many measures, the amount of energy
savings cannot be determined by calculation, hence the reported savings are
based on expert estimate, reference to literary works and energy audits.
Significant measures such as the obligation to produce energy performance
certificates for buildings reported 'symbolically' savings. Overall, the
reliability of the savings estimates is very uncertain.
·        
The total savings related to transmission and
distribution of thermal energy have been included in the savings though this
measure is considered outside the scope of the ESD.
·        
In general, there is a lack of implementation
details in the description of the measures, especially for the ones where a
large increase in the impact is expected (see, for example, measure
3.2). In particular, the measure addressing the implementation and
recommendation of mandatory energy audit has no statistical data on the number
of audits conducted.  Therefore, 2016 savings are based on expert estimate. As
a consequence, the feasibility of the achievements for these measures is
uncertain.
·        
Although some significant financial measures for
the renovation of existing buildings exist, the extent to which energy
efficiency standards must be complied with in order to receive support is not
clear from the description, nor it is explained how the quality of the
renovations undertaken is controlled.
·        
Many measures rely on a significant leverage
effect from the public financial aid. The uncertainties about the capacities of
households and companies to invest in a time of economic crisis are not
discussed.
Recommendations for improvement
·               
The overall comprehensiveness of the second EEAP
has improved considerably compared to the first EEAP.  More could be done for the
next action plan. In the future reporting it is strongly recommended to provide
a calculation for all the achieved and expected savings related to the energy
efficiency measures and programmes implemented. 
·               
Details such as budget commitments,
implementation schedule and concrete achievements/outcomes should also be
systematically monitored (at least for the major measures). More explanation on
the scale of the measures would be vital for gaining better understanding of their
actual potential to deliver savings.
·        
Improving the effectiveness of new requirement
for the repair and construction of buildings to high energy standards, a
greater application of energy audits and more investment in energy efficiency
by the national government are among key measures to help Czech Republic achieve
its 2016 target and any future national 2020 targets for energy efficiency. As
such, it is recommended to consider further strengthening of these measures.
·        
Although the introduction of white certificates
scheme has been mentioned in the second EEAP, it would be important to develop
further planning on that to ensure optimal synergies and complementarity with
any other national programmes (e.g. future operational programmes for EU
Cohesion Policy Funds).
·        
More focus and detail of information on the EPBD
reporting requirements and national energy efficiency policies implemented by
the Member State should be included in the next EEAP.
·        
The involvement of the public sector and the
main programmes undertaken to improve energy efficiency should be presented
together with the achieved/expected savings.
·        
It is recommended to consider introduction of more
measures addressing energy savings in the industry. The second EEAP reported
only three measures addressing this sector. The implementation of measures in
this sector should contribute to more energy savings. The support measures
especially in the household sector mainly consist of national and operational
programmes which provide some financial support for particular projects but to
achieve more significant savings it may be necessary to be increase the scale
of such programmes. 
·        
Enhancing the effectiveness of existing
measures, proposing new programmes and improving the estimates of the benefits,
the evaluation of the measures already implemented and the monitoring and the
analysis of the indicators of energy consumption will be important for the
strengthening of the future EEAPs of Czech Republic.
Denmark
Summary
The measures proposed in the second EEAP of
Denmark are credible, consistent and supported by legislation, with targets
even beyond 2016 suggesting an ambitious scenario being followed. This is in
line with the overall government strategy documents on energy efficiency.
The second Danish EEAP clearly builds on the
commitments of the first EEAP, having notably in addition a higher energy
saving obligation. Moreover, a clear commitment of the public sector to reduce
energy consumption by 10% in national administration buildings, a strategy for
reducing the energy consumption in transport, a clear roadmap and targets for
tightening building codes for new buildings and for building components in case
of renovation, complement an ambitious set of measures.
Denmark uses top-down methods to quantify
energy savings. Savings for some sectors and end-uses are verified using a
national bottom-up approach. However, details on those national bottom-up
methods are not provided. The relation between the bottom-up and top-down
calculation of savings remains unclear.
General evaluation
The Danish second EEAP reports the
achievement of the 2010 intermediate energy saving target under the ESD. The
energy saving obligation scheme is by far the most important measure,
delivering almost all the savings required by the ESD. According to the
estimates from the EEAP, measures will lead to 53.8 PJ savings by 2016
remaining below 56.5 PJ savings, the equivalent of 9% of the baseline. However,
the savings in the transport and public sector are not clearly accounted for. 
The second EEAP report is considerably
enhanced in comparison to the first EEAP. It sets short and long term targets
and aims to improve sustainability of energy production and consumption by
2050. It includes the 2010 and 2016 target and energy savings excluding the
energy consumption covered by ETS allowances as required by the ESD. It also
reports projected savings for 2020. Overall, the measures listed in the second EEAP
are described in more details. Measures related to the transport sector are now
included in the action plan and the scope of the measures described in the
second EEAP is clearer.
Additionally, the second report also shows a
clear commitment of the public sector towards a reduction of energy use by 10%
in national administration buildings, a strategy for reducing the energy
consumption in transport, a clear roadmap and targets for tightening the
building codes for new buildings and for building components in case of
renovation and a new Energy Strategy 2050.  These elements were not present in the
first EEAP.
Denmark has opted not to annex the EPBD
reporting requirements to the second EEAP. The EEAP mentions the measure on
tightening building codes may lead new buildings towards nZEB by 2020. Moreover,
building codes have requirements on cost-effectiveness of the building
components in case of minor renovations, but it is not clear if the
cost-effectiveness requirement will lead to cost-optimal levels.
As indicated by the second EEAP, provision of
information and advice forms an integral part of action to increase efficiency
of energy end-use in Denmark. There are two main measures targeted at
dissemination of information and advice on energy savings to end-users of
energy: the energy companies' obligations and the Energy Saving Trust. 
The exemplary role of the public sector is
demonstrated in the Danish second EEAP with a clear commitment to reduce the
energy consumption in national administration buildings. Energy savings
measures undertaken in the public sector are disseminated and publicised
through websites. They comprise procurement of energy-efficient products,
installation of remote reading meters for electricity, heat and water, energy
efficiency labelling of buildings. The exchange of good practices is
facilitated and enabled between public sector bodies. Voluntary agreements on
energy saving activities have been established with local authorities and
regions. The second EEAP indicates that the Member State has implemented public
procurement measures (c), (e) and (f) listed in Annex VI of the ESD.
The EEAP foresees that extensive use of
wind power both onshore and offshore will contribute to reduced gross energy
consumption in the future. Denmark uses its supplier obligations scheme to promote
greater efficiency in its energy distribution and transmission networks,
whereby savings achieved through improvements in the networks may be counted
towards company obligations. Energy consumed in the recovery of oil and gas in
the North Sea accounts for 4% of national gross energy consumption. The report
mentions an action plan that aims to improve the energy efficiency of the
sector. While measures directly supporting district heating are not described,
a demand-based boiler scrapping scheme provides indirect support, whereby a
household in a designated district heating area can qualify for a subsidy only
if a district heating connection is used to replace a boiler.
Strengths
·        
The Danish EEAP clearly aligns a set of
ambitious measures to the long-term strategy on energy efficiency. Moreover,
all measures proposed in the plan include a projection for 2020 savings,
demonstrating commitment and giving confidence in the continuity of actions
beyond the ESD timeframe.
·        
The measures entitled 'Tightening up building
regulations in 2010' is deemed strong, leading to new buildings consuming only
25% compared to 2006 levels by 2020, most probably close to nZEB levels
required according to the recast EPBD.
·        
The energy saving obligations – an on-going,
well established and proved activity – will provide the ESD target
almost by itself.
·        
Finally, the newly proposed Energy Strategy 2050
shows commitment of the country in obtaining long term and sustainable results,
thus linking the EEAP to the longer term policy commitment.
Weaknesses
·        
The savings in the
transport and public sector are not accounted for. The national bottom-up
method, which covers the supplier obligation with quite an impressive target,
is not put forward. The national bottom-up method is not described in detail
for energy saving obligations and not at all for the other measures listed in
the EEAP.
Recommendations for improvement
·        
The technical details
of the national bottom-up method should be made transparent.
·        
A top-down evaluation may catch the savings at
macroeconomic level, counting not only the savings obtained by the measures but
also autonomous effects at the level of the whole economy. Hence Denmark should
provide more details on the combined application of national bottom-up and ESD
top-down methodologies to be able to check and confirm the declared savings.
Estonia
Summary
The EEAP
presents an analysis of energy efficiency progress to-date in Estonia and
states that Estonia's intermediate energy savings target has been reached. However,
it is not clear from the EEAP how savings values were calculated or to what
extent they have been achieved by the measures listed. In general, the measures
presented in the report are not well described and their effectiveness in
achieving energy savings is unclear. The report does not communicate progress
in energy efficiency in Estonia since the publication of the first national
plan. Overall, the plan does not present a cohesive national energy efficiency
strategy. The report provides a frank acknowledgement of shortcomings with
regard to availability of data necessary to assess the effectiveness of
measures. The EEAP forecasts a savings shortfall of 10% with respect to the
2016 ESD target. The projected shortfall indicates that a greater level of
ambition is needed and highlights the need for the Member State to put in place
more effective energy savings measures.
General evaluation
Estonia's
second EEAP provides an overview of national policies and strategies related to
energy use, it recalculates energy efficiency targets in accordance with the
requirements of the ESD, it outlines measures needed to achieve the targets,
and it provides an indication of progress to-date. The plan also provides
information with respect to EPBD reporting requirements. 
The second EEAP
differs considerably from the first, and the differences do not help to convey
progress in the intermediate period. In the first EEAP, fourteen significant
measures were described in detail. In the annexes of the second EEAP around a
hundred measures are listed but many are not described. The second EEAP does
not report on the progress of the specific measures defined in the first EEAP.
It is clear that some measures mentioned in the first EEAP, such as the
development of the provision of energy services and the training of
specialists, have not progressed.
In the second EEAP,
the 2016 energy savings target was recalculated to incorporate energy
consumption in transport. The intermediate target for 2010 is set at one third
of this figure, or 3.3 PJ, and the EEAP declares that the intermediate target
has been reached. However, this assertion is based on an assessment of 2008
savings only, as insufficient data was available for subsequent years. The plan
indicates that the 2008 savings figure was calculated using top-down methods.
No breakdown of the contribution of individual sectors to the intermediate
result is provided. The Member State could not apply bottom-up methods due to
inadequate data. 
The report
forecasts energy savings of 8.9 PJ in 2016, 10% below the ESD target. According
to the EEAP, the forecast has been made using a combination of expert opinions
and calculation methods recommended by the European Commission. Alongside the
savings forecast, the energy savings potential in each sector up to 2016 is
assessed.
In the annexes
of the EEAP many measures are listed for each economic sector. However, the
measures are generally not well described and the level of detail supplied is
inadequate. For many measures listed, the relevance to energy efficiency is
unclear.
The EEAP
identifies energy efficiency in buildings as the main area of focus for energy
efficiency measures. A number of measures are outlined in the annex, including
soft loans for renovations and financial support for reconstruction. The extent
to which these measures have been effective in pursuing ESD goals, however, is
unclear, as no estimates of savings achieved are given. From the information
supplied, it is clear that a number of measures aimed at training and improving
know-how among construction workers, architects and energy auditors have not
yet been implemented. The plan identifies the considerable energy saving
opportunities in small houses in Estonia. Yet no measures that are aimed
specifically at improving the energy efficiency of small houses are apparent.
The EEAP
acknowledges that resource constraints have limited Estonia's ability to
address energy efficiency in the industry sector. Savings achieved by a small
number of EU ETS participants are included in the top-down calculations of
industry energy savings.
The EEAP
identifies excise duty on fuels as it main energy conservation measure in the
transport sector. Most of the transport measures listed are not well explained
and have no implementation dates. As a result, many measures appear
aspirational, and it is not clear that they will lead to concrete actions by
2016. 
Some sections
of the plan address the electricity generation sector, summarise development
plans and outline measures aimed at primary energy conservation. Several
measures addressing electricity supply issues are listed in the annex. 
In the annexes,
information measures are listed for each sector. Many of these are not well
explained or have no implementation dates associated with them. Elsewhere it is
explained that KredEx are involved in the administration of a campaign to raise
awareness of the energy performance of buildings. Activities relating to an
annual national energy week are publicised through websites. Energy supply
companies and building management companies distribute information on energy
conservation to their customers along with utility bills. A national
information system for planning trips with any kind of public transport is also
mentioned.
The exemplary
role of the public sector is highlighted. Energy saving measures undertaken in
the public sector are publicised through websites and other media. Some local
authorities have drawn up their own sustainable energy plans or have conducted
smaller energy analyses. Guidelines for considering energy conservation in
public procurement have been published, and some examples are given of projects
where information exchange between public sector institutions has been
facilitated. The EEAP indicates that public procurement measures (b) and (e) in
Annex VI of the ESD have been implemented. Measure (b) is addressed with the
Public Procurement Act and measure (e) is covered by the States Assets Act. A
centralised real estate services provider to the state has been established.
Responsibility for state buildings is being transferred to it gradually. This
centralised approach offers the potential to ensure that renovations are
carried out in accordance with national requirements and may help facilitate
information exchange between public sector organisations.
The plan
addresses the EPBD reporting requirements. An energy coefficient of 50-140
kWh/m2a for nZEB has been proposed. Cost optimal energy performance
levels are estimated at 120-200 kWh/m2a, while current minimum
requirements are 150-300 kWh/m2a, indicating the level of
improvement necessary over the next number of years. The report points out that
although initial research has been undertaken, greater public consultation is
needed with respect to the definition of nZEB. Estonia plans to have at least
10 large publicly accessible nZEB buildings by 2015, and to gradually introduce
stricter energy performance requirements from 2013 onwards. Elsewhere the
report states that Estonia has not set any targets for low energy or nearly
zero energy buildings. For the inspection of heating systems, the Member State
chooses to implement Article 14(4) of the EPBD as an alternative to compulsory
inspection. It is explained that a greater level of energy efficiency is
unlikely to be achieved through inspection due the relatively low number of
boilers installed, the lack of a reliable database of installed units, and the
limited success of the obligatory registration system for new boilers. For air
conditioning units above 12kW, the Member State chooses to provide advice rather
than introduce a compulsory inspection system, as only small numbers of units
are installed each year.
Estonia dedicates a large section of its
report to energy supply. The EEAP details a number of programmes and plans
relevant to energy supply that will be implemented up to 2020. A 'National
Development Plan for the Energy Sector' aims to achieve a more efficient and
sustainable energy system. It incorporates national plans for renewable energy
and for development of the heat sector, among others. Support for the wider use
of renewables and for greater energy efficiency in the energy sector is
mentioned in the description of a 'National Strategic Reference Framework'. The
relevance to energy efficiency of some of the supply-side information is
unclear. A development plan for the use of oil shale is described, for
instance, that aims to reduce the annual volume extracted. Specific measures to
address energy efficiency in energy generation include completion of the liberalisation
of the electricity market, modernisation of oil shale electricity generation
facilities and unspecified environmental charges. Support is available for new
high-efficiency CHP plants that use as feedstock either renewables, waste, peat
or retort gases from oil shale processing. Support is also available for new
plants burning other fuels if their electrical capacity does not exceed 10MW.
Measures to support energy efficient district heating include the designation
by local authorities of parts of their territories as district heating regions
so that the use of other sources of energy for heat is restricted, 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. The EEAP
indicates that greater efficiency in transmission and distribution networks is
achieved by linking energy efficiency with network charges payable by the
network operator and by the establishment of minimum quality requirements for
network services.
Strengths
·        
The EEAP has defined energy consumption targets
for 2016 and 2020 according to fuel type for each sector. Additionally, the
energy savings potential for each sector up to 2016 is provided.
·        
The plan acknowledges and identifies
shortcomings with respect to resources and data necessary to quantify savings
and to properly assess the effectiveness of individual measures.
·        
The EEAP provides an initial assessment of the
distance from current standards for energy performance of buildings to the Member
State's own initial definition of nZEB performance.
Weaknesses
·        
The declared savings for 2010 are based on the
analysis of one year’s data only and are presented as an aggregate number with
no sector-level breakdown. It is not clear how the savings have been calculated
or how they relate to measures. There is no indication given that any of the
declared savings have been achieved through measures.
·        
Although significant financial measures for the
renovation of existing buildings exist, the extent to which energy efficiency
standards must be complied with in order to receive support is not clear, nor
is it explained how the quality of the renovations undertaken is controlled.
·        
Of the measures listed under industry, only three
are currently being implemented, and their relevance to the improvement of
energy efficiency is not clear. Most of the other industry measures listed have
no planned implementation dates. A concerted effort to improve the energy
efficiency of industry is not apparent. 
·        
The second EEAP does not show any progress with
respect to key measures defined in the first EEAP, such as growing a market for
energy services in Estonia and enforcing the energy savings responsibilities of
energy companies.
Recommendations
for improvement 
·        
The Member State should include only measures
that offer real energy savings opportunities within the scope of the ESD. These
measures should be explained in greater detail and implementation dates should
be given. Measures with only a tenuous connection to energy efficiency and
measures that have no concrete timeframe should be omitted.
·        
As the forecast of energy savings in 2016 shows
a shortfall, Estonia will need to implement additional measures or more
effective measures to ensure that the ESD target is achieved. These could focus
on energy savings opportunities identified in the EEAP, such as small private
dwellings, or on areas where measures have not yet been effective, such as the
stimulation of a market for energy services.
·        
The Member State should develop more robust
methods to evaluate overall energy efficiency progress and to assess the
effectiveness of individual measures. 
Finland
Summary
The Finnish second EEAP provides a
comprehensive overview of the policy, strategy and measures to promote energy
efficiency and energy savings. The plan is well presented, robust, coherent,
credible and ambitious. It contains a complex set of measures including fiscal,
financial, legislative, information, education and training activities as well
as voluntary energy efficiency agreements. A detailed description is provided
of a broad range of measures that have been implemented to improve energy
efficiency in buildings (residential, public and commercial), industry,
transport and agriculture.
Finland’s second EEAP calculates the impact
on energy savings of thirty-six measures, thirty-one of which have an impact on
savings that target energy use within the scope of the ESD and three of which
have an impact that targets both the scope of the ESD and the emissions trading
sector. Two of the measures have an impact on energy savings that is calculated
entirely outside the scope of the ESD. For fourteen sets of measures the direct
impact in terms of energy savings is not evaluated (mainly horizontal and
related to training, education, communication, advice, taxation and community
planning). In the first EEAP the savings were estimated only for fourteen
measures/ sets of measures. All measures are assessed on the basis of the
national bottom-up methodology, which is explained for each assessed measure in
the measures’ description from Annex 2 of the second EEAP.
General evaluation
Despite the fact that not all measures have
savings estimates, the reported savings are well in
excess of both targets, i.e. 12,1 TWh (6,1%) in 2010 and 24,7 TWh (13%)
in 2016. The energy efficiency agreements are a key instrument for the
fulfilment of the obligations under the Energy Services Directive in Finland.
The agreements will be in force until the end of 2016, and one of their key
targets is the 9% energy saving under the ESD. As a whole, the energy
efficiency agreement scheme, which includes several sectors, is very broad and
covers approximately 70% of Finland’s total energy use. They are in force in
Finland since 1997. There are schemes in place relating to the business
(industry, energy, and private services), the local government, the oil
(distribution of heating and transport fuel, oil heating), the property and the
transport sectors and the Farm Energy programme.
The second Finnish EEAP is in line with the
first EEAP and the proposed policies, programmes and measures are in the
process of being implemented. The measures correspond to the ones mentioned in the
first EEAP, some with changes in title, structure, modifications and
adaptations. The second EEAP reports on the progress of the specific measures
defined in the first EEAP. The first EEAP estimated savings for fourteen measures/
sets of measures whereas the second calculates the impact on energy savings of thirty-six
measures, thirty-one of which within the scope of ESD. For the second EEAP,
Finnish authorities compiled comprehensively energy efficiency activities for
which energy saving effects could be calculated (incorporating now also energy
efficiency regulations and voluntary agreements). In order to obtain a better
picture of the entire scope of energy efficiency activity in Finland, the
second EEAP also includes key "non-assessable" energy efficiency
activities.
Finland opted to fulfil the EPBD-reporting requirements
within the second EEAP and sets out a list of the instruments and measures to
promote improved energy efficiency in buildings as required under Article 10(2)
of the EPBD, the inspection or alternative equivalent measures for heating and
air-conditioning equipment (Article 14(4) and 15(4)), support measures and the
status of the nZEB planning (Article 9).
Information and advice concerning energy
efficiency is provided by nearly all energy companies, energy agencies,
environmental information and service centres, the consumer agency, research
institutes, many associations and organisations, building control departments
of local councils, and building centres in Finland. One of the key players is
Motiva, which was designated by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy in
2010 to act as the national coordination centre for consumer energy advice.
The exemplary role of the public sector is
clearly demonstrated in the Finish second EEAP. Government
resolution obliges central government to implement three of the six measures
listed in Annex VI of the ESD. There are several important measures
within the public sector, such as the 'energy efficiency agreement and energy
program 2008-2016' and energy audits for local governments, that already
produce by 2010 savings equivalent to 2,5% of all energy use of local
government. Those are expected to double by 2016.
More than 101 municipalities and local
councils representing around 67% of the Finnish population entered in the
energy efficiency agreements scheme or in the energy program regarding their
own energy use. Energy audits were performed for around 59% of the overall
local government buildings area. Councils that sign up to the agreement scheme
commit to an energy saving of at least 9% as well as including the promotion of
energy efficiency as part of their management system and preparing an action
plan on the implementation of energy-saving measures and other contractual
obligations. The local councils that join agreement scheme are committed to
implementing five of the six measures listed in Annex VI ESD.
The exchange of best practice is promoted as
a continuous activity in local government by gathering and sharing information
about measures that have been found to be good. However, the construction of networks
of experts for active local councils, and joint events for experts, have been
deemed to be the most important measures. The obligations under the local
government energy efficiency agreement scheme include energy efficiency
guidelines, energy audits, new financing procedures for investments (ESCO
service), consumption monitoring, new operating models, education and
information activities, the introduction of renewable energy sources, and
annual reporting, through which the implementation of the contractual
obligations is monitored.
The second EEAP of Finland does not provide
a comprehensive overview of supply side energy efficiency measures. According
to the report, electricity produced at CHP plants accounts for over a third of
total electricity production in the Member State. As part of recent changes in
the structure of energy taxes, the carbon dioxide tax on fuels used in combined
production has been halved. Furthermore, energy producers may sign up for a
dedicated energy agreements programme. Signatory companies commit to
integrating the improvements of energy efficiency into management processes,
setting company-specific targets related to energy efficiency and submitting
annual reports. In return, they may benefit from energy audits and investment
aid considered on a case-by-case basis. 90% of electricity generation and 80%
of heat production are covered by the voluntary agreement scheme. Sellers and
distributors of energy who commit to achieving energy savings among their
consumers may also count own-savings towards their obligations.
Strengths
·        
The Finnish second EEAP
has a strong strategic approach, is robust, coherent, in line with the first EEAP,
ambitious, and provides a very good analysis of the energy consumption and
end-use as well as the energy policy in Finland.
·        
The EEAP contains a comprehensive set of
measures applied in all sectors of the economy, with each sector making a
contribution to the 2016 target. The report communicates a coherent and
feasible national energy efficiency strategy, supplemented by funding and
budget.
·        
The report contains a good mix of different
types of measures including regulatory, financial instruments, voluntary
agreements and co-operative instruments, energy services for energy savings,
information to final customers and transport specific measures.
·        
The energy savings are properly monitored and
measured by a 100% national bottom-up methodology, detailed per measure,
listing starting points and assumptions of the calculation.
·        
Despite the fact that not all measures have
savings estimates, the reported savings are well in
excess of both targets.
·        
The ‘early actions’ are not included in the
calculation and all the achieved and expected savings are the result of on-going
or future measures.
·        
The role of the public sector is clearly
demonstrated and there are varied measures at all national and local government
levels. The EEAP is in-conformity related to the
obligations on public procurement.
·        
There are varied information and advice measures
addressing all the sectors and extensive exchange of best practice.
Weaknesses
·        
There are some small discrepancies related to
the reported savings figures under Annex 2 as opposed to chapter 'energy saving
measures' (measures VA-04-VM and MA-04-MMM).
Recommendations for improvement
·        
At the moment, Finland uses only a bottom-up
methodology for assessing energy savings, which does not allow the evaluation
of several types of measures. The actual bottom-up monitoring methodology may
be complemented by a top-down methodology for measures such as of fiscal or
horizontal nature. Despite the fact that this is not a requirement of the ESD,
this approach may provide an even more accurate estimate of the energy
efficiency activities impact and a useful indication of the effectiveness of
the implementing measures.
·        
It would be useful to extend the description of
the ‘obligations of energy companies under the Energy Services Directive’. In
the current form, the measures mentioned in the second EEAP could be mixed with
'energy savings obligations' as foreseen in the new Energy Efficiency
Directive.
·        
Communication on smart metering could further
enhance the quality of the second EEAP. The single measure mentioned related to
meters are the building regulations concerning water and drainage systems that
ask for mandatory installation of water meters in new homes as from the
beginning of 2011.
France
Overall Summary
The second EEAP demonstrates a high level of
commitment to improve energy efficiency and reduce the end use energy
consumption in France. This commitment is reflected by the legislative
framework currently in place, which strengthens France's energy policy, sets
ambitious targets and establishes energy efficiency policies guidelines to be
implemented in the years to come. 
The French second EEAP provides a
comprehensive overview of new and existing measures to promote energy savings
in the residential and services, transport, agriculture, industry and public
sectors of the French economy. Overall, the plan is well presented and ambitious. 
The quality of measures described in the report indicate the progress of the
successful on-going actions already in place and the implementation of new and
innovative energy efficiency programmes that will contribute to the achievement
of the 2016 target and of the overall EU 2020 target. 
General evaluation
The French second EEAP did not fully follow
the template recommended by the Commission.  However, it still presents a more
solid and consistent structure than the first EEAP, which did not include the
evaluation of the measures. The second EEAP provides a detailed description of
each new proposed measure and on-going action indicating, wherever possible, an
estimation of the expected savings. The progress of the most significant energy
efficiency measures and programmes included in the first EEAP is well presented
in the second EEAP. When compared to the first EEAP, the report communicates a
clearer analysis of energy efficiency progress to-date in France.
According to the second EEAP, France already
exceeded the 3.75% energy savings target for 2010  and it estimates to obtain
around 13,5% in 2016 hence fulfilling the ESD requirements showing a solid,
coherent and feasible strategy towards energy efficiency.
According to the 2016 estimations of the
‘Energy Climate Air’ prospective scenarios described in the second EEAP, most
of the savings are delivered in the residential and services sector (around
88%) followed by transport (approximately 10%) and industry sector (approximately
1%), excluding the energy consumption covered by ETS allowances. The scenario
indicates the achievement of 28.4 Mtoe energy savings by 2020. The estimation
of 2016 and 2020 energy savings is based on the comparison between
‘pre-Grenelle’ (PG) scenario and the scenario ‘with additional measures’ (AMG).

The 2010 savings declared in the second EEAP
are quantified using top-down methodology recommended by the European Commission
for the period 2007-2009 since 2010 data were not yet available. The majority of monitored savings are in heating and fuel
consumption. Negative savings associated to the electricity consumption related
to the household and service sector amounting to a total 0.919 Mtoe, have been
discarded.
In order to promote methodological
consistency of evaluations over time, savings defined in the second EEAP as
flagship measures[73] are estimated by SceGES, a national bottom-up methodology applied
by France to assess the energy savings (detailed in Annex 2 of the EEAP). 
The measures proposed in the French EEAP are
based on a well-established legislation in the framework of "The
Environment Round Table" also called "The Pope Law", which
defines energy policies guidelines. Additionally, as a framework for the
actions to be carried out in the context of the national energy strategy, the
POPE Law sets performance targets and establishes a certain number of incentive
programmes for reducing final energy intensity by 2% a year by 2015 and by 2.5%
a year between 2015 and 2030. This seems to be an ambitious target to be
achieved. 
The building sector accounted for 44% of
France’s final energy consumption in 2009 and the second EEAP identifies it as
the sector where most of the energy savings can potentially be achieved. A
number of measures are outlined in the Action Plan, including Sustainable Development
Tax Credit and the zero-rated eco-loan, two major fiscal measures that provide
financial incentives to the owner, occupier or landlords of properties that
require major renovation work. 
In this context "The Environment Round
Table" has set a very ambitious target for existing building stock, i.e.
a 38% reduction in primary energy consumption by 2020. This target shows the
motivation of France towards further reducing energy consumption in the
building stock. Widespread development of low consumption buildings by 2012 and
positive energy buildings to 2020 have been identified as good policies towards
nearly-zero energy building as required by Article 9(2) of the EPBD. 
With regards to procurement measures and the
compliance with Annex VI of the ESD the stimulation by law of the energy
performance contracting for public, residential and services sectors has been
highlighted in the EEAP by the development of the Energy Performance Contracts.
In the transport sector, the implementation of EU regulations with regards to
the reduction of CO2 emissions for new vehicles has set up more
ambitious targets for the Member State towards 2020 further reducing carbon
emissions. Thus, France has chosen to apply requirements (b) and (e) listed in
Annex VI.
In the second EEAP France has opted to
transpose Article 14 of the EPBD in line with paragraph 4. New regulations
introduced at the end of 2009 established the compulsory annual maintenance of
all boilers types with an output power between 4 and 400 kW. 
With regards to improving the energy
performance of existing buildings as required by Article 9(2) of the EPBD, the
Member State has set up a 38% target in reduction of energy consumption by 2020
showing its solid commitment towards nZEB. 
With regards to the public sector, the state
and local/regional authorities play a very important role in realising the
energy efficiency targets, not just through managing their assets and their
direct activities, but also when exercising their responsibilities (for
example, urban development, in the case of authorities). Regarding state services,
an initial review of implementation of the ‘Exemplary State’ circular for 2009
shows initial concrete results, in particular in terms of energy audits and
purchase of energy-efficient vehicles. In the case of local authorities, they
are encouraged to develop local climate action plans providing a genuine local
climate and energy policy within their specific areas of responsibility.
Grenelle laws also strengthened the
provisions allowing urban development master-plans to manage space, resources
and energy efficiency by developing levers for demand-side management, the
fight against urban sprawl and promotion of sustainable cities.
A number of measures related to information
and advice can be identified in the report with ADEME (Environment and Energy
Management Agency), playing a fundamental role in this context. The ADEME
eco-citizen web-site supports individuals to facilitate the provision of
information. Also, the Establishment of the Energy Info Site network to advise
private individuals on energy efficiency and renewable energies has been
stabilised and professionalised since 2010 and resulted in an increase of the
number of advisers. Amongst the horizontal measures, actions focusing on raising
public awareness and measures providing information and advice on energy
efficiency for individuals and businesses have also been reported.
The report does not provide a comprehensive
analysis of supply side measures. Ways to promote smart grids and smart
metering and suggestions on how to manage electricity peak demand have been
described in the EEAP. As part of their research funding, France has introduced
a trial for the installation of smart metering infrastructure, covering 300,000
units. The importance of smart grids in enabling the integration of renewable
electricity sources and facilitating demand-side management is also mentioned
in the report. The report states that a working group has made a number of
proposals for managing electricity peak demand. A capacity obligation programme
introduced by new legislation should help balance peak demand with supply. 
Strengths
·        
The EEAP contains a very comprehensive set of
measures applied in the residential and services, transport, industry and
agriculture sectors. The report communicates a coherent and feasible national
energy efficiency strategy.
·        
Overall, the French second EEAP declares the
achievement of 5.16 Mtoe energy savings by 2010, more than the assumed target
of 5 Mtoe. The 2016 estimated savings exceed by 50% the 2016 target (18 Mtoe
energy savings compared to 12 Mtoe declared target in the first EEAP). 
·        
The energy savings are calculated using a
top-down methodology however flagship measures are also evaluated by a national
bottom-up methodology. The savings attributed to these measures contribute to
38.8% of the 2010 savings and are expected to deliver between 60%-80% of the
2016 target. 
·        
The second EEAP contains a good mix of different
types of synergic measures including fiscal, financial, legislative,
information and voluntary measures. The impact of the implementation of European
energy efficiency legislation such as Ecodesign, Ecolabelling and EPBD, has
been taken into account. 
·        
The role of the public sector is clearly shown
and there are various measures at national, regional, and local levels that
demonstrate the commitment of the Republic of France towards improving energy
efficiency. The success of the White Certificate programme, the energy
performance contracting for public, residential and service sector and the
commitment to fulfil the obligations regarding the reduction of CO2
emission in the transport sector outlined by EU regulation, are some clear
examples.
Weaknesses
·        
As much as 88% of the 2016 energy savings are
expected to come from the residential and services sector, 10% from the
transport sector while only 1% of total savings is expected to be achieved from
the industry (non-ETS). Effective facilitation of energy saving in the industry
and transport may require further consideration.
Recommendations for improvement
The French second
EEAP well describes a number of measures addressing transport and industry
sectors. These seem to be more oriented towards a
reduction of CO2 and other emissions, which is positive. However,
incentivising energy efficiency is not clearly highlighted. It may be useful to
consider some additional measures addressing industry and transport clearly
addressing energy saving and/or strengthening of existing measures with clear
energy efficiency objectives.
Germany
Summary
The German second EEAP presents an ambitious
and coherent strategy, which contains a wide range of measures across all
relevant sectors of the economy. A good mix of regulatory, financial promotion,
fiscal, information, and voluntary type measures are reported and described in
detail. It complies with the ESD special provisions.
In the second EEAP the reported savings for
2016 and 2010 (calculated both in final and primary energy) are well in excess
of the targets. Germany applies top-down and bottom-up indicators, as well as
national methods in a complementary fashion. The methodology, underlying
assumptions and data are documented in detail and in a transparent manner in a
separate accompanying report.
The German second EEAP is in line with the
first EEAP. It clearly builds on it and adheres to its strategy. The new report
refers back to the first and provides an evaluation. Many of the measures
represent either a continuation or adjustment of already existing measures. They
are supplemented by some newly proposed actions, especially in the buildings,
appliances and lighting and industry and trade sector. The new measures consist
of financial, promotion and regulatory instruments. Examples include KfW
promotional programmes, the Act on the Promotion of Renewable Thermal Energy.
General evaluation
According to top-down calculations, the
second EEAP projects final energy savings of 2,479 PJ by 2016, of which are
1,061 PJ accounted for early actions undertaken prior to 2008. The calculated
savings are higher by a factor of 3.3 than the target (748 PJ), autonomous
savings incorporated. The intermediate target is significantly exceeded with a
saving of 1,812 PJ in total and also with reference solely to period 2008-2010
(751 PJ compared to 456 PJ). For top-down, Germany applies the EC recommended
methodology, exclusively using preferred indicators. Mostly statistics from
2009 were used, with the exception of some cases when only 2008 data were
available.
Bottom-up calculations are made using a combination
of EC recommended and national methods in particular for instruments from
transport and mobility sector as well as for horizontal measures. It is
projected that currently implemented measures taking into account lifetimes
will save 819 PJ in 2016 surpassing the target with buildings accounting for
more than half of the savings. Of these, 460 PJ are attributable to early
actions. Regulatory measures such as the Energy Saving Order (EnEV) and
promotional measures such as the CO2 building renovation programme
of KfW, with 248 PJ, account for more than half of the early actions. The
ecological tax reform, which acts as a horizontal instrument, is another
important early measure.
The first German EEAP reported a total of sixty-five
individual measures, of which thirty-two were quantified in respect of their
energy savings. These activities were stepped up with the second EEAP reporting
eighty-nine measures. Savings effects are provided for forty-three of them.
Additional measures with potentially considerable savings implemented at Länder
and municipal level as well as introduced by private actors are not discussed
in the report. In some cases, bottom-up calculations deviate from ex-ante
assessments of savings from actions presented in the first EEAP. This is
explained by the fact that there were no specified methodological requirements
during first evaluation phase. For the second EEAP Germany consistently applied
the EC recommended methodology.
For systematic reasons, the second EEAP
deviates from the strictly sectoral structure of the first EEAP and applies
henceforth a combination of sectoral and application-oriented breakdown. Trends
in total savings are recorded by top-down indicators whereas effects of
individual/groups of measures are quantified by using bottom-up methods for all
of the following areas of application: buildings and installations, appliances
and lighting, industry and trade, transport and mobility, cross-sectoral and
public sector (exemplary role).
To avoid double counting due to distorting
errors such as rebound and multiplier effects, figures are corrected by a set
of variables and on the basis of empirical evidence and experts' judgement.
So-called 'implementation factors' shall reveal and take account of possible
non-compliance with regulatory requirements. A financial proviso is contained
in the EEAP (for all programmes, instruments and measures which presuppose
financial expenditure by public authorities it is indicated whether financing
has been made available).
The second EEAP reports on a number of good
practices. These include extensive renovation of public buildings through
promotional programmes, as well as contracting and procurement. Subsidised
audits and information and advice measures with the participation of suppliers
represent further good practices. 
The exemplary role of the public sector is
clearly highlighted in the EEAP with most of the energy saving measures
introduced already before the ESD entered into force. With the data available,
saving measures implemented for public properties and street lighting accrues
the highest quantifiable effects. The amendment of the Order on the Award of
Public Contracts requires only the highest energy efficiency criteria to be
stipulated in public tenders and life-cycle costs to be considered in the award
procedure. This process is facilitated by publishing guidelines for considering
energy conservation in public procurement. Germany fulfils the obligations
under Article 5 of the ESD by introducing a combination of measures referring
to all items of Annex VI. 
The exchange of good practices between public
sector bodies is facilitated by several information and advice measures.
Measures to communicate the exemplary role to citizens and/or companies are
foreseen and described in the plan. Examples include the Green-IT Initiative of
the Federal Government, the Mission E: campaign for changing user behaviour
with respect to energy consumption among employees of the German Armed Forces
and the Guideline for sustainable building.
Since April 2011 suppliers of energy services
and consumers have access to a public list of suppliers of services. The German
Government in its energy concept announced to further support the market for
energy services, to strengthen the concept of energy contracting and to present
a bill on supply contracting, in particular for residential building sector.
There are no robust quantitative assessments of accrued savings.
The second EEAP of Germany does not report
on energy saving measures on the supply side. A relevant end-use energy
efficiency measure reported is the funding programme supporting mini CHP
plants. In terms of promoting greater competition among suppliers, the
measuring and metering sector in Germany has been liberalised so that metering
must no longer be carried out by the network operator.
Strengths
·        
The German second EEAP presents a clear and
feasible strategy with well-coordinated realistic measures implemented,
reporting on accrued savings in all economic sectors (financial proviso
included). It establishes a coherent set of priorities (encompassing buildings,
the public sector, SMEs, and provision of information and advice).
·        
The German second EEAP demonstrates policy
continuity and includes complementary measures in different sectors. It
highlights synergies between the ESD and the EPBD and incorporates related
actions from the EPBD into the EEAP/ ESD strategy.
·        
The German second EEAP already moves towards the
reporting foreseen under the Energy Efficiency Directive and delivers complementary
information in line with stepping up the second EEAP to a policy document.
Especially the review of the status quo and development of the energy
service markets is a high quality addition to the standard reporting.
·        
The second EEAP provides targets, trends and savings
from measures in final energy consumption and primary energy equivalent
(electricity only). The reported savings for 2010 and 2016 are well in excess
of the objectives.
·        
The second EEAP quantifies savings achieved from
early measures but attempts to exclude them from reported achievements by
measuring improvements relative to 2007. The figures are corrected so as to
avoid double counting.
·        
The second EEAP applies top-down and bottom-up
methods in a complementary manner: top-down indicators are applied parallel to
bottom-up methods that verify savings for some sectors/end-uses. The
methodology, underlying assumptions and data are documented in detail in a
separate accompanying document.
·        
The second EEAP reports on a good set of
information and advice measures encompassing all sectors.
·        
The second EEAP foresees an improvement in data
availability. The Federal Agency for Energy Efficiency has been established in
2009 to monitor the market, contributing to even more precise assessments in
the future.
Weaknesses
·        
Ambiguous definition regarding the calculation
of the intermediate target in Annex I.
Recommendations for improvement                                                            
·        
The specific provisions (role of the public
sector according to ESD and EPBD, provision of information and advice) and
related total savings could be made more explicit.
Greece
Summary 
Overall, the plan is clear and there are various
measures implemented under the Operational Programmes through EU Structural
Funds, which are giving certain coherence. On the other hand, the second EEAP
does appear to show a clear strategy for backing up the implementation of
significant energy efficiency measures that should contribute to the
achievement of the 2016 target.
The report stresses the importance of the
economic crisis and how it has impacted the reduction in final energy
consumption. It therefore suggests that most of the savings reported should not
be attributed to the implementation of energy efficiency measures. However,
according to the top-down methodology recommended by the European Commission
and the adjusted methodology used by Greece to take into account the economic
recessionary effect, the 2010 2.8% target has been significantly achieved,
declaring the attainment of 5.1%[74].
Nevertheless, the figures resulting from these calculations should be treated
with caution. 
Due to the impact of the economic recession
and the methodologies applied to quantify the savings, it is not possible to
evaluate whether Greece will achieve the 2016 ESD 9% target. 
General evaluation
Greece's second EEAP provides an overview of
national policies and strategies related to energy use. It outlines the
measures implemented to achieve the 2010 target. It recognizes the significant
impact of the economic crisis on final energy consumption and it honestly acknowledges
the uncertainty of attributing energy savings to the implemented measures. The
slowdown of economic growth has significantly contributed to a substantial
reduction in end-use energy. The report has partially followed the template
proposed by the European Commission. 
The 2010 and 2016 targets set in the first EEAP
remain unchanged in the second EEAP. Based on the average of final energy
consumption for the 2001-2005 time frame, the 2010 intermediate target stays at
5.1 TWh or 2.8% and the 2016 final energy savings target remains 16.46 TWh or
9% as previously declared. According to the top-down methodology applied by the
Member State, the latest action plan declares the attainment of 21.37 TWh for
2010 or 11.7%, therefore significantly overshooting the intermediate target. 
The expected savings towards 2016 have not
been calculated as it is not possible to obtain a thorough evaluation of the
progress of specific measures described in the plan without taking into account
the impact of the economic recession, which may affect the implementation of
the measures and the energy savings they should contribute to.
The second EEAP also informs on the 20%
target in primary energy set by Greece to achieve savings in the production,
supply, distribution and transportation of energy. The plan forecasts primary
energy savings for 2020 equal to 33,1 TWh, claiming that major part of the
savings will be due to the implementation of measures included in the first
action plan.
The type of approach used to quantify energy
savings is based on a top-down methodology. Using this method, Greece
calculates a level of savings in 2010 that is 11.7% of reference consumption,
well in excess of the 2.8% ESD target for 2010 and also exceeding the 9% target
for 2016. Since this calculation does not take into account the effects of the
recession, Greece has adjusted the calculation in order to have a more
realistic approach and it has applied an alternative national top-down method
that takes into account the recessionary effects. With the alternative
calculation, savings between 5.1 and 10.9% in 2010 are estimated. 
The majority of the measures reported in the
second EEAP were reported in the first EEAP. In addition to those, new measures
have been added and some existing ones have been adjusted. The description of
those measures is often not exhaustive and for many of them it is not clear
whether they have already been implemented or not yet started.
The measures described cover the major
sectors of the Greek economy and end-uses. According to the report, the
transport and residential sectors contribute to most of the 2010 savings,
followed by industry and services. The main policy measures in the residential,
tertiary and industry sectors are expected to yield after 2010 (e.g. Regulation
on the energy performance of buildings, NSRF projects) and should contribute to
savings in the 2011-2016 time frame. Overall it is not possible to compare the
first EEAP with the second EEAP as the majority of the measures of the first EEAP
only started after 2010 or have not yet started.
The exemplary role of the public sector is
clearly highlighted in the EEAP. Provisions requiring the implementation of
energy saving measures in all end-use sectors of the public and the use of
energy efficiency criteria in the public procurement tendering procedures and
contracts, have been adapted to the national law. In compliance with Annex VI
of the ESD, requirements concerning the use of financial instruments for energy
savings, including energy performance contracting is mentioned in measure D4:
Energy upgrading of existing buildings through Energy Services Companies under
Energy Performance Contracts (EPC). 
Regarding the use of ESCO services, the
concept of energy services in Greece is not yet well established. However, its
institutional framework is regulated by a national law that has introduced for
the first time the concept of Energies Services Companies and that underlines
the operational framework, the suppliers' obligations and tools for the
promotion and development of the market.
The EEAP does not include comprehensive planning
for the implementation and the recast of the EPBD and the strategy to increase
nearly zero energy buildings. However, a number of measures related to Article
10 of the EPBD can be explained in the Plan.
Strong informational measures are illustrated
as separate measures as well as supporting actions. In the residential sector,
measures such as providing information to consumers on energy saving issues and
tax incentives to promote energy efficient technologies/interventions, can be
highlighted. Among the horizontal measures, "Targeted education campaigns,
provision of information and rewarding of good practices", has been
implemented since 2008, in order to spread the message to the general public
about the benefits of energy efficiency measures.
The second EEAP of Greece contains a
separate chapter on primary energy savings measures, which have been
implemented or planned in energy production and supply, and distribution and
transfer. Cost estimates are presented for planned projects to enhance the
distribution and transmission system. Various interconnection projects are
presented, in particular regarding Cyclades, Northern Aegean and Crete Islands,
which are expected to be completed by 2020 and reduce generation and
transmission losses by 2.3 TWh. The report contains a separate measure
promoting high-efficiency cogeneration focusing on installations in public
hospitals, as well as one for improving district heating systems. The separate
measure concerning the installation of intelligent metering of electronic and
natural gas consumers is expected to facilitate energy saving due expected
development of smart grids. Some measures have been introduced to promote of
solar thermal systems.
Strengths
·        
In order to estimate and quantify energy savings
and to take into account the impact of the economic recession on final energy
consumption, the Member State has considered appropriate to adjust the
calculation.
·        
According to the top-down method suggested by
the European Commission to quantify the expected savings and the adjusted
methodology that assesses the impact of economic recession on final energy
consumption, the 2010 target has been met.
·        
Due to the impact of the economic recession, the
plan acknowledges and identifies uncertainty with respect to attributing energy
savings to measures and it suggests that decrease in final energy consumption
in Greece is mainly due to the economic crisis.
·        
The Member State acknowledged the delay in the
implementation of new additional programmes. Although many of these measures
have not yet started, they should significantly contribute to the attainment of
the 2016 ESD target.   
·        
The Action plan describes a very consistent set
of measures in the transport sector which delivers most of the savings.
Additionally, a good set of measures in the public sector, highlighting the
role of the public authorities and municipalities have been illustrated.
·        
The wider use of the EU Structural Funds for
improving energy efficiency and promoting renewable energy in end-use sectors
has been highlighted in the EEAP as it plays an important role in the Greek
national strategy towards the financing of energy efficiency programmes. In
2009, almost all allocation for energy efficiency were re-allocated  to create
a dedicated fund for energy efficiency improvement measures in housing (energy
saving at home) with ERDF contribution of EUR 241 million. Co-financing level
for structural and cohesion funds has been raised up to 95%. However, the disbursement
of funds has been stalled due to the economic and political situation in
Greece.
Weaknesses
·        
Due to the specificity of the methodology
applied to quantify the 2010 savings, it is not possible to estimate the
further progress of the measures towards the achievement of the 2016 target and
to take into account the impact of the economic recession on the calculation of
energy savings.
·        
From the action plan it is difficult to
distinguish what is the proportion of savings attributable to energy efficiency
measures and to autonomous savings.
·        
The EEAP recognises that the top-down methods
recommended by the Commission yield unreliable savings figures due to the
effects of a significant economic recession in       Greece. Greece therefore
adjusts these top-down calculations using its own factors to provide a more
realistic view of interim energy savings. While these factors are          documented,
the EEAP does not explain how the adjusted savings values have been calculated.
As the adjusted calculation gives a wide range of values rather than a specific
savings value, it is unclear how much of these savings are likely to have been
achieved by measures. Furthermore, no estimate of expected savings in 2016 is
given.
·        
Delay in implementing many of the measures from
the first EEAP, postponing them for 2011-2012, did not allow an evaluation of
the savings.
·        
The energy savings reported in the action plan
have mainly been presented by sectors, hence lacking the evaluation and the
monitoring for each measure described.
·        
Potential overlap between several cross-sectoral
and sectoral measures or even within the same target sector can be identified
(e.g.: M5 and M6 or D7 and OIK1).
·        
Some measures are not clearly described and it
is difficult to deduct if the measures have already been implemented or they
are still pending (e.g. "Changing my old air-conditioner" action;
compulsory replacement of all light fittings with low energy efficiency in the
public sector and the wider public sector; etc.).
·        
Greece reports no comprehensive plan for the implementation
and the recast of the EPBD and the strategy to increase nearly zero energy
buildings. This is also stated  in page 125 of the EEAP.  With regards to the
compliance with Article 9 of the EPBD, Greece could have drawn up plans to for
increasing the number of nearly-zero energy buildings including setting up
targets according to the category of buildings; with regards to Article 11 of the EPBD, Greece could have laid down
necessary measures to establish a system of certification of the energy performance
of buildings.
Recommendations for improvement
·        
The third EEAP should present a forecast for
2016 energy savings and it should include details such as the implementation
schedule for each measure. Concrete achievements/outcomes should also be systematically
monitored and reported (at least for the most important measures or groups of
measures).
·        
In order to avoid possible double counting of
savings towards the indicative 2016 target, it is recommended that the next
report takes more thoroughly into account the synergic effects and overlaps
between different measures.
·        
As the second EEAP includes a number of fairly
new measures, it would be useful if the next report described the actual
progress with the implementation of these measures. 
·        
The involvement of the public sector and the
main programmes undertaken to improve energy efficiency should be presented
together with the achieved/expected savings.
·        
More focus and detail of information on EPBD and
nZEB reporting requirements implemented by Greece should be included in the
next EEAP.
Hungary
Summary 
The Hungarian second EEAP reports exceeding
the 2010 intermediate energy saving target under the ESD. It presents an energy
efficiency strategy until 2016 with twelve complex measures covering all key end-use
sectors (residential, public, industrial, transport). The presented data
indicate that the largest proportion of final energy savings came from the
residential sector, followed by industry and the public sector. The selection
includes mainly incentive-type, information and ESCO-based instruments.
Transport and SME related measures are limited. 
Links with core national strategies are
established and references are made to relevant regulatory instruments,
suggesting that the second EEAP is well integrated with the existing national
policies.  
In general, the second EEAP of Hungary demonstrates
rather low level of ambition, focusing mainly on the compliance with the
absolute minimum of the requirements of the ESD. Furthermore, the lack of some concrete
details (timeframe, extent) on relevant information measures is a barrier to the
assessment with regard to compliance with information provisions. While measure
descriptions contain details of future plans, information on actions already
undertaken by 2010 is limited
General evaluation
The overall energy saving target remained
unchanged compared to the first EEAP, at 57,4 PJ/year (15 955 GWh/year)
representing 9% of the reference consumption. According to the Plan, progress
by 2010 has been sufficient: achieved savings amount to 12,25 PJ/year, as
compared to the intermediate target of 9,4 PJ/year (as reported in the first EEAP).

Bottom-up calculation methods and data
sources are described for a list of measures that have contributed to the
achievement of savings by 2010. The combined use of top-down and bottom-up
methods is  indicated as recommended by the European Commission.
In the second EEAP the measures have been
recreated and rearranged as compared to the first EEAP. The strategy now
includes twelve complex measures. Planned measures are presented with enough
detail in general, establishing connection to relevant legislation. However,
the description of some sub-measures is too vague, and measures descriptions
often contain elements of goals rather than information on actually implemented
actions. There are certain goals or measures expressed in the second EEAP,
which would need more information to allow assessment, such as actions for
ESCOs, smart meters, voluntary agreements. In terms of commitments made, the
second EEAP is not more ambitious than the first EEAP and represents compliance
with minimum ambitions according to the ESD.
Hungary emphasises the role of public sector
and dedicates a separate chapter for this topic in the second EEAP. This information
has been described in a clearer way than in the first EEAP. However, the
proposed measures are limited mainly to the compliance with energy
certification deriving from transposition of the EPBD, and supporting this with
training and a software. It is not explained whether the support measures are
in place or are only planned. 
The second EEAP of Hungary contains only
some preliminary information about the basic principles of the spread of nearly
zero energy buildings in Hungary. The Hungarian second EEAP contains an
overview of the plans, the existing national legislation and the incentive
programmes for moving towards the nearly zero-energy buildings target (see Article
9 of Directive 2010/31/EU). However, the report does not provide many details about
concrete targets and individual measures. The actual reporting on issues
required by the EPBD is expected to be done though another report.
The second EEAP of Hungary does not provide a
comprehensive overview of supply side energy efficiency measures. However, one
of the presented comprehensive measures is focused on the improvement of
efficiency of the district heating distribution networks. As part of this
financial support measure, the renovation of district heating supply systems is
envisioned, including the modernisation of heat supply pipe systems, primary
heat reception and heat distribution centres. The measure also involves the
establishment of modern measurement as well as advanced data collection and processing.
Strengths
·        
The measures in the second EEAP are described in
detail and are presented in clear format. Implementation details – especially
for future actions – are provided, such as the expected budget and its source,
as well as monitoring and implementing bodies. It is also a positive feature
that possible overlaps and synergies are indicated for each measure. 
·        
The second EEAP clearly builds on the largest
final energy saving potentials in the country, particularly the refurbishment
of existing (residential) buildings.
·        
Measures combine financial and informational
actions reinforcing each other's impacts.
·        
The EEAP preparation offered the opportunity to
identify limitations in data collection, monitoring and proper implementation
of energy efficiency measures. The part of the second EEAP identifying the
problems and description of possible solutions is fairly comprehensive and can
be used as a basis for longer term planning for concrete actions. The
Government Decision attached to the second EEAP includes the requirement to
monitor the second EEAP implementation, as well as the establishment of a
calculation methodology and data collection.
·        
The use of the second EEAP at national level is
aided through establishment of coherence with other strategies which sometimes run
on a longer term.
·        
The detailed indication of data, data sources
and bottom-up calculation methods for measures that add up to savings achieved
by 2010 is a further strength of the second EEAP.
·        
The role of bodies involved in implementation
and monitoring is well described.
Weaknesses
·        
The second EEAP of Hungary is mainly focuses on
fulfilling the absolute minimum of the requirements of the ESD. While there is
a reference to a 2020 outlook, the mentioned 10% commitment can be considered
as not ambitious both in the light of the EU level objective of achieving 20%
energy savings, and compared to the final energy savings of 9% at the national
level expected by 2016. 
·        
The presented set of measures, if implemented in
an appropriate way, is expected to contribute to the achieving of the 2016
target. However, there is a risk of being on the conservative side, and not
acting early on growing energy users, such as transport.
·        
Measures to address exemplary role of the public
sector are rather weak. The description of measures lacks some concrete details
(timeframe, extent).  The voluntary character of the horizontal measure to
promote energy efficiency criteria in public procurement may not be sufficient
to ensure achieving major energy savings.
·        
The lack of some concrete details (timeframe,
extent) on relevant information measures is a barrier to the assessment with
regard to compliance with information provisions. While measure descriptions
contain details of future plans, information on actions already undertaken by
2010 is limited. 
·        
For measures in the transport sector no cost
estimations or budget sources are indicated. This raises uncertainty regarding
the implementation of these measures. 
·        
In some cases (for example measure 1.3,
sub-measure: "Spread of energy-efficient lighting equipment and light
sources", and measure 3.2, sub-measure: "Employment of energy experts
at large energy consumers") the measure identifies a task, or desirable
outcome. However, it does not explain the practical steps and actions that
should be taken to implement the measure to achieve this outcome. 
Recommendations for improvement
·        
Start and end date, duration of the measure,
energy savings from early action, energy savings in the current and the
forecast period, and practical steps already undertaken should be indicated
separately for each measure. 
·        
It would be recommendable that of the most
important measures, parallel to estimated costs, also the amount of financing
that has already been committed or spent is indicated. 
·        
It would be useful that in the case of public
funds, the share of EU funds, the share of revenues from allowance trading and
auction incomes, as well as the share of other possible public sources are indicated
separately.
·        
It is recommended to strengthen the measures to
ensure exemplary role of the public sector especially as regards ensuring
practical application of energy efficiency criteria in public procurement or
public purchases of products falling under the EU Energy Labelling regulations.
·        
In the view of some new instruments required by
the new Energy Efficiency Directive, already implemented and planned measures
as described in the second EEAP and the significant potential for improving
energy efficiency in all sectors in Hungary, it is recommended to consider
increasing the level of ambition of the Hungarian 2020 target.
Ireland
Summary
The Irish EEAP details an ambitious but
realistic medium-term strategy to improve the energy efficiency of the economy.
The report shows how achieving the ESD target will be an important milestone in
the roadmap to achieving national energy efficiency goals for 2020. A
comprehensive set of measures addresses energy efficiency in each of the main
sectors of the economy. The plan aims to exceed the ESD target for 2016.
Declared savings for 2010, however, are below the projections in the first EEAP.
Bottom-up savings are calculated using national methods, and thereby attempt to
capture only those savings that can be attributed to measures. The exemplary
role of the public sector is evident and an ambitious energy savings target for
the sector indicates a strong national commitment to energy efficiency. The
supplier obligations scheme currently being rolled out will be a key element in
achieving aggressive energy savings targets in the residential sector and will
provide a platform for encouraging a market for energy services in Ireland. 
General evaluation
The EEAP records savings of 4815 GWh in
primary energy equivalent in 2010, which is considerably lower than the 6500
GWh intermediate target given in the first EEAP. Forecast savings in 2016 of
17130 GWh are 11.75% of average energy consumption in the reference period from
2001 to 2005. 56% of savings in 2016 are attributed to measures in buildings,
18% to transport, 15% to the business sector, and 11% to the public sector. The
first EEAP defined a national energy savings target of 31925 GWh for 2020 to be
achieved by the whole economy including sectors outside the scope of the ESD.
The measures listed in the second EEAP are forecast to save 34060 GWh in 2020.
All savings are calculated using
measure-specific national methods. Some are derived from feedback from
programmes, expert assessments and national stock models. Figures include savings
achieved as a result of measures implemented prior to 2008, in particular building
regulations. The potential for double counting has been identified for each
measure and the report indicates that appropriate adjustments have been made.
The report does not present a top-down assessment of savings.
Much of the savings in buildings are
attributed to a number of measures implementing building regulations, including
building regulations for nearly zero energy buildings planned for 2016. A
number of schemes that provided grants to householders for energy efficiency
improvements have been replaced in 2011 by a new Better Energy Homes programme.
Forecast savings figures indicate that the new programme will have a far
greater impact than the previous ones. The scheme is supported by the new
supplier obligations scheme which commits large energy suppliers to deliver
energy savings. Given that the older grant-based programmes were moderately
successful, the report does not explain how the supplier obligation scheme will
lead to the necessary large increase in consumers willing to undertake energy
retrofits of their homes.
Significant measures in the business sector
include an accelerated capital allowance programme for organisations investing
in energy efficient equipment, and a voluntary agreements programme for large
energy users in industry who make a strong commitment to improving energy
efficiency. Total savings associated with the voluntary agreements programme
are reduced by 80% to determine its contribution to ESD and exclude EU ETS
participants’ savings. The plan includes an existing programme dedicated to
improving the energy efficiency of SMEs in which participants receive targeted
supports including mentoring and on-site assessments from a dedicated energy
efficiency expert. The supplier obligations scheme is also expected to deliver savings
in the industry sector in addition to those attributed to existing programmes.
The action plan contains a strong commitment
to improving energy efficiency in the public sector. An ambitious 33% energy
savings target for 2020 defined in the first action plan is retained. A number
of new measures are presented. The Public Sector Programme provides tailored
advice, mentoring and training to public sector organisations committed to
energy efficiency improvement. Better Energy Workplaces offers grants for qualifying
energy efficient upgrades. The report makes commitments on sustainable
procurement, on development of financial models for energy performance
contracting and use of ESCOs, and on the promotion of energy management in the
public sector. Efforts are underway to better quantify energy use and to
provide a robust monitoring and reporting system for the sector.
Of the listed transport measures, the EU
regulation governing maximum CO2 average emissions levels of private
cars accounts for the largest share of savings. Other measures include
adjustments to a tax on new cars purchased and to an annual motor tax in order
to discriminate in favour of vehicles with lower CO2 emissions
levels, and an information measure to influence driver behaviour and improve
the overall on-road efficiency of vehicles. A public transport investment plan
called "Transport 21" to encourage a modal shift was introduced in the
first EEAP, but is not mentioned in the second report.
. 
The EEAP provides a comprehensive
description of plans addressing the efficiency of energy supply in Ireland. To
improve electricity generation efficiency up to 2020, the report describes
plans to phase out all oil-fired power plants and to replace some existing
plants with high-efficiency combined cycle gas turbines and additional wind
capacity. Electricity market deregulation and the establishment of an
all-island market, incorporating the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland,
are presented as measures that encourage greater efficiency in electricity
supply. Furthermore, a winter peak demand reduction scheme encourages
participating industrial and commercial consumers to reduce their peak
electricity demand. The report states that investment in reducing transmission
losses will only be considered if it can be shown that the investment costs
will be outweighed by the benefits to the electricity consumer. On the other
hand, clear targets are given up to 2014 for the reduction of losses in
distribution networks. The EEAP states that a target of 800 MWe of
installed CHP is set for 2020, compared to an existing capacity of 284 MWe.
However, the programme providing capital assistance for new CHP ended in 2010. 
Strengths 
·        
The EEAP presents a clear and cohesive medium
strategy to improve energy efficiency in Ireland. The plan addresses energy use
in each of the main energy consuming sectors of the economy with a mix of
state-funded programmes and market-based instruments. Measures are well
explained and targets clearly stated.
·        
Savings for 2016 are forecast to exceed the 9%
ESD target. Savings have been assessed using measure-specific methods, thereby
excluding autonomous progress.
·        
The report shows a strong commitment to improve
energy efficiency in the public sector. An ambitious energy savings target has
been set. Dedicated public sector measures have been put in place and targets
quantified for each. The exemplary role of the public sector is clearly
communicated. 
·        
New measures that provide tailored advice from
experts to public sector organisations and SMEs complement the existing large
industry programmes. The SME programme responds directly to the requirements of
Article 12(1) in the ESD.
·        
The second EEAP contains commitments to helping
energy users in both public and private sectors to implement energy management
systems to meet the ISO 50001 standard.
·        
Introducing an energy supplier obligations
scheme will help drive energy efficiency in public and business sectors and in
the residential sector, and will help grow a market for energy services.
·        
The EEAP proposes to replace state funding with
an innovative Pay As You Save financial model whereby energy consumers can
finance their energy efficiency investments with the energy savings that they
generate. The approach provides a possible mechanism for encouraging retrofits
in homes and small businesses when public funding is not available. The report
provides little detail on the proposal, however.
·        
Much of the savings in future are attributed to
a number of measures implementing building regulations. New regulations are
e.g. planned for "nearly zero energy buildings" as of 2016. This
target seems to be quite ambitious as the EPBD requires new buildings to be
"nearly zero-energy" only by 2019/2021.
·        
The certification scheme on the energy
performance of buildings in Ireland is a good example for communication of the
buildings performance to the building's owners and tenants.
·        
Clear targets up to 2014 are given for the
reduction of losses in distribution networks.
Weaknesses
·        
Recorded intermediate savings of 4815 GWh are
considerably lower than the 6500 GWh intermediate target defined in the first EEAP.
The shortfall is not adequately explained. Instead, the report compares
achieved savings to a lower intermediate target of 5000 GWh defined in national
legislation from 2009.
·        
The EEAP uses only bottom-up or measure-specific
national methods to evaluate savings. The top-down methods recommended by the
Commission are not employed.
·        
The report does not explain well how the large
savings anticipated from the new Better Energy Homes programme will be
achieved. Forecast savings for the programme appear ambitious when compared to
the more modest savings achieved by the combination of programmes it replaces.
Although it is expected that the new supplier obligation scheme will drive
energy efficiency in the residential sector, it is not clear what significant
new actions will be implemented to ensure that homeowners will undertake
renovations at a much greater rate than they already have. 
·        
Implementation dates are not given for several
planned activities. These include the establishment of a cross-departmental
implementation group to deliver the contents of the action plan, the
development of an ESCO action plan and the creation of a green fund for energy
performance contracting. Of note also is that, although pilot programmes for
smart meters have been implemented since 2007, no timelines are defined yet for
a wider-scale rollout.
·        
The EEAP states that a target of 800 MWe
of installed CHP is set for 2020, compared to an existing capacity of 284 MWe.
However, the programme providing capital assistance for new CHP ended in 2010.
The EEAP seems to miss some additional measures to achieve the Irish national CHP
target.
Recommendations
for improvement 
·        
A more detailed explanation of the Better Energy
Homes scheme and of its interaction with the supplier obligation scheme could
be provided. Ireland should outline how the scheme will achieve savings in the
residential sector that are significantly greater than those achieved by
successful schemes implemented in the past.
·        
Planned start dates should be given for all
proposed actions that enable energy savings and that facilitate listed
strategic measures.
Italy
Summary
The plan is a continuation of the policies
and strategies described in the first action plan with the inclusion of a
number of additional measures that should contribute to the 2016 savings.
Overall, the second EEAP provides a thorough analysis of the existing measures
proposed by Italy to improve energy efficiency and to promote energy savings in
the residential, services, industry and transport sectors. The legislative
framework currently in place strengthens Italy's energy policy, it identifies
clear targets and it establishes energy efficiency policies guidelines to be
implemented in the future. 
The policies packages and strategy described
in the report are coherent, ambitious and the quality of the measures indicates
the progress of the successful on-going actions already in place that will
contribute to the attainment of the 2016 target.
General evaluation
The second EEAP reports the savings achieved
up to 2010 and it updates the energy efficiency measures to be adopted for the
achievement of the 2016 target in accordance with the ESD requirements. The plan
also includes some measures related to the EPBD reporting requirements.
The purpose of the second EEAP is to follow
up actions and initiatives already described in the first EEAP and to present
medium- to long-term proposals supported by innovative scenarios. The 2010 and
2016 predefined targets reported in the second EEAP have not been recalculated.
In the first EEAP Italy committed to an intermediate target of 3% to be
achieved by 2010 and to a 9.6% target to be reached by 2016. The second EEAP
declares the achievement of the intermediate target set for 2010 at 47,711GWh or
approx. 4% against the expected 35,658GWh or 3%. Furthermore, the EEAP
forecasts that Italy will reach the 9.6% or 126,327GWh savings in final energy
consumption by 2016. While this does not surpass projections given in the first
EEAP, it is 0.6% above the 9% target required by the ESD. 
In the second EEAP the methodology used to
calculate the target remains unchanged. The types of actions and measures have
also remained substantially the same, although new measures that could
contribute to the energy savings already defined for 2016 are listed in the
latter action plan. The second EEAP also defines a 2020 target. The plan
addresses the achievement of the 20% reduction in primary energy demand by 2020
highlighting the need for implementation of further measures in order to
achieve such ambitious target.
According to the second EEAP, most of the
achieved/projected savings for 2010 and 2016 are associated to the residential
sector (66%[75]),
followed by industry 17% services 10% and transport 6%.  
In the residential sector, the transposition
of Directive 2002/91/EC through the legislative decrees 192/05 has significantly contributed to the implementation of the measures
related to the 55% tax allowances for energy saving works on the existing
building stock. This can be seen as one of the most successful programmes that
contributed to the majority of the savings in the building sector. On the other
hand, energy efficiency improvements in the transport sector are still weak
considering that the transport sector in Italy accounts for approximately 25%
of the country's total consumption. 
The choice of criteria for the quantification
of the energy savings achieved outlined in the second EEAP appears to be quite
conservative. Although the ESD allowed the inclusion of energy savings achieved
as a result of "early actions", the second EEAP reports the values of
the annual energy savings by the end of 2010, assessing the measures applied
from when they started and effective up to 31 December 2010. Possible
overlapping have been highlighted in the second EEAP for those measures
contributing to energy savings that interrelate with other actions, especially
as a result of tax incentives and measures related to the successful White
Certificates Scheme.
Additional measures and energy efficiency
policies in the building sector have been added in EEAP2 with reference to EPBD
implementation. Also, to some extent, a more significant role of the public
sector is highlighted in the second EEAP.
Concerning EPBD requirements, Italy has
transposed 2002/91/EC concerning the energy performance of buildings by implementing
the Legislative Decree No. 192/2005. The Decree introduced important changes to
the existing legal framework, setting up minimum standards, initiating the
inspection of heating systems installations and introducing the energy
performance certification of buildings. The second EEAP describes a number of
measures that contribute to fulfil the EPBD reporting requirements such as: new
mandatory minimum requirements for primary energy needs for winter heating and
summer air conditioning for all new buildings; higher levels of thermal
insulation for the envelope and minimum requirements for buildings that are
undergoing refurbishment, promotion of the use of more efficient plant and
equipment (e.g. heat pumps, three- and four-star rated gas boilers, for new
buildings and refurbishments) and rationalisation of the controls on thermal
systems for heating and air conditioning.
Legislative Decree 115/2008 has implemented
Directive 2006/32/EC and it has assigned a higher importance to the role of the
public sector by adopting measures with the aim to harmonise and distribute
State and Regional functions related to energy efficiency, requesting the
public sector to make the best use of technical and financial instruments to
implement energy efficiency activities and promote actions throughout the
country and also by appointing an energy manager responsible for the rational
use of energy for all companies in the industry, service and transport sector
that have significant energy consumption. 
With regard to
procurement measures and the compliance with Annex VI of the ESD, the
stimulation by law of energy performance contracting for public, residential
and services sectors has been highlighted in the EEAP by the use of financial
instruments for energy savings including third party financing and ESCOs,
enabling the end user to carry out energy efficiency activities without having
to provide capital in advance.
A number of
measures related to information and advice have been reported in the plan, a
portal called Obiettivo Efficienza Energetica has been set up to provide
information on the regulatory framework, available incentive mechanisms, technological
solutions, training and simplified methods for achieving energy efficiency
improvement targets. Furthermore, an internet site open to the public has been
set up to provide information on how to save energy and money through tax
allowances.
The second EEAP includes a broad range of
supply-side measures implemented by Italy to improve energy efficiency. The
report foresees the implementation of measures addressing electricity
transmission and the reduction of losses in the distribution networks, measures
to promote high efficiency cogeneration, strategies to improve the efficiency
of electricity generation and measures to advance the development of smart
grids. Among the planned actions, Italy lists the expansion of the transmission
network to accommodate more renewables in the south of the country and to
enable greater interconnection between the mainland and the main islands; the
reduction in the length of distribution lines; the increased use of low-loss
components, in particular transformers; the increase of the power factor at the
sites of large consumers, and the increase of the voltage levels of
distribution networks around the country. The report outlines a strategy to
incorporate greater use of renewables, specifically wind and solar, in the production
of electricity. The EEAP recognises the importance of applying greater
intelligence to its distribution network over the coming years, and with
infrastructure already in place to exploit 32 million smart meters already
installed, it is forecasted that Italy will become a major player in the
implementation of future smart grid technologies. Cogeneration is supported by
the Italy's White Certificate Scheme whereby savings associated with micro-CHP
installations can be traded. Legislation transposing the Cogeneration Directive
is in the process of being updated. Planned changes relate to definitions of
cogeneration technologies, methods of quantifying energy produced from
cogeneration, and calculation of related savings for the purpose of issuing
white certificates.
Strengths  
Although most of the programmes and
activities to improve energy efficiency have not changed since the first EEAP,
the report communicates a coherent and feasible national energy efficiency
strategy. The main strengths of the action plan are:
·        
The 2016 target declared in the EEAP appears to
be secured by the on-going measures on condition these are properly implemented.
·        
Possible overlapping between energy efficiency
measures contributing to the savings are highlighted in the Action Plan by the
Italian monitoring authorities.
·        
There is a considerable number of new proposed
measures that can minimise the risk of falling short of the 2016 target as well
as a significant number of new programmes for which savings have yet to be
quantified (such as those in the public sector).
·        
The ESCOs support seems to be strong and there
are several measures in the industry sector within the White Certificates
scheme which involves the ESCOs.
·        
Many measures operate in a synergic way, in
particular in combination with the White Certificates Scheme and 50% tax
allowance for energy efficiency improvement works on buildings; both programmes
seem to sustain well the implementation of the energy efficiency measures
associated to them.
Weaknesses
·        
The presentation of the plan is slightly unbalanced,
 with often too much description of the EU framework and less clear
presentation of the Italian activities (e.g. for the public sector and on dissemination
and information activities). 
·        
Although for some measures the description is
relatively well detailed, the second EEAP provides no description on the
methodology used for the White Certificate scheme. Moreover, while most of the
assumptions for the 2016 target are fairly detailed, the information on the
achieved savings in 2010 appears to be less detailed. 
·        
As regards improving energy efficiency in
buildings, the roadmap towards nearly nZEB does not contain any concrete
targets or definitions but mainly outlines only certain steps. 
·        
The plan lacks details on the implementation of
the measures regarding provision of information to customers including measures
to improve informative feedback from metering and billing of individual energy
consumption. 
·        
There is a certain risk related to the
effectiveness and energy savings contribution of some major measures presented
in the EEAP (e.g. the 55% tax allowances, incentives for more efficient cars)
as it seems that some of these measures have been only applicable during a
short period of time. Any sudden discontinuation might potentially endanger the
achievement of the 2016 and 2020 target and weaken the effectiveness of some
other measures (e.g. White Certificate Scheme). 
Recommendations for improvement
·        
The details of information described regarding
energy efficiency policies and initiatives implemented in various sectors of
the Italian economy are comprehensive and well described. However, it seems
that most of this information is based on existing policy initiatives already
presented in the previous action plan. In the view of the new Energy Efficiency
Directive, it would be recommendable to consider further strengthening of the plan
by including a description of the implementation of new programmes and actions
to promote energy efficiency in the various sectors of the Italian economy. 
·        
Energy savings associated to the planned
measures to address public sector should be quantified. 
·        
The part of the EEAPs with measures addressing
the buildings envelope as well as the roadmap towards nearly-zero energy
buildings would benefit from further strengthening.
Latvia
Summary
The Latvian second EEAP complies with the ESD
requirements. It provides a clear overview of the overall national energy
policy context, energy efficiency measures and their sources of financing,
relevant national legislation and compliance with the ESD, following the
structure of reporting recommended by the European Commission.
While on the positive side a well-developed
legislative and regulatory framework for energy efficiency is demonstrated and
financing sources and timeframe of the measures are specified, the strategy
does not appear ambitious enough. The high contribution of the transport sector
to savings in energy end use in the intermediate reporting period raises
concerns, due to the mismatch between the presented measures and the amount of
savings in the sector.
2010 savings may be overestimated as the
methodology used is based only on the top-down approach and it is likely that
some of the savings come from the statistical effect of the economic crisis
rather than actual energy efficiency measures. A new monitoring methodology
(comprising of both top-down and bottom-up) has been developed but is expected
to be applied only in the preparation of the next EEAPs.  
General evaluation
According to the data provided in the second EEAP,
Latvia nearly achieved its 2016 energy savings target under the ESD already in
2010. The national indicative energy savings target for 2016 has been retained
at 3,483GWh (equivalent to 9% of average final energy consumption in the period
between 2000 and 2004). Reported savings in energy end-use amounted to 3,418GWh
(8.8%) in 2010, well above the 67GWh (0.17%) intermediate target. Furthermore,
by 2020 Latvia plans to achieve 7,779GWh savings in total and 6,050GWh (15.6%)
savings in final energy consumption.
In the reporting period 11 measures were
fully and 9 measures were partially implemented. The measures are presented
with high level of detail, specifying timeframe and financings sources. The EU
Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, as well as the Climate Change Financial
Instrument (CCFI, which is connected to revenues from AAU sales) play an
important role in financing already implemented, as well as planned measures.
Measures were proposed in the following five
energy end-use sectors: residential, transport, industry, the tertiary sector
and agriculture, as well as horizontal cross-sectoral measures. In the intermediate
reporting period the transport sector contributed most to savings in energy
end-use (amounting to 78% of the total), while savings in the services sector
constituted 28%, and the residential sector 20% of the total. However, it must
be noted that savings reported in the transport sector correspond to 24% of
total sector specific energy end-use in 2004. Such a large amount of savings
with the presented measures seems unlikely. The economic crisis had an impact
on the transport sector through the increase in petrol prices. Other factors
identified as contributors to savings in energy end-use in road transport
included optimisation of freight transport and improvements in technology. 
In terms of financial commitments no
significant change was detected between the first EEAP and the second EEAP. At
the same time information measures for energy efficiency in transport and a
measure in the agriculture sector (targeted at farms, forestry and biofuel
renewable energy supply) are not mentioned in the second EEAP.  Furthermore,
information campaigns on energy efficient lighting and computers and on energy
labels of electrical equipment, targeted at the tertiary sector, were not
implemented. In the second EEAP new measures were added in primary energy, in
the industry sector (voluntary agreements) and in the buildings sector
(tightening the building codes requirements). Overall the second EEAP
represents improvement compared to the first EEAP.
Latvia opted to fulfil the EPBD reporting
requirements within the second EEAP. With reference to nZEB, in 2011 a
competition was organized on low-energy buildings (with financing from CCFI).
Legislative provisions, including specific technical requirements for the use
of RES will be developed by July 2012. With reference to Article 10 of the EPBD,
the most important financial instruments for promoting the energy efficiency of
buildings in Latvia are the EU Structural Funds (ERDF) and the CCFI. Regulations
for inspecting boilers and air conditioning systems are in place. An inspection
of boilers and air conditioning systems is mandatory when certifying the energy
performance of a building, but in other cases the inspection is voluntary.
Given Latvia's climatic conditions, there are no statutory requirements to
provide cooling systems in buildings. 
The exemplary role of the public sector is
highlighted in the second EEAP. In Latvia state and local authority bodies are
obliged by law (Article 9 of the Law on Energy End-Use Efficiency) to promote
energy efficiency measures. Measures concerning the procurement of energy
efficient equipment that has efficient energy consumption in all modes (including
standby mode), and requirement to carry out energy audits for public buildings
indicate compliance with Annex VI of the ESD.
Overall there are several positive elements
in the provision of information and advice on energy saving measures in Latvia
(for example the existence of relevant laws, and the work of regional energy
agencies and the cities that are members of the Covenant of Mayors), but there
is space for improvement (for example with regard to expansion of efforts, in
the area of ESCOs, as well as in energy service provision by distribution
system operators and energy traders). Consultation and information activities
(including online information, individual consultations, lectures, seminars,
publications, and TV and radio reports) are provided by the Ministry of
Economics and the AS “Latvenergo” Energy Efficiency Centre. Expansion of these
activities is planned in the future with respect to provision of information to
individuals and legal entities. 
Various measures are proposed for improving energy
efficiency in primary energy. These include the development of a smart grid
concept, improving energy efficiency in transmission and distribution of
natural gas and electricity, improving the efficiency of centralized heating
supply systems, development of a CHP plant using renewable energy sources, and
improving efficiency in electricity generation at one hydro power and one CHP
plant.
Measures to improve the energy efficiency
of electricity generation include modifications of existing hydroelectric
plants and on-going projects to upgrade combined cycle gas plants that can
operate in cogeneration mode. The efficiency of the electricity network will be
improved in the coming years by the planned reconstruction of power lines and
transformer sub-stations, and replacement of transformers. Latvia is developing
a smart network concept to establish a common understanding of the meaning of
smart grids, to create a basis for examining the need to implement smart grids,
and to assess its technical possibilities. The report mentions that an upgrade
of the gas network is planned, including a modernisation of an underground gas
storage facility. While a programme to finance the construction or modification
of heat plants and district heating networks is in place, lack of funding and
low capital turnover are identified as barriers to energy efficiency
improvement in district heating systems. Finance from the cohesion fund has
been allocated to the development of cogeneration plants using renewable fuels.
However, no projects financed by the measure have yet been completed. CHP
development is further supported by a guaranteed compulsory purchase of
electricity from cogeneration at a fixed price and by the right of plant
operators to receive guaranteed payment for installed electrical capacity.
Additionally cogeneration plants using renewables can choose either to receive
guaranteed payments for electricity capacity or to sell electricity generated. 
Strengths
·        
The Latvian second EEAP is well structured. It
provides a clear description of the current situation, including details on
energy consumption, building stock characteristics and legislation. Information
on financing sources and timeframes of the individual measures is also
provided. 
·        
The EU ERDF and the Cohesion Fund are put to the
use of energy efficiency activities, providing a best practice example for
other new member states.
·        
There is a good estimation of budgets for
specific measures. Financing is on-going for the large majority of measures,
secured through 2013 (via sources from the EU).
·        
The Latvian second EEAP provides a target and
estimation of energy savings by 2020. 
·        
The measures presented in the second EEAP
provide a good coverage of all important end-use sectors, as well as savings in
primary energy.
·        
The second EEAP demonstrates a well-developed
legislative and regulatory framework for energy efficiency.
·        
The top-down calculation method used is the one
recommended by the EU commission and is well explained. 
Weaknesses
·        
Savings are calculated only by top-down
methodology. As such, it is unclear to what extent reported intermediate
savings are due to the implementation of specific energy efficiency measures
and to what extent the economic crisis has influenced savings. There is a risk
of an overestimation of energy savings achieved by 2010 (particularly in the
transport sector). Energy savings presented in the second EEAP for the
intermediate target have been calculated for 2009, due to lack of approved
statistical data for 2010.
·        
While the Latvian second EEAP is a
well-structured document, it contains repetitions in the measure descriptions:
some residential and tertiary sector measures are declared again, later on, as
building sector measures, some district heating measures are also declared as
primary energy measures.
·        
Some measure descriptions could provide more
detail. For example, the details on future requirements are missing in the case
of tightening minimum energy performance requirements for renovation and for
new buildings; the measure targeted at the transport sector on ‘systematic
inspections of the technical condition of vehicles’ seems to be only an
ordinary technical inspection.
·        
While smart metering infrastructure is mentioned
in the second EEAP, the implementation of the concept seems to be at the very
early planning stage, to be subjected to economic assessment.
Recommendations for improvement
·        
In the view of the new requirements of the
Energy Efficiency Directive, monitoring of energy savings arising from future
energy saving obligation schemes and alternative measures to such schemes
should be improved in Latvia in order to ensure fair treatment of obligated
parties and that there is no double counting of energy savings.
·        
The expansion of measures for providing
information and advice to the public on energy efficiency would be desirable.
Plans to fulfil this have already been mentioned in the second EEAP.
Lithuania
Summary
The second EEAP of Lithuania builds on the
first action plan, showing improvement in terms of structure and readability.
Lithuania applies the EC recommended guide and the template, presents measures per
sector (household, public, industrial, energy, transport and horizontal),
provides more detailed information for the measures and calculates energy
savings using national bottom-up methods. 
However, most of the measures are still
focused on residential and public sector buildings and nearly all of
Lithuania's declared energy savings in 2010 are attributed to pre-2008 building
regulations and other early measures.
General evaluation
Lithuania did not revise its energy saving
target. The national final energy savings target for the nine year period
(2008–2016), calculated in line with the requirements of Annex I of the ESD,
remains as set in EEAP1 at 9% (3 797 GWh) of the average reference energy
consumption for base period 2001–2005. The intermediate energy savings figure
for the three year period (2008–2010) is 1.5% (628 GWh).
Final energy savings for 2010 amount to 780
GWh, compared to the savings target of 628 GWh set in the first EEAP. The
energy savings were calculated using national bottom-up methods. However,
quantification was not possible with regard to each documented measure.
Contributions per sector are reported as follows: horizontal - 590 GWh, public
- 110 GWh, residential - 80 GWh. Nearly all of Lithuania's declared energy
savings in 2010 are attributed to pre-2008 building regulations and other early
measures which were not included in the first EEAP.
Generally, the top-down figures are at odds
with the bottom-up ones. Using top-down methods, road transport accounts for
most of the energy savings, while negative savings are shown for heat use in
households and for some industrial sub-sectors.
With regard to the impact of individual
energy savings measures that have already been implemented, are being
implemented or are planned, final energy savings for the 2008–2016 period are
estimated at 3 962 GWh, compared to the savings target of 3 797 GWh. It is
estimated that horizontal measures will account for 1 240 GWh, the energy
sector 740 GWh, industry around 565 GWh, the residential sector around 558 GWh,
the transport sector 472 GWh, and the public sector 387 GWh to the 2016 savings
target.
Interesting national policies presented in the
second EEAP include the promotion of standard contracts for the diffusion of
energy services in the public and private sector and voluntary agreements with
the industry. The following quantitative energy efficiency improvement targets
were set for Lithuanian electricity distribution enterprises, heat suppliers
and natural gas suppliers: to reduce final energy consumption by end-users by
10% compared to average consumption in 2001–2005, which seem to be going in the
direction of the energy saving obligation schemes included in the new Energy
Efficiency Directive. 
Compared to the first EEAP, the exemplary
role of the public sector is more clearly highlighted in the second EEAP. In the
first EEAP a lot of attention was devoted to public buildings, training and
provision of information to public employees, and planning to use public
procurement to promote efficiency. Measures in the second EEAP comprise
renovation of scientific and higher education institutions, community centres,
libraries, museums, prisons and other public buildings through promotional
programmes and funds, partly using Structural Funds, information and advice, as
well as procurement and mandatory audits. The exchange of good practices
between public sector bodies is facilitated. Lithuania fulfils the obligations
on public procurement by introducing a combination of relevant measures.
Order No 4-184 of the Minister for the
Economy of the Republic of Lithuania of 29 April 2008 approved the methodology
for performing audit on energy, energy resource and cold water consumption in
public buildings (Official Gazette 2008, No 55-2097). The methodology defines
the stages for audit performance as well as for preparation of the audit
report.
As regards metering and billing, inter alia
Order No 4-40 of the Minister for the Economy of the Republic of Lithuania of
31 January 2007 approved general rules for installation of advanced meters at
the premises of electricity, heat and natural gas consumers which shall
accurately reflect actual energy consumption by the end-users and record the
exact time of consumption (Official Gazette 2007, No 24-936, 2008, No 58-2190).
However, it is not clear if Lithuania introduced measures that would improve
technical feasibility of using individual heat meters or accurate heat cost
allocators to account for individual consumption and enable billing based on
actual consumption of heating in multi-apartment buildings (e.g. programmes
supporting installation of thermostatic valves for the radiators).
In terms of financing, Lithuania reports on
standards contracts for the diffusion of energy services in the public and
private sector. Furthermore, Lithuania indicates the use of EU funds and
funding obtained through the sale of surplus Assigned Amount Units on
international carbon markets for the financing of energy efficiency improvement
measures.
There is a lot of attention to information
and advice to final customers and SMEs in relevance of Article 7(2) of ESD.
Furthermore, the Lithuanian second EEAP report contains the requirement for
energy companies to provide information to energy customers and municipal
authorities.
In a document accompanying the EEAP,
Lithuanian authorities have listed measures that promote the objectives of the
recast EPBD, as required by Article 10(2). The EEAP itself lists measures
addressing the requirements of Articles 14 and 15 to inspect heating and air
conditioning systems. However, the EEAP does not refer to a national plan for
nZEB, it does not set any intermediate targets for nearly-zero energy buildings
for 2015 (Article 9 of EPBD), and the leading role of public authorities in the
field of energy performance in buildings is not sufficiently highlighted
(Article 11(5) of the EPBD).
The second EEAP of Lithuania does not
provide a full review of measures on the supply side as such. However, the use
of Structural Funds for the upgrade of co-generation plants, construction of
high-efficiency co-generation plants and their connection to heat supply
systems are reported under the measures addressing energy savings in the industry
sector.
Strengths
·        
The Lithuanian second EEAP is well structured,
presenting measures by sectors. It provides more detailed information on
measures compared to the first EEAP and provides calculations for the achieved
and expected energy savings.
·        
The promotion of standard contracts for the
diffusion of energy services in the public and private sector, and voluntary
agreements with industry represent good practice in national policies.
·        
The exemplary role of the public sector is now
clearly highlighted in the second EEAP. The measures mostly focus on publicly
owned buildings. Lithuania fulfils the obligations on public procurement by
introducing a combination of measures referring to Annex VI of ESD.
·        
The EEAP includes useful measures to ensure the
provision of information and advice to final customers and SMEs, which goes in
the direction of new requirements of the Article 12 of the Energy Efficiency
Directive.
 Weaknesses
·        
Most of the measures are still focused on
residential and public sector buildings but nearly all of Lithuania's declared
energy savings in 2010 are attributed to pre-2008 building regulations and
other early measures.
·        
Out of the documented 57 measures of the second EEAP,
only 10 are declared new measures compared to EEAP1. Some measures just follow
the mandatory transposition of EU regulations (e.g. under Ecodesign Directive)
·        
One of the important measures being the
voluntary agreement with energy undertaking to reduce final energy consumption
by 10% among final customers (compared to the average consumption of 2001-2005)
was introduced. However, the results of the actions taken by these undertakings
so far under this voluntary agreement have not been presented in the EEAP.
·        
A number of measures reported in the second EEAP
are legal requirements with clauses (e.g. as regards obligations to install and
report on the installation of individual meters when technically and
economically feasible). However, the second EEAP does not provide information
on the actual impact of such measures (e.g. how many meters were actually
installed). 
Recommendations for improvement
·        
The EEAP is mainly based on measures in the
building sector, both in the residential and public sector. Lithuania's
declared energy savings in 2010 are attributed to pre-2008 building regulations
and other early measures. Bearing in mind significant potential for energy
savings especially in existing buildings in Lithuania, it recommended considering
some new strong measures that would improve energy performance of such buildings
on a more massive scale.
·        
In order to enhance technical conditions for
accurate metering and billing of individual consumption of heating and domestic
hot water in multi-apartment and other multi-user buildings, it is recommended
to consider new programmes to improve in-house central heating systems
including installation of thermostatic valves for radiators in such buildings.
·        
Clarification of discrepancies between savings
figures calculated by bottom-up and top-down methods would be useful to get a
better understanding of the actual achieved and expected savings.
·        
In the view of the requirements of the new
Energy Efficiency Directive, it is recommended to clarify the level of
obligation (or self-obligation) by the energy undertakings to save energy among
end-users. Implementation should be thoroughly monitored.
Luxembourg
Summary
The second EEAP for Luxembourg is well
written and presents a coherent national energy efficiency plan. Forecast
savings for 2016 are realistic and are considerably greater than the level
necessary to meet ESD requirements. The documented savings for 2010 indicate
successful implementation of national energy efficiency policy. The plan is
consistent with the first EEAP, with a clear view of progress in the intermediate
period and with new, updated and adjusted measures where necessary. There
remains, however, considerable untapped energy savings potential in Luxembourg.
In existing building stock there is scope for increased energy efficiency.
Luxembourg should develop new measures, or adapt existing ones where these are
less effective, to convert this potential into real savings. The exemplary role
of the public sector is not sufficiently addressed in the report. Although a
number of measures are planned, the report doesn't commit the public sector to
implementation dates for these and doesn't attempt to quantify the sector's
contribution to overall savings. Luxembourg's own projections for final energy savings
show that energy savings target of ESD for 2016 will be achieved if all the measures
included in the second EEAP are implemented. 
General evaluation
Measures presented in the Luxembourg EEAP are
divided into three groups: early action measures that were implemented prior to
2007, new measures that have been put in place since 2008, and potential
measures not yet implemented. The report declares intermediate savings of 7.6%
of reference energy consumption and forecasts savings of over 14% in 2016 if
all existing and planned measures are fully implemented and if early actions
are included. Luxembourg used national bottom-up methods to calculate
measure-specific savings and early actions account for over 40% of forecast
savings. 
The residential sector accounts for the
largest proportion of listed measures and the largest share of savings. Most of
the savings are attributed to building regulations that are applicable only to
new buildings and buildings undergoing significant renovation. Although some
measures address energy efficiency in existing households, these contribute
only a small proportion of total savings.
Four measures listed for the tertiary sector,
three of which are building regulations. The fourth measure, planned to exploit
the electricity savings potential, is vague and contains little detail about
implementation. As the first three measures apply only to new buildings and
renovations, and the fourth has not yet been implemented, the listed measures
do not appear to adequately encourage increased energy efficiency in the
tertiary sector. 
Of the four listed measures addressing energy
efficiency in industry, three are associated with long-standing voluntary
agreements. Most of the projected savings are accounted for by voluntary
agreements in the period up to 2007. The fourth measure is a possible future
measure which, like similar measures in the tertiary sector, aims to exploit
some of the untapped electricity savings potential in the sector. While this
potential is quantified, the planned actions associated with the measure are
not sufficiently dealt with. 
In the transport sector, forecast savings are
given for three measures. Measures include an increase in the tax on transport
fuel to encourage lower consumption, the introduction of a CO2-dependant
motor tax, and a subsidy for low emissions passenger vehicles. No measures that
directly encourage greater use of public transport are mentioned. 
A series of horizontal or cross-cutting
financial measures are presented, including subsidies to promote the increased
use of renewables among households and favourable electricity selling tariffs
to encourage investment in CHP in commercial buildings. 
A section explaining the exemplary role of
the public sector is included. Since 2010, all new public buildings must comply
with the lowest "domestic energy standard". The EEAP mentions that a
budget of around EUR 30 million has been made available for upgrading existing
building stock. As the same budget is referred to in the first EEAP, it is not
clear how much has been done to improve the energy efficiency of public
buildings since 2008. Some proposed public sector measures introduced in the
first EEAP are not mentioned in the second report. 
It is stated that a sample energy service
contract is currently being drawn up to be used in one or more pilot projects
in the public sector. The report also declares that Luxembourg will implement
public procurement measures (a) and (b) in Annex VI of the ESD, but a timeline
for their implementation is not given. 
The European Energy Award system is being
implemented in Luxembourg's municipalities. Municipalities undertake to
implement the energy management system in return for financial and technical
support from the state. Successful implementation will demonstrate a serious
commitment to increased environmental sustainability and energy efficiency.
The EEAP has a good communications strategy
with measures in the form of websites, exhibitions, advice centres and training
programmes. The report presents a broad range of information measures that are
designed to promote energy efficiency. Myenergy is a national institute that
has responsibility for increasing awareness of energy efficiency and renewables
among the public. As well as maintaining a comprehensive information website,
the institute organises a series of trade shows to promote energy efficient
retrofits. 
The report presents a list of existing and
planned measures for achieving the objectives of the recast EPBD. Existing
financial measures include subsidies for building low-energy homes and for
energy retrofitting of existing homes, subsidies for companies investing in
energy efficiency, and investment aid for municipalities. Planned or possible
future measures include tax credits for notary fees and subsidised mortgage
interest rates for energy efficient homes, low-interest loans for retrofitting
low-energy homes, accelerated capital depreciation for tenants, and reduced VAT
rates for energy efficient renovation works. The report does not contain any
information vis-à-vis inspection of heating and air-conditioning systems
in buildings. While the report does not define any target nZEBs, it commits the
Government to building "plus-energy" buildings for demonstration
purposes. However, it does not quantify the number of buildings or give a
timeline for their construction.
The first and second EEAP reports are very
similar with a good deal of consistency between the measures presented in the
two. Higher projected savings in the second EEAP can be attributed to
recalculation of savings projected to be achieved by individual measures, and
the inclusion of additional existing and potential measures. The second report
shows that some planned measures in the first EEAP are now being implemented.
On the other hand, other measures planned in the first EEAP, such as those
addressing the energy savings potential in the industry and tertiary sectors
still have not been implemented according to the second EEAP.
The EEAP contains no information about
measures addressing supply-side energy efficiency. A measure promoting
renewables and decentralised CHP using feed-in tariffs is described. As savings
figures associated with the measure are given as early action savings, i.e.
achieved before 2007 but still effective, it is not clear from the report if
the feed-in tariffs are still available for new installations.
Strengths
·        
The report introduces a clear energy efficiency
strategy, sets ambitious national targets, provides a good overview of progress
in Luxembourg, and presents a coherent set of measures with effective actions
in each main economic sector. 
·        
The EEAP presents achieved and forecast savings
that are well ahead of ESD targets. These figures indicate that significant
progress has been made in improving the energy efficiency of the economy in
Luxembourg.
·        
As total declared and projected savings are the
sum of savings evaluated per measure, they provide an accurate reflection of
energy savings achieved through policy.
·        
Energy management systems implemented at
municipal level offer significant energy saving potential and indicate a
long-term commitment to energy efficiency improvement.
·        
The report presents a good communications
strategy with a variety of information measures including web sites, trade
shows, local advice centres and training programmes.
Weaknesses
·        
The exemplary role of the public sector is not
sufficiently highlighted and some important measures have not been implemented,
yet. No public sector savings have been quantified. The extent to which planned
upgrading of existing public buildings has progressed is unclear.
·        
Programmes addressing efficiency in existing
buildings indicate low energy savings with most of the savings in buildings are
achieved through building regulations. The significant energy savings potential
in existing buildings is not adequately addressed.
·        
Proposed measures to address the energy savings
potential in the industry and tertiary sectors are not sufficiently supported
by concrete actions. For example, Luxembourg quantifies the total electricity
savings potential of the industry sector up to 2016 for several technologies
(e.g. motors, fans, pumps, compressed air, etc.). It then takes a percentage of
this potential and presents it as the 2016 savings associated with a future
measure called "C7 cross-cutting technologies savings potential". However,
it does not list any concrete measures that will help realise this potential, e.g.
enhanced capital allowances for EE equipment, grants for pumps, motor
replacement programme, etc. All other industry savings are achieved by
voluntary agreements in the sector.
·        
The electricity savings potential for the
service sector is quantified in a similar manner and 50% of the potential is
presented as the savings to be achieved by a proposed measure called "C6
Electricity Savings Potential". Again no planned actions to incentivise
the replacement of electrical appliances in the sector are given. All other
savings in the service sector are achieved by building regulations.
·        
While quantifying the energy savings potential
is a positive aspect of the EEAP, the savings potential itself doesn't
constitute a measure. Luxembourg needs a broader range of measures, in
particular clear measures that address the quantified electricity savings
potential in the industry and services sectors.
·        
The EEAP does not report on any measures that would
actively encourage energy efficiency among SMEs.
Recommendations
for improvement
·        
The report should provide greater detail about
concrete measures implemented in the public sector. The exemplary role of the
sector should be emphasised. Energy savings targets should be defined and time
frames for the achievement of goals specified. It should be possible to assess
the public sector's progress towards its goals. Public sector targets with
respect to nZEB and implementation of the recast EPBD should be set. 
·        
Luxembourg should analyse the effectiveness of
measures that encourage greater efficiency in existing buildings. Improving
insulation and increasing the efficiency of heating systems in existing homes
and offices should offer considerable energy savings potential. This potential
should be quantified and targeted by actions, and existing actions should be
intensified or modified if shown to be ineffective. 
·        
In the second EEAP, several potential actions
are mentioned that could save energy in the tertiary and industrial sectors.
These include addressing technologies such as lighting, IT systems, electric
motors, compressors, etc. with information actions, energy audits and other
actions. The listed actions offer significant energy savings opportunities.
Luxembourg could further develop these potential actions into concrete measures
and provide greater detail about these in the next EEAP. 
Malta
Summary
The Maltese second EEAP is a well-structured
document, embedding the individual measures in the broader national energy
policy concept. A clear link and display to the national indicative primary
energy saving target for 2020 is put forward and supported by an additional
interim target for 2014. The energy efficiency measures focus on enhancing
energy efficiency in the domestic sector, tourism and industry.
The document is following the template
suggested by the guidelines developed by the European Commission for ESD
reporting. The Maltese second EEAP reports the overachievement of the 2010
intermediate energy saving target under the ESD and expects to reach the overall
2016 ESD target and presents a comprehensive and workable set of instruments.
The presented data indicates that the largest
proportion of final energy savings came from the households sector. In
methodological terms, the action plan could be improved by providing more
detail on the measurement and verification and the underlying data used. 
General evaluation
According to the second EEAP policies
proposed in the first EEAP are in the process of being implemented. In the
majority of cases measures correspond to the ones mentioned in the first EEAP,
some with changes in title, structure, modifications and adaptations. Few
additional measures have been initiated. A CFL scheme is mentioned as a new
measure, as part of which all households were given free energy saving lamps,
with the aim of promoting the future purchase of this product. 
The EEAP for Malta lists 40 measures (Table
3-4 of the second Maltese EEAP). Thirteen of these were in place prior to 2008
but most of the early measures are still active into the first or second EEAP
period, such as incentive programmes for PV and solar water heaters. The level
of ambition of the first EEAP and of the second EEAP is similar. 
An Energy Efficiency Fund has been created by
the Ministry of Finance, the Economy and Investments to ensure the availability
of funding for energy efficiency support schemes. Sources of funding included
an excise duty on petrol and diesel, as well as EU structural funds.
As indicated by the second EEAP provision of
information and advice forms an integral part of action to increase efficiency
of energy end-use in Malta. Two education campaigns were carried out at the
national level between 2007 and 2010. Information sessions and programmes
targeted towards different audiences are delivered on radio and television, as
well as through seminars and presentations. Furthermore, information on energy
efficiency measures is available on the websites of the electricity supplier
and the regulator.
The wide range of measures incorporating
different sub-sectors indicates the importance of the public sector in Maltese
energy efficiency policy. Public authorities in Malta have been implementing
energy savings measures as part of their own operations. A Green Leaders
Programme is running in government ministries in Malta. As part of the
programme green focal points are appointed in different departments, creating a
green network within government. As for public procurement the National Green
Public Procurement Action Plan does not specify eligible energy efficiency
public procurement measures, as set out in Annex VI of ESD. 
The Maltese second EEAP devotes a separate
section to the context and planned measures of EPBD implementation and to the
promotion of nearly-zero energy buildings. According to the report the impact
of applying energy performance requirements in new and renovated buildings is
currently limited. Malta plans to utilize experience acquired through EPBD
implementation to achieve the final goal of substantial energy savings through
new nearly zero-energy buildings by 2020. A combination of significant
incentives (financial instruments, including rebates, tax credits and
advantageous bank loans) and better enforcement of the certification system is
expected to be the key driver of this process.
Related to EPBD implementation the need for
additional training for architects, engineers and qualified experts is
identified in the second EEAP, in order to improve skills in energy audits.
Furthermore, an EPC web portal including online audit reports and data entry
validation was developed and is continuously improved.
As mentioned above, Malta has achieved and
exceeded its interim final energy saving target of 3% (126GWh in absolute
terms) under the ESD: as indicated by top-down analysis total savings by 2010
amounted to 3.8% (161GWh in absolute terms). According to the second EEAP
energy efficiency is a key area of Maltese energy policy, with the 9% final
energy saving target (378GWh in absolute terms) expected to be met by 2016.
Malta uses top-down methods to quantify
energy savings, with savings for some sectors and end-uses verified using the
bottom-up approach. Savings verified by bottom-up methods amount to
approximately 108GWh. However, the applied bottom-up methods could have been
explained in more detail. Top-down methods for calculating savings in transport
(11GWh) and in households (108GWh) in 2010 are in line with those recommended
by the European Commission. In the industry sector a national method involving
early actions is used for calculating top-down savings, taking the year 2000 as
reference. The top-down assessment in industry focuses on the water sector, as
potable water production (involving extensive use of seawater desalination)
accounts for about 30% of electricity consumed by industry. 
Most of the declared top-down savings are
measured with 2007 as base year and therefore exclude early savings. However,
declared industry savings of 42GWh, or 26% of total declared savings for 2010,
are measured relative to 2000 and therefore include early savings. Even
assuming all industry savings were achieved prior to 2008, early savings as a
proportion of total declared savings cannot be more than 26%.
The second EEAP of Malta contains a
separate section on strategies addressing primary energy savings. Reported
supply side measures focus on reducing electrical transmission and distribution
losses (through the planned submarine electrical interconnection to the
European network), installation of new efficient generating capacity and
promoting smart grids through the rollout of smart meters.
Strengths
·        
The Maltese second EEAP document clearly links
the measures put forward to the overall energy efficiency policy concept and
the national 2020 energy efficiency objective. A clear and comprehensive link
to the EPBD reporting is established.
·        
The measures are clearly and comprehensively
described. 
·        
The Maltese second EEAP generally follows the
reporting guidelines proposed by the European Commission. Energy savings
achieved and possible overlaps and synergies are also addressed, although this
information is not available in the case of every measure. 
Weaknesses
·        
In the Maltese second EEAP the timely attainment
of the 9% energy saving target by 2016 is foreseen. It would have been helpful
to support this expectation by detailed description of the individual measures;
energy savings expected from each measure by 2016 is missing in the majority of
cases.
Recommendations for improvement
·        
In the Maltese second EEAP information on
achieved savings in 2010 and expected savings by 2016 from individual measures
do not in all cases correspond with the presented overview table.
·        
It would be helpful to provide details of
bottom-up methods. The relation between the bottom-up and top-down calculation
of savings in the case of some measures remains unclear. In all cases it should
be clearly indicated whether bottom-up or top-down methods are used.
Poland
Summary
The second EEAP for Poland presents a comprehensive
set of measures that address energy efficiency in key sectors of the economy.
The figures presented for 2010 suggest significant energy efficiency
improvement since 2007 and indicate that the national intermediate target has
been surpassed. Forecasts for 2016 show that the 9% ESD energy savings target
can be exceeded by the measures listed in the report. The report does not
provide sufficient detail about methods used to calculate forecast saving. The
report does not give sufficiently clear explanation of the extent to which intermediate
savings have been achieved by the policy measures. While the leading role of
the public sector has been stated in the second EEAP, the extent to which it
complies with the public procurement requirements of the ESD is not clear. Also
and the means to facilitate exchanges of good practices among public
institutions on energy savings and to promote the leading role of the public
sector to the wider public would benefit from are not sufficiently explained. The
second EEAP contains a more concrete set of measures, but the lack of detail
with respect to listed actions in the first EEAP is still evident in many of
the measures presented in the second EEAP. The introduction of a white
certificate scheme in Poland provides the biggest opportunity for energy
savings in the coming years and goes in line with the key instruments endorsed
by the new Energy Efficiency Directive. The scheme should accelerate national
energy savings efforts and enhance the market for energy services.
General Evaluation
The EEAP declares final energy savings of
5.9% of reference energy consumption for the 2-year intermediate period to
2009. The intermediate savings are calculated using top-down methods
recommended by the Commission. Forecast savings for 2016 are 11.3% of reference
energy consumption. The 2016 forecast figure appears to be the sum of projected
savings calculated using bottom-up methods for each of the measures detailed in
the document. Listed are 15 'priority measures' measures that include financial
support schemes and dedicated state funding as well as market-based mechanisms,
and are designed to address energy efficiency in housing, industry and SMEs,
the public sector, and energy distribution.
The 'Thermomodernisation and Repairs Fund' is
the only listed measure that addresses energy efficiency in the residential
sector. As the report shows high levels of investments and savings per
application, it's apparent that the programme encourages mainly renovations of
larger multi-dwelling apartment buildings. There is no indication of the extent
to which this or any other measure encourages energy efficient retrofits of
owner-occupied dwellings.
Listed measures to encourage energy
efficiency in industry include a fund to finance energy audits of large energy
users and a fund for energy efficiency actions subsequent to execution of
energy audits. A separate financing programme is dedicated to providing loans
to SMEs who wish to make investments in energy efficiency. Further measures
listed under industry include a measure addressing the efficiency of CHP
plants, a planned measure to support the introduction of smart grids,
incorporating pilot smart metering actions, and a measure to reduce losses in
electricity and heat distribution networks. A planned industry voluntary
agreements programme which was mentioned in the first EEAP is not listed in the
current report.
Transport savings for the intermediate period
are calculated for freight only. Two transport measures are listed. The first
addresses the optimisation of goods transport. Listed actions include increased
use of rail, reduction of excessive transport demand and establishment of
limited access zones for transport vehicles. The actions are not well explained
and the extent to which they have been implemented is not described. Their
contribution to the high level of declared intermediate savings is not clear.
The second transport measure with a start date of 2012 proposes replacing
public transport vehicles and promoting eco-friendly driving. The proposed
actions are not sufficiently detailed and it is not explained how expected
savings have been quantified. The report does not mention many of the transport
actions planned in EEAP1, such as facilitating car-pooling and providing park
and ride facilities.
The planned Polish white certificate scheme
will impose energy savings obligations on energy companies selling electricity,
heat and natural gas to final consumers. A start date of 2013 is given for the
scheme. A planned start date of 2009 was given in the first EEAP. The scheme is
expected to contribute 25.5 TWh to the ESD target by 2016 according to a
regulatory impact assessment. The EEAP does not refer to any potential synergies
with other measures. 
Four measures addressing energy efficiency in
the public sector are detailed. Three of these already provide funding for
insulation and upgrading of public buildings. The report does not provide
information about the extent to which they have been implemented or about the
savings achieved. The fourth measure planned for 2012 aims to modernise
district heating systems, and promote renewables as well as address energy
efficiency in public buildings. A 2011 Energy Efficiency Act obliges public
sector units to implement at least two measures from a list included in the
Act. Although a 'National Plan for Sustainable Public Procurements' is
mentioned, and it is stated that public procurement should take environmental
aspects into account, the extent to which this is actually done is not
indicated. The EEAP indicates that changes will be made to financial aspects of
public contracts to facilitate the use of energy services companies.
It is acknowledged that public administration
must play an exemplary role by implementing and promoting nearly-zero energy
buildings (nZEB). It is mentioned that support to pilot public sector nZEBs is
planned but no timeline is given for their construction and no national targets
are mentioned. In accordance with Article 102) of the EPBD, the EEAP describes
existing and planned financial measures addressing energy efficiency in
buildings. The report does not address EPBD Articles 14 or 15.
The EEAP does not sufficiently explain how
information on energy efficiency is disseminated to consumers. It does not
mention any specific advertising campaigns, road-shows, consumer websites or
provision of information by energy suppliers, for instance. It does state which
information campaigns planned in the first EEAP have been undertaken to-date.
The information measure detailed in the list of measures is a strategic measure
that encompasses all future information campaigns and has a start date of 2012.
The EEAP does not contain a section
addressing supply-side energy efficiency. However, some broad energy efficiency
measures are detailed that are relevant to energy supply. A measure to reduce
losses in transmission and distribution of heat and electricity provides
support for actions such as construction of heating and electricity grids,
replacement of transformers, and shortening of long-distance lines. Electricity
grid projects must demonstrate a reduction in losses of at least 30% to qualify
for support. A broad measure to promote distributed generation incorporates
support for CHP systems, including support for construction of new
installations and for the replacement of existing heat generation units with new
cogeneration plants. A smart grids programme that starts in 2012 is also
outlined that incorporates actions such as feasibility studies, promotional and
educational actions, pilot programmes for implementation of grid measurement
systems and smart metering.
Strengths
·        
The EEAP includes many new energy efficiency
measures clearly indicating responsibilities of different bodies for the
implementation and the monitoring of results together with budgets where public
support is foreseen and timing for the implementation. This is may be
demonstrating an increased commitment of the Polish authorities to assign a
higher priority to energy efficiency.
·        
The EEAP presents intermediate savings that are
ahead of target and forecast savings that exceed the ESD target. Intermediate
savings calculated using top down methods suggest continued significant energy
efficiency progress in the economy. Bottom-up forecasts show that Poland aims
to exceed the ESD target with savings achieved by measures alone.
·        
The report presents a good mix of measures that
address energy efficiency in the main sectors of the economy, with a
combination of state and private funding, state support and market-based
mechanisms.
·        
The introduction of a white certificate scheme
in Poland will provide a cost-effective, market-based approach to unlock
significant energy savings potential in several economic sectors, and will
stimulate the market for energy services. 
·        
The report presents details of top-down
calculations quantifying intermediate savings and includes some key information
on historical energy efficiency trends in the Polish economy.
Weaknesses
·        
Many measures included in the first EEAP have
never been implemented. There is a risk that if this time some of the important
new measures included now in the second EEAP are not properly implemented too,
the actual energy savings will be lower than currently foreseen and Poland may
have difficulties with reaching its energy efficiency targets. 
·        
The report does not explain if the expected
savings attributed to the white certificate scheme have been adjusted to
account for potential overlaps with other programmes listed in the EEAP.
·        
The information measures do not describe active
and planned information actions well, and the section describing the
availability of advice and information does not give a clear view of how
information promoting rational energy use is disseminated to the Polish
consumers.
·        
Although the report contains a number of
measures addressing energy efficiency in the public sector, some of these
measures are not sufficiently explained. The report does not sufficiently quantify
savings achieved to-date for on-going measures, such that their effectiveness
cannot be fully ascertained. The public sector commitment to promoting nZEB,
while expressed, is not backed up by any targets or timelines. 
·        
The EEAP does not sufficiently address energy
use in private passenger transport. The application of top-down methods to
calculate future savings in the transport sector is not fully clear.
·        
For several measures, the listed actions are not
explained (e.g. 'reduction of excessive transport demand', 'promotion of
cogeneration'). For measures already being implemented, the extent to which the
actions have been completed is not fully clear.
Recommendations
for improvement 
·        
In the view of the new requirements established
by the new Energy Efficiency Directive, cost-efficient implementation of the EEAP
and the appropriate monitoring of energy savings especially in relation to the
new white certificate scheme and any public-funded programmes will require
better understanding of the synergies and overlaps between the impacts of
different measures. It is strongly recommended that Poland establishes a proper
system to avoid double-counting of savings. Any future reporting on achieved
savings should explain in more detail how the double-counting have been
avoided.
·        
The actions associated with several measures,
such as the measures on information campaigns and optimisation of goods'
transport, should be explained in greater detail. 
·        
Figures given for the thermo-modernisation fund
in the housing sector indicate that the fund is used primarily for renovations
of multi-dwelling units. The report should provide more detail on actions to
improve energy efficiency in owner-occupied dwellings.
·        
The report should explain more clearly the
measures addressing energy efficiency in public sector buildings. To assess the
effectiveness of these important measures, an indication of achieved energy
savings should be given. The methods by which the public sector facilitates
exchange of best practices should be better explained. Targets with respect to
nZEB for new and existing public buildings should be set and communicated in
the EEAP. 
Portugal
Summary
Portugal's second EEAP report provides an update
of savings achieved since 2008. The report indicates that Portugal will exceed
the ESD energy savings target for 2016, with contributions from each economic
sector. 
The EEAP is short and lacks detail, and does
not communicate a national strategy effectively. It does not provide an
adequate update of several promising measures contained in the first EEAP or a
satisfactory description of energy efficiency improvement efforts in Portugal
to-date. Unlike the first EEAP, the second EEAP does not represent a clear and
coherent national action plan for energy efficiency. It does not provide
sufficient information with respect to specific provisions of the ESD, such as
the exemplary role of the public sector and the provision of information to
consumers. 
. The second EEAP does not explain how the
savings achieved by measures have been quantified but the basic data provided
in the Plan on savings indicate that an important progress has been made since
2007. Nevertheless, it is recommendable that the Portuguese second EEAP is significantly
strengthened to include more information on implemented and planned measures. 
General evaluation
Portugal's second EEAP report gives a very
brief update on energy efficiency progress in the Member State since the first EEAP,
presents intermediate energy savings figures and updates savings forecasts for
2016. The report does not provide much analysis of the success of measures in
place nor does it provide much detail on achievements up to 2010. Instead, it
presents savings figures for individual measures defined in the first EEAP. As
such, it does not give a good overview of the current national strategy with
respect to energy efficiency. It is explained that only aggregate results are
presented because of the recent change in government and the drafting of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on economic policy. While the MoU requires
certain aspects of government policy related to energy use to be reviewed, its
relevance to the lack of detail in the report is unclear.
Neither this report nor the first EEAP
presents a calculation of the 2016 energy savings target of 9%, in accordance
with the requirements of ESD. Instead, the first EEAP gives the average annual
final consumption in the period 2001 to 2005, including final consumption of EU
ETS participants, and sets a national target of 9.8% to be achieved in 2015. The
second EEAP declares savings of 662 ktoe in 2010, which is 36.7% of the 2015
target. From these figures a 9% target for 2016 of 1,651 ktoe can be derived.
Based on measured performance up to 2010, the second EEAP sets a new national
target, or savings forecast, of 2,240 ktoe for 2016, equivalent to 12.2% of the
reference energy consumption value. Although the EEAP shows total savings in
2010 to be ahead of intermediate targets, it provides no information about how
the savings attributed to different measures were determined. 
In the transport sector, where 231 ktoe of
savings have been reported, a measure to encourage a modal shift in large
cities and a reintroduced car scrapping scheme account for most of the savings.
The report attributes much of the success of modal shift to the influence of
the economic crisis and increasing fuel prices. Various listed
transport-related measures have not been implemented to-date or have not
achieved savings.
In the combined residential and services
sectors 215 ktoe of savings have been achieved. The replacement of appliances
and lamps accounts for a large share of the savings. Significant savings are
also recorded in both residential and services sectors as a result of the
implementation of the Energy Certificate System. The report mentions that
almost 400,000 certificates have been issued but does not explain how the
certificate system has led to energy savings.
The EEAP records energy savings of 178 ktoe
in industry. Most of these savings are attributed to 'Retroactive Measures'.
The report provides no indication of what these measures are or in which
sub-sectors they have been implemented. Although sub-sector specific measures
are listed in the first EEAP, the most recent EEAP records no savings for these
in most of the manufacturing sub-sectors. The uncertainty about the handling of
savings achieved by EU ETS participants further confuses the picture of energy
efficiency progress in the sector.
Fiscal and supporting measures such as the
use of taxation to drive energy efficiency and the establishment of financial
incentive schemes aimed at encouraging users to save energy, which were
addressed in detail on the first EEAP report, are not mentioned in the second EEAP.
A promising financial measure proposed in the first EEAP, the Efficiency Cheque
awarded to domestic consumers who demonstrate energy savings in two consecutive
years, does not appear to have been implemented.
The second EEAP does not contain sufficient
information about the exemplary role of the public sector. Although some
measures aimed at improving the energy efficiency of the public sector show
savings, it is not evident that any of the sector's exemplary achievements are
communicated to the wider public. A number of public sector measures listed
show no savings, and the EEAP provides no commentary on these. It is noteworthy
that no progress in a sustainable public procurement measure is evident. On the
other hand, measure E8M1, energy certification of public authorities'
buildings, account for much of the public sector savings. The report does not
explain, however, how the certification system works or how it leads to
savings. There is no update given of requirements to have environmental
criteria in public tenders as outlined in the first EEAP. Total savings in the
public sector of 10 ktoe in 2010 are behind the intermediate target for the
sector set in the first EEAP. 
The report mentions a new Public
Administration Energy Efficiency Programme that has come into effect in 2011
and that aims to improve the energy efficiency of the public service by up to
30% by 2020 relative to the current situation. It is explained that the
programme consists of a series of measures, including the entering into
contracts with energy service companies and the appointment of an energy
manager for each public department. The report provides too little detail on
the programme, considering its potential importance in helping meet ESD targets
and fulfilling public sector obligations under the Directive.
In the first EEAP a series of information
measures aimed at bringing about behavioural change was incorporated into an
'Operation E' campaign. The second EEAP records savings for some of these measures,
but the status of others is not mentioned and it is not clear if the measures
have been implemented or dropped. The EEAP does not provide any detail about
websites or ad campaigns designed to increase awareness among consumers. The
'More' ('Mais') information initiative described in detail in the first EEAP is
not referred to in the second EEAP. Actions that appear to be information
campaigns are mentioned but no description is given, e.g. '2009 Solar Energy
Campaign', '2010 Portugal energy efficiency barometer'.
The second EEAP of Portugal does not
include any measures addressing energy efficiency improvements in supply-side
or transmission/distribution.
The baseline for the Portuguese ESD target
for final energy savings includes undertakings involved in Emissions Trading
Scheme, which would increase the absolute savings that Portugal is committed to
achieve. 
Strengths
·        
The savings figures presented in the EEAP
suggest that Portugal has made progress towards the ESD energy efficiency
target since 2007. 
·        
The EEAP declares that, based on its own
assessment of the energy savings achieved to-date, Portugal has adapted policy
measures to ensure that defined targets are met. Measures that have not
delivered savings up to 2010 have been dropped and additional measures have
been added.
Weaknesses
·        
Description of measures in the EEAP is
insufficient and does not give an adequate update on the success of measures or
on overall energy efficiency progress in Portugal since the first EEAP.
·        
Some potentially very important new measures
referred to in the report, such as the Public Administration Energy Efficiency
Programme, have not been sufficiently explained.
·        
Several planned measures that were detailed in
the first EEAP are not mentioned in the second EEAP. For a number of measures
no savings are shown, suggesting that they either have not been effective or
have not been implemented.
·        
While the numbers in the report indicate that
Portugal will meet its ESD energy saving target, methodologies for calculating
savings are not explained or even mentioned, and it is unclear how the figures
have been derived. 
·        
The exemplary role of the public sector in
Portugal is not evident from the information presented in the EEAP.
·        
The handling of energy consumed and savings
achieved by manufacturing facilities participating in the EU ETS has not been sufficiently
explained.
Recommendations
for improvement 
·        
It is recommended that the Portuguese second EEAP
is significantly strengthened with more details on the implemented and planned
measures. It should describe how the figures for achieved and forecast savings
are calculated. 
·        
The report should provide a more detailed update
on progress with respect to the key areas for energy efficiency improvements,
such as ensuring availability of information to final customers, the exemplary
role of the public sector, financial instruments and funding, etc.
·        
It would be useful that the strengthened EEAP provides
a more comprehensive explanation of successful actions and a more detailed
description of new measures implemented or planned during the next three-year
period.
·        
With a view to the oncoming new Energy
Efficiency Directive, the strengthening of the Portuguese Plan should also
cover energy saving measures addressing supply-side and well as transmission
and distribution of energy.
Romania
Summary
The Romanian second EEAP report builds on the
first action plan but is improved in terms of actions, structure and
readability. Much higher energy savings are reported by 2010 than estimated in
the first EEAP, delivering already up to 80% of the 2016 target which remained
unchanged and still ambitious (i.e. 13,5% energy savings in 2016). 
The second EEAP’s strategic approach and vision take
into account the EU 2020 objectives and combines the continuation of the first EEAP
by 2016 with Romania’s longer term Energy Strategy for the period 2007-2020.
This approach integrates and ensures the continued implementation of all the
various programs encompassed under the first EEAP and complement them targets
and policies until 2020, in line with the EU objectives. Since the achievement
of the 2010 intermediary and 2016 target is on track and forecasted, the
continuation of existing policies and the 2020 national energy strategy also
encompassing energy efficiency provides a realistic approach to the realisation
of the identified saving potentials in the main sectors of the Romanian
economy. The monitoring methodology is mainly top-down complemented with a
certain share of bottom-up evaluation in the end-use sectors, e.g. dishwashers,
refrigerators and freezers.
General evaluation
The Romanian second EEAP report provides a
range of measures that have been implemented to improve energy efficiency in
buildings (residential and services), industry and transport, measures addressing
the public sector as well as measures providing energy savings at energy
generation and distribution.
The ESD targets declared in the first EEAP
remained unchanged: 940ktoe by 2010 and 2800ktoe by 2016, representing an
average of 1,5% energy savings per year. According to the second EEAP
evaluation and monitoring, the reported savings for 2010 are well in excess, i.e.
2223ktoe (79,4% of the 2016 target). While energy
savings are re-evaluated under the longer term Energy Strategy, the formal
energy savings commitment from the first EEAP remains unchanged, i.e.
13,5% or 2800ktoe, despite the significant additional saving potential. This
potential has been taken into account in setting the 2020 energy saving target
under the EU 2020 strategy. Almost half of 2010 target is achieved in industry
(47,7%), around 35% in tertiary sector,12,6% in residential and 4,5% in
transport.
Several key differences
have been identified between the first EEAP and the
second EEAP. These include more measures and a more
detailed description of the activities showing the exemplary role of public
sector; the measure for promoting biofuels in transport which have been
estimated in the first EEAP as providing the large majority of plan’s savings
has been replaced by a broader based renewable energy promotion policy taking
into account the RES Directive, but with calculated primary energy saving
impacts of 1883 thousand toe in 2020.);   consideration of measures using the
EU structural funds; and the EPBD reporting. 
Measures to highlight in the second EEAP
include the comprehensive national thermo-renovation programme targeting loss
reduction and the increase in the efficiency of the heating systems through
district heating network refurbishment, the use of more high-efficiency cogeneration
and renewable energy and the renovation of blocks of flats, which delivers more
savings than anticipated. The effect of a broad ranged program to modernise the
fleet for electricity and heat production and the introducing of energy
management and audits in companies with energy consumption higher than 200toe
have been chief contributors to reaching the intermediary target. 
Romania opted to fulfil
EPBD-reporting requirements providing separately the list of instruments and
measures to promote improved energy efficiency in buildings, as required under
Article 10(2) of EPBD. At the same time some additional support measures for
implementing the EPBD, the alternative equivalent measures for heating and
air-conditioning equipment (Article 14(4) and 15(4)), and the status of the
nZEB planning (Article 9) are reported within the
second EEAP. 
At the time of the submission of the second
EEAP the government ordinance transposing Annex VI of the ESD was awaiting
approval by the national Parliament.
The EEAP
provides an ambitious program for efficiency in energy supply. It focusses on
the efficiency of thermal generation in industry and district heating systems.
Around 80 % of the thermal power units were installed in the period 1970-1980
with technologies used being those available in the ‘60s and ‘70s. These units
exceeded their operating life-time and have a high level of wear and tear.
Consequently, their technical-economic outputs are low and electric
efficiencies are of 31-32% as opposed to an EU average of 41%, the
state-of-the-art being some 48% and 60% for coal and gas fired plant,
respectively. Most cogeneration units are 61-67% efficient, below the minimum
high-efficiency range of 75-80% established under the Cogeneration Directive
2004/8/EC. The retirement of 5544 MW installed power capacity by 2020 is
foreseen, out of which 2340 MW cogeneration. The aim of the EEAP is to retrofit
and replace the obsolete generation fleet. The focus is on the upgrading of
units built before 1990. However, new high power and high output units are also
planned. The promotion of high-efficiency cogeneration represents a key measure
in reducing primary energy consumption.
The program on
the heating supply of localities through district heating foresees the
modernization of district heating systems in cities. Priority measures include
heating metering and control; heating cost allocators; thermostatic adjustment
valves, thermal insulation of buildings and retrofitting several thousands of
grids (3369 km in Bucharest and 2049 km in other cities).  Heat losses are
planned to be reduced by 67-70% on average and the total final energy saving at
a national level would amount to 261 thousand toe per year. 
Significant
planned saving, e.g. of 1406 thousand toe in 2015 and 1883 thousand toe in
2020, would come from switching to renewable energy. 
The plan also
covers the national transmission and distribution networks targeting a
significant saving potential by 2020: e.g. approximately 69% of the total
length of the National Natural Gas Transmission System has exceeded the
operating life-time.
Priority measures include the replacement of
inefficient equipment, and upgrading of switching stations and power lines. The
EEAP highlights the difficulties of finding the investment needed, but
indicates the successful use of EU cohesion policy funds. 
These supply
side measures start to bring results. Disconnection from the district heating
system stopped and reversed. A growing portion of cogeneration now meets the
minimum 10% primary energy saving (PES) required under the Cogeneration
Directive. The PES from high-efficiency cogeneration was 10.5 PJ with a saving
rate of 13.4% in 2007. The saving rate increased to 14.5% in 2010, while
absolute savings slightly decreased to 8 PJ, due to lower production levels
during the economic downturn. The share of high-efficiency cogeneration was
10.8% in overall electricity production in 2010. The share of all cogeneration
(low and high-efficiency) is higher (was 26.2% in 2005 and 18% in 2006 when
reported together). An upward trend in the use of the cogeneration saving
potential has however started. The report states that cogeneration is
supported through a bonus paid for electricity from high-efficiency CHP plants.
Plants that burn biomass may alternatively opt for support through a green
certificate scheme. Successful examples of supported CHP projects are given.
Strengths
·        
The energy savings achieved by 2010 are by far
bigger than the intermediate target assumed in the EEAP1, i.e. 2223ktoe
achieved (79,4% of the 2016 target) as comparing to 940ktoe assumed. However,
the influence of the economic crisis is recognised.
·        
The 2016 target remained unchanged and still
ambitious, i.e. 13,5%.  
·        
The proposed measures are described much clearer
than in the first EEAP. 
·        
The replacement of measure for biofuels in
transport proposed in the first EEAP which was supposed to deliver most of the
first EEAP’s savings but was clearly a renewable measure. 
·        
Co-financing energy efficiency measures by the
EU Structural Funds.
·        
A much higher impact than estimated in the first
EEAP of the thermo-renovation measures for multi-family blocks of flats. 
·        
Most of 2010 final energy savings seems to be
accountable also in 2016, which if implemented well, will help Romania achieve
its 2016 ESD target. 
·        
The Romanian second EEAP includes a significant portfolio
of energy efficiency measures implemented or planned on supply-side as well as
transmission and distribution of energy, which may result in major primary
energy savings important for reaching the Romanian 2020 target.
·        
The monitoring methodology and the basic
assumptions are clearly described. 
·        
Energy management and audits recommendations
generated important energy savings. 
·        
While slowly implemented and still at an
incipient phase, promoting LTAs in industry and the ESCO/EPCs actions are very
good initiatives for stimulating the energy efficiency market. 
Weaknesses
·        
The plan is rather an umbrella framework for
implementing various programs and strategies with different timeframes and
objectives. A more integrated vision would be needed to link the planning
towards 2016 target with the 2020 objectives and ensure consistent
mainstreaming in the different sectors (including risk assessment, vigorous new
measures, and clear continuation of the present measures).
·        
There is a risk that the intermediate final
energy savings reported by Romania for 2010 using 100% top-down approach could
have been strongly influenced by the economic crisis and may be showing more
savings than the actual impact arising from the implemented energy efficiency
measures.
·        
While important energy savings are reported, the
measures addressing the services/tertiary sector are not clearly described or
addressed.
·        
The measures showing the exemplary role of
public sector are modest; the effectiveness of implement is not clear.
·        
While the second EEAP proposes more information
and awareness raising measures, they are still modest and most of them rather
implemented by NGOs and not by the authorities.
·        
Smart metering is mentioned only as a potential
permission that can be given to the building owners, if they will request
having it.
·        
While planned for the near future, none of the
listed measures from Annex VI of the ESD seem to be implemented at the moment.
Recommendations for improvement
·        
Develop a stronger strategic, integrated vision
towards 2016, including risk assessment, vigorous new measures, and clear
continuation of the present measures.
·        
It is recommended to consider further st6rengthening
of the portfolio of energy efficiency measures especially as regards addressing
improvements of energy efficiency in residential buildings as well as awareness
raising campaigns addressed addressing small final customers (households and
SMEs).
·        
Improve clarity and
consistency of the description of measures in the services/tertiary sector.
·        
Strengthen information
provision efforts of the public authorities.
·        
For the sake of the
implementation of the new Energy Efficiency Directive, it would be
recommendable to consider improving monitoring and verification capacities to measure
actual savings resulting from real actions implemented on the basis of any
future energy saving obligation scheme and/or alternative measures (e.g. voluntary
agreements).
Slovakia
Summary
The Slovakian second EEAP provides an overview
of national policies and strategies related to energy's use however, the plan
still appears to be lacking of clarity and consistency. Nevertheless, a clear
improvement can be noted when comparing the first EEAP to the second EEAP and
the basic structure of the second EEAP can form a basis for a successful, clear
and coherent plan that will be easy to monitor in the future.
A significant barrier to the evaluation of
individual measures described in the first EEAP and still prevailing in the
second EEAP is the lack of relevant data, awareness and reliable monitoring. It
has to be noted that energy savings of single measures in most cases are still
not quantified for the second EEAP and those figures provided in the report have to be
interpreted carefully as they essentially rely on experts' estimates and do not
appear to be reliable.
The implementation of the "monitoring
system" will be the key for quantifying energy savings primarily by
bottom-up method in future. It will be operated by the Slovak Innovation and
Energy Agency (SIEA). As a result of the above, there are many points that
require further clarification and substantial improvement.
General evaluation
The Slovakian second EEAP builds on the first
EEAP. It provides an evaluation of measures proposed in the first EEAP as well
as a continuation or adjustment of the measures which were not completed in the
first EEAP. Additionally, these measures are supplemented by a few newly
proposed actions being implemented by the national authorities to improve energy
efficiency in the Slovakian economy.
Despite some improvements compared to the
first EEAP, its good initial structure, the broad list of measures and actions
provided, the second EEAP does not present a coherent strategy. The second
action plan presents a strategy complemented by a list of measures only until
2013, establishing a "second intermediate final energy savings
target" for the three year period 2011-2013. Consequently, the expected
savings for 2016 are not declared and it is not possible to assess whether the
defined target for 2016 can realistically be achieved.
There are many points that require
clarification, especially regarding the applied methodology for
monitoring/measuring savings as well as some of the presented figures on achieved
or expected savings which do not appear to be reliable. Although positive steps
are undertaken across the relevant line Ministries to track energy consumption
data, a robust monitoring and verification methodology and system is missing.
With regards to the targets, Slovakia
recalculated the reference average final energy consumption 2001-2005 for the
second EEAP. The calculation method is based on an expert's estimate of the
share of ETS companies in overall final energy consumption (first EEAP: 413506
TJ; second EEAP: 312220 TJ). Therefore, Slovakia revised the absolute figures
for its targets for 2010 (3%) and 2016 (9%), based on the recalculated
reference consumption, excluding ETS. The Plan therefore follows the
requirements set by Directive 2006/32/EC and does not aim for a more ambitious
target.
A particularity of the Slovakian second EEAP
is the establishment of a "second intermediate final energy savings
target" of 6% for the three year period 2011-2013 corresponding to 18 722
TJ by 2013. In its "Energy Security Strategy" for the years
2017-2022, Slovakia defines a long-term final energy savings target for 2020
with savings of 0.5% per year. The total value of
energy savings over the 2008-2020 period is therefore set at 11%, corresponding
to 45 486 TJ of the gross average final energy consumption 2001-2005
(ETS sectors included). Though Slovakia justifies the smaller anticipated pace
for energy savings in the years 2017 to 2020 with the reduced potential for
cost-effective savings, this target is not ambitious taking into account the
high energy savings potential, particularly in buildings, industry and urban
transport sectors. Also, this target falls well below the overall EU
aspirations. 
Although the 2020 target was also adopted in the 2010 National Reform
Programme, the second EEAP does not clearly describe particular measures that
should contribute to the 2020 energy savings. Taking into account the lifecycle
of energy saving investments in particular in the buildings sector, missing
outline for measures up to 2016 and 2020 brings the risk of suboptimal
implementation, and missed opportunity for savings generated by systemic
measures.
In order to assess the measures reported in
the first EEAP, in the second EEAP Slovakia applies both, top-down and bottom-up
method. For TD, the Member State uses the recommended methodology of the
Commission, based on indicators (M1-8), relative to 2007, but for timeframe
2008-2009, as official statistics for 2010 will
only be available at the end of 2011. Total savings are presented per
sector.
Regarding its 2010 target, Slovakia declares
achieved total final energy savings, calculated by top-down of 27 957 TJ, which
is about three times the intermediate 2010 savings target (9 366 TJ) and close
to the final 2016 savings target (28 098 JT). This figure appears too high,
possibly due to the very high savings attributed to the transport sector that
require further clarifications.
According to the Member State, the bottom-up
method reveals achieved final energy savings of 3 689 TJ, representing approximately
39% of the net final energy savings target for 2010. For the intermediate
period until 2013 Slovakia reports expected savings of 8 362 TJ and no savings
are declared for 2016.
However, the energy savings reported for 2010
and 2013 do not appear to be fully reliable. Most of these figures have to be interpreted carefully as they
essentially rely on experts' estimates, therefore further clarification
is needed.
The EEAP proposes measures as well as
financial and legal instruments for the three year period 2011-2013, covering
buildings, public sector, industry, transport, appliances and horizontal
measures. Many of the measures under the second EEAP had already been planned
in the first EEAP. Also the system for monitoring efficiency in energy use
still has to be put into operation in Slovakia.
Overall, individual measures do not link well
together, and most of them are lack sufficient explanation. 
Even though in the second EEAP further
importance has been given to the leading role played by the public sector and
the need for exemplifying the work in that sector is repeated several times in
the plan, few tangible measures are associated to it and its role remains
rather limited. 
Slovakia states that it has opted to fulfil
EPBD-reporting obligations within second EEAP, however, the lack of detailed
descriptions of these measures make it difficult to judge whether the
Member State will be able to comply with the EPBD provisions. 
Further, the Slovakian second EEAP is still
in non-conformity related to the obligations on public procurement. The
requirements to include a minimum of two options from the "list of
eligible energy efficient public procurement measures" in Annex VI of the
ESD have not been met. 
Extensive information and campaigning
measures, including measures on training and advice for the public, residential
sector and SMEs have been included in the plan. However, the Plan does not
include sufficient details to explain the size and extent of these efforts. 
The EEAP does not report an exhaustive list
of measures on the supply side and it only describes high efficiency
cogeneration and the introduction of advanced technology in the energy supply
sector. There was little uptake on financial support made available through structural
funds to finance cogeneration projects due to the level of administrative
effort involved in receiving funding. Businesses have been opting instead to
apply for support for CHP projects from a new renewables and high-efficiency
cogeneration programme funded by national resources.
Strengths
·              
As for the first EEAP, the main strength of the
plan is its realistic description of the state of energy efficiency activities
in Slovakia. (According to Slovakian Authorities, the main barriers are the
lack of crucial instruments, e.g. legislative tools or monitoring systems,
relevant data and information, combined with the insufficient experience,
knowledge and awareness of the persons responsible for implementing energy
efficiency measures at all levels.)
·              
The Slovak second EEAP improved compared to the
first EEAP.  It is evident that Slovak Authorities made an effort to consider
the "Guide and template for the preparation of the second EEAP" and
to implement the recommendations brought forward by the European Commission
during the first assessment phase.
·              
The plan is fairly structured and measures are
divided by sectors, covering buildings, public sector, industry, transport,
appliances and horizontal measures. The descriptions are supported with
informative tables including the envisaged or attributed budgetary allocations.
Complex solutions are planned, considering institutional, organizational,
financial need.
·              
The institutional background planned for the
measures is described and gives a solid potential to implement the measures.
Positive point is the declared aim to include the ´energy saved´ among
obligatory indicators for all projects supported by public funds. 
·              
Another positive element is the declared support
for the development of sustainable energy action plans of local and regional
authorities. Setting of a harmonised methodology, connected with the national
monitoring system will be one of the key success factors of the measure. 
Weaknesses 
·              
Most of the savings assumed in the first EEAP
were based too much on the establishment of Energy Efficiency Fund. As this was 
not implemented, many measures outlined in the first EEAP have been cancelled,
especially in the buildings and industrial sectors. No alternative solutions
were proposed. 
·              
Even though the Slovakian second EEAP has
improved compared to the first EEAP, the plan is still relatively weak as
regards the leading role of the public sector. The second EEAP is still in not fully
in line with the public sector's obligations on energy efficiency criteria in public
procurement.
·              
Another weakness of the second EEAP is related
to the insufficient explanation of the methodology applied for
monitoring/measuring energy savings in Slovakia. Some of the presented figures
on achieved or expected savings especially in the transport sector seem to have
been overestimated and may require further clarification.
·              
Slovakia does not present a strategy or measures
for 2016 (and an outline up to 2020) but only until 2013. Consequently, the
expected savings for 2016 are not declared, making it very difficult to assess
whether the defined target for 2016 can realistically be achieved. In general,
there is a risk that the lack of longer-term systemic vision may bring
suboptimal solutions.
·              
Details on the budget indicate a clear, but
somehow relatively low-ambition commitment to improve energy efficiency in most
of the sectors of the Slovak economy.
·              
Slovakia states that it has opted to fulfil
EPBD-reporting obligations within second EEAP. However, some of the EPBD
related actions have not been sufficiently explained and require further
details and clarification to meet the EPBD requirement, in particular as
regards the National Plan for nearly-zero energy buildings and the lack of
inclusion of any related targets as required by EPBD (Article 9). The EEAP
declares only the intention to develop "conceptual solutions" and
plans to promote the construction of low-energy and passive buildings with
future legislative and technical activities. 
·              
As the first EEAP measures 4.6.7, 4.6.11 and
4.6.12 are energy efficiency-relevant only in limited scope and their
application seems to be stemming from other than energy efficiency priorities,
their application for accounting of achieved energy savings should perhaps be
reconsidered. If maintained, achieved savings need to be explained in more
details. The same applies for measures 4.4 and 4.5 in the second EEAP.
·              
As regards the measure 5.3 on energy audits in
industry, savings planned for 2011-2013 seem to be very high and need some further
explanation.
Recommendations for improvement
·              
The EEAP often refers to the failure to
establish the Energy Efficiency Fund but does not provide any information on
what are the actions to overcome this problem. New alternative measures and/or
significant stepping up of existing measures are needed.
·              
The implementation of an appropriate
"monitoring system" would enhance not only the reporting on achieved
savings but also directly help the implementation and functioning of the future
new instruments required in the new Energy Efficiency Directive (e.g. energy
saving obligation schemes or any alternative measures to such schemes).
·              
The strategy should be extended to cover both
2016 and 2020 time horizon.
·              
Slovakia has improved with regards to complying
with the special provisions on public sector and information and advice but the
related measures are still not sufficiently clearly described. As a result, it is
difficult to judge to which extent they indeed comply with the requirements of
the EU legislation. The same applies if Slovakia aims to fulfil EPBD-reporting
obligations within its EEAP.
·              
As properly functioning market for energy
services is a key driver for higher energy efficiency, inclusion of measure
7.6.7 to the second EEAP can be a move in the right direction. However, in
order for the measure to be credible, better description might be necessary. 
·              
Although the declared aim to include the “energy
saved” indicator among obligatory performance indicators for all projects
supported by public funds is a positive and necessary step for proper
monitoring of results, concrete steps and measures for this aim to become
reality should be included to the second EEAP. 
.
Slovenia
Summary
The Slovenian second EEAP presents a detailed
and relevant energy efficiency strategy, with good coverage of the main energy
end-uses, a clear explanation of the overall management, targeting and other
key features of the measures. A further positive aspect is the appropriate
analysis of problems encountered.
The 2010 target is reported to be reached,
but this has been achieved by the inclusion of energy savings from “earlier
activities” (amounting to 29% of the result). This represents a certain
lowering of the level of ambition as compared to what was planned in the first EEAP.
The main reasons seem to be a budget gap and difficulties in the implementation
of the first EEAP measures.
The 9% target in 2016 is planned to be
exceeded, but the experience from the analysis of the first EEAP results
highlights how uncertain this achievement remains. The risk of budget shortage
is analysed and solutions are proposed. But some other key issues related to
measure implementation (e.g. involvement of intermediate actors) are not really
addressed. Overall, the ambition of the second EEAP is rather high, but relies
on key points of vigilance.
General evaluation
The second EEAP targets for 2010 and 2016
amount to 1184 GWh and 4261 GWh (final energy) respectively and have not been
recalculated since the first EEAP. In 2010 the achieved savings reported amount
to 1174 GWh, very close to the intermediate target. This includes 343 GWh (i.e.
29%) from “earlier activities”. The projected 2016 savings amount to 6873 GWh, exceeding the 9% target but
significant uncertainties remain.
The new National Energy Programme under
discussion includes several targets for 2020: a 20% improvement in energy
consumption efficiency (but not transcribed in an absolute figure while
expected savings in 2020 are estimated to 10281 GWh), reduced end-use energy
consumption of 7% relative to 2008 (excluding transport) and holding total
end-use energy consumption growth at no more than 7% relative to 2008. Besides,
the objective of an annual 3-percent share of renovation for buildings in the
public sector from 2014 is also mentioned.
The calculation methods used are detailed in
a specific annex, and the main assumptions are explained in the core report
(for 2016) or in Annex I (for 2010). However, the measures are described
several times along the core report and the annexes, creating inconsistencies
that are not explained. Moreover, it should be clarified why the factor 2.5 has
been applied to electricity when calculating energy savings, while it was not
applied on electricity consumption when calculating the target.
While most of the second EEAP measures are
continuation and enhancement of the first EEAP measures, their presentation has
changed. In the first EEAP, the measures were mainly reported according to
their funding source. In the second EEAP, the measures are divided according to
their main objectives or targets. This appears to be more relevant to present
the results. However, this change creates some difficulties in comparing
results estimated for 2010 and the ones expected for 2016. Annex I of the
second EEAP provides a review of the implementation of the measures planned in the
first EEAP, showing the achievements as well as the gaps between planned and
realized activities, budgets or savings. 
The exemplary role of the public sector is
clearly highlighted and explained although the EEAP mentions that activities in
this field have not been successful so far. Efforts have been focused on
renovation of buildings and public lighting thanks to Structural Funds. In the
short term the priority should be to overcome the significant delays observed
as regards ESD provisions in the public sector. The other ESD special
requirements are mostly fulfilled.
The second EEAP does not include the complete
reporting for the EPBD 2010. The EEAP mentions that the strategy for nZEB will
be reported separately. The new Energy Act under discussion should include
provisions about nZEB, especially transposing the targets for 2018 (new public
buildings) and 2020 (all new buildings). Incentives are already in place to
support demonstration projects of low energy or passive buildings.
The activities of information for households
can rely on a network of local energy advice centres. Moreover the EEAP
highlights the importance of labelling for equipment and vehicles. Meanwhile it
recognises that the other awareness-raising activities were not enough
coordinated so far, neither being specific enough according to the different
target groups. The EEAP addresses this through the new horizontal measure H3,
covering three target groups (households, public sector, SME). Large energy
suppliers are supposed to provide their customers with energy services,
including specific information (due to the obligation scheme), but the details
of the requirements set by law have not been explained. Energy audits are
mentioned several times within the measures for the industry and service
sector. However, there is no quantitative information to assess the level of success
in this field.
The second EEAP of Slovenia provides a
comprehensive overview of supply side energy efficiency measures. A group of
supply side measures encourages the improvement of the efficiency of district
heating. It is required from local district heating companies to communicate in
their development plans how distribution losses will be addressed without
passing on the costs to consumers. Furthermore, the obligations scheme
operating in the Member State requires energy suppliers to achieve savings
equivalent of 1% of the energy sales of the previous year. Savings achieved may
be used for the refurbishment of district-heating substations. The
refurbishment and expansion of hydroelectric infrastructure is also foreseen in
the second EEAP. In terms of the promotion of smart grids, a study has been
undertaken to support the development of a smart grid infrastructure in Slovenia.
A group of measures support the increased use of high efficiency CHP, including
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.
Strengths
·        
Clear organization of the general management of
the measures.
·        
Analyses of encountered barriers and
difficulties.
·        
The combinations of measures in force or planned
appear to form a relevant strategy.
·        
Main funding sources are presented and budgets
(overall and per measure) are assessed.
·        
All the key aspects to report are covered.
·        
Most of the measures are well described,
including the possible problems.
·        
Bottom-up methods and top-down indicators used,
as well as main assumptions made are clearly explained.
·        
Use of the recommended template.
Weaknesses
·        
Reported gaps in the actual funding compared to
budgets planned pose a risk of not achieving the expected savings. In particular, a number of the first EEAP actions to address public
sector were not fully implemented. 
·        
For several key measures, the expectations in the
second EEAP seem to be very high compared to what was achieved in 2008-2010,
the reported budgetary problems and the identified deficits in terms of qualified
staff.
·        
The objectives in the transport sector are
relevant, but the estimations for the budget needs (especially for
infrastructures) seem underestimated.  
·        
The need to involve industrial and business actors
(e.g., building companies, retailers, etc.) is mentioned in the second EEAP but
not explained in terms of planned actions to ensure that.
·        
The core report and Annex I describe several
times the same set of measures, which makes the reading fairly difficult and
might provoke inconsistencies in the figures (reported savings, budget
estimates, etc.).
·        
The top-down results are not analysed, while
savings were calculated by comparison between 2009 versus 2007. Therefore,
these results are likely including the impacts of the economic crisis, making the impact of the actual energy efficiency measures less
clear.
Recommendations for improvements
·        
Make a clear distinction between the measures
for the private tertiary sector and the industry, or clarify the reasons why
there are no specific measures for private tertiary.
·        
Expected results from key measures for buildings
imply a major change of scale compared to the situation before. It is
recommended that in the continuation of these efforts, a particular attention is
paid to the needs for the qualified staff and financing of actual investments
(esp. from private actors, including individual consumers). It would be useful
to include information on required staff and investments in the future EEAPs.
·        
The budget planned for transport infrastructure
seems underestimated. It should be clarified whether other funding sources will
be used (e.g., budget for transport outside the scope of energy efficiency
policies).
·        
The second EEAP reports 343 GWh of savings in
2010 from “earlier activities” while only 239 GWh were reported for these
activities in the first EEAP: the difference should be explained (it makes
about 10% of the 2010 achievements).
·        
Electricity savings have been reported using the
2.5 factor, while it seems that this factor has not been applied to electricity
consumption when calculating the target. This should be clarified (e.g., it
could increase artificially the 2008 savings by about 100 GWh, i.e.
about 10% of the 2010 achievements).
Spain
Summary
The Spanish EEAP outlines an ambitious
national energy efficiency strategy, presents significant measures, quantifies
energy savings achieved, and projects future savings to 2020. The second EEAP
reports that significant energy efficiency progress has been made since 2007.
The savings recorded up to 2010 indicate successful implementation of energy
efficiency measures. 
The report serves well as a strategy document
that lays out the Member State's plans to improve energy efficiency in the
economy up to 2020. The report does not provide sufficient information on how
some of the more ambitious goals, such as those in the transport sector for
instance, are going to be achieved. The exemplary role of the public sector needs
to be highlighted better. Forecast savings calculated using top-down methods
show that Spain will easily achieve the ESD target for 2016 and suggest that
existing measures, if successful, will make a significant contribution to the
EU energy saving goals in 2020.
General evaluation
The figures presented in the Spanish EEAP
suggest that the ESD energy efficiency target for 2016 will be achieved and
exceeded by a large margin. It is indicated that average final energy
consumption over the period from 2003 to 2007 is used to calculate the 9% ESD
energy savings target. However, the calculation of the target is not presented
and the target itself is not very clearly expressed. In a footnote in the
summary document the 2016 target is given as 6682 ktoe in final energy
consumption. According to the document, the declared and estimated savings
figures are calculated using top-down energy efficiency indicators in
accordance with European Commission recommended methods. Bottom-up savings for
specific measures are also presented in the annex. Projected savings in primary
and final energy consumption are given for 2016 and 2020. In 2016, final energy
savings of 13176 ktoe are expected, equivalent to 17.7% of average 2003-2007
energy consumption. Savings are anticipated to grow to 17842 ktoe in 2020, or
24%.
The report details 41 measures
to be implemented between 2011 and 2020 to address energy efficiency in the
main sectors of the economy. All measures have the same 10-year timeframe and
generally represent broader strategic policy objectives rather than specific
actions. Each is typically a combination of a number of implementation
mechanisms such as financial incentives, legislation, information programmes,
etc. As such, some measures lack the detail that would elucidate how the
measures' objectives can be met. It is anticipated that around EUR 46 billion
will be invested in measures to improve the energy efficiency of the Spanish
economy and that EUR 6 billion of this will be managed by the state and the
autonomous communities. Investments in buildings and equipment account for more
than 59% of the total budget. Investment figures are given for each measure
presented in the document and appear to be estimates of what it would cost to
achieve goals, as opposed to secured and allocated funds.
For each sector the historical trends in
energy consumption are presented and influencing factors are identified. An
overview of industry shows increases in energy intensity in several
sub-sectors, such that the sector's contribution to intermediate national
savings is negative. This is attributed to falls in production levels arising
from the recession. It is not clear how savings have been adjusted to account
for contributions of EU ETS participants. A bottom-up analysis of savings
to-date indicates that a programme of "improved equipment in the industry
sector" implemented by the autonomous communities has been successful up
to 2010. Specific actions associated with this measure are not detailed,
however. Three strategic measures for the period from 2011 to 2020 are
presented. Some of these measures are not well described. For instance, it is
stated that legislative actions will be needed to implement a measure to
encourage the adoption of energy management systems, but no description of any
legislation is given and it is not well explained why such legislative actions
would be required. A voluntary agreements measure introduced in the first EEAP
is not mentioned in the second EEAP. 
According to the figures presented,
significant transport savings have been achieved in the sector up to 2010. The
annex attributes most of these to improvements in freight transport efficiency.
Little detail is provided on specific actions undertaken in the period. Large
transport savings are anticipated in 2016, accounting for more than half of the
total expected national energy savings. Several transport measures are
presented. While the budgets and expected savings are quantified, the actions
listed for each are presented in a rather vague way. Although an ambitious goal
of doubling rail passenger traffic by 2020 is mentioned, the relevant measure
does not list any specific actions that would be necessary to achieve this
goal. The overall transport strategy is well explained but the specific actions
that will achieve forecast savings are not sufficiently detailed. 
Most of the forecast savings in buildings and
equipment are achieved in the services sector. Measures to improve efficiency
of heating in residential buildings are projected to achieve just 85 ktoe of
energy savings in 2016. It is expected that much of the savings brought about
by improving the efficiency of heating will be cancelled by increased use of
domestic air conditioning units. The report sets out how the original EPBD has
been transposed into law in recent years and explains how it is reflected in
the national building standards. With regard to the recast EPBD, the report
states that Spain has begun to set out the roadmap to achieving the recast EPBD
objectives. Although a definition of nZEB has not been formulated the report
presents a method of assessing the savings achieved through the construction of
nZEB, estimating that new buildings from 2021 will consume 70% less primary
energy than those that adhere to current building standards. A financial
incentive to encourage the construction of nZEBs is planned for the future.
Total aid from the public sector up to 2020 for the construction or renewal of
buildings with near zero consumption will be just EUR 5 million.
The exemplary role of the public sector is
not sufficiently highlighted. Although the report quantifies energy consumption
and forecasts savings for the sector, the measures are not well explained.
While the EEAP refers to a plan to improve the energy efficiency of 2000 public
buildings in the state, it provides too little detail on specific measures that
will bring about the improvement. Although the public sector obligations as
defined in the recast EPBD are restated, there is little information with
respect to the leading role of the public sector in achieving the goals of the
directive. The report states that a legal framework has been established to
facilitate the use of energy services companies in the public sector.
The EEAP presents a clear communications
strategy and details the strategic objectives of all communications actions. It
lists a number of information campaigns that have been executed since 2004.
Studies are typically conducted among the public to assess the effectiveness of
information campaigns. Most of the measures presented in the report incorporate
an information component. Generally, however, the information action associated
with the measure is not explained in detail. 
Supply-side measures form a significant
part of the Spanish action plan and account for nearly one third of forecast
2020 savings. Savings in electricity generation will be achieved mainly by a
greater share of renewables and gas in the generation mix. The report shows
significant savings in the three years up to 2010 which are attributed to
changes in shares of fuel types used and reduced own-use consumption of power
plants. A 2020 target figure of 7.7% is given for losses in electricity
transmission and distribution. The reduction in losses is to be achieved by
upgrading infrastructure and by a greater distribution of electricity
generation capacity. The EEAP 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.
Strengths
·        
The report provides a good overview of energy
trends in each economic sector and identifies the factors influencing energy
consumption in each.
·        
The EEAP presents a clear and coherent
medium-term strategy with ambitious targets and strategic measures addressing
energy efficiency in each sector up to 2020.
·        
For each measure, an estimate is made of savings
likely to be achieved and budget figures are given for the level of investment
needed. 
·        
The savings figures presented in the report
suggest that Spain has already made significant progress towards its 2016
energy savings goals. Savings estimates indicate that the 9% ESD target are
likely to be exceeded by a considerable margin.
·        
The report presents details of energy savings
calculations, and achieved and projected savings are presented in terms of both
primary and final energy consumption.
Weaknesses
·        
The second EEAP does not provide an adequate
explanation of how the significant savings up to 2010 have been achieved.
Actions associated with individual measures undertaken by the state or the
autonomous communities are not sufficiently explained.
·        
The description of many of the planned measures
is too general with little indication of the actions necessary to achieve the
projected savings associated with them. 
·        
In the transport sector in particular, the large
savings achieved are not sufficiently supported by documented actions, and the
planned measures to achieve ambitious future targets are not well explained.
·        
The EEAP is short on the information with regard
to the exemplary role of the public sector and communicating its successes to
the wider public. The public sector's leading role in achieving the goals of
the recast EPBD is also not sufficiently explained.
·        
In the EEAP the calculation of 2016 target is
not fully clear.  Moreover, the percentage figures that declared and forecast
savings need to be better explained as it is not clear what they represent.
According to the EEAP, the annual average consumption for the 5 years up to
2007 was 72621 ktoe and that 9% of this is 6536 ktoe. However, the summary
document states that declared savings of 4720 ktoe for 2010 are equivalent to
9.2% of reference consumption. The presentation of savings using two different
base years of 2004 and 2007 is unclear.
Recommendations
for improvement 
·        
It would be important to clarify the Spanish
energy efficiency targets and present the calculations in a consistent manner.
The report should more clearly explain how installations participating in the
EU ETS have been excluded.
·        
Rather than generally stating that financial,
legislative, communication and training mechanisms are needed for each measure,
the report should give details about specific actions that will be, or have
been, undertaken to achieve the savings associated with the measure.
·        
The report should more clearly highlight the
role of the public sector. Successful actions should be described, and the
means of disseminating information gained and communicating successes to the
public should be explained. It would be useful to highlight the leading role of
the public sector with respect to the implementation of EPBD.
·        
In the future EEAPs it would be useful to better
explain the extent to which measures included in the previous Plan were
implemented, so that the most successful measures from the last three years could
be more easily identified. 
·        
It is recommended to consider some additional
measures to address energy efficiency in SMEs.
Sweden
Summary
The second EEAP of Sweden contains a
comprehensive set of measures applied in all sectors of the economy, with each
sector making a contribution to the 2016 target. The report communicates a
feasible national energy efficiency strategy, according to which Sweden already
delivered 9% energy savings in 2010 and estimates to achieve 14.6% by 2016,
overshooting the targets (6.5% and 9% respectively). However, the Member State
does not attribute savings to individual measures making it difficult determine
the relative effectiveness of measures or to identify the contribution of each
measure to overall savings.
Policy integration is demonstrated both at
the national (for example in the case of the Environmental Code) as well as on
the EU level: connections are established between the second EEAP and European
directives and strategies, including the EPBD, EU ETS - ECCP, RES directive,
energy taxation directive, eco-design directive, as well as the EU 2020 energy,
and EU 2020 growth strategy.
General evaluation
Savings reported under the Swedish second EEAP
are based on calculation methods recommended by the EU Commission. The energy
savings in buildings (residential properties and service business premises) are
calculated using bottom-up methods, while the energy savings in the transport
sector are calculated using top-down methods. Energy savings in the industrial
sector are calculated using a combination of bottom-up and top-down methods.
Calculation methodologies are presented in detail in a distinct chapter. The
bottom-up methodology is the same as the one recommended by the Commission with
some adaptations due to statistical data availability. The top-down method is
slightly modified compared to the one recommended by the Commission.
Justification given for this is that top-down methods recommended by the
Commission are designed in a way that activity in the closing year of 2016 will
have a major impact on the final saving.
The second EEAP contains a comparison section
to the first EEAP. According to the analysis provided, 2010 savings are notably
higher than in the first EEAP in the residential and services sectors (23.2TWh
vs. 15.1TWh) and in the industry sector (5TWh vs. 0.7TWh). Savings are lower in
the transport sector (4.9TWh vs. 5.7TWh). For 2016 the projected savings are
considerably higher in all sectors (24.5TWh vs. 20.4TWh in residential and
services, 17.4TWh vs. 0.7TWh in industry and 11.9TWh vs. 5.9TWh in transport).
Results in the second national energy efficiency action plan differ from those
of the first action plan due to the fact that more actions have been included,
different calculation methods were used and the calculations cover different
time periods and lifetimes. 
Sweden opted to fulfil EPBD-reporting
requirements within the second EEAP. The action plan sets out a list of
instruments and measures to promote improved energy efficiency in buildings as
required under Article 10(2) of EPBD. Measures include financial support such
as grants and tax deductions, and information about energy use for domestic
households and businesses. The plan also clarifies that Swedish actions to
provide advice about heating systems and air conditioning systems are
equivalent to the inspection of such systems, in accordance with Article 14(4)
and 15(4) of Directive 2010/31/EU.
The Swedish Energy Agency is responsible for
the overall monitoring and supervision of the five-year national energy
efficiency programme, along with other actions (including ESD and eco-design
directives) aimed at achieving national cross-sectoral energy efficiency
targets. Responsibility for the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
(2010/31/EU) is shared between the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building
and Planning and the Swedish Energy Agency.
The action plan sets out a list of
cross-sectoral instruments and measures to promote improved energy efficiency
as well instruments and measures for buildings, industry and in the transport
sector. The Swedish second EEAP demonstrated as well that the provision of
information and advice forms an integral part of energy efficiency policy of
the Member State, presenting a strong set of diverse information measures.
The role of the public sector is clearly
shown in the second EEAP with various measures at the national, regional,
county and municipal level. Some measures aim for tangible results (e.g.
procurement rules or in buildings), whereas others to increase cooperation or
disseminate information. Swedish Energy Agency has been designated with the
task of providing advice and follow-up on other public bodies’ energy
efficiency work. Government Ordinance (2009:893) stipulates that every national
public authority shall implement at least 2 out of 6 recommended measures of
Annex VI of the ESD. Most public authorities chose to implement the measures on
purchasing energy efficient equipment and renting energy efficient buildings.
Furthermore, many public bodies decide to implement more than the requested two
measures.
The second EEAP of Sweden does not provide
a comprehensive overview of supply side energy efficiency measures. At the same
time a cross-sectoral national energy intensity target is mentioned, which
incorporates efficiency improvements at every stage of the energy system, from
energy conversion to transmission and distribution to final consumption. In
terms of concrete measures, the EEAP contains information about a programme
supporting the competitive commercial and technological development of district
heating companies to realise sustainable energy systems. Furthermore, a
preliminary study on smart networks has been carried out focusing on a
demonstration project in a district of Stockholm, as part of research and
development efforts.
Strengths
·        
A key strength of the second EEAP is that it
contains a good mix of different types of measures including fiscal, financial,
legislative, information and voluntary instruments. 
·        
The second EEAP demonstrates that energy
efficiency policy is present and supported in various governance levels.
·        
Policy integration is demonstrated both at the
national (for example in the case of the Environmental Code) as well as on the
EU level: connections are established between the second EEAP and other
European directives and strategies, including the EPBD, EU ETS - ECCP, RES
directive, Energy taxation directive, eco-design directive, as well as the EU
2020 energy, and EU 2020 growth strategy.
·        
EEAP2 introduces some new measures in addition
to EEAP1. These include good practices e.g. the establishment of the Energy
Efficiency Board, the introduction of energy mapping checks for businesses and
agricultural producers, and the requirement and support for the development of
regional climate and energy strategies.
·        
The role of the public sector is clearly
demonstrated in the second EEAP with various measures at the national,
regional, county and municipal level.
·        
The second EEAP contains a detailed explanation
of the energy savings associated to early and new measures.
·        
The methodology section discusses the
uncertainty associated with the calculation of different measures.
Weaknesses
·        
According to the calculations included in the
second EEAP, the Swedish intermediate ESD target for final energy savings in
2010 has been achieved. However. From these calculations it is not clear how
much of the identified savings are due to policy measures as some autonomous
savings and economic recession are included. 
·        
Description of measures is often general, making
it difficult to establish the connection to actual savings. 
·        
As both top-down and bottom-up methods are used
for estimating savings in the three individual sectors, adding their results
together may not provide an accurate view of overall energy efficiency
improvements in the economy. 
·        
While attention is drawn to the issue in the
document, when calculating savings from the industry sector a pre-recession
baseline is applied, posing difficulty to assess the result of technical
measures as opposed to economic circumstances. 
·        
The industry sector savings are calculated by
combining bottom-up savings for specific actions with top-down savings for the
whole sector. It is unclear whether the Member State adjusted the top-down
calculations to avoid double-counting the savings quantified using bottom-up
methods.
Recommendations for improvement
·        
While in terms of policy integration the
mentioning of measures (such as EU ETS and the national Environmental Code) not
primarily targeting, but having an effect on energy end-use is a positive
element, their impact should be clarified. 
·        
It is advised to use a methodology that allows
comparisons between the assessed sectors, and to provide assurance that double
counting did not take place in the case of the industry sector. A further clarification
of the rather significant difference between savings in industry in the first EEAP
and the second EEAP would be important
·        
An area for possible improvement of the next EEAP
is to include more information about the scale, the achieved/expected savings resulting
from the measures focused on awareness raising, networking, knowledge
acquisition, advice services, energy labelling, etc. Information about any
synergic effects with other policy measures would be useful
The
Netherlands
Summary
The Dutch second EEAP report provides a
comprehensive overview of measures to promote energy saving in the Netherlands.
Overall the report presents a realistic medium term plan for energy efficiency
improvement. A good mix of measures addresses energy efficiency in each
significant energy-consuming sector. The introduction of some new measures that
address barriers identified in the first EEAP shows commitment to national
energy efficiency goals and an ability to adapt policy when needed. The
top-down assessment of savings achieved to-date suggests successful
implementation of energy efficiency measures. 
As the Netherlands has incorporated all
savings including autonomous savings in its assessment of progress, it will
easily achieve the defined 2016 ESD target. The extent to which measures will
have contributed to the target, however, is difficult to assess because the
total projected savings due to measures have not been evaluated. Bottom-up
savings are also given for some sectors but the figures presented incorporate
the effects of several measures such that it cannot be ascertained which
measures have been most successful in achieving energy savings since the first EEAP
report. While the public sector obligations with respect to the Directive are
fulfilled, the sector's contribution to overall savings has not been
quantified. 
General evaluation
The Dutch second EEAP report provides a
detailed description of a broad range of measures that have been implemented to
improve energy efficiency in every sector of the economy in the Netherlands.
The reported savings for 2010 are well in excess of the intermediate target and
are close to or surpass the high savings projections given in the first EEAP
for all sectors. However, while the first EEAP attempted to project savings due
to measures alone, the second EEAP figures incorporate autonomous savings as
well, following a changed interpretation of the definition of eligible savings.
Savings per sector are calculated using national top-down methods rather than
those recommended by the European Commission to evaluate energy savings. The
report provides a justification for this approach. The bottom-up figures used
generally do not represent the effect of individual measures, but instead
represent the savings achieved by a combination of measures in each sector. The
report does not give estimates of savings attributable to individual measures. 
In the built environment, the "Meer met
Minder" programme, identified in the report as a key measure, combines
customised advice for residential energy users with subsidies for undertaking
energy saving measures. Voluntary agreements with housing corporations have
clearly defined energy savings targets up to 2020. An assessment of savings due
to these voluntary agreements up to 2010, however, is not undertaken in the
report. Other measures of note in the sector include improved building codes
for new buildings, temporarily reduced VAT rates on labour costs associated
with insulation and renovation, and discounted loans to encourage home owners
to undertake energy saving investments.
The second EEAP report contains the Dutch
National Plan for nearly zero-energy buildings. The plan defines zero-energy
and sets targets for new buildings in accordance with the EPBD. For existing
buildings, a study is to be undertaken to help develop measures that would
encourage nearly zero-energy retrofits of existing buildings. The second EEAP
savings projections incorporate those brought about by implementation of EPBD.
Requirements regarding inspection of heating systems the conditioning units are
also addressed.
The savings figures given in the EEAP
indicate that the existing long-term agreements account for the largest share
of savings in the industry sector. Participating companies are required to draw
up an energy plan and implement energy saving actions, and must further commit
to putting in place an energy management system within three years of joining.
An energy information centre for SMEs, described in the first EEAP report, is
not mentioned in the second plan.
Listed among measures addressing energy
efficiency in the transport sector are European legislative measures, such as
energy labelling and European vehicle standards, and national fiscal measures
that encourage the purchase of more efficient vehicles. The bottom-up savings
presented for transport are small compared to those projected using top-down
methods. It is therefore difficult to assess how realistic is the savings
projection for the sector for 2016 and the extent to which these savings may be
brought about by measures is unclear.
In the agriculture and horticulture sector,
the apparent success of CHP in greenhouse cultivation is notable, with CHP
savings accounting for two thirds of the savings in the agriculture and
horticulture sector in 2010. This has been attributed to long-term agreements
with greenhouse growers and has been supported by a number of horizontal
financial and fiscal measures. The long-term agreements measure has recently
been replaced by a CO2 equalisation measure the greenhouse sector
which imposes a ceiling on emissions and a market price for CO2,
based on the EU ETS price. The agriculture and horticulture sector shows a loss
in energy efficiency in 2009, when evaluated using a bottom up approach. This
is related to the global economic slowdown. However, the report also presents
for this and other sectors the positive underlying energy efficiency trend over
a longer period, such that fluctuations in the short period can better be
assessed.
The exemplary role of the public sector is
referred to in a general sense. A planned gradual phasing in of energy
labelling of public buildings is described. A target of nZEB for new buildings
from the end of 2018 is given. The report shows that the Netherlands fulfils
the obligations under Annex VI of the Directive on public procurement. However,
the second EEAP does not provide information with respect to savings already
achieved in the public sector up to 2010 or its contribution to the 2016
target. 
A number of horizontal measures designed to
address energy efficiency in multiple sectors are presented, including an
energy tax, tax incentives for investments in projects that have a positive
effect on the environment, and voluntary agreements that address energy
efficiency in all economic sectors. The role of energy service companies is
briefly described but their contribution to total savings is unclear. The report
contains a strong set of information measures. Milieu Centraal provides advice
on environmental issues, energy labelling, energy efficiency, and sustainable
mobility, while "Meer met Minder" gives residential consumers
customised advice on energy savings opportunities in their homes and
information about related subsidies available to them. 
The EEAP does not provide a full overview
of supply side measures. However, it presents measures that support the
deployment of CHP, with particular success in the agriculture and horticulture
sector. Reduced energy production for CHP in that sector for 2009 is noted,
however. While a temporary subsidy was available to CHP installations up to
2007 to compensate for unfavourable developments in energy prices, the report
mentions that few companies are currently investing in CHP due to market
conditions. A subsidy of EUR 4000 is available for micro-CHP for use in the
residential sector.
Strengths
·        
The EEAP contains a comprehensive set of
measures applied in all sectors of the economy, with each sector making a
contribution to the 2016 target. The report communicates a coherent and
feasible national energy efficiency strategy. 
·        
The report contains a good blend of different
types of measures including fiscal, financial, legislative, information and
voluntary measures, and the impact of European directives, such as Ecodesign
and EPBD, has been taken into account. 
·        
The second EEAP includes some new and innovative
measures, such as the coupling of maximum rents to the energy performance of a
dwelling in the Home Evaluation System. Financial barriers in the households
sector are addressed with low interest loans for energy saving investments and
with subsidies for domestic renewable energy systems.
·        
Energy savings up to 2010 calculated using
top-down methods exceed the intermediate target, indicating a strong
improvement in energy efficiency in recent years and suggesting a successful
implementation of related policy measures. Top-down projections show that over
half of the 2016 ESD target has been achieved by 2010.
·        
The success of CHP in the horticulture sector
can be attributed to a number of policy measures that are within the scope of
the ESD. The calculated energy savings have made a significant contribution
towards the ESD target, and the measures outlined in the report could provide a
template for how cogeneration may be encouraged in other Member States.
Weaknesses
·        
As savings are calculated using top-down
methods, it is unclear how much of these savings are achieved through the
implementation of measures aimed at improving energy efficiency and how much
are due to autonomous effects. The report does not quantify total savings due
to measures. 
·        
The second EEAP report does not present any
forecast or achieved savings figures to verify success of energy efficiency
measures in the public sector. The report mentions a ‘number of innovative
projects’ in the public sector without describing them. On the other hand, it
attributes an energy savings potential to them that is many times larger than
all of the savings for the whole services sector for 2016 projected using
top-down methods (section 3.1.2)
·        
The report does not provide sufficient
information on measures addressing SMEs.
Recommendations
for improvement
·        
The plan could incorporate a more comprehensive
assessment of savings due to energy efficiency measures, highlighting those
measures that have had the most success.
·        
The report could provide an update of the public
sector's progress in achieving defined energy efficiency targets. The sector's
contribution to national savings could be quantified. 
United Kingdom
Overall summary
The second EEAP of the UK demonstrates a
clear commitment for energy efficiency and carbon abatement action. The plan
reflects the already existing legislative framework for climate action. A
significant number of energy efficiency and carbon abatement measures and
programmes are put forward. The UK expects a significant overshooting of the
2016 energy saving target. 
The fact that energy efficiency policy in the
UK is integrated within the wider climate change policy framework is also
reflected by the second EEAP. However, energy efficiency and carbon abatement
measures are sometimes presented in an overlapping manner. No explanation is
given on the methodologies used to calculate achieved energy savings.
General evaluation
The second EEAP of the UK contains a
comprehensive set of energy efficiency and carbon abatement measures, with
overall expected energy savings amounting to 207.2TWh by 2016. This corresponds
to exceeding the 2016 ESD target by 70%.
Measures are focusing on three sectors:
households, the private and public sectors, as well as transport. Each sector
contributes to the 2016 energy savings target, with the household sector to be the
largest contributor to expected savings. Existing, new and adjusted measures
are applied parallel to each other. The second EEAP provides sector specific
estimates of the results of main policies for energy and carbon savings by
2010, 2016 and 2020.
The second EEAP of the UK retains the 2010
intermediate energy savings target and the 2016 target of EEAP1: 9%,
corresponding to 136.5TWh final energy savings. However, reported savings for
2010 are less than expected in the previous EEAP (99.4 TWh in the second EEAP
against 136.5TWh in the first EEAP). According to the second EEAP the decrease
in projected savings for 2010 is largely due to improvements in the calculation
methodology. Furthermore, the national appraisal and evaluation framework
adopted by the UK government is reported to have led to more accurate
attribution of savings to specific policies and measures.  
Overall energy savings by 2016 are expected
to amount to 207.2TWh. While this does not surpass projections given in the
first EEAP, it is considerably higher than the 9% (136.5TW) required by ESD,
corresponding to 14% savings against the baseline. The second EEAP also
includes the 2020 projections of the UK EEAP’s measures, with expected final
energy savings amounting to 272.5TWh. 
The second UK EEAP applies existing, new and
adjusted measures parallel to each other. The majority of these additional
measures not already listed in the first EEAP mainly focus on the transport
sector. They address some of the latest legislation being implemented by the UK
government to improve the efficiency of new vehicles. Nevertheless, the main
emphasis in the second EEAP is the household sector, where applications of
building codes and the introduction of new national schemes (e.g. the Green
Deal starting in 2012) will enable energy efficiency improvements in new and
existing buildings.
The EEAP integrates the energy efficiency
policy measures taken into the overall national energy policy context, such as
the 2008 UK Climate Change Act. The structure of the second EEAP reflects the
emphasis on linking energy efficiency to CO2 emission reduction
action: measures relevant to carbon abatement and energy savings are reported
parallel to each other. Furthermore, some measures that are relevant for
decarbonisation of the economy but not directly contributing to improving
energy efficiency (e.g. the use of biofuels in transport) are included in the
second EEAP. 
In terms of methodology, the calculation
methods used to measure achieved/expected savings remains largely unclear.
Although the HMT Green Book and supplementary policy appraisal guidelines are
given as reference, the information provided in the action plan itself is not
sufficiently detailed to assess methodological issues. 
The second EEAP includes specific measures
promoting the energy performance of existing buildings and the transition to
nearly-zero energy buildings as required by EPBD (however the second EEAP does
not formally report on EPBD requirements). Financial and reputational
incentives targeting (both public and private) organizations and emphasis on
information provision and awareness raising (smart meters, and organizations
dedicated to the provision of advice on saving energy) represent further good
practice in UK energy efficiency policy.
Additional strengths include the wide range
of sector-specific actions. In the public sector these include differentiated
actions targeting local governments, the central government, education, as well
as health institutions. However, more detail would be necessary on public sector
measures to assess their contribution to ESD implementation. 
The second EEAP of the United Kingdom does
not report on measures on the supply side. The large-scale rollout of smart
energy meters is the only measure which can be seen as supporting supply side
energy efficiency, through its connection to the development of the smart grid.
Strengths
·        
The UK second EEAP contains a comprehensive set
of measures applied in three key sectors of the economy (households, private
and public sectors, transport) with each sector making a contribution to the
2016 energy saving target. The second EEAP also reports expected savings for
2020 reflecting the longevity of the measures described in the action plan and
clearly embeds the energy efficiency measures into the broader policy context.
·        
Changes compared to the first EEAP are clearly
and understandably highlighted, listing a number of measures described in the
previous EEAP that have been revised since the initial projections. 
Weaknesses
·        
In the UK second EEAP, methodologies used to
calculate achieved and expected energy savings from different measures remain
largely unclear. Although the HMT Green Book and supplementary policy appraisal
guidelines are given as reference, the information provided in these documents
and the plan itself are not sufficient to conduct any detailed assessment of
the achieved/expected savings (e.g. to detect any major risk of double
counting). In order to assess the impact of the implemented/planned measures
reported in the second EEAP it would have been necessary to attach an Annex to
the Plan explaining the methods used for the calculation energy of final energy
savings.
·        
Information about expected/achieved savings is
missing in relation to a number of important measures (e.g. EPC Energy Performance
contracting as part of the Green Deal programme to be launched late 2012; NHS
plan to introduce the EU Green Public Procurement standards for Medical
Devices; Boiler scrapping scheme established in 2010, etc.).
·        
The UK second EEAP covers energy efficiency
policy within the wider legislative context of carbon abatement. In the action
plan, CO2 emission reductions and energy savings are reported in
parallel to each other but in some cases only information on the achieved
carbon is provided while information on energy savings is missing. In the view
of the EU objectives to monitor the progress toward energy efficiency in the
Member States, the reporting on expected and achieved energy savings is
important. 
Recommendations for improvement
·        
In the UK second EEAP the connected areas of
carbon abatement and energy efficiency policy are reported in an overlapping
manner. Some of the mentioned policies, such as biofuels for transport and the
promotion of the inclusion of aviation in the ETS are strongly connected to
carbon abatement, while not necessarily having direct relevance for achievement
of the ESD target. In order to avoid unnecessary reporting effort and for the
better clarity of the describing of the national energy efficiency framework,
it would strongly be recommendable to always describe the impact of any
measures or group of measures on the ESD and any other national energy
efficiency targets. Measures, which are to contribute to CO2 and/or
renewable energy targets while not having clear impact on energy savings do not
need to be included in the future EEAPs.
·        
In addition to the description of and expected
energy savings from measures contributing to the achievement of the energy
saving targets, information on possible overlaps between measures and
calculation methodology for separate measures could be provided in a more
consistent manner.
·        
It would be useful to quantify energy savings arising
from measures implemented by the Devolved Administrations (Wales, Scotland and
Northern Ireland) and that their relation to UK-wide energy saving commitments is
clarified. 
Croatia
Summary
The Croatian EEAP
provides a comprehensive analysis of energy efficiency progress and presents a
coherent strategy to improve energy efficiency in the whole economy. Building
regulations account for most of the interim bottom-up savings, while achieving
2016 targets is reliant on estimates of savings arising from planned ambitious
building renovation measures. These proposed measures will need to be further
developed because the level of detail given does not adequately explain how the
savings will be achieved. Significant progress has been reported in parts of
the public sector though the promotion of energy management. On the other hand,
there is little evidence of a concerted effort to improve energy efficiency in
industry, commercial services or transport up to 2010. Many of the measures for
these sectors planned in the first EEAP have not been implemented but new
measures are proposed to replace them. Measures that support a voluntary
network in industry and encourage and implementation of energy management
practices should instil a culture of energy efficient practices in these
sectors. The plan also assumes a measure to examine the possibility of the
establishment of a white certificate system. As an effective energy efficiency
obligation scheme is one of the key measures of the new Energy Efficiency
Directive (EED), it will be important for Croatia to identify soon optimal
solutions for such a scheme and/or alternative measures that would ensure the
minimum impact as required in EED Article 7. 
General Evaluation
The second EEAP
retains the 9% ESD energy savings target of 19.77 PJ for 2016 calculated
in the first EEAP. Achieved and forecast savings are calculated using both
top-down and bottom-up methods. Top-down calculations are made using P- and M-
indicators recommended by the Commission and bottom up assessments are made
using both recommended methods and national methods. Top-down savings of 6.43
PJ in 2010 are close to the interim target of 6.59 PJ, while savings attributed
to measures using bottom-up methods amounted to 3.53 PJ in 2010. Projected
top-down savings for 2016 are 38.66 PJ, well ahead of 2016 ESD, while forecast
bottom-up savings are 18.64 PJ. Although ESD-related final energy savings of 57
PJ are projected for 2020, no formal 2020 target has yet been defined.
The EEAP
recognises the importance of achieving energy savings in buildings. The plan
has ambitious targets with respect to renovation of existing buildings and
identifies the development of the national renovation plan as key to achieving
2016 savings targets. Planned sector-specific financial measures related to the
renovation plan account for a large share of total forecast bottom-up savings.
Most of the bottom-up savings achieved up to 2010 are attributed to
implementation of building codes in new buildings. The report explains how
legal and administrative difficulties relating to the funding of ESCO projects,
the performing of energy audits and the issuing of building certificates have
hampered energy efficiency progress in buildings and states how these issues
have been addressed through amended legislation. No nearly Zero Energy Building
targets have been defined and no definition of nZEB has been formulated in
Croatia, yet. A planned measure to incentivise the construction of buildings
with significantly higher energy performance standards than required by
building codes is described. The nature of the incentive and the budget for the
measure are not detailed, however. In response to the requirements of the EPBD,
mandatory 5-year control checks have been introduced for boilers larger than
20kW and air conditioning systems larger than 12kW, but these checks are
conducted in conjunction with energy audits and in non-residential buildings
only. 
Achieved and
projected savings are largest in the residential sector. The report
indicates that activities in the sector focused mainly on awareness raising in
the first EEAP period, and successful awareness campaigns are described. A
financial support scheme introduced in the first EEAP to encourage homeowners
to invest in energy efficiency improvements and renewable technologies appears
to have achieved only a very small amount of savings up to 2010. By contrast,
significant future savings are anticipated from a new financial measure to
stimulate the renovation of residential buildings in accordance with the aims
of the renovation plan that has yet to be prepared. The measure aims to improve
the energy efficiency of buildings constructed before 1987, and a budget has
been quantified. The report does not explain well, however, how the measure
will be implemented, what activities will be undertaken to undertaken to
incentivise homeowners to undertake renovations, or how these will lead to the
savings anticipated. 
In the first EEAP
significant savings in the non-ETS part of the industry sector were
envisaged. Most of the savings were to be achieved by a revived Industry Energy
Efficiency Network, a voluntary scheme whereby participating companies would
receive support for energy management, energy audits and other measures. The
second EEAP explains that the network has not been implemented to-date as
planned, but that it remains a key measure for achieving 2016 targets for the
sector. It does not adequately explain how the difficulties in implementing the
measure are to be overcome in the next period. Although a feed-in tariff
mechanism to promote cogeneration was implemented as planned the sector did not
show a sufficient level of interest in the programme. It is reported that there
has been little other activity to promote greater energy efficiency in industry
up to 2010. Consequently, interim savings attributable to measures in the
sector are low.
The report
contains little evidence of energy efficiency progress in the commercial
services sector. It is not well explained why a measure to promote energy
management has been unsuccessful or why 2016 targets for savings through energy
management have been significantly reduced. Most of the anticipated future
savings in the sector are attributed to a new measure to encourage the energy
renovation of commercial buildings. As is the case in the residential sector,
the measure is based on the renovation action plan. As the plan does not exist
and proposed actions are not outlined it is not clear how the measure will
achieve the anticipated savings. Savings projections are based on the
optimistic assumptions that 3% of all pre-1987 commercial buildings will be
renovated annually and that, as a result, their average annual specific
consumption will be reduced by over 80%. Significant savings are also
anticipated from efforts to promote greater use of solar energy in the
hospitality sector. 
Significant
progress has been made in implementing energy efficiency measures in the public
sector at local and regional levels. A ‘Systematic Energy Management’
programme establishes and provides technical support for energy management
projects in cities and regions and communicates their exemplary role and their
successes to the public. Notable is an advanced energy network, a web-based
tool for recording and monitoring public sector energy use at building, city
and regional levels. A ‘House in Order’ programme introduces systematic energy management
in government facilities. Public sector organisations are legally obliged to
undertake energy efficiency activities such as implementation of energy
management systems and execution of energy audits. The report acknowledges that
to-date public procurement has been driven by price and that energy efficiency
criteria have not been sufficiently considered. Croatia intends to address ESD
public procurement requirements by changing regulations to facilitate energy
performance contracting in the public sector and by integrating energy
efficiency requirements into existing procurement procedures. 
Although transport
accounts for the largest share of final energy use, 2010 savings attributed
to transport measures introduced in the first EEAP are small. The report
indicates that those measures were too general in nature and proposes to
replace them with a new set of more focused measures. Significant measures
include an eco-driving training campaign, a 'bonus-malus' scheme to promote the
purchase of low emissions vehicles, and subsidies for energy efficient vehicles
or energy efficient retrofits. Some of the measures, such as the promotion of
e-mobility and of modal shift in freight transport, appear to be in a
conceptual phase and still require studies to examine how they can be
implemented.
The EEAP
incorporates a comprehensive analysis of primary energy consumption in Croatia.
It outlines a series of ongoing and planned measures addressing losses in energy
supply and distribution including measures to reduce losses in electricity
distribution and in the transportation of oil and gas, improvement of the
energy efficiency of domestic oil and gas fields, and modernising of district
heating systems. Savings are anticipated in power generation facilities through
refurbishments of oil fired plants and the construction of a new gas
cogeneration plant.
The EEAP
documents Croatia’s systematic approach providing advice and information.
Croatia raises awareness, disseminates energy efficiency information through
media campaigns and dedicated information offices.
Strengths 
·        
The Croatian EEAP is a comprehensive report,
with planned measures addressing all sectors. It incorporates supply-side
measures to provide economy-wide plan. It is well-structured and addresses the
key reporting requirements of the ESD.
·        
The plan is fairly ambitious, with total
projected savings in excess of 2016 target, and projected savings attributable
to planned measures accounting for nearly 95% of the target. Ambitious targeted
levels of energy savings due to renovations of buildings have been quantified.
·        
The exemplary role of the public sector is
evident in the cities and counties. Strong measures exist to promote and
encourage energy management at a local authority level.
·        
The report presents top-down savings figures for
each sector to give a view of overall progress, and complementary bottom-up
calculations to show how much of the savings are attributable to measures. The
assumptions underpinning projected savings are well documented for each measure.
Weaknesses
·        
The report shows little progress in promoting
energy efficiency in industry, commercial services or transport. Many of the
measures planned in the first EEAP have had little success or have not been
implemented. Outside of the public sector there is little evidence of a
concerted effort to improve energy efficiency up to 2010.
·        
Savings through renovations up to 2010 have been
low while, in contrast, anticipated savings in 2016 are very high. Although the
EEAP describes planned renovation measures that are contingent on a future
national renovation plan, it does not explain well how Croatia will encourage a
significantly higher rate of renovations.
·        
In the commercial services sector the plan
relies heavily on a measure to renovate existing buildings, while ambitions to
promote energy management in the sector have been significantly reduced. 
·        
The plan does not contain any measures tailored
for small to medium-sized enterprises and it is not clear how energy audits are
promoted among SMEs.
Recommendations
for improvement
·        
It is recommended that improving energy
efficiency in the private sector is given some closer attention in the next EEAP.
Greater effort may be needed to encourage energy management in the service
sector. Improving energy efficiency of manufacturing through voluntary
agreements will require further monitoring and verification of actually
achieved energy savings. 
·        
Achieving energy savings targets for Croatia
(both 2016 ESD target and the future 2020 target as required by EED) may require
significant increase of the rate of renovations of existing buildings. However,
little savings have been achieved to-date through such renovations. While
renovation measures are broadly outlined in the EEAP, a clearer set of
incentives will need to be put in place to encourage building owners and to
ensure that the ambitious renovation targets in the EEAP can be met.
·        
The report indicates that Croatia will examine
the possibility of setting up of a white certificate scheme. The choice of how to
introduce white certificates and/or alternative measures may determine how
savings attributed to many listed measures will be delivered and may have a
major impact on Croatia's ability to achieve its savings targets. Examining the
options for such schemes is anyway already required in the EED. As many key
measures listed are dependent on state financing, Croatia should consider streamlining
instruments such as energy efficiency obligations or other market-based
instruments to complement financial incentives based on the state budget and
the EU funding.
   || 2010 (PJ) || 2016 (PJ) || 2020 (PJ)[76] 
 Interim and ESD 9% final energy savings target according to EEAP1 and EEAP2 || 6.59 || 19.77 || - 
 Declared / projected final energy savings according to EEAP2 || 6.43 || 38.66 || 57.17 
 Amount of declared / projected savings attributable to measures || 3.53 || 18.64 || 34.78 
Annex 2 - Overview of different
methodologies used by Member States to calculate final energy savings in the Second
EEAPs
The ESD requires that energy savings
figures reported in the EEAPs be determined using a harmonised calculation
model. The envisaged harmonised model is a combination of top-down calculation
methods that use aggregated national statistics and bottom-up methods that
assess measure-specific savings. Top-down and bottom-up evaluation methods
provide two complementary approaches to assess energy efficiency progress. A
top-down indicator gives a view of energy efficiency trends in an economic
sector or sub-sector. It does not quantify savings achieved as a result of
measures. Instead, it aggregates efficiency changes brought about by a
combination of autonomous effects, such as changes in global energy prices,
hidden structural effects and the effects of old and new energy efficiency
policies. A bottom-up method, on the other hand, calculates measure-specific
savings by assessing the influence of the measure on the energy use of one or
more consumers and by scaling up by the number of effected consumers. A
combination of top-down methods and bottom-up methods gives a view of the
success of individual measures and of their combined influence on overall
energy trends. 
In July 2010, the Commission circulated
among Member States a set of recommended top-down energy efficiency indicators
and bottom-up calculation models (European Commission, 2010)[77]. A total of 22
top-down indicators are presented in the Commission's recommendations. These
consist of 14 preferred (P) and 8 minimum (M) indicators. A P indicator
typically uses an activity variable that is closely related to energy service
demand, such as the number of tonne-kilometres or the value of a physical
industrial production index, whereas the relationship between energy use and
the activity variable of an M indicator, such as number of vehicles or
industrial gross value added, is less strong. Three categories of recommended
bottom-up calculation formulae contained in the Commission's recommendations
provide a means of quantifying the savings achieved by measures addressing
energy efficiency in residential and tertiary buildings, including equipment
and appliances used in buildings.
Table 15 indicates
which broad approach was used by each Member State to quantify declared intermediate
savings for 2010. Twelve Member States use mostly the top-down methods
recommended by the Commission or national top-down methods to determine the
declared savings achieved up to 2010. These twelve Member States claim around
63% of total declared savings for 2010. Fifteen other Member States use mostly
bottom-up or measure-specific methods to determine the declared intermediate
savings in their EEAPs, accounting for the remaining 37% of total savings.
Several Member States that determined total intermediate savings using top-down
methods also include bottom-up calculations for some measures in their reports.
Some that declared their bottom-up savings also presented top-down figures.
Some Member States used bottom-up methods for some sectors and top-down for
other sectors for which no bottom-up information was available. The bottom-up
methods presented in the EEAPs are typically national methods based on either
measured savings from specific actions, or modelled savings using building and
vehicle stock models, or expert estimates.
Table 15:  General approaches used to quantify
declared intermediate final energy savings
 Approach used to quantify declared intermediate savings || Member States 
 Mostly or all top-down || Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain 
 Mostly or all bottom-up / measure-specific || Bulgaria, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom 
The evaluation approaches used by some of
Member States to quantify savings in their EEAPs are briefly described here.
The section provides some insight into the extent to which Member States
applied evaluation methodologies recommended by the Commission, and serves to
highlight the diversity of approaches used and the differences in
interpretation of qualifying savings. Cases are identified where figures are
inconsistent with policy efforts, and where insufficient information is
presented.  
Austria.
Austria uses bottom-up methods to quantify declared and forecast energy savings
in its EEAP. It validates some of the bottom-up figures using top-down methods.
Bottom-up calculations are made using national methods that are documented in a
separate publication. The bottom-up indicators are similar to Commission
recommended methods. Bottom-up savings due to early actions are clearly
identified. A comprehensive set of top-down indicators, based on methods
recommended by the Commission, is presented in the document. For one
sub-sector, heating and hot water in households, the intermediate bottom-up
savings are a multiple of those quantified using top-down methods. The report
suggests that a combination of rebound and higher quality bottom-up data may
explain this.  
Belgium. The
EEAP for Belgium consists of four separate EEAPs presented in annexes to the
main document, representing federal or state-wide measures and measures
implemented in the regions Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels, with differences in
the calculation methods applied in each.
Federal:
While the federal EEAP describes measures implemented throughout the whole
country, no savings are quantified due to overlaps with measures implemented in
the regions. 
Wallonia:
The EEAP gives targets and declared savings in both final energy and primary
energy equivalent units. Savings are assessed using bottom-up methods with much
of the intermediate savings attributed to early actions. Although 2016 forecast
savings are below target the report points out the figures exclude savings
associated with a number of measures that have yet to be evaluated. The plan
does not apply top-down methods to assess savings but points out that top-down
results can be inaccurate due to short-term fluctuations in the data used to
calculate them.
Flanders:
The EEAP for Flanders quantifies transport-related savings using top-down
methods recommended by the Commission, while savings achieved by other sectors
are calculated using bottom up methodologies that are explained in the plan.
Again, figures are presented in final and primary energy equivalent.
Brussels:
For most measures presented, expected savings per measure are presented in the
EEAP. The figures are given in final energy and primary energy equivalent. The
figures are calculated using modelling methods and bottom-up methods
recommended by the Commission. No intermediate savings figures are presented in
the plan.
Bulgaria.
Bottom-up final energy savings figures are given
for 2010. Total bottom up savings for 2016 are not declared; instead an intermediate
savings forecast for 2013 is reported. For most measures, however, expected
savings for 2016 and 2020 are given. The plan does not provide detail on how
the figures were calculated or how double-counting was avoided. Bulgaria also
provides top-down intermediate savings figures for 2009 and savings forecasts
for 2016. The top-down analysis shows that savings in 2009 were already double
the intermediate target set for 2010. Two-thirds of all top-down savings are
attributed to the transport sector although all of the 8 listed transport
measures are listed have start dates of 2011 or later. 
Cyprus.
Declared and forecast savings are calculated using bottom-up methods.
Measure-specific savings are typically modelled using deemed savings or
performance values. Detailed data used for the calculations are presented in
the report. Electricity savings are calculated in primary equivalent using a
national conversion factor. No top-down calculations are carried out.
Czech Republic. Measure-specific savings are evaluated in EEAP for the Czech
Republic using bottom-up methods. The report points out that total intermediate
savings are only partially evaluated. Savings values are given for each measure
for years 2008 and 2016. Total expected savings in 2016 calculated using
bottom-up methods are adjusted to account for overlaps by applying a factor to
each of the sector totals. Application of top-down methods to assess overall
energy savings trends is not apparent in the plan.
Denmark.
Denmark presents both top-down and bottom-up calculations in its EEAP. Top-down
savings are calculated with a mix of P and M indicators from Commission
guidelines. Declared intermediate energy savings are determined using the
top-down approach. The report mentions uncertainties associated with activity
data used to calculate intermediate savings. Due to lack of data for 2010, the
2010 savings have been estimated based on historical patterns in 2008 and 2009.
The savings forecast for 2016 represents a business as usual scenario, and
excludes the effects of future policies and planned measures about which no
decision has been reached. It also excludes some anticipated additional
transport savings. The report explains that most of the energy end-use savings
are achieved through the energy savings obligations of energy companies. It
presents the energy companies' declared savings, adjusted for savings lifetimes
and with savings from EU ETS participants removed, as the national bottom-up
savings figures. Although formulae and calculations are presented for top-down
savings, the report does not detail how energy companies determined the figures
presented in the EEAP as bottom-up savings. It explains that energy companies'
savings are subject to external audit and are spot checked by the national
energy agency.  
Estonia. For
Estonia, savings declared for 2010 are based on savings achieved in 2008 only,
as more recent data was not available. The Estonia plan indicates that 2008
savings were assessed using top down methods. No breakdown of the contribution
of individual sectors to the intermediate result is given. According to the EEAP,
the savings forecast for 2016 has been made using a combination of expert
opinions and calculation methods recommended by the European Commission
although the methods are not specified. It is not clear if the forecast
incorporates only savings attributable to measures or if autonomous changes are
included. No detail about the calculation of achieved or forecast savings is
provided.  
Finland. In
the Finnish EEAP national bottom-up or measure-specific methods are used to
quantify savings for 2010, 2016 and 2020 for 36 measures. For each measure a
description is given of the data and assumptions used to calculate the savings
value. The savings associated with some measures incorporate the combined effects
of early and new actions such that the proportion of total savings associated
with actions implemented since 2008 cannot be ascertained. The report also
provides details for a range of horizontal measures such as information,
education and taxation measures for which no savings are calculated. No
top-down calculation methods are applied.
France.
France documents top-down and bottom-up savings in its EEAP.
Commission-recommended top-down methods are used to determine the declared intermediate
savings, while national bottom-up methods are used to evaluate the savings
achieved by certain programmes and to forecast savings in 2016 and 2020. The
top-down methods give negative savings, or efficiency losses, for electricity
use in the tertiary sector. To determine total declared intermediate savings,
France discards these losses by setting them to zero.
Germany.
Germany uses a combination of top-down and bottom-up methods to quantify
savings in primary and final energy consumption. Total declared savings are measured
using the top-down indicators recommended by the Commission. The more detailed
and potentially more accurate P indicators are used exclusively. In its
declared savings figures Germany includes electricity savings made at EU ETS
industrial installations, and all savings at some sites that will participate
in EU ETS from 2013 onwards. Germany conducts a bottom-up analysis of a sub-set
of its measures using national methods. An "instrument factor"
accounting for double-counting of savings achieved by different measures, and
an "implementation factor" adjusting for statistically recorded cases
that may not lead to any savings, are applied to bottom-up calculated savings
for each measure. These adjustments are detailed for each measure in the report.
Savings lifetimes are applied to bottom-up calculations in accordance with the
Commission's recommendations.  
Greece.
Using the top-down methods recommended by the Commission, Greece calculates a
level of savings in 2010 that is 11.7% of reference consumption, well in excess
of the ESD target for 2016. The EEAP acknowledges that the figure does not
provide a true representation of energy efficiency developments in the country
since 2008. It attributes the result to the effects of the economic recession
and its influence on the variables used to calculate the savings. It then
offers an alternative national top-down evaluation approach that takes into
account the recessionary effects. With the alternative calculation, savings of
between 5.1% and 10.9% in 2010 are estimated.  
Hungary.
Hungary gives expected savings in 2016 for each measure listed in the EEAP. The
plan indicates that the measure-specific savings have been quantified using
sampling surveys and annual reports. For intermediate savings, one aggregate value
for each sector is given. It is not clear how the intermediate values have been
determined. It is stated that the calculation methodologies used in the EEAP
are based on the approach recommended by the European Commission. No top-down
indicators appear to have been applied.
Ireland. In
the Irish EEAP, declared and forecast primary energy savings are provided for
each measure listed. Savings are calculated using a variety of national
methods. For a number of building and transport measures stock models with
specific energy consumption values are used to assess savings. The savings
achieved by some programmes are quantified on the basis of specific actions
undertaken by programme participants. Top-down approaches are used to estimate
the impact of building standards in the tertiary sector and of smart meters in
the residential sector. The savings forecasts for some programmes are made on
the basis that they will fulfil Government commitments to quantified energy
savings in individual sectors. Sector-level top-down calculations recommended
by the Commission were applied.
Italy.
Achieved and forecast savings given in the EEAP for Italy are the sum of
savings for the listed measures, where these are calculated individually using
national bottom-up methods. The report does not provide detail on the
calculation methods used but indicates for several measures that savings are
based on figures reported through the national white certificates scheme. For
measures in the industrial section the report does not explain how the figures
were adjusted to include only those achieved in installations that are not
participating in the EU ETS.
Latvia.
Latvia uses a mix of top-down P and M indicators recommended by the Commission
to calculate intermediate savings. Top-down calculations are made for the year
2009 as the 2010 data wasn't available at the time that the report was
compiled. The report points out that due to fluctuating economic indicators a
reliable top-down estimate of 2010 savings cannot be given. The very high levels
savings reported for 2009 are already close to 2016 targets, even though
negative savings in industry have been recorded. Transport accounts for over
78% of the intermediate net savings and the report indicates that the economic
crisis has had a significant impact on these figures. The reported savings in
transport do not provide a reliable indication of the level of savings achieved
by the three transport measures listed in the EEAP.  Measure-specific savings
are also given for some measures. The report does not provide any details about
how these were calculated.
Lithuania.
Lithuania uses national bottom-up methods to determine the savings achieved and
forecast for each documented measure. Nearly all of Lithuania's declared energy
savings in 2010 are attributed to pre-2008 building regulations and other early
measures. Top-down figures for 2010, calculated using the M indicators from the
Commission's recommendations, are also presented. Generally, the top-down
figures are at odds with the bottom-up ones. Using top-down methods, road
transport accounts for most of the energy savings, while negative savings are
shown for heat use in households and for some industrial sub-sectors.  
Luxembourg.
In the EEAP for Luxembourg, final energy savings are calculated exclusively
using bottom-up or other measure-specific evaluation methods. The report
thereby endeavours to include only those savings that can be attributed to
measures. Luxembourg uses its own evaluation methods to quantify
measure-specific savings. For example, national building stock models are used
to assess savings due to building measures, while price elasticities are
employed to evaluate the effects of taxes on fuel. The report clearly
differentiates between early savings, mostly achieved through building
regulations, and savings that have been achieved through measures implemented
from 2008 onwards. The top-down evaluation approach recommended by the European
Commission is not applied.  
Malta. Malta
calculates declared intermediate savings using top-down methods. For the
transport and residential sectors, M indicators are used. No industry savings
are recorded due to lack of data. Instead intermediate savings achieved for
supply of water are presented. These are calculated using a national top-down
method that takes into account efficiency improvements since 2000. No overall
forecast of 2016 savings is given. The EEAP states that it is expected that the
9% target will be achieved. Additionally, unspecified bottom-up methods were
applied to calculate achieved and forecast savings for several measures.
The Netherlands. In the EEAP for The Netherlands, total primary energy savings for
each sector are calculated using a top-down approach. The report does not use
the top-down methods recommended by the Commission to evaluate energy savings.
Instead, projected top-down savings are calculated by applying national
top-down methods that have been in use since 2000 and that are based on
national statistics and evaluation models. The report provides a justification
for this approach. The bottom-up savings are calculated relative to 2007 using
national methods, but bottom-up figures that include the savings due to early
measures are also shown for illustrative purposes. The bottom-up figures used
in the report generally do not reflect the effect of individual measures, but
instead represent the savings achieved by a combination of measures in each
sector. The report does not give estimates of savings attributable to
individual measures. A substantial proportion of the savings in industry is
achieved through electricity savings among EU ETS participant companies.  
Poland.
Poland calculates intermediate savings using top-down P and M indicators
recommended by the Commission. Some industry sub-sectors show negative savings
which are included in the net savings calculations for the sector. Savings in
private transport are not calculated. The savings forecast for 2016 is based on
bottom-up assessments of listed measures. Bottom-up calculations are national
methods about which no detail is provided in the EEAP.
Portugal.
The second EEAP for Portugal documents measure-specific savings up to 2010.
Target savings figures for sectors are given for 2016. The report provides no
information at all about how the savings were determined.  
Romania. In
the Romanian EEAP, intermediate savings are calculated using top-down
indicators recommended by the Commission. A mix of P and M indicators are
applied. Bottom-up or measure-specific savings are not given. No forecast of
energy savings in 2016 is presented. The report states that as the 2010 savings
figure is already close to the 2016 ESD target and that these savings were
achieved in a period of recession. It concludes that for these reasons the 2016
target will be met.
Slovakia.
Top-down and bottom-up calculations are presented in the Slovakian EEAP.
Top-down M indicators are used to determine that intermediate savings are
equivalent to 9% of reference energy consumption with very high savings for car
transport in particular. Bottom-up calculations show savings of 1.2% of
reference energy consumption. The report deems the intermediate target to have
been met because top-down savings exceed the intermediate target and because
39% of intermediate savings target has been shown to have been achieved with
bottom-up methods. The report refers to anomalies relating to energy statistics
for 2007, the base year from which savings are measured, and proposes
alternative calculations using average annual consumption for the years 2001 to
2005 as base year values. The 9% target for 2016 is presented but the report
does not give any 2016 savings forecast figures. 
Slovenia.
Slovenia uses a mix of bottom-up and top-down
methods to determine total savings. Measure-specific savings values are given
for 2010 and 2016 for most measures and these include savings from actions
prior to 2008. All methods are documented in a separate annex. It is unclear
from the report whether targets and savings are calculated in final energy
units or in primary energy equivalent. Both the first and second EEAP reports
appear to suggest that the target has been calculated using final energy
consumption values, but that the savings have been calculated using primary
energy equivalent by applying a conversion factor of 2.5 to electricity
savings. 
Spain. The EEAP
for Spain states that declared and estimated savings figures are calculated
using top-down energy efficiency indicators in accordance with Commission
recommended methods. In the annex of the report, however, a decomposition
analysis approach is used to quantify the industry savings and the effects of
structural change in the sector appear to have been included in the total
savings calculation. Bottom-up savings for specific measures are also presented
in the annex. Some of these are calculated using changes in unit consumption
values and as such are more akin to top-down calculations. For some measures,
it appears that top-down savings and savings attributable to specific actions
have been added together to give total savings. In these cases it is not clear
how the Member State has avoided double counting savings.  
Sweden.
Sweden combines bottom-up methods for some sectors and top-down for others to
calculate total savings. The share of savings attributable to early actions is
clearly identified. Savings achieved in buildings in the residential and
services sectors, calculated using bottom-up methods, make up most of the intermediate
savings. Bottom-up calculations for buildings are typically not
measure-specific but cover multiple actions. Industry savings since 2007 are
calculated using the top-down M indicators. The early savings associated with a
voluntary programme for industry prior to 2008 are assessed separately and
added to the top-down result for the sector. Top-down savings for transport are
calculated using a combination of P and M indicators. The formulae used for
most of the calculations are documented, with deviations from the Commission's
recommended methods identified and justified. 
The United Kingdom. The EEAP report for the United Kingdom does not provide any details
of calculations used to quantify achieved and forecast final energy savings.
Instead, it refers to a 'Green Book', which is a government guidance document
used for the appraisal and evaluation of all policies. As savings published in
the EEAP are given according to measures or groups of measures, it is assumed
that the national methods used to determine them are measure-specific. It is
indicated that the effects of measures are modelled in a national energy and
emissions model and that adjustments are made for overlaps and double-counting.
The report explains that energy savings associated with some policies have been
adjusted with respect to those published in the first EEAP due to
methodological improvements and reappraisal of savings projections.  
Annex 3 - Overview of 2020 energy
savings and energy consumption targets given in the second EEAPs
The ESD establishes an indicative,
non-binding 9% energy savings target for 2016 for each Member State. In 2007,
the EU set itself a further savings target of 20% of primary energy consumption
in 2020 to be achieved by improved energy efficiency. The 20% target is
measured from a 2020 baseline primary energy requirement projection for the
whole EU, while the ESD target for each Member State is determined from its
reference energy end-use in a five-year historical period.  However, the
actions undertaken at national level in response to the ESD will make a
significant contribution to overall 2020 savings targets. In most of the EEAPs
reference is made to the EU 2020 target. This section provides an overview of
2020 national energy efficiency and energy consumption targets mentioned in the
latest round of EEAPs. 
Austria. The
Austrian energy strategy, published in 2010, sets a 2020 final energy
consumption target of 1,100 PJ. This is equivalent to the level of national
final energy consumption in 2005.
Belgium. The EEAP does not detail any 2020 savings targets for Belgium. The
Federal EEAP and the EEAPs for Flanders and for Brussels also have no
information about 2020 targets. Although the EEAP for Wallonia does not define
an energy savings target for 2020 for the region, for each measure for which
savings have been quantified, the plan presents expected 2020 savings values in
primary energy equivalent.
Bulgaria.
The Bulgarian EEAP refers to the national document 'Bulgaria's Energy Strategy
up to 2020'. The strategy aims to reduce primary consumption to 15.8 Mtoe in
2020 (compared to 20 Mtoe in 2005). A 2020 target final energy consumption
value of 9.16 Mtoe is given. A target value for national energy intensity is
also mentioned in the report. Bottom-up savings values for 2020 are given for
many of the measures specified in the EEAP amounting to 15,632 GWh (1.34 Mtoe)
in final energy savings.
Cyprus. A
2020 primary energy savings target of 463 ktoe is set in the National Reform
Plan for Cyprus. The target is calculated by comparing a reference scenario
that includes no additional energy efficiency measures after 2010 with an
energy efficiency scenario that assumes continued development of national
programmes and EU legislation as well as fuel switching in power generation. A
2020 indicative primary energy consumption figure, excluding non-energy uses,
of around 2.76 Mtoe is given for the energy efficiency scenario. Additionally,
measure-specific savings in 2020 are presented for each measure in the EEAP for
which savings have been quantified.
The Czech Republic. The EEAP for Czech Republic does not specify any energy
consumption or energy savings targets for 2020. An indicative target annual
rate of decline in energy intensity is stated and long-term goals of stabilised
primary energy consumption and growth through energy efficiency are mentioned.
Denmark. The
national primary energy consumption target for 2020 of 829 PJ, equivalent to
96% of 2006 consumption, is stated in the Danish EEAP. The plan states that the
Danish Energy Outlook 2011 gives an expected primary energy consumption value
of 818 PJ in 2020. The longer term strategic objective of making Denmark
independent of fossil fuels by 2050 is also mentioned. If the measures proposed
in the national 'Energy Strategy 2050' are adopted, primary energy consumption
is expected to drop to 781 PJ in 2020.
Estonia. The
EEAP explains that in its National Reform Programme, Estonia has set a 2020
final energy consumption target. Final energy consumption in 2020 should not
exceed 2010 levels. 2020 energy consumption targets for each sector are listed
as follows: Industry 850 ktoe, Agriculture 110 ktoe, Transport 626 ktoe,
Services 392 ktoe, Households 1149 ktoe. In the EEAP total final energy savings
needed to reach the energy consumption target are quantified as 375 ktoe.
Finland.
Finland's targets are defined in its long-term climate and energy strategy. The
strategy sets a final energy consumption target of 310 TWh in 2020 and 220 TWh
in 2050. A target level of electricity use in 2020 is also quantified. The
target values relate to final consumption of the whole economy incorporating
the emissions trading sector. The 2020 target figure corresponds to final
energy savings 37 TWh, or 11% of final energy consumption, when compared to a
basic scenario forecast that assumes that no further action is taken. No
primary energy consumption targets are given but the target scenario gives a
primary energy consumption forecast of 430 TWh in 2020 which is 49 TWh lower
than the basic scenario value. The EEAP gives 2020 savings figures for all
ESD-related measures for which savings are quantified.
France. To
assess the impact of listed measures on energy consumption in 2020, the French EEAP
compares a 'pre-Grenelle' scenario with an 'additional measures'
scenario. It is thus calculated that additional energy efficiency measures
listed will achieve 28.4 Mtoe of final energy savings, around 8 Mtoe of which
us attributed to the national energy efficiency obligations scheme. Calculated
savings exclude the savings achieved by the French private car 'bonus malus'
measure as these savings are already incorporated in the pre-Grenelle scenario
projection. The report also mentions that the 2007 Grenelle environment round
table set a 2020 target reduction of energy consumption in existing buildings
of 38%. 
Germany. The
German EEAP outlines a 2020 national target, defined in the national energy
concept, to reduce primary energy consumption by 20% compared to 2008 levels.
Sector level targets for 2020 mentioned in the document include a 20% reduction
in the heating requirement of buildings, a 10% reduction in the final energy
consumption of transport, and a 10% reduction in electricity use. Longer-term
targets for 2050 are also mentioned, including a 50% reduction in primary
energy consumption and a 2.1% average annual improvement in energy productivity.
Greece.
While the EEAP for Greece does not define a 2020 energy savings target, it does
refer to a primary energy savings projection made as part of the National
Renewable Energy Action Plan. Using a model of energy demand, a 2020 projection
of 33.1 TWh in primary savings was made in a scenario where expected energy
efficiency improvements are taken into account and renewable energy targets are
achieved.
Hungary. A
business-as-usual projection of primary energy consumption of 1,255 PJ in 2020,
assuming an annual growth rate of 3%, is mentioned in the Hungarian EEAP. It is
estimated that if the rate of savings anticipated for sectors within ESD scope
is matched by the whole economy, primary energy savings in 2020 of between 135
and 145 PJ relative to the business-as-usual scenario could be expected by
2020. The contribution of sectors within the scope of ESD to final energy
savings is expected to be between 70 and 90 PJ annually in 2020. Elsewhere, a
national commitment to 10% total energy savings in 2020 is mentioned although
the method of quantifying this target is not specified.
Ireland.
Ireland has two main energy savings targets for 2020. A 20% target applies to
the whole economy. The target is equivalent to 31,925 GWh of Primary Energy
Equivalent and is calculated in a similar manner to the ESD target as 20% of
average annual national consumption in the period from 2001 to 2005. The
calculation is presented in the first EEAP report. A 33% energy savings target
for 2020 is set for the public sector. In the second EEAP this is quantified as
3240 GWh. All measures presented in the EEAP have estimated or target savings
figures up to 2020.
Italy. Italy
provides an estimate of final energy saved in 2020 by the measures listed in
its EEAP. It shows that savings will grow from 9.6% of ESD reference energy
consumption in 2016 to 14% of reference consumption, or 15.9 Mtoe, in 2020.
This is equivalent to 18 Mtoe of primary consumption. A 2009 PRIMES forecast
for the economy projects gross final consumption to be 133 Mtoe in 2020 if
energy efficiency measures are implemented and national renewable energy
targets are met.
Latvia.  The
Latvian EEAP gives planned energy savings values for energy end-use and primary
energy consumption for 2020 (6,050 GWh and 7,779 GWh respectively). Separately,
a forecast final energy consumption value of 55,233 GWh for 2020 is presented,
and a forecast of primary energy consumption is shown in graphical form only.
It is not clear from the report if these energy consumption forecasts take into
account the projected energy savings values. Latvia does not expect supply-side
measures to contribute much to 2020 energy savings due to a high level of
efficiency in the transformation sector and the high level of electricity
imports. For 2020 an efficiency target for heat generation plants of up to 90%
and a heat loss level of 12% for heat distribution networks are described.
Although top-down methods are used to quantify total savings, for some measures
bottom-up forecasts of expected savings in 2020 are given.
Lithuania.
No 2020 targets for energy efficiency or energy consumption are given in the
Lithuanian EEAP. The plan mentions an envisaged 8% reduction in final energy
consumption in the transport sector in 2020.
Luxembourg.
The EEAP for Luxembourg does not provide any detail on national 2020 targets.
The plan refers to the several energy-related EU targets, including the EU 20%
energy savings target for 2020, and mentions that a thorough quantitative
analysis and a discussion process is needed to understand their implications
for Luxembourg. 
Malta. A
provisional national primary energy savings target for 2020 of 235 ktoe is
given in the EEAP. The target assumes that planned electricity supply
infrastructure will be in place and that renewables targets will be met. A
Primary energy consumption forecast for 2020 of 835 ktoe is also given.
The Netherlands. The EEAP for the Netherlands does not refer to any national energy
savings targets for 2020. A plan to make existing buildings 20-30% more
efficient by 2020 is mentioned and 2020 savings targets for specific programmes
related to the energy efficiency of buildings are given.
Poland. The
Polish EEAP does not quantify any energy consumption or energy savings targets
for 2020. It refers to an official document called 'Energy Policy of Poland
until 2030' which declares some medium-term objectives for the economy,
including economic growth without growth in primary energy consumption,
improved efficiency of electricity generation, increased use of high-efficiency
co-generation, reduced network losses and improved end-use efficiency.
Portugal.
The Portuguese EEAP briefly mentions that a 2020 national energy savings target
of 20% has recently been increased to 25%. The baseline from which the target
is measured is not mentioned. A new 30% energy efficiency target for the public
sector for 2020 is also mentioned, measured relative to current levels.
Romania. In
2010 a forecast of primary energy consumption was conducted by the National
Commission of Prognosis. The forecast of 41.0 Mtoe is lower than the 2007
PRIMES forecast of 53.0 Mtoe and the 2009 PRIMES forecast of 42.8 Mtoe. The EEAP
mentions the high level of uncertainty in the forecasts but states that Romania
shall achieve 10 Mtoe in primary energy savings compared to the 2007 PRIMES
scenario. Elsewhere in the report it is indicated that the electricity
generation sector is anticipated to save 3.4 Mtoe in 2020 through increased use
of renewables, promotion of high efficiency cogeneration, and replacement and
refurbishment of power plants.
Slovakia. Slovakia
sets an energy savings target for 2020 of 11% of average annual final energy
consumption for the years from 2001 to 2005. The target amounts to savings of
45486 TJ and applies to the whole economy, with EU ETS participants expected to
achieve 24.5% of the target. The EEAP indicates that a slowdown in the rate of
savings is expected from 2017 onwards due to the reduced potential of less
costly measures. The 2020 target was determined in the Energy Security Strategy
for the Slovak Republic.
Slovenia.
The EEAP contains a projection of primary energy supply, showing a value of 302
PJ in 2020 which is 5.6% less than the 2008 value. The EEAP refers to a draft
National Energy Programme currently in preparation, which defines targets of a
20% improvement in energy efficiency by 2020, a 27% improvement by 2030, and
sets out sets out plans that will achieve them. The report points out that
Slovenia is not setting a primary energy consumption target because it could limit
its choice of energy mix.
Spain. The
Spanish EEAP details national primary and final energy consumption targets for
2020. The measures listed in the plan are expected to save 17,843 ktoe of final
energy consumption in 2020 while total primary energy savings in the whole
economy are anticipated to be 35,585 ktoe in the same year. Primary savings
equate to 20% of forecast total energy consumption in 2020 in the absence of
energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. Annual changes in energy
efficiency indicators for each sector needed to achieve the 2020 targets are
given. Other 2020 targets mentioned include the addition of 2.5 million EVs,
the doubling of rail passenger traffic, and the installation of 3.75 GW of new
cogeneration capacity. The plan also assumes the construction or complete
renovation of 8.2 million m2 of buildings per year and the
replacement of 0.5 million domestic appliances per year up to 2020.
Sweden.
Sweden sets a 2020 primary energy intensity target equivalent to 80% of the
primary energy intensity of the economy in 2008. Additionally, a 2020 final
energy consumption target for buildings is set at 20% below 1995 levels,
measured as average energy consumption per unit of heated area. A longer-term
5050 target of 50% below 1995 levels is also set. In the report it is estimated
that achieving the 2020 targets will save between 11.6 Mtoe and 14.7 Mtoe.
The United Kingdom. The UK EEAP gives expected final energy savings in 2020 for each
ESD-related measure listed for which savings have been quantified. These
savings amount to 272.5 TWh in 2020. Excluded from the calculation are a number
of measures for which savings have not been assessed, such as savings from
specified fiscal measures. Although an overall national target is not given, the
plan mentions a Scottish target to reduce final energy consumption by 12% in
2020 measured using a 2005 to 2007 baseline.
Annex 4 - Second Progress Report on the Implementation of the
Cogeneration Directive
Context
The report is an update on a previous
report delivered in May 2011, covering progress in implementing the
Cogeneration Directive and its effects in terms of promotion of high This
report is prepared in support of the implementation of Article 11 of the
Cogeneration Directive (2004/8/EC), which states that the Commission should
periodically report on progress in implementing the Directive and its effects
in terms of promotion of high efficiency cogeneration. It follows from a
previous preliminary report prepared in 2011. It analyses the progress
towards realizing the potential for high-efficiency cogeneration in the EU. The
analysis is based on Member States’ national progress reports submitted in late
2011 - early 2012, the spread sheets with quantification of progress towards
increasing the share of high-efficiency cogeneration (as submitted by Member
States in response to the Commission’s request) external scenario data and
technology parameters, and internal Commission analyses. It reviews the
progress achieved since early 2011 in term of: realizing the
potentials for high-efficiency cogeneration which has in general been slow;
barrier removal which has shown good progress; status of the implementation of
Guarantees of Origin which is nearly achieved; grid system access rules which
have been in general made transparent and fair; and support schemes which vary
considerably among Member States. As noted in the previous
reports, Member State reporting has generally been slow, inconsistent and
in many cases non-existent or inadequate.
State of transposition
Directive 2004/8/EC, and the guidelines
from Decisions 2007/74/EC (now 2011/9523/EC) and 2008/952/EC oblige
transposition into national laws, regulations and decrees. This chapter
presents the state of transposition in Members States as of 18th of June 2012. 
Updates on the state of transposition for
the second progress report were received in the time of drafting from 21 Member
States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). 
Table 16 presents
the state of transposition based on the first and second progress reports of
the Member States. From the 21 countries reporting, 7 had already reported full
transposition in 2009 (Belgium, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain).
Four additional countries reported on full implementation in the transposition
of the Directive and the Decisions since the first progress report (Denmark,
Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands and the Slovak
Republic, Sweden). 
Table 16: State
of transposition based on input from national reports.
 Member State || State of transposition on 1 December 2009 || State of transposition on 9 March 2012 
 Austria || Yes, but responsibilities for the GO* system on regional level have yet to be clarified || Directive fully transposed. But, still GOs for high-efficiency CHP cannot be administered, issued and traded. Amendment to Cogeneration Act is being prepared and will be implemented in Spring 2012. 
 Belgium || Directive fully transposed. || Directive fully transposed. 
 Bulgaria || Yes, but formal requirements for GOs are incomplete, grid access priority is only up to 10 MW || Directive mostly transposed. Still grid access priority only for plants up to 10 MW. 
 Cyprus || Directive fully transposed. || Directive mostly transposed. GO system established by TSO and regulations were to be adopted in 2011. 
 Czech Rep. || Directive fully transposed. || - 
 Denmark || Yes, but no priority connection, priority access only for decentralised plants || Directive fully transposed.       
 Estonia || Yes, but formal requirements for GOs incomplete, no priority grid access & connection || Directive transposed. But legal basis for GO is planned to be improved. 
 Finland || Incomplete || Directive fully transposed. 
 France || Yes, but no priority grid access & connection || Directive fully transposed. 
 Germany || Directive fully transposed. || - 
 Greece || Yes, but GO system not operational, priority access only for production facilities up to 35 MW || Directive fully transposed. 
 Hungary || Directive fully transposed. || Directive fully transposed. 
 Ireland || Directive fully transposed. || Directive transposed, but for Article 5 (Guarantees of Origin) a fully functional system is still under development. 
 Italy || Yes, but GO only above 50 MWh/a || Directive fully transposed. 
 Latvia || Yes, but formal requirements for GOs unclear, no priority grid access/connection || Directive fully transposed. 
 Lithuania || Yes, but  no priority grid access/ connection || Directive fully transposed. 
 Luxemburg || Yes, but GO system not precise  || No information received 
 Malta || Directive fully transposed. || Directive transposed. Decision 2008/952/EC to be implemented. 
 Netherlands || Yes, but no priority grid access/transmission || Directive fully transposed. 
 Poland || Directive fully transposed. || Directive fully transposed. 
 Portugal || Directive fully transposed. || Directive fully transposed. 
 Romania || Directive fully transposed. || - 
 Slovak Rep. || Incomplete, grid access to be clarified || Directive fully transposed. 
 Slovenia || Directive fully transposed. || Directive fully transposed. 
 Spain || Directive fully transposed. || Directive fully transposed. 
 Sweden || Yes, but  no priority access/connection || Directive fully transposed. 
 UK || Incomplete || Directive fully transposed. 
* = Guarantee of
Origin
One Member States
has not submitted a second progress report. In most countries the transposition
seems to be complete and a GO is in place. However, in several cases the actual
implementation of GO still remains to be completed.
1.           Progress towards realizing national potentials for
high-efficiency cogeneration (Article 11(1)(a)
1.1.        Introduction
Article 11(1)(a) of the Directive states
that “[the progress report submitted by the Commission] shall consider progress
towards realising national potentials for high-efficiency cogeneration referred
to in Article 6”. This chapter addresses Article 11(1)(a), thereby answering
the following main question: have Member States made progress in realising the
potential for high-efficiency cogeneration in the past few years?
In order to answer this question, the
corresponding chapter in the previous report provides an overview and critical
assessment of the EU potential for high-efficiency cogeneration. That overview
was based on the national potentials identified by the Member States in the
national reports that have been submitted to the Commission in accordance with
Article 6(1) of the Directive. The chapter in the previous Commission Background
report on progress in implementing the Cogeneration Directive provided an
assessment of the progress made by Member States in realizing these potentials,
based on data from Eurostat and on the information provided by the Member
States in accordance with Articles 6(1) and 6(3) of the Directive.
The current chapter provides an update regarding
the realising of the national potentials. The update is based on questionnaire
responses provided by Member States in accordance with reporting requirements
of Articles 6(3) and 10(2) of the Directive, as well as on information gathered
at the informal meeting of the cogeneration committee on 7 October 2011 in
Brussels.
1.2.        Scope: Member State information included
As mentioned above, the analysis of the
realisation of national potentials in this chapter is based on the reports
submitted by the Member States in accordance with Articles 6(3) and 10(2) of
the Directive. As requested by the Commission, Member States’ reporting was
based on a questionnaire template and a spread sheet. As with the previous
exercise, the spread sheet was used to ensure maximum comparability of the
quantitative information submitted by different Member States. 
Not all Member States used the
questionnaire or the spread sheet template consistently. Eighteen Member States
provided both the questionnaire and the complete spread sheet. Six Member
States provided the questionnaire and a partially completed spread sheet. One
Member State returned the questionnaire without any spread sheet and one
provided information without using the templates. The remaining Member State
did not provide any information at all. An overview of documentation included
in the analysis is given in the following table.
Table 17:
Overview of questionnaires and spread sheets on realisation of national
potentials used in the analysis of this chapter
 Member State || Questionnaire input received || Spread-sheet received || Questionnaire responses obtained from report 
 Austria || Yes || Yes ||   
 Belgium || Yes || Yes ||   
 Bulgaria || Yes || Yes ||   
 Czech Republic || Yes || Yesa ||   
 Cyprus || Yes || Yes ||   
 Denmark || Yes || Yesb ||   
 Estonia || Yes || Yes ||   
 Finland || Yes || Yes ||   
 France || Yes || Yes ||   
 Germany || Yes || Yesa,c ||   
 Greece || Yes || Yes ||   
 Hungary || Yes || Yes ||   
 Ireland || Yes ||   ||   
 Italy ||   || Yes || Yes 
 Latvia ||   || Yes || Yes 
 Lithuania || Yes || Yes ||   
 Luxemburg || Yesf || Yesf ||   
 Malta || Yes || Yes ||   
 Netherlands || Yes || Yes ||   
 Poland ||   || Yesa || Yes 
 Portugal || Yes || Yes ||   
 Romania ||   ||   || Yese 
 Slovakia || Yes || Yes ||   
 Slovenia || Yes || Yes ||   
 Spain || Yes || Yesb ||   
 Sweden || Yes || Yes ||   
 UK || Yes || Yesd ||   
a
Provided only sheets 1 and 3 of the spread sheet
b
Provided only sheet 3 of the spread sheet.
c Provided
limited information
d
Provided only sheet 1 of the spread sheet
e
Provided statistics and general statements but did not follow questionnaire and
spread sheet template. A spread sheet with limited information was extracted from
the statistics tables.
f
Did not follow the questionnaire, but provided limited spread sheet data. 
In the remaining part of the chapter, the
results from these documents will be analysed and compared with the national
potentials as they were described in the corresponding chapter of the previous
Commission Progress Report on Cogeneration. The analysis of national potentials
was based on input from 25 Member States (i.e. EU-27 minus Luxembourg
and Romania), which represented 347 TWh out of a total of 353 TWh of
electricity generated from CHP in the EU-27 at the time of the estimation in
2007, i.e. 98%.
1.3.        Methodological assumptions
The same methodological approach is used as
in the previous Commission Progress Report on Cogeneration. Since the national
reports and templates deal with high-efficiency cogeneration only, the
baseline numbers used in the national reports and templates are different from
the statistics recorded by Eurostat, which include all cogeneration, i.e.
both high- and low-efficiency[78].
As in the previous report, in order to make the most productive use of the
information available in the reports and the templates, the focus is on the
increments in cogeneration observed in each of the sources, while trying to
limit direct comparisons of absolute numbers from different sources.
In the event of discrepancies between the questionnaires
and the spread sheets, priority is given to the spread sheets.
Some specific issues were encountered for
individual countries:
–       
Cyprus supplied numbers both for high-efficiency
and low-efficiency CHP. In the context of the present Directive, only the
former are considered in the analysis.
–       
Spain combined the numbers for ‘steam back
pressure turbine’ and ‘steam condensing extraction turbine’ into one number.
For the purpose of this analysis, this entire number was allocated to ‘steam
back pressure turbine’.
              
1.4.        Progress
compared to the potential
The next table shows the national economic
potentials for cogeneration, expressed in TWh of electricity produced from
cogeneration. These potentials are provided for the 23 countries that submitted
the information of sheet 1 of the spread sheet[79].
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 JRC in the context of WP2 of the
Administrative Arrangement on cogeneration with DG ENER[80] for the sake of
comparison.
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) 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. This is the case for Slovakia. However,
in that case, although the baseline of the estimates in 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 18: 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.
An alternative source of estimates of
cogeneration potential, is provided by the PRIMES model. The table below shows
the PRIMES simulations for electricity generated from CHP. Two scenarios are
considered: the PRIMES Reference (Baseline 2009), and PRIMES - Energy
Efficiency. The same comment as for the TIMES model is applicable here: the
PRIMES model is a complete simulation model of the entire European energy system,
hence its results may be significantly different from the bottom-up analyses
done by Member States in their national reports.
Table 19: Economic potential for cogeneration in 23
Member States, expressed in electricity generated from cogeneration [TWh/y], as
taken from two PRIMES scenarios
The next table 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. As mentioned before, these numbers are not
fully comparable, since 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 20: 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 next table 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 21: Comparison of economic potential with
realisation in 2009 and 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 has led to a drop in electricity demand and a slow-down or
standstill in new electricity generation investment. The following countries
explicitly mention the crisis as a factor in their national reports and/or
questionnaires:
-                       
Greece: reduction
in electricity demand;
-                       
Hungary:
reduction in cogeneration growth potential; reduction in non-district heating;
negative impact on investment and production;
-                       
Italy: reduction
in demand;
-                       
Portugal:
reduction in demand for useful heat from industry; reduction in support
schemes;
-                       
Slovakia:
reduction in proportion of high-efficiency cogeneration investments;
-                       
Slovenia: delay
in investments.
1.5.        Quantity and share of CHP in 2010
The following table and figure provide 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 22: Quantity and share of CHP in electricity
generation (based on spread sheets submitted)
Figure 12: Quantity
and share of CHP in electricity generation (based on spread-sheets submitted)
Overall, the percentage data is relatively
well aligned with 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.
Table 23: Quantity and share of CHP in heat
generation (based on spread sheets submitted)
The numbers are more divergent than for
electricity, presumably because Member States have used different baseline
definitions for the total heat market. For example, the figure of 100% for the
Netherlands suggests that the Netherlands only considered the market for traded
heat, i.e. excluding auto-producers.
To consider numbers on the same basis, the
next table compares CHP heat production with the total market, as estimated by JRC.
The share of CHP in heat production ranges from around
0 in islands and Greece, to around 30% and more in Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia,
Finland and Sweden. The share of cogeneration in total
heat demand in the Netherlands is now 23.3%, rather than the 100% suggested
above.
Table 24: CHP output compared to independent total
heat market estimate
 
1.6.        Evolution from 2000 to 2010
This section shows the evolution over time
(2000-2010) of electricity production from CHP, heat production from CHP,
electricity capacity from CHP, and heat capacity from CHP. The results are
broken down in the 3 main sectors and 4 subsectors. Many Member States did not
provide data for all years in the time series. In order to obtain sensible
year-on-year results, only those Member States that provided a full data set
are included in the analysis.
1.6.1.     Electricity
production
Table 25: Evolution of electricity production from
CHP over time [TWh]
Note: Member States
included: Austria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia and Sweden
Figure 13:
Graphical representation of the previous table [TWh]
The graphs show a steady increase in
electricity from cogeneration since 2000. The increase is mostly due to the
increase in District Heating in the Residential, Commercial and Services
sector, which has especially taken off since 2008. There was a slight decline
in total generation from CHP 2009, especially in industry – probably due to the
economic downturn – followed by a rebound in 2010.
1.6.2.     Heat
production
Table 26: Evolution of heat production from CHP
over time [TWh]
Note: Member States
included: Austria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia and Sweden.
Figure 14:
Graphical representation of the previous table [TWh]
Unlike the production of electricity, the
production of heat from cogeneration did not decline in 2009, but rather
stabilised. Overall, there has been steady growth since 2000.
1.6.3.     Electricity
capacity
Table 27: Evolution of electricity capacity from
CHP over time [GW]
Note: Member States
included: Austria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary and Latvia.
Figure 15:
Graphical representation of the previous table [GW]
In terms of capacity, the decline from 2008
to 2009 is not present, rather there is a small increase. Hence, the decline of
CHP electricity production may be largely due to the macroeconomic environment,
which caused an underutilisation of capacity. This can be observed especially
in industry.
1.6.4.     Heat
capacity
Table 28: Evolution of heat capacity from CHP over
time [GW]
Note: Member States
included: Austria, Estonia, Hungary and Latvia.
Figure 16:
Graphical representation of the previous table [GW]
It is worth noting that there is a decline
in heat capacity from 2008 to 2009, contrary to the increase in electricity
capacity.
1.7.        Analysis by technology and fuel
The following table and figure show the
break-down of electricity capacity from CHP, into different technologies. The
analysis is based on all Member States that provided a data series that
included 2010: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and
Spain.
Table 29: Break-down of CHP electricity capacity by
technology [as % of total]
Figure 17: Graphical
representation of the previous table
Overall, one can observe a gradual increase
in CCGT and internal combustion engines.
The following table and figure show the
break-down by fuel input. The analysis is based on all
Member States that provided a data series that included 2010: Austria, Czech
Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,
Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Table 30: Break-down of CHP fuel input by fuel [as
% of total]
Note: ‘other fuels’ include all fuels labelled as such
in Member States’ spread sheets. However, since some Member States used
different fuel categorisations, the ‘other fuels’ category in some Member
States may also include fuels that are explicitly listed elsewhere in the
table.
Figure 18:
Graphical representation of the previous table
The most remarkable effect is the
consistent increase in the use of natural gas as a fuel for CHP.
1.8.        Primary Energy Savings and CO2 emissions
reductions
For 2010, the previous report had
identified a potential of an additional 0-5 Mtoe/y of primary energy savings
(PES), calculated according to the methodology of the Directive, and
correspondingly an additional 0-10 Mt/y of CO2 emissions reductions.
For the subset of Member States analysed in the present report, this means 2-3
Mtoe/y of PES and 5-6 Mt/y of CO2 emissions reductions. These
potentials are relatively low since the bulk of the potential was expected to
be realised after 2010.
For the subset of Member States who
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. Using the same reference coefficients
as in the previous exercise, this would result in 0.5 Mtoe/y of PES and 1.3
Mt/y of CO2 emissions reductions. 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 have 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 31:
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 realised.
1.9.        Conclusions
The data shown in this chapter have
demonstrated that CHP penetration has started to increase again between 2009
and 2010, after a stagnation in 2009 due to the economic downturn. The increase
in CHP penetration has been limited however. National potentials are not being
fully achieved.
2.           Barriers
2.1.        Introduction
Under the Cogeneration Directive the Member
States are asked to assess their national potential for cogeneration and to
carry out various enabling assessments (of barriers, support mechanisms,
verification through guarantees of origin) and then update the Commission on
progress towards achieving the potential. Member States were required to produce the following
reports:
-                       
Analysis of the national potential for cogeneration.
Article 10(1) and Article 6(1).
-                       
Review of barriers to the wider use of
cogeneration. Article 10(1) and Article 6(2)(c).
-                       
Administrative and procedural situation. Article
10(1). 
-                       
Guarantees of origin. Article 10(1) and Article
5(3).  
-                       
Progress Report on Cogeneration Directive.
Article 10(2), Article 6(3).
By 2010, all the Member states had provided
that information to the Commission (many countries with considerable delay, the
due date was 2006 for the analysis of national potential and 2007 for the other
reports). The information provided was already discussed by the European
Commission and in the previous edition of the progress report[81]. To assist the member states to prepare their new progress report
according to Articles 6(3) and 10(2), the Commission prepared a questionnaire
(Annex A) with a total of 11 questions. In this report, we will refer to this
new set of national reports like new or second round of national reports. The
eighth question was:
Q8 Please give your views on the current
barriers to high-efficiency cogeneration in your country:
-barriers in relation to administrative
procedures (authorization, coordination among competent authorities,
streamlined simplified procedures, etc.);
-barriers in relation to the electricity
grid system and tariff issues (including specific measures for small scale and
micro cogeneration units);
-other barriers (internalisation of
external costs, energy prices, financial &/EC. technical barriers, etc.) in
accordance with Articles 9 and 6 of the cogeneration Directive 2004/
At the time of writing this report October 2012,
the Commission counts on 26 reports from Member States, (all Member States
except from Luxembourg). This chapter gives, in points 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6, the
answers (or a summary) provided by the Member states to each point of the
eighth question. The next point (3.2) compares the evolution of the barriers
from the previous round of National reports to this one, and point 3.3 extracts
some overall conclusions of the analysis carried out.
2.2.        Evolution of the barriers compared with barriers
reported in the 1st set of Member States reports. 
The table 32 collects the different
clusters of barriers analysed in the previous round of reporting by the Member
states. This table has been updated according the descriptions about barriers
in the new round of National reports. The barriers considered in both rounds of
National reports have their own wording and the barriers have been treated to a
different extent. In order to extract some conclusions about these barriers, it
is necessary to cluster them according to their similarities. 
In the initial round of National reports,
there were no questions about the barriers, whereas for this round there were
three questions related to 1) administrative procedures, 2) the electricity
grid system and tariff issues and 3) other barriers.
In the original round of National reports, the
only country that did not include an analysis of the barriers in their report
was France. For this new edition of the National reports, France continues
without producing any analysis of barriers. Also, Lithuania did not include any
barriers in their first national report; in this case, it was because in their
analysis Lithuania considered that there are no legal, technical or financial
barriers preventing further implementation of CHP. In this new round of
National reports, Lithuania has delivered its report. Also, the Italian report
does not contain any analyses of barriers.
In both rounds of reporting, the rest of
the countries discussed, to a greater or lesser extent, the barriers that they
have found. In the first round, for Denmark, and Sweden, the only barrier
identified is related to the economic justification of the CHP, whereas, for
Hungary, also in the first round, the only barrier identified is related to the
heat demand. For this Background report, the Swedish report mentions some
barriers for micro generation and other exogenous barriers for the rest of high
efficiency cogeneration, and in the Danish report, it is said that is hard to
go further in the high penetration that CHP already has. Hungary, in its second
National report, when discussing about administrative barriers, discuss their
administrative system, but without considering it a factual barrier, and do not
discuss anything at all about issues related to the electricity grid, tariffs
or any other barrier. Also, in the Portuguese report there is a discussion of
the new laws enacted to remove barriers, but which do not acknowledge any
barriers, only the change in the remuneration regime of the cogeneration is perceived
as possible barrier. A similar case to the Portuguese report is the Finland
report, Finland gives the context in which the CHP project are developed,
without mentioning any concrete barriers, only the new energy taxes that came
into effect in the beginning of 2010 can be seen as a barrier, since it is said
“weakened the competitiveness of district heating”. Also, the Romanian report
does not contain any analysis of barriers at all; there is only a mention about
a decrease of heat demand.
In short, out of the 26-progress report
delivered in the second round of National reports, there is no way to include
in a comparison of the evolution of barriers to France and Italy. And, we can
hardly include to Hungary, Denmark, Portugal, Finland and Romania. Therefore,
these seven countries will not be considered when discussing about the
evolution of barriers (these countries are crossed in table 32), in the remaining
19 counties for further analysis. The 19 countries reporting barriers in the
second round of National reports are indicated in table 32 with a yellow
background. The barriers already reported in the first round of national
reports are marked with a dark blue cell. The barriers identified in the second
round of national reports are signalled with a “NR”. The barriers (excluded
from further discussions) from Demark, Portugal, Finland and Romania are a “NR”
with red font. 
For the first round of National reports,
the 28th row of the table 32 contains the number of Member States
that report each barrier. The 29th row contains the same information
about the first round of National reports but only for the 19 countries that
have a sufficient description of barriers in the second round of National
reports. For the second round of reporting, row 30 contains the number of Member
states reporting each barrier.
The first precaution when extracting
conclusions is that there have been different interpretations of the questions
asked. For example, the second point of question eighth asked about:
- barriers in relation to the
electricity grid system and tariff issues (including specific measures for
small scale and micro cogeneration units);
To answer this question some Member states have
considered enough to describe how different participants in the system are
remunerated (through electricity tariffs for electricity from cogeneration
plants or by other means). Few Member states describe about who bears the cost
of the connection to the grid (or connection tariffs). Some countries that have
given this last interpretation acknowledge that the cost of connection
(associated permits or administrative steps) may be an effective deterrent. The
different interpretations may lead to misleading results when comparing the
answers.
In the table 32, the barriers in the
columns are according a decreasing order of number of Member states reporting
them. The two most cited barriers in the first round of National reports (“fuel
prices” and “heating or cooling demand”) are also the most cited in the second
round. 
Another remarkable fact is that a barrier
that apparently 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 lose 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” do not experience change in both
rounds of reporting.
The total number of barriers for the
sub-sample of 19 countries has decreased slightly from 101 to 97. However, the
plain mention of a barrier in a National report has made us treat it as a
barrier in this analysis. With this in mind, a decrease of around 4% of
barriers does not look very relevant. 
The seven most cited barriers accounts for 66
and 69 of the barriers in the first and second round of reports, respectively,
and 35 and 28 times for the least cited barriers, again, in the first and
second round, respectively. Although between the two reporting rounds there are
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.
Table
32: Barriers identified in the first round of national reports (dark blue
cells) and in the second round of national reports (“NR”)
2.3.        Assessment of the barriers 
One of the main conclusions reached by the
European Commission in earlier reports is that the discretion given to the
Member States to choose the approach followed to prepare the reports requested
in Article 10 of the Directive made it difficult to make a consistent
comparison of many of the points asked for in Article 10 and as a consequence
in Article 11 of the CHP Directive. The gaps in the reports about the matters
treated (or in some cases not treated) meant that most of the conclusions
already extracted were in fact about these gaps. Some of these gaps were due to
differences in interpretation about the reporting requirements. In the second
round of National reports, the European Commission received all but one of the
due reports. For this round of national reports, there was a questionnaire with
some questions about the barriers. However, the lack of common understanding of
the questions asked still prevails.
The first fact that stands out is that,
even with three clear points on the eighth question, only few Member states
address all the points separately (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Ireland,
Malta, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain
and United Kingdom). Most of the remaining countries have prepared a
description of the administrative system. Also, whereas some of the Member
states assess that the changes done to their administrative system address some
of the barriers (Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia and Spain), the rest do not assess whether or not
their administrative system ease the administrative burden. Some of the
countries state that all generators are treated in an open and transparent way,
or that there is no way to improve the administrative barriers. There are two
countries that have not carried out an analysis of barriers, France and Italy. The
French report refers to the previous report sent to the Commission in October
2010 and 2008 (however, none of those reports include any analysis of barriers.
In the Italian report, there is no discussion about barriers (although some of
the laws described could overcome some administrative burden). 
There are few remarkable changes in the
evolution of the barriers, standing out that problems associated with the heat
and cooling demand and with the fuel prices are the most relevant barriers in
both rounds of National reports. However, the sometimes less than robust methodology
followed by most of the countries when reporting about barriers, and the
different interpretation of some of the questions of the questionnaire, do not
allow the Commission to go further in the analysis of the barriers.
2.4.        Barriers in relation to
administrative procedures (authorization, coordination among competent
authorities, streamlined simplified procedures, etc.);
Austria
In its report, Austria states:  “The
problematic aspect of the procedures for obtaining authority approval is not
the administrative processes themselves but rather, as in all projects in the
energy industry, the lack of public acceptance and the resulting lengthy
procedures. Authorisation procedures for comparatively large projects are
conducted as part of a comprehensive environmental impact assessment procedure.
However, objections to the planned plants raised by local residents almost
inevitably lead to high-level proceedings usually lasting several years. A
solution to this problem has yet to be found.”
Cyprus
In its report, Cyprus states: “In Cyprus
there are no noteworthy barriers relating to administrative procedures or
barriers relating to the electricity grid and pricing issues”
Bulgaria
Bulgarian authorities explicitly mention as
administrative barriers:
“Insufficient administrative capacity at
municipal level for preparing zoning plans based on energy master-plans showing
which form of energy provision is most economically and environmentally
beneficial.”
“Renewable energy producers have no
incentive to use cogeneration technologies as the pricing of renewable energy
provides an adequate financial guarantee of a return on their investment.”
Belgium
Belgium’s report has
different answers to the eight questions according to their region.
Walloon region 
Walloon region states
that: “There are often a number of administrative difficulties, especially for
small structures, for example, the fact that there are several subsidy systems
with different and sometimes time-consuming procedures (prior application etc.)
without, in some cases, the guarantee that the subsidy will actually be granted”.

As with measures to
overcome these barriers the green certificate quotas, the compensation
mechanism for machines <10 kW, the third party investor mechanism, the
increase in prices for energy resources, the cogeneration facilitator service
set up in the region, the implementation of Energy performance of buildings and
industry wide agreements are mentioned.
Flemish region
The Flemish region
states that authorisation procedures may be causing unnecessary long delays
between an investment decision and the commissioning of the installation. The
Flemish government is currently discussing ways to simplify procedures for
obtaining authorisation with other regional authorities (provinces and
municipalities) and the Federal Government. Also the process for applying for
aid through cogeneration certificates may be a heavy administrative burden for
micro-generation, the regulator is working on a simplified procedure for
micro-generation.
The main support
measure to overcome the barriers, the cogeneration certificate system, has been
very successful promoting cogeneration. The excess of certificates has created
some uncertainties in the certificated market. Part of these uncertainties has
been alleviated by a minimum guarantee provided for CHP plants. 
Brussels Capital
Region
As barrier related to
the administrative procedure in Brussels capital region the unauthorised
private networks and direct electricity lines is mentioned. The “Brussels
Housing Code” imposes every single household to be connected to the electricity
grid through a proper EAN-meter and on the other hand, selling electricity
requires a special licence that is very difficult to obtain. Yet, the green
certificated to gas generation in housing buildings alleviates the situation by
improving the profitability of the project. 
Czech Republic
As barrier related to
the administrative procedure the Czech report states “Drawn-out permit process
for the construction of energy related facilities are a general problem. This
problem should be eased by an amendment to the Building Act that is currently
under consideration at the Parliament of the Czech Republic”. There is a
general acknowledgment of: a complex legal framework, unclear long-term
prospects in the area of state aid, complex and time-consuming administrative
procedures, and the influences of other legislation.
Denmark
Denmark states that the support provided by
their legislation (administrative procedures) has paved the way for the major
expansion of cogeneration in Denmark since 1980. “The overall regulatory
framework presents no barriers to the expansion of cogeneration. On the
contrary, the active promotion of cogeneration has been a matter of policy”. 
Estonia
Estonia states in its report: “There are no
significant barriers in relation to administrative procedures in Estonia. The
administrative procedures in place ensure the various parties have the
opportunity to participate in decision-making processes.”
Finland
Finland states that: “No actual barriers to
cogeneration can be identified in Finland”. The barriers to electricity market
access have been removed and the authorisation systems work well. Naturally
there are a number of variables in the operating environment of cogeneration
that also affect the competitiveness and operating conditions of cogeneration”.
France
The literal response to the three points of
question 8th is “The French authorities have sent the reports required by the
Directive. The 2008 report pursuant to Article 9 and the report on national
potential sent in October 2010 set out the administrative procedures applicable
to cogeneration installations. These procedures have not changed since the
reports were drafted.” The French authorities have not carried out an analysis
of the barriers. Neither in this report nor in the reports referred in their
answer. 
Germany
The German report
states “Over the past few years the pace of investment in large CHP plants has
been sluggish. This is linked, in particular,
to the current political framework, …“  the paragraph continues adding other
general barriers not related to the administrative procedures.
German report also
states “The German Government has set itself the objective of increasing the
share of electricity generated by CHP plants to 25 % of total electricity
generation by 2020. To help achieve this
objective the Cogeneration Act is currently being reviewed. The resulting amendment is due to be adopted,
through parliamentary procedure, by summer 2012” 
Greece
Greece states that “The authorisation
framework has always been a key barrier to HECHP and RES facilities”, and says
that “Law 3468/2006 laid the foundation for streamlining the authorisation
procedure with a view to speeding up the issue of the required generation,
installation and operating authorisations for the implementation of RES and
HECHP projects”.  And, “through Law 3851/2010, an effort was made to lift all
authorization barriers and further simplify the different authorisation
procedure stages by reducing authorisation issuance deadlines substantially. As
far as HECHP systems were concerned, it relieved plants of an installed
capacity of less than 1 MWe of the obligation to obtain a
generation, installation and operating authorisation, thus making things easier
for interested investors”. The report also sets out the milestones of the
authorisation procedure, as currently in force under the provisions of
Law 3851/2010. 
Hungary
The Hungarian report indicated when
electricity or district heating producers have to apply for a construction
license (the firsts only where nominal capacity exceeds 50 MW and the
seconds when their thermal capacity is 5 MW or more). The procedure for
small cogeneration plants (i.e. power plants with a nominal electrical
capacity greater than 0.5 MW and lower than 50 MW) is much simpler,
with the Hungarian Energy Office issuing licenses for the construction of small
power plants and electricity generation in a single procedure (simplified
licensing procedure), in combined form. 
The Hungarian Energy Office has harmonised
procedures with its partner offices to ensure they are completed quickly and
smoothly. 
The government introduced considerable
simplifications to small cogeneration plants in 2011 by having the Hungarian
Energy Office issue a simplified, single license for small power plants and an
operating license for district heat producers in a single procedure and a
single license. The single license for small power plants referred to above is
not required for power plants with a capacity of less than 50 kVa (known
as  ‘micro power plants’), which can therefore be built quite simply and
quickly.
The fact that the Office refuses to issue
licenses only in the cases provided for in the legislation guarantees the
non-discriminatory and objective operation of the licensing procedure.
Ireland
Ireland “analyse” the
barriers relative to their administrative procedures addressing the thresholds
below which the generator does not need to apply for authorisation. In this
last case, a single authority assesses a single application form. According to
Ireland’s Authorities, there are nine broad criteria that the rest of produces
have to satisfy. 
Italy
Italy has sent a
complete report describing rules and regulations related to the Directive,
describing the historical evolution of cogeneration. However, there is no
discussion about barriers. 
Latvia
In its report, Latvia
describes permits, time required to receive and review permit applications at
various administrative bodies and the administrative bodies involved.
Eventually it concludes, “Latvia has no administrative barriers to the
development of cogeneration, but shortening the time taken for some
administrative procedures would be advisable”. However, “The longest periods of
time are for permits for polluting activity, but these decisions involve public
consultation and coordination between different bodies.” It is also stated that
“shortening the time periods would not currently be useful to promote valid
implementation and increasing of cogeneration capacity". 
Lithuania
In its report, the
analysis about the barriers in relation to administrative procedures boils down
to the statement: there are no fundamental barriers.
Malta
In its report, Malta
states the measures adopted to reduce administrative barriers to the minimum.
Small or micro producer are exempt of some requirements. There is also a
description of these requirements for the rest of producers.
Netherlands
The report says, “As regards administrative
procedures the Dutch Government does not see any specific barriers to cogeneration,
other than those which apply to (energy) projects in the wider sense. An
important simplification is the 'environmental permit', which was introduced as
from 1 October 2010 with the Environmental Law (General Provisions) Act.
The environmental permit is a single integrated permit for building, residence,
monuments, space, nature and environment. Integrating these permits, which
previously had to be applied for separately, is conducive to better service
provision and less red tape for undertakings and citizens, as well as shorter
administrative procedures and consistent rules”.
Poland
Regarding
administrative procedures the Polish report says: “Amendments to the Energy Law
have abolished the licensing requirement for energy cogeneration from low- and medium
capacity sources, with the exception of biogas sources. In this way, one of the
administrative barriers has been eliminated. The decision seems to be right
given the situation in which owners of buildings with a heat demand of 50 kW or
more will be obliged to use their own cogeneration sources.
The current legal framework shifts the
responsibility for energy security in respect of heat supply from central
administration to communes. The activities of the commune in this respect are
based on the so-called “Objectives for the heat, electrical energy and gaseous
fuel supply plan”. Communes have a legal obligation to develop the
“Objectives...”, but no legal sanctions are envisaged if they do not comply. As
a result, most of the Polish communes have not developed the “Objectives...”.
Moreover, in the communes where the “Objectives...” have been developed, no one
actually checks whether the measures envisaged by the objectives are being
implemented. This is a consequence of not only the aforementioned absence of
formal discipline, but also of the incompetence of the communes in the field of
energy. Commune offices lack staff specialising in energy. The Polish Energy
Policy until 2030 promises that this situation will change.”
The Polish report mention substantial
changes of the energy Law to eliminate two significant barriers (related to the
obligation to have heating tariffs approved and provide for the possibility of
combining property laws relating to high efficiency cogeneration using
renewable energy sources, and new provisions aimed at the obligatory connection
of new buildings to district heating networks. Also, as supporting measure, the
information published on the URE website concerning the procedures involved is
mentioned”.
Portugal 
According to the Portuguese report, “the
new law mitigates the majority of the barriers identified. This law has
simplified and streamlined procedures. To this end, the following measures have
been adopted:
·         
Providing cogeneration producers with access to
networks in a non-discriminatory and transparent way;
·         
The manager of the National Electricity
Transmission Network (RNT) giving priority to dispatching electricity from
cogeneration facilities which do not participate in organised markets, in order
to ensure the transmission and distribution of electricity with regard to
access to networks;
·         
Providing dedicated websites in order to
streamline the licensing procedures as well as to simplify the interface
between cogeneration producers and both the body responsible for issuing
guarantees of origin (EEGO) and the Directorate-General for Energy and Geology.
These measures mean a substantial
simplification of the whole procedure relating to cogeneration, from awarding
the production licence to starting operations and selling electricity to the
network or to third parties”.
Romania
Romania does not
provide any description about barriers in relation to administrative barriers.
Sweden
The Swedish report, regarding the
administrative barriers, states “There are no barriers in Sweden to high
efficiency cogeneration production in terms of administrative procedures or
other barriers”. 
Slovakia
The Slovak Republic has submitted a report
based on Article 6(3) of the Directive 2005/8/EC that describes the potential
obstacles of their administrative procedures. The report includes the
requirements to build cogeneration plants. The requirements vary depending on
the size of the plant. The only indirect acknowledgement that the
administrative procedures could constitute a burden is this reference “One of the measures for reducing the administrative burden
on combined production plants with a total installed output of less than 1 MWe
is the establishment of exemptions in the Act on heat energy in relation to
business permits and the requirement to have a professionally competent person”.
Slovenia
Slovenian report enumerate the legislation
defining spatial planning and procedures for granting building permits for
generating equipment for cogeneration of heat and electricity. There is also a
description of some phases of spatial planning for installing generating
equipment for cogeneration of heat and power (CHP); Depending on the type of
fuel and capacities the cogeneration plant, the number of administrative steps
vary. 
To smooth the administrative
barriers it is mentioned that: “In order to shorten procedures for obtaining
permits for micro cogeneration equipment, the Decree on Energy Infrastructure
(OJ RS 75/10) was amended to include equipment generating electricity through
cogeneration of heat and power with a nominal electric power up to and
including 50 kW as simple equipment not requiring a building permit for
installation in existing buildings. Investors only require consent for the
connection from the electricity distribution network systems operator, which
checks whether the prescribed requirements have been met.”
Spain
The main barriers to the development of
high-efficiency cogeneration related to the administrative procedures in Spain
are: “administrative and technical complexity of the procedures for obtaining
authorisation for small-capacity cogeneration installations and for connecting
them to the grid.”
The measures mentioned to overcome all
barriers (even the ones referring in the barriers related to the electricity
grid and other barriers are:
“The introduction of simplified
administrative procedures and simplified technical requirements for connecting
small-capacity cogeneration installations (less than 1 MWe)”
“The creation of special sources of funding
for high-efficiency cogeneration with preferential conditions and reduced
guarantees”.
“An intensive programme of district heating
projects in public installations”.
United Kingdom
Regarding
barriers related to administrative procedures states “CHP schemes need to be
relatively close to where there is a demand for the heat they produce. It is
not always easy to arrange this. The newly established Infrastructure Planning
Commission, will take decisions on planning applications for nationally
significant energy infrastructure. The requirement for developers to
demonstrate that they have fully considered CHP will continue. As part of
existing pollution control regulation, European energy efficiency guidance
encourages the uptake of CHP and better use of surplus heat. The UK Government
will continue to work with the regulators who provide the permits under
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control to encourage energy efficiency in
an industrial and large commercial context”.
2.5.        Barriers in relation to the
electricity grid system and tariff issues (including specific measures for
small scale and micro cogeneration units);
Austria
In its report, Austria
states: “All production technologies are always connected to the electricity
grid system in the same, non-discriminatory manner. In other words the same
grid access conditions apply to cogeneration plants as to all other production
technologies. The Austrian regulator is not aware of any specific existing
barriers to the connection of cogeneration installations to the electricity
grid system.”
Cyprus
In its report, Cyprus do not mention any
barriers related with the electricity grid or tariff issues, although they
summary many other aspects that are summarised in point 3.4.
Bulgaria
Regarding the relation to the electricity
grid and problems with tariffs, Bulgarian authorities state:  “The conditions
for connecting new units to the grid are a barrier that can be overcome and are
not an obstacle to building new cogeneration units”.
Belgium
Walloon region 
According to the report
the contacts with the distribution network operator are sometimes difficult,
since it lacks transparency and may have many administrative procedures. The
few exceptions to the direct electrical connexion between different legal
entities is seen as a barrier related to the electricity grid. The main
measures set in place to overcome this barriers are the ones already given in
point 3.4 for the Walloon region of this report
Flemish region
Regarding the connexion
to the grid the Flanders has already introduced a measure to alleviate the high
cost of connecting to the grid (first kilometre free for CHP plants). Some
parts of the grid need some reinforcement (foreseen for 2014-2015) to allow new
connexions. Also to avoid grid congestion the operation of some CHP plants is remotely
controlled by the grid operator. If this operation is not compensated it can
affect project profitability. The complexity to set this systems and some lacks
of communication regarding meter and power char requirements, and associated
services are an additional burden to the cogeneration projects.
Regarding the tariffs, decentralised
production injection tariffs since 2009 stalled in practice new CHP, to remove
this barrier the Flemish government adopted a Decree which prevents the
injection tariffs from having to be paid for decentralised production from
renewable energy sources and qualitative cogeneration. However, the federal
regulator responsible for the tariffs, has appealed against this Decree to the
Constitutional Court. The Court has yet to deliver its judgment. Also, the main
measures set in place to overcome these barriers are the ones already given in
point 3.4 for the Flemish region of this report.
Brussels Capital
region
According to the report “In Brussels, there is no real barrier linked
to electricity grid system and this can be partly explained by the fact that
the electricity network is really dense and developed (urban character of the
Brussels Capital Region) and that there is only one Distribution Network
Manager (Sibelga), which is sensitive to cogeneration issues as it operates
itself several production units in the Brussels Capital Region.
There are no tariff barriers as the Distribution Network Manager
does not impose injection tariffs for the electricity sent on the grid and as
the production support mechanism consists of Tradable Green Certificates and no
Feed-in Tariffs. The electricity production is sold separately to an
electricity supplier.”
Czech Republic
The Czech report
acknowledge as a barrier “the reservation of connection capacity by projects
that are not implemented in the sphere of renewable energy sources, in
particular photovoltaic power plants, which block grid capacity for other
electricity generators, including those that cogenerate electricity and heat. This
problem should be solved by a new act on promoted energy sources, which, under
certain conditions, cancels the reservation of energy input for photovoltaic
power plants obtained before 1 April 2010 on the date of promulgation of the
act in the Collection of Laws”. 
The Czech report also
mention as general barriers related to the grid connection: the availability of
connection to the grid (financial, time-related), the updating of the grid in
order that electricity generated by way of cogeneration may be supplied, and
unfavourable conditions for reserve supplies of electricity from the grid. 
Denmark
In answer to the 10th
question it is said that “In Denmark electricity produced together with heat is
given priority grid access.” There is no other mention to any issues with the
electricity grid system or tariffs.
Estonia
Estonia states “There
have to date not been any barriers in relation to the electricity grid system
and tariffs which have hindered investment decisions regarding cogeneration
plants. However, the authorities have had to intervene to resolve some disputes
between market participants. An open exchange of information is enough to
overcome the problems that arise. So far Estonia has not used the network
service tariffs applicable to producers but their introduction is being looked
into. However, a fundamental change of this kind must be flexible and take
account of events on neighbouring markets in order not to have an unnecessarily
negative impact on the competitiveness of Estonian electricity producers.”.
Finland
Regarding access to the grid and tariff
issues, Finland says, “The barriers to electricity market access have been
removed and the authorization system basically work well”. 
France
The literal response to the three points of
question 8th is “The French authorities have sent the reports required by the
Directive. The 2008 report pursuant to Article 9 and the report on national
potential sent in October 2010 set out the administrative procedures applicable
to cogeneration installations. These procedures have not changed since the
reports were drafted.” 
Germany 
The is no discussion about the barriers when accessing
the grid, however the report says ”Like plants supported on the basis of the
Renewable Energies Act, CHP plants are also entitled to priority access to the
network and, for as long as they receive subsidies, to distribution of its
electricity by the network operator. Moreover,
since 2009 the construction of new and extension of existing heating networks
have also been promoted through the scheme financed by levies under the
Cogeneration Act.
The costs of the scheme are borne by electricity
consumers. Since 2009 the total amount has
been capped at EUR 750 million per year, of which EUR 150 million per
year for network development. This limit has
not been reached since, however, as the 'evolution' of older, large plants led
to a constant decrease in the scheme's costs in the past couple of years. Meanwhile the construction of new plants followed a
downward trend” .
Greece
In its report, Greece states that the same
procedure used for RES plants applies to matters relating to the connection of
HECHP plants to the System or Grid. Certain opinions from RAE have laid down
the terms and conditions for connecting users (RAE opinion 1/2007 “Approval of
the terms and conditions for connecting users to the Transmission System”) and
determined the fees to be charged for connecting them to the transmission
system (RAE opinion 2/2007 “Approval of the tariffs charged for connecting
users to the Transmission System”). Moreover, certain matters relating to
connecting RES/HECHP power plants to the System or Grid had been regulated
initially by Law 3468/2006 (Article 11), before being replaced by
Law 3851/2010 (Article 4). 
Hungary
Hungary does not
provide any description about barriers in relation to the electricity grid
system or tariff issues
Ireland 
Ireland “analyse” the
barriers relative to barriers in relation to the electricity grid system and
tariff issues addressing saying that: “The Single Electricity Market (the SEM)
on the island of Ireland was established in November 2007 and is a mandatory
gross pool market. Here, generators do not have to find a supplier to contract
with bilaterally, rather they bid in to the pool.  Also, although participation
in the SEM pool is mandatory, smaller generators below a defined minimum level
(currently 10MWe) do not have to do so affording them the option to
trade outside of the pool and avoid administrative costs associated with
participation.  
The rules of the SEM are published on the
web site of the SEM market operator (SEMO http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx ) as are half hourly prices set in the SEM”.
The only reference about access to the grid
is given in the answer to question 1 related to the status of the
implementation of the directive. In their answer, Ireland says: “Certification
as HE CHP qualifies the unit for priority dispatch, for access to the relevant
national support scheme (REFIT) as appropriate and relatively early connection
to the grid in defined circumstances.”
Italy
Despite Italy report enumerate rules and
regulations related to the Directive, there are no potential barriers related
to the access to the grid and tariff issues. 
Latvia
There is no mention about any barriers
accessing the grid or related tariffs. In the Latvian report, it is stated that
the public trader, under the procedure and price stipulated by the cabinet,
will purchase the excess of electricity. The procurement costs shall be covered
by all end users by buying a specific share of electricity generated by
cogeneration. 
Lithuania
In its report, the
analysis about the barriers in relation to electricity grid and tariff issues boils
down to the statement: there are no fundamental barriers
Malta
Malta explains the steps that the
cogeneration applicant has to follow to access the grid: The distribution
system operator (DSO) has to assess the suitability of the connection and the
applicant has to make a Power Purchase Agreement with Enemalta. Malta has
recently set up a ‘feed in tariff’ system for photo-voltaic unit and a similar
incentive for cogeneration units is under consideration.
Netherlands
The Dutch report
states, “In the Netherlands there are no appreciable barriers resulting from
the existing electricity grid system and system of tariffs. Where in the past
network capacity was not sufficient to cope with all cogeneration, congestion
is prevented by expanding the network infrastructure.”. There are additional
details in the answer given to question 6. “Nonetheless, there is a bill in
preparation which will improve the position of cogeneration when there is
network congestion on connecting up to the grid”.  There are extra details
about this bill in preparation in the answer to question 10. Notwithstanding
previous statements, it is also stated that: “grid managers and cogeneration
plant operators do not always interpret the legislation affecting the
distribution of the grid connection costs in the same way”.
Poland
In the Polish report,
the discussion about the barriers related to electricity grid and tariff issues
boils down to state: “The development of cogeneration is further hindered by
problems relating to the connection of cogeneration plants to the power grid.
In many instances, the cost of connections, which must be borne by the
investor, makes up a substantial part of the entire investment cost
Portugal
Regarding tariff issues, the Portuguese
report states that “With the publication of Law No 19/2010, some issues were
changed relating to the methods of the remuneration regime for cogeneration
production, which could cause barriers to the implementation of high-efficiency
cogeneration. In particular, the reference tariff will now comply with the
following requirements:
·         
It must not favour some fuels over others;
·         
It must be indexed to the international
development of fuel prices, to the development of the consumer price index and
to exchange rate developments;
·         
It must reflect the environmental benefits, the
losses avoided on the transmission and distribution networks.”
Romania
Romania does not
provide any description about barriers in relation to the electricity grid
system or tariff issues
Sweden
Regarding the access to the grid of tariff
issues the Swedish report states: “The electricity market has been deregulated
and made competitive with electricity offered (mainly) on Nordpool. There are
no large vertically-integrated operators that ‘squeeze out’ cogenerated
electricity by selling to their own companies in instalments.” 
Slovakia
Regarding the access to the grid it is
said: 
“Under Act No 309/2009,
the preferential connection of electricity production plants to the
distribution system, preferential access to the system, and preferential transmission,
distribution and supply of electricity are obligations applying equally to all
combined production plants and to plants for the production of electricity from
renewable sources. In practice, this is handled on the basis of the order of
submission of applications for connection to the system. In the case of a large
number of applications being submitted (e.g. in relation to the frequent
construction of photovoltaic power plants in 2010) the deadline for
preferential connection to the system is extended.”
“Since the EU supports
not only high-efficiency combined production, but also the production of
electricity from renewable sources, and a binding target has been set for the
use of renewable sources (14% of gross final consumption in 2020) it would
be unrealistic at the national level to give priority to combined
production plants with small and very small outputs in terms of system
connection ahead of plants for the production of electricity from renewable
sources.”
There is also the
following discussion about tariffs: “On the basis of Act No 309/2009 and Act No
267/2001 on regulation in network industries, the Regulatory Office for Network
Industries sets a fixed price for electricity produced by high-efficiency
combined production for a given period through a generally binding law and
along with this issues authorised entities with individual price decisions for
each calendar year. Combined production plant operators are obliged to submit
applications every year for the issuance of a price decision prior to the
issuance of the price decision.”
“Under Act No 267/2001,
the price of heat is also regulated. Heat prices applied by operators of heat
production plants and therefore also combined production plants are assessed
individually by the Regulatory Office for Network Industries. The benefits
arising from the sale of electricity produced by high-efficiency combined
production must, under the procedures set out in the implementing regulations
for Act No 267/2001, be taken into account by the operator in a heat price
proposal, which is approved by the Office through the issuance of a decision.”
“Measures to eliminate
obstacles in the area of tariff-setting and price-setting for electricity and
heat produced by combined production may be implemented through a change in the
approach of the Regulatory Office for Network Industries at least for combined
production plants with small and very small outputs.”
Slovenia
With regard to the electricity network, in
Slovenia “the main barrier for investors is the network connection cost.
Pursuant to Article 64(k) of the Energy Act, CHP generating equipment investors
bear the costs of making the connecting line from the generating equipment to
the connection to the network of the system operator. Meanwhile, generating equipment
investors with a valid declaration do not bear the cost of any upgrade of the
existing transmission or distribution network required due to the connection of
the generating equipment.”
“The next important barrier is that
investors must themselves obtain land use rights for their connecting line from
the owners of land crossed by the connecting line. This sometimes constitutes a
major problem.”
As with measure to ease the barriers it is
said: “To ensure greater transparency in procedures for connecting generating
equipment to the network, the distribution network systems operator, pursuant
to Article 64(m) of the Energy Act, adopted and published the System operating
instructions, incorporating Instructions for connecting and operating power
plants with installed electric power up to 10 MW, which include principles for
determining connection points and requirements for technical equipment, on the
basis of which permits are issued for connections to the network. In the System
operating instructions, the systems operator set out standard rules for
determining the cost of technical implementation of the connection from
generating equipment transmitting electricity generated from renewable sources
or from high‑efficiency cogeneration in the network to the network connection.
These rules are objective, transparent and non-discriminatory and, for
generating equipment up to 10 MW, based on the same starting points as are
used for connecting electricity consumers.”
Spain
The barriers related to
the electricity grid system and tariff issues identified in the Spanish report
are: 
“Availability of the grid for absorbing the
electricity generated. There is a great deal of ignorance and uncertainty
regarding the possibility of connection to the grid, the technical conditions
and, not least, the cost. This is a very important barrier in view of its
strong impact on the financial viability of new projects”.
“Strong competition among energy sources in
electricity generation. There is excess generation capacity in Spain that
could, in the future, cause competition between difference technologies,
including cogeneration”.
United Kingdom
Concerning barriers related to the
electricity grid system and tariff issues the British report states: “A barrier
to the installation of distributed generation including CHP is the cost associated
with upgrading the distribution network. This upgrade is required to move from
a situation where electricity is taken from centralised power plants and
delivered to consumers to one where small-scale generators, such as CHP
installations, can sell surplus power all the time whilst maintaining the
integrity and reliability of the network. A significant increase in the supply
of low carbon and renewable energy sources will be required to meet international
obligations to reduce carbon emissions. Transmission and distribution networks
will need to be upgraded to support a new generating mix”.
“As part of the electricity distribution
price control arrangements that run from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2015, Ofgem,
responsible for the economic regulation of the electricity and gas industries
in Great Britain (GB), operates the Low Carbon Networks (LCN) Fund. The Fund
allows up to £500m support to projects sponsored by the distribution network
operators (DNOs) to try out new technology, operating and commercial
arrangements. The objective of the projects is to help all DNOs understand what
they need to do to provide security of supply at value for money as GB moves to
a low carbon economy”.
2.6.        Other barriers (internalisation
of external costs, energy prices, financial & technical barriers, etc.) in
accordance with Articles 9 and 6 of the Cogeneration Directive 2004/8/EC)
Austria
In its report, Austria
states:  “There are no such explicit barriers. However, the fact that almost
all large installations constructed are based on natural gas is problematic, as
the profitability of investment is always determined by the difference between
gas and electricity prices.”
Cyprus
In its report, Cyprus says that the lack of
natural gas “results in high CHP fuel prices. High fuel prices result in micro
cogeneration systems not being financially viable and especially so in the
tertiary sector. In addition, uncertainty about future fuel prices is a
deterrent to investing in CHP”. Also, the weather conditions affect to the need
for heat and cooling. The low demand makes the investment not economically
viable. Their report also mentions as a barrier the existence of other more
competitive technologies, the investment risk (when compared to other more
competitive technologies), the lack of information, training or technical
knowledge, lack of national financial sources to promote chop (especially micro
units).
Bulgaria
The Bulgarian authorities mention the
barriers when discussing measures dealing with barriers: 
“The downward trend in the consumption of
thermal energy in some sectors of industry and in the domestic sector has
resulted in deterioration in the high-efficiency indicators. The construction
of new installations proportionate to this trend with the added fall in
consumption because of active energy efficiency measures is a suitable measure
for overcoming this barrier”.
“Some energy consumers fail to pay their
bills in time on various social and other grounds. All heat distribution
enterprises are owed money by consumers and operate at a loss, which makes it
difficult to implement investment projects to improve efficiency”.
“A technical barrier to installing
cogeneration systems for heating enterprises is the restricted operating hours
of the schemes, because of great seasonal load fluctuations”.
“The rising trend in gas prices is a
serious barrier to building combined systems”.
Belgium
Walloon region 
There are other
barriers mentioned such as: Uncertainty about prices, demand from the
industrial sector, and about the ETS. Also, the fact that cogeneration is not
the core business of the potential promoters and the sustainability of the
biofuels is seen as a barrier for the cogeneration.
Flemish region
The Flemish report
includes some of the specific obstacles of micro-generation: lack of product
awareness high cost, greater support for alternative generation technologies
and impossibility of selling electricity within apartment buildings`.
Brussels Capital
region
Micro-cogeneration
faces the bottleneck of having just only one supplier in the region, and lack
of consensus about the environmental performances of these machines.
District heating has as
barrier the important investment cost, the complexity of its daily management
and general people aversion to this type of installation. Moreover, a recent
study to build four district heating networks including biomass showed that
these kinds of projects are less attractive than other investment options about
the rational use of energy.
Czech Republic 
With regard to
the barriers no yet treated in points 3.4.5 and 3.5.5 “The emissions trading system is economically unfavourable
for cogeneration facilities with heat input of over 20 MW, which from 1.1.2013
will be forced to buy a progressively rising percentage of permits for carbon
dioxide emissions in auctions. These costs are projected in the prices of heat
from cogeneration and disadvantage it in competition with local or individual
heat production, which is not encumbered by this external factor. In respect of
the fact that the use of cogeneration in local and individual heat production is
minimal, the disadvantage to larger facilities is a significant
barrier to the development of cogeneration of electricity and heat in the Czech
Republic. The Government of the Czech Republic has approved a so-called carbon
tax as of 1.1.2014; this should remove this disadvantage”.
Denmark
Denmark states that “the socioeconomic
potential of cogeneration over and above the existing capacity to be limited,
no further measures were taken to increase the share of high-efficiency
cogeneration in Denmark beyond the existing support schemes described in the
answer to Question 10”. There is no other mention of any other barriers.
Estonia
The fact of having only one gas provider
and the potential fuel price changes is reckoned as a mayor barrier. Therefore,
also the lack of investments in the gas network of the provider affects the
availability of the gas natural. Also, the lack of a gas network with the Baltic
gas pipeline and the Finnish gas network is a barrier to using gas for
cogeneration in central and western Estonia and on the islands of Hiiumaa and
Saaremaa. Apparently, potential alternative fuels such as peat and renewable
biofuel have high risks due to “the confusion surrounding the greenhouse gas
emission allocation plan and the trading system”. The report includes a
discussion about the variability of the price of alternative biofuels, but
without stating clearly that this variability of alternative fuels us a
barrier. However, the fact that a considerable proportion of the heating market
is made up of relatively low-consumption networks is considered as another
barrier to the development of cogeneration.  
Finland
In its report, Finland presents a
discussion about the increase of competition of district heating with other
energy sources such as geothermal heat, and other systems. Describes the
objectives of Finnish energy policy, describes the energy taxation reform, and
the challenges that the industry face due to the Industrial emissions
directive. The flexibility offer to district heating plants does not lessen
their need for investments. The investments needed will favour district
heating. There is also the mention that “Building regulations do not in
themselves present an obstacle to cogeneration, but in some cases they may
affect the competitiveness of district heating compared to other heating
methods and thus create a financial barrier to district heating and thereby
also to cogeneration”. 
France
The literal response to the three points of
question 8th is “The French authorities have sent the reports required by the
Directive. The 2008 report pursuant to Article 9 and the report on national
potential sent in October 2010 set out the administrative procedures applicable
to cogeneration installations. These procedures have not changed since the
reports were drafted”. 
Germany
In the point of their report devoted to obstacles to
high-efficiency cogeneration that says  “Over the past few years the pace of
investment in large CHP plants has been sluggish” also give similar reasons:
“the future arrangements for emissions trading and the particularly volatile
economic and energy situation (above all as regards price trends for fuel and
plants). After all, operators of CHP plants
must, as with all conventional energy producers, also take account of the
prospect of falling utilisation rates in the light of increased expansion of
renewable energies and the consequences of this for the plants' economic viability
(in this regard, see the debate on a future electricity market”.
Greece
Greece describes four barriers 1) an
undeveloped heat market due to the low and irregular demand for heat and
cooling. 2) Difficulty in investment financing, this difficulty is enhanced by
the lack of attractiveness of these technologies compared to RES investments.
3) Limited district heating network. 
Hungary 
Hungary does not provide any discussion or
description about any other barriers (apart of the already discussed in point
3.4.12). 
Ireland 
What follows is the analysis about the rest
of barriers from Ireland “There are a number of significant barriers to CHP
development in Ireland ranging from market structure through economic factors
to appropriate heat loads to ensure compliance with the requirements of
Directive 2004/8/EC".
The structure of Ireland’s industrial base
and its housing pattern is not conducive to significant penetration of CHP. 
Ireland’s industry is primarily based on high value, low energy intensity sectors
such as pharmaceuticals, ICT and services industries.  One energy intense
industrial site (an alumina refinery) has a 160 MWe cogeneration
plant which accounts for more than 50% of the total national installed
capacity.  A recently opened waste-to-energy plant with a generating capacity
of 22 MWe is located in an area with no immediate local heat load. 
District heating which is often associated with CHP plants in other European
countries has no tradition in Ireland due to the distribution of a relatively
small population, a mild climate and low density and low rise housing.  Indeed
it is possible that improvements in the energy efficiency of Irish housing
stock that is currently being driven by government legislation and capital
supports will militate further against district heating by making its economic
viability more challenging.
The current economic climate is not
conducive to investment generally, let alone to investment in CHP.  In
addition, the spark gap (ratio between electricity and gas price) remains at a
level (typically between 3.5 and 4.5 for industrial applications) which is
insufficient to provide an acceptable payback for most CHP operations.  There
are instances where units have been mothballed as a result.
Heat loads that are necessary for CHP to be
economically viable and to enable compliance with Directive 2004/8/EC are not
readily available in Ireland.  While some of the largest industries (cement
& periclase manufacture and mining) consume a significant proportion of
industrial fossil fuels and electricity, they are not suited to CHP due to the
mismatch between the heat output from CHP plants and the thermal demand of
those industries.  Other large scale industries, such as the dairy sector,
operate on a seasonal basis which does not favour economic operation of CHP”.
Italy
In spite of the fact that Italian report
enumerates rules and regulations related to the Directive, and the historical
evolution of many aspects of cogeneration, there is not any analysis of
barriers. 
Latvia
The Non-regulatory barriers mentioned by
Latvia are: technical barriers financial (investment), operational problems,
access to raw material sources and the necessary infrastructure, public
attitudes, internalisation of external costs (for example, new taxes).
Nevertheless, “overall, it can be concluded that Latvia has no significant
non-regulatory barriers to the uptake of high-efficiency cogeneration
potential”. There are not any additional details about these barriers that
their mention. 
Lithuania
With regard to other barriers, Lithuanian
authorities only mention some issues related to Natural gas, more concretely it
is said: ”Natural gas, which is the main type of fuel used in cogeneration
plants, is supplied from a single source – Russia. This makes it difficult to
forecast natural gas price variations and poses the risk of disruptions in
supplies. It is a factor impeding the development of natural gas-fired
cogeneration plants. There are several alternatives for ensuring reliable gas
supplies, of which the construction of a liquefied natural gas terminal in
Klaipėda constitutes the most economically advantageous alternative. Another
weighty alternative, which has a strategic importance in regional terms,
includes a gas link to Poland enabling the connection of Baltic States’ gas
grids to Poland and Western Europe.
One more barrier to cogeneration is that a
natural gas transmission system is underdeveloped in the western part of the
country and this has negative implication for cogeneration developments in the
region. To overcome this barrier, a new gas pipeline from Jurbarkas to Klaipėda
is planned to be built by 2014 to connect the future liquefied natural gas
terminal to the Lithuanian natural gas transmission system and thus form a
natural gas transmission circle system. This would create more favourable
conditions for the development of cogeneration in the western region of
Lithuania”. 
Malta
With regard to other barriers Malta states
that “other barriers to the installation of CHP units could be: (i) the lack of
informed knowledge on the technology, (ii) the limited ‘heat’ requirements of
Malta due to its geographical location: (iii) the lack of interest and
promotion from the companies producing such units due to the limited market on
the Islands, (iv) the lack of a natural gas grid which could provide micro
co-generation units a further prospect, (v) the appreciable installation of PV
units on the premises of the industrial and commercial sector coupled with the
use of LPG boilers which could present a more attractive alternative for their
energy use to interested parties, (vi) limited awareness of the possible
benefits, (vii) lack of internalisation of external cost in electricity and
fuel prices”.
Netherlands
Another example of a barrier is the lack of
commercial availability of small-scale cogeneration plants on the market. The
Subsidy Scheme on Sustainable Heat for Existing Houses is intended inter alia
to overcome this barrier. Where a lack of knowledge forms a barrier, objective
knowledge is disseminated via the National Centre for Expertise on Heat.
Internalisation of external costs takes place through the energy tax and the
Emissions Trading System. In addition there are permit conditions for emissions
other than CO2 (e.g. NOx, SOx and volatile
organic compounds), while large‑scale installations also come under the NOx
trading system.
The report also includes the barriers
already mentioned in the previous progress report prepared in 2010 by the
Netherlands.  For which no solutions are being sought or are in the offing.
These are as follows:
·         
Much of the technical potential has already been
realised;
·         
Increasing flexibility in the demand for heat
reduces the number of operating hours of cogeneration plants;
·         
Industrial and domestic (i.e. household)
heat demand is declining due to increasing energy efficiency; 
·         
Providing the infrastructure for heat
distribution in an urban environment is expensive;
·         
in some cases it is uncertain whether an
industrial heat demand exists;
·         
Innovative energy concepts in greenhouse
horticulture limit the potential for cogeneration;
·         
Gas price volatility creates a risk for parties
considering whether to invest in cogeneration;
·         
Grid managers and cogeneration plant operators
do not always interpret the legislation affecting the distribution of the grid
connection costs in the same way.
Poland 
According to the Polish report there are no
technical barriers, the barriers are economic (financial), environmental,
infrastructural, legal administrative and social. The economic barriers are offset
by the certificates of origin, however this system will be in use until 31
March 2012, the lack of a clear definition of future support can mean a barrier
in the decision-making process of new investments. The high cost of the
construction of new district heating networks is mentioned as an additional
barrier. Also the ETS and IPPC directives are perceived as barriers related to
the emissions from cogeneration. District heating can suffer from the fact that
they will have to participate in the ETS, whereas local heat producers not. The
decrease of the heat demand due to improvements in energy efficiency will
reduce the potential for high-efficiency cogeneration. A social barrier is the
reluctance of the building owner to be connected to district heating network
because the procedures and costs involved in the connection. Another social
barrier is related to the lack of awareness by the public of
micro-cogeneration. The limited amount of biomass and the competition for it is
perceived as an additional barrier. 
Portugal 
Regarding the rest of the barriers the
Portuguese report states that the new Law “fixes a transitional remuneration
regime for facilities which are already operating, and allows producers to
choose the previous remuneration regime, or to transfer to the new regime
within a period laid down by law and keep the validity of the operating
licences which they have been given”.
Romania
Romania does not provide any discussion or
description about barriers. However, it includes the following statement “there
continues to be a slight downward trend in useful heat demand for heating”. 
Sweden 
“With regard to small-scale cogeneration
installations, the main barrier is high investment costs, particularly for
incinerating solid fuels. The market for district heat is another decisive
factor. Small-scale cogeneration installations also have fairly low electric
efficiency and alpha values, which poses challenges for the development of the
technology. 
Potential barriers to the expansion of
(high efficiency) cogeneration in Sweden are mainly exogenous by nature and it
is not possible to influence them directly. Examples of potential barriers to
the expansion of cogeneration include rising steel and biofuel prices. The
price of electricity is particularly significant with regard to continued
development. A decreasing demand for heat as the result of energy efficiency
improving measures for energy consumption can have a negative impact on the
development of cogeneration. A barrier of this kind must be overcome by the
district heating companies themselves with the development of technology and
compensation in the form of a widened customer base”.
Slovakia
The Slovak report mentions like barrier the
gathering of statistical information on plants and on combined production.
Also, “the introduction of the calculation of the amount of electricity
produced by combined production within the meaning of Commission Decision
2008/952/EC, since the operators of combined production plants have yet to
master these calculations sufficiently”. As technical obstacles it is mentioned
that:
 “The technical potential of
high-efficiency combined production is reduced particularly by the:
–       
reduced heat consumption resulting from
application of the energy efficiency policy,
–       
increased use of renewable energy sources in the
heating and the preparation of hot water (heat pumps, solar collectors),
–       
increased use of renewable energy sources for
the production of electricity (growth of demand for regulated electricity,
which is provided mainly by combined production plants, as a result of which,
however, overall efficiency declines, and the proportion of electricity
produced by high-efficiency combined production falls)”.
Slovenia
The Slovenian report mentions the following
barriers: 

 Lack of awareness of cogeneration technology and the advantages
     of its use;
 Uncertainty regarding forecast future prices for natural gas
     and wood biomass;
 Protracted administrative procedures;
 Insufficiently active local communities in preparing local
     energy plans and introducing district heating systems;
 Uncertain general economic conditions and the impact on the
     cost of financing new projects and current company operations.

Spain 
Under the heading of other barriers the
Spanish report mentions the following barriers: 
“The volatile nature of thermal-energy
consumer-undertakings, which prevents investment in new cogeneration projects”.
“Access to funding for promoters of
cogeneration projects. Cogeneration projects bear a higher risk than those
involving electricity generation from renewable sources because of the
stability [sic] of demand for useful heat. This means that financial
institutions require more guarantees”. 
“The lack of experience in using
cogeneration in public projects, such as district heating.
Uncertainty regarding the impact of
financial factors on the need to hand over CO2 emission rights. This
means that projects with only a small profit margin are not undertaken”. 
United Kingdom
The British report mentions as barrier the
effect of the spark spread - – the difference between the price received for
the electricity and the cost of generation – not being large enough to provide
an adequate return on investment, and the adverse economic situation. Also the
access to main gas networks is seen as a significant barrier for some parts of
the UK. The exempt from Hydrocarbon Oil Duty Rates for facilities using diesel
in CHP is aimed at offsetting this barrier. The rest of the barriers mentioned
are informational barriers and the absence of an established market for heat.
To compensate the lack of awareness, “In October 2008, DECC launched CHP Focus,
a website and free helpline service for assisting the development of new and
existing CHP schemes” The UK Government under their Energy Market Reform are
also considering additional measures for incentivising low carbon generation
including:
·         
“Structuring an Emissions Performance Standard
(EPS) – which sets as an annual limit the amount of carbon new fossil-fuel
power stations can emit- to avoid acting as a disincentive to investment in
CHP, as far as is practicable.”
·         
“Varying a new system of long-term contracts in
the form of Feed-in Tariffs with Contracts for Difference (FiT CfD) that
provides clear, stable and predictable revenue streams for investors in
low-carbon electricity generation- in order to develop an approach that is best
suited to each of the low-carbon generation types. CHP is being considered as
part of this mechanism”.
3.           System of Guarantees of Origin (GO)
3.1.        Existence of GO schemes
Article 5 of the
Directive requires Member States to ensure that accurate and reliable
guarantees of origin are issued according to objective, transparent and
non-discriminatory criteria. Member States were
asked (Question 5) to indicate what the situation is concerning the
implementation of this measure in their country (information on primary energy
savings, type of registration system).
The table below gives
an overview of the state of implementation of GO systems in the Member States
as given by their reports.
Member States were also asked (Question 4) if
their country used the alternative calculation method according to Article
12(2) of Directive 2004/8/EC. The answers to this are summarized in Table 4-1
below.
Table 33:  Overview
table of the state of implementation/existence of the GO systems by Member
States
 MS || Is the Alt Calc used? Art 12(2) || Description || GO system in place? 
 BE || yes || Brussels Capital Region: Decision of 19th July 2007 of the Brussels government concerning the guarantees of origin. Wallonia - GOLs (guarantee of origin labels) since 2007. Flanders - Statistics are compiled annually and there is an operational system of guarantees of origin. With regard to the application of Annex II to the issuing of guarantees of origin for electricity from cogeneration, the principles of the Decision are applied. A forthcoming revision of the Belgian legislation concerned will include more consistent application of the Decision. || yes 
 BG || no || Bulgaria has appointed the State Energy and Water Regulation Commission (DKEVR) as the independent competent authority for issuing certificates of origin for electricity and guaranteeing that the criteria and rules for issuing certificates of origin are kept. Under Article 21(1)(14) of the Energy Act (ZE), the DKEVR issues power generators with certificates of origin for cogenerated electricity. The procedures and definitions needed to apply the methods for determining the amounts of cogenerated electricity issued by the Commission on 19 November 2008 are reflected in Regulation No RD-16-267 of 19 March 2008.   || yes 
 CZ ||   || The Ministry of Industry and Trade issues certificates of origin relating to cogeneration based on Act No. 165/2012 Sb. on promoted energy sources (according to Section 47), whereby the application forms are published on the Ministry of Industry and Trade website. Records of the certificates issued are kept by the Ministry of Industry and Trade separately. || yes 
 DK || no || In the Order of 16 February 2007 on guarantees of origin for electricity from high-efficiency cogeneration, the Agency put in place a mechanism to issue and verify guarantees of origin in respect of high-efficiency cogeneration. The registration system is administered by energinet.dk. || yes 
 DE ||   || The EU provisions on the guarantee of origin for CHP electricity are transposed in Section 9a of the Cogeneration Act || yes 
 EE || no || Although Estonia has implemented a certificate of origin scheme and it is possible to obtain certificates of origin from the system operator, the legal basis of the Estonian scheme is being improved. At the same time Estonia does not intend to link the support schemes arising from the Electricity Market Act with the certificates of origin. || yes 
 IE || no || The Directive 2004/8/EC is fully transposed, with the exception of Article 5 – Guarantee of Origin (GOO).  Consideration was given to including Guarantee of Origin in recent regulations (S.I. 147 of 2011), but it was decided to await the new Directive on energy efficiency. Essentially the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER www.cer.ie ) have the power to do the certification of HE CHP under S.I. 298 and 299 of 2009, but not to give guarantees of origin. To date, no formal requests for GO have been received. || no 
 EL || no || Ministerial Decision Δ6/Φ1/off.8786/14-05-2010 provided a more detailed framework for the implementation of the system of guarantees of origin generated by HECHP plants and the mechanism used for securing the system. Moreover, the system of guarantees of origin and the mechanism used for securing the system applies only to the amount of energy generated by HECHP plants and is calculated in accordance with the provisions of Law 3734/2009 (Article 1 of Ministerial Decision Δ6/Φ1/off.8786/14-05-2010). Concerning the control mechanism used to verify that the requirements for the issue of guarantees of origin are met and the information used as a basis for issue thereof is accurate, the issuing organisation and its authorised agents have free access to the plant, as well as to all necessary details or information. The producer shall have to facilitate the work of the issuing organisation or its authorised agents. Inspections may be performed periodically, at any time, even without warning, and the time between two successive inspections may not be longer than 5 years. || yes 
 ES || no || In Spain, the Comisión Nacional de la Energía administers the system for issuing guarantees of origin for electricity generated using renewable fuels and high-efficiency cogeneration. The system has operated since 1 December 2007 with the aim of informing final consumers about the origin of the electricity they consumer and its environmental impact. The system for the issue of guarantees of origin in Spain is governed by Order No ITC/1522/2007 of 24 May 2007 laying down rules on guarantees of origin for electricity generated using renewable fuels and high-efficiency cogeneration. || yes 
 FR || no || The French system of guarantees of origin was the same for electricity produced by cogeneration and electricity produced from renewable sources, and it was necessary to amend the legislative basis of the system in order to transpose the guarantee of origin provisions in Directive 2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. This amendment was introduced by order no 2011-1105 of 14 September 2011 published in the Official Journal of the French Republic of 16 September 2011, which consolidated in Articles L.314-44 and following of the Energy Code the new legislative provisions applied to guarantees of origin. || yes 
 IT || no || The Directive was first implemented in Italy with Legislative Decree No 20 of 8 February 2007 [2] which among other things brought in the guarantee of origin for HEC. Pursuant to this Decree, the conditions for defining HEC laid down in the Directive only apply from 31 December 2010; electricity produced prior to that date shall, however, be assessed on the basis of the previous rules (Decision No 42/2002 by the Regulatory Authority for Electricity and Gas (AEEG) [3]). The Directive was implemented with the Ministry for Economic Development's Decree of 4 August 2011, issued in consultation with the Ministry for the Environment, Protection of Natural Resources and the Sea. The issuing of this Decree was necessary to take account of two Commission Decisions [12, 13] adopted after this Directive. || yes 
 CY || yes || The 2011 Regulations on Cogeneration of Electricity and Heat (Publication process, Management and Safeguarding Mechanism of Guarantees of Origin of Electricity Supply) (Annex II) establish the implementing rules for the system for issuing guarantees of origin and the system for safeguarding the reliability of the system. In order to comply with Article 5 of Directive 2004/08/EC and Directive 2001/77/EC on renewable energy sources, and based on Act No 174(I)/2006 and Act No 162(I)/2006 on the promotion of CHP facilities and renewable energy sources, an electronic register has been created and is up and running, through which Guarantees of Production Origin from CHP and REN will be issued, transferred and cancelled. This sector has regulations, laws, technical manuals and other information regarding the electronic register. The electronic registration system for guarantees of origin is handled by the Transmission System Operator (TSO). || yes 
 LV || no || Latvia’s certificate of origin system for electricity generated by cogeneration is laid down in the Electricity Market Law and Chapter V of Cabinet Regulation No 221. Economic operators can obtain a certificate of origin that the electricity generated by a cogeneration power station owned by them complies with stipulated efficiency requirements and therefore is acknowledged to be electricity generated by high-efficiency cogeneration. Such certificates of origin are issued by the Ministry of the Economy. If economic operators wish to receive a certificate of origin for electricity generated in one year, when submitting a report to the Ministry of the Economy on the operation of every cogeneration power station they own, they make a note in their submission that they wish to receive a certificate of origin. || yes 
 LT || no || that an undertaking transacting the functions of an electricity transmission system operator (TSO) is a body responsible for the issue and withdrawal of guarantees of origin certificates for electricity produced from high efficiency cogeneration (hereinafter referred to as ‘guarantees of origin certificates’). The TSO keeps a register of entities managing cogeneration plants. Information on the registered guarantees of origin certificates, the quantities of electricity produced from high-efficiency cogeneration and the amounts of primary energy savings are available on TSO’s website http://www.litgrid.eu/go.php/Efektyv_kogener. || Yes 
 LU ||   || No information received ||   
 HU || no || The introduction of guarantees of origin in Hungary is laid down in Section 12(1) of Electricity Act LXXXVI of 2007. Under Government Decree 389/2007 of 23 December 2007 the guarantee of origin is a document certifying the amount (in MWh) in a given calendar year of electricity generated by energy from renewable sources or waste and by cogeneration and, in the case of cogenerated electricity, complying with the conditions of Decree 110/2007 of the Minister for Economic Affairs and Transport of 23 December 2007 on the calculation method for determining the amount of high-efficiency cogenerated electricity and useful heat. || yes 
 MT || no || The regulation establishing “guarantees of origin” came into force by means of the Guarantees of Origin of electricity from high Efficiency Cogeneration and Electricity, Heating, and / or Cooling from Renewable Energy Sources Regulations (LN 92/10 as amended by LN 126/11 and was amended to include references to “ guarantees of origin” for the Renewables Directive (Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable source s and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC || yes 
 NL || no || Since 14 December 2005, the 1998 Electricity Act has provided a framework for the nature, operation and application of guarantees of origin for high-efficiency cogeneration (Article 77(ca) to 77(ce)). Detailed provisions for the guarantees of origin are contained in the 'Regulation on guarantees of origin for electricity generated in a high‑efficiency cogeneration plant' (WJZ7105952/BWBR0022539). The implementing provisions for establishing the detailed guidelines are laid down in that Regulation with an amendment that entered into force on 1 December 2009. || yes 
 AT || no || Since 2003 the Austrian regulator has maintained a central electricity guarantee database in which both guarantees of origin of electricity produced from renewable energy and other national and international electricity guarantees can be electronically issued, administered and traded. || yes 
 PL ||   || The new Article 9(e) (1(a)) of the Energy Law, from 11 March 2010, introduces new changes to the existing scheme. || yes 
 PT || yes || Pursuant to Decree-Law No 23/2010, the Portuguese State entrusted the procedure for issuing Guarantees of Origin to the National Electricity Network (REN), the concession holder of the National Transmission Network (RNT). The REN is a member of the Association of Issuing Bodies (AIB), an international organisation which promotes the use of a standard certification system based on a harmonisation of structural concepts and procedures, the aim of which is to ensure the correct operation of the international system of energy certificates. With the support of the European Commission, the scope of the certificate systems was extended to include the requirements resulting from Directive 2004/08/EC, developing an approach which includes the Guarantees of Origin (GO) indicated in Article 5 of the Directive. || yes 
 RO ||   || No information received ||   
 SI || no || The provisions of the Directive on the promotion of high‑efficiency cogeneration (2004/8/EC).were transposed into Slovenian law by amendments to the Energy Act in 2004. Article 64(f) of the Energy Act stipulates that a guarantee of origin of electricity is a document that enables generators to show that the electricity they produced was generated in high-efficiency cogeneration or from renewable sources. Guarantees of origin may be transferred to another party, or may serve as proof that electricity was generated in high-efficiency cogeneration or from renewable sources when obtaining operational support or for guaranteed purchases of electricity. || yes 
 SK || no || Guarantees of the origin (confirmations of the origin) of electricity produced by high-efficiency combined production are issued on the basis of Act No 309/2009 by the Regulatory Office for Network Industries on the basis of applications submitted together with the required attachments. The confirmations are issued in the form of a decision of the Office on a printed form. The Office keeps a record of the confirmations issued. At present no control mechanism is established for checking confirmations issued in respect of the origin of electricity produced by high-efficiency combined production. || yes 
 FI || no || Provisions on the granting of guarantees of origin are laid down in an Act and in a Government Decree adopted on the basis thereof. The guarantee of origin is granted by the national grid company Fingrid (TSO) once the applicant has submitted the information necessary to obtain the guarantee in accordance with the Directive. This activity is supervised by the Energy Market Authority. The certificate issued under the European Energy Certificate System EECS is considered equivalent to the certificate referred to in the Act on Verification and Notification of Origin of Electricity || yes 
 SE || yes || A new Act also means increased safety and reliability, since under it guarantees of origin must be issued, transferred and annulled electronically. Seems highly robust. || yes 
 UK || yes ||   || yes 
5 Member States used
the alternative calculation, 11 did not, and 1 country provided no information
on this question.
All countries have
implemented a GO system except EI.
3.2.        Individual assessment of National GO schemes
In general, from the information received,
all Member States apart from Ireland state that they have fully operational GO systems.
Based on the information provided the Member States are confident that their GO
schemes comply with the requirements of the relevant Directives. This statement
is therefore assumed to apply to all Member States apart from Ireland, which
says it will be implementing the necessary regulations pending the implementing
of the Energy Saving Directive.  In the table below comments specific to Member
States regarding robustness are added where appropriate.
All Member States were asked if there is
any need for their country to review in accordance with Article 13 the (Question
5) threshold values used for calculation of electricity from cogeneration
and/or the threshold values used for calculation of efficiency of cogeneration
production and primary energy savings. The responses are included in the table
below:
Table 34: 
Individual comments on robustness, and the need for review of reference values
(Art 13)
 MS || Q5 – Need to review reference values? || Individual comments on robustness of  GO schemes 
 BE || No || Comprehensive system for all 3 regions 
 BG || No || No information received 
 CZ ||   || Comprehensive system 
 DK || No || No information received 
 DE ||   || Comprehensive system 
 EE || No || Does not intend to link the support scheme arising from the electricity Market Act with the certificates of origin. 
 IE || No || No information received 
 EL || No || No information received 
 ES || No || No information received 
 FR || No || No information received 
 IT || * || No information received 
 CY || No || No information received 
 LV || No || No information received 
 LT || * || Not indicated 
 LU ||   || No information received 
 HU || No || No information received 
 MT || No || No information received 
 NL || No || No information received 
 AT || No || System permits GOs to be internationally traded. Very comprehensive description of system operation given 
 PL ||   || The new Energy Law, from 11 March 2010 and this seems to be a robust system. 
 PT || No || The REN is a member of the Association of Issuing Bodies (AIB), an international organisation which promotes the use of a standard certification system based on a harmonisation of structural concepts and procedures, the aim of which is to ensure the correct operation of the international system of energy certificates. 
 RO ||   || No specific information 
 SI || No || No specific information 
 SK || ** || SK states that at present no control mechanism is established for checking confirmations issued in respect of the origin of electricity produced by high-efficiency combined production. 
 FI || No || No information received 
 SE || No || A new Act also means increased safety and reliability, since under it guarantees of origin must be issued, transferred and annulled electronically, it seems highly robust. 
 UK || No || No information received 
 * = no specific response. ** = some concerns were expressed, but not specifically calling for a review. 
19 countries did not perceive a need to
review the reference values, 2 made no specific response, and Slovakia made
some comments on difficulties experienced but did not call for a review.
3.3.        Assessment for the EU as a whole
Taking the
statements from the Member States as a whole, it seems that the GO system is
well entrenched in all countries, except Ireland where there has been little
demand and a system will soon be in place. All GO systems appear to be robust
and comprehensive.
There is no clear
need expressed for a review in accordance with Article 13 of the threshold
values used for calculation of electricity from cogeneration and/or the
threshold values used for calculation of efficiency of cogeneration production
and primary energy savings.
4.           Grid system rules, access to electricity grid
This chapter examines the Member States
responses to the questionnaire regarding grid system access rules for High
Efficiency CHP.
In order to provide clarity the responses
have been divided into three groups, A, B, and C answering the questions posed
below:
Part A: Is
there priority access? If so, how it is organized? Is it ensured via
operational support, such as feed-in tariffs, price premium, purchase
obligation or other support mechanism? Is there a link with the GO system or
other certification scheme? 
How is access to the grid guaranteed? 
Part B: How
the distinction of high-efficiency CHP is organized for the purpose of priority
dispatch?
Part C: What
are the connection rules? 
Are there specific connection and grid
access rules for micro-CHP and small scale CHP?  
4.1.        The responses to on priority access
The responses to questions under Part A can
be found in table 35.
Table 35: Responses from Member States to the issues
in part A of the questionnaire
 Is there priority access? If so, how it is organized? Is it ensured via operational support, such as feed-in tariffs, price premium, purchase obligation or other support mechanism. Is there a link with the GO system or other certification scheme? How is access to the grid guaranteed? 
 A “y” indicates that support is given which will assist access. It cannot be determined if this means guaranteed access results. “yy” indicates that guaranteed access results or is applied. 
 MS || Is there priority access / despatch? || Mechanism || Link with GO ? 
 BE || y || A range of support schemes ||   
 BG || yy || The mandatory purchase of all energy produced through high efficiency cogeneration at preferential rates; New installations with an output exceeding 5 MW powered with natural gas must be designed as cogeneration plants. || y 
 CZ ||   || No specific information ||   
 DK || yy || Cogeneration is given the financial support required to cover the necessary investment costs without unduly increasing the district heating costs borne by consumers. Operating aid is also provided for high-efficiency cogeneration. Cogeneration has clear priority from government policies. ||   
 DE ||   || No information received ||   
 EE || yy || under the Electricity Market Act under which support is paid for electricity produced in efficient cogeneration plants, investment aid is granted in Estonia for low-capacity cogeneration plants fuelled on sustainable fuels. || n 
 IE ||   || Ireland has an existing application to DG Competition for State Aids clearance for a REFIT which has preferred rates for biomass CHP and anaerobic digestion CHP.  ||   
 EL || yy || The key tool for supporting investments in HECHP plants is guaranteed tariffs for the generated electricity fed into the System or Grid, including the Grid of the Non-Interconnected Islands, on the basis of a defined price expressed in Euro per MWh of electricity for a definite period of time. Application of this mechanism provides stable long-term investment conditions.  Law 2773/1999, as amended by Law 3426/2005, Law 3175/2003 and Law 2837/2000, stipulated that the System or Grid Operator should give priority access to the electricity generated from RES and cogeneration systems. Law 3468/2006 stipulated that the competent System or Grid Operator should, in allocating the load, give priority to HECHP plants using RES or a combination of RES and gaseous fuels, irrespective of installed capacity, as well as to HECHP plants of an installed capacity of up to 35 ΜWe. || y 
 ES || y || There is a system of financial support for cogeneration provided for by Royal Decree No 661/2007, which is based on the Directive. The following support is provided for cogeneration: - Priority access to the grid. - The transfer of net electricity production to the grid via the transmission or distribution network provided that absorption by the grid is technically possible. - Receipt for the sale of net electricity production of a financial return based on the financial scheme chosen, either sale at regulated tariffs or sale on the market. Where electricity is sold on the market, a premium on top of the market price is paid. In addition, the tariff and the premium are indexed to the price of the raw material (fuel) used for cogeneration. ||   
 FR || yy || French support scheme for CHP contains an obligation to purchase electricity produced by cogeneration (in particular as regards biomass installations). This support scheme comprises various guaranteed electricity purchase tariffs to support HEC ||   
 IT || y || A range of incentives are offered to support HEC ||   
 CY || yy || Grants and feed in schemes. Obligation to purchase. ||   
 LV || yy || Three support instruments for HEC 1.        Compulsory purchase  of electricity; 2.        Guaranteed payment for installed electrical capacity; 3.        To promote the development of cogeneration power stations using renewable energy sources, targeted grants for investment in the construction of such power stations are provided for, utilising European Union Structural Fund financing for this purpose. ||   
 LT || yy || There are specific quotas laid down requiring a certain amount of cogenerated power from district heating plant to be bought at pre specified prices. A powerful support. ||   
 LU ||   || No information received ||   
 HU ||   || The situation for support is not clear ||   
 MT || n || Very limited support, CHP seen as unnecessary due to climate ||   
 NL || y || Priority connection to the grid and  priority access to transport capacity in the event of congestion in the grid for high‑efficiency cogeneration will shortly come into effect. These support measures are intended as a means of structurally reducing risks in the development and operation of high‑efficiency cogeneration ||   
 AT || y || 3 schemes – operational aid, and investment aid ||   
 PL || y || The support mechanism for undertakings producing electricity from high-efficiency cogeneration consists in the obligatory reception, transmission or distribution of the generated energy by the distribution system operator ||   
 PT || yy || Support for cogeneration is given by means of a reference tariff, efficiency premiums and renewable energy premiums. The manager of the National Electricity Transmission Network (RNT) giving priority to dispatching electricity from cogeneration facilities which do not participate in organised markets, in order to ensure the transmission and distribution of the electricity with regard to access to networks. ||   
 RO ||   || No specific information ||   
 SI || yy || irrespective of the price of electricity in the market, the support centre buys all the acquired net electricity produced, for which the CHP generating equipment has received guarantees of origin, || y 
 SK || yy || The preferential connection of electricity production plants to the distribution system, preferential access to the system, and preferential transmission, distribution and supply of electricity are obligations applying equally to all combined production plants and to plants for the production of electricity from renewable sources || y 
 FI || yy || Feed in tariffs and reduced carbon taxes are used to support hi efficiency cogeneration. ||   
 SE ||   || No information received ||   
 UK || n || No guaranteed access || n 
Overall assessment of the responses to
Part A of the questionnaire
12 countries have priority grid access. 6
have some kind of assisted access. Italy, Malta and the UK do not appear to
have priority access for cogeneration.  Four Member States link priority access
with the GO scheme, two Member States countries specifically state that
priority access is not linked to the GO. Sixteen Member States do not state if
it is so linked.
4.2.        The guarantees of origin and priority dispatch
The Table below describes the responses to
the issues in part B of the questionnaire: “How the distinction of
high-efficiency CHP is organized for the purpose of priority dispatch”
Table 36: Responses
to the issues on priority dispatch
 MS || How is the distinction of high-efficiency CHP organised for the purpose of priority dispatch? 
 BE || Not stated / Not clear – but does not seem to be an inhibitory factor 
 BG || the following criteria are considered: Predominant nature of the main thermal load; Type of fuel used; Cogeneration technology; Unit/station capacity 
 CZ || No specific  information 
 DK || All CHP in Denmark is HE and it is government policy to allow priority access. 
 DE || No information received 
 EE || Not stated / Not clear 
 IE || All projects supported had to demonstrate compliance with the threshold values in Annex III(a) when applying the methodology in Annex III(b) of Directive 2004/8/EC. 
 EL || Registered in GO system 
 ES || Not stated / Not clear 
 FR || Not stated / Not clear 
 IT || Not stated / Not clear 
 CY || The EAC is obliged to buy electricity produced by combined electricity and high-efficiency useful heat, or through cogeneration from renewable energy sources at the current emission prevention price, as set by CERA at that time. 
 LV || To receive guaranteed payments for installed electrical capacity, the Ministry of the Economy must issue a decision on qualification for compulsory procurement or allocation of the right to receive guaranteed payments for installed electrical capacity, with heat and electricity tariffs approved by the Public Utilities Commission. Stipulated efficiency criteria (the saving of primary energy sources is greater than 1% for low capacity cogeneration stations and not less than 10% for other cogeneration stations) must be met. 
 LT || Specified quotas of electricity must be cogenerated. 
 LU || No information received 
 HU || Not stated / Not clear 
 MT || Effectively no CHP 
 NL || Conditions are attached to the current regulations such that in practice only high‑efficiency cogeneration comes into consideration. 
 AT || Not stated / Not clear – but does not seem to be an inhibitory factor 
 PL || The support mechanism for undertakings producing electricity from high-efficiency cogeneration consists in the obligatory reception, transmission or distribution of the generated energy by the distribution system operator 
 PT || Not stated / Not clear 
 RO || No specific information 
 SI || Registered in GO system 
 SK || Registered in GO system 
 FI || Not stated / Not clear 
 SE || Priority access is implied by market structure 
 UK || Priority dispatch is not organized 
Overall assessment of responses to Part
B of the questionnaire
Ten Member States reported clear criteria
for the distinction of high-efficiency CHP organized for the purpose of
priority dispatch based on meeting the energy saving criteria specified in the
Directive, either by being registered in the GO system or stating that they
meet the Directive requirements. Two Member States stated criteria that may
have had the same effect but were not explicit. There is no priority despatch
in the UK. In eight Member States it was not clear.
4.3.        Connection rules
The Table below describes the responses to
the issues in outlined in Part C of the questionnaire.
Table 37: Responses to questions on
connection rules (part C of the questionnaire)
 What are the connection rules? Are there specific connection and grid access rules for micro-CHP and small scale CHP?  
 MS || Is there priority connection? || Mechanism.   || Specific connection rules for micro-CHP? 
 BE ||   || The Brussels Capital Region: Relatively easy to connect ||   
   ||   ||  Wallonia: Contacts with the DNO (distribution network operator) are sometimes difficult (lack of transparency). And there may also be many administrative procedures with the DNO (request for connection, meter, disconnection protection etc.) A detailed feasibility study is required, which also involves certain costs. ||   
   || no || Flanders: CHP grid connection problems are currently a significant obstacle to the implementation of CHP projects. The existing electricity network imposes a number of barriers both to physical connection to the grid itself and to exploitation of CHP plants through this connection. But, Flanders has introduced a measure exempting CHP plants from some of connection costs (i.e. first kilometre of connection free). || no 
 BG || yes || All power stations producing electricity through high efficiency cogeneration with an installed capacity of up to 10 MW are given priority in being connected to the grid. || yes 
 CZ ||   || No information received ||   
 DK ||   || No information received ||   
 DE ||   || No information received ||   
 EE ||   || No information received ||   
 IE ||   || Generators with a capacity not exceeding 1 MWe, which covers all small scale and micro CHP, are not required to apply to the CER for authorization and stand duly authorized, so removing an administrative procedure. Generators with a capacity not exceeding 1 MWe, which covers all small scale and micro CHP, are also considered to automatically stand duly licensed, so removing an administrative procedure. || yes 
 EL ||   || The same procedure as that used for RES plants apply to matters relating to the connection of HECHP plants to the System or Grid but these are not stated. ||   
 ES ||   || No information received ||   
 FR ||   || No information received ||   
 IT ||   || The right to use the 'on-site exchange service' (for plants with a nominal output of no more than 200 kW). This service enables producers to feed excess electricity into the public grid and then to withdraw it whenever their requirements exceed their production. || yes 
 CY ||   || No information received ||   
 LV ||   || No information received ||   
 LT ||   || No information received ||   
 LU ||   || No information received ||   
 HU ||   || No information received ||   
 MT || yes || Micro CHP is exempt from certain licensing requirements if less than 15 kWe peak output. || yes 
 NL ||   || No information received ||   
 AT || no || All production technologies are always connected to the electricity grid system in the same, non-discriminatory manner. In other words the same grid access conditions apply to cogeneration plants as to all other production technologies. || no 
 PL || yes || There are preferential terms for the connection of cogeneration sources, which enjoy a reduced connection fee. In accordance with Article 7 (8) of the Energy Law. Cogeneration units with an installed electricity capacity below 1 MW are an exception – half of the connection fee calculated in the basis of the actual expenditure is charged. Moreover, in accordance the fee charged for the connection of cogeneration units with an installed capacity not exceeding 5 MW shall be half of the calculated fee until 31 December 2011. || no 
 PT ||   || No information received ||   
 RO ||   || No specific information ||   
 SI || yes || Investors only bear costs of direct connection, not any downstream reinforcement || yes 
 SK || yes || Under Act No 309/2009, the preferential connection of electricity production plants to the distribution system, preferential access to the system, and preferential transmission, distribution and supply of electricity are obligations applying equally to all combined production plants. ||   
 FI ||   || No information received ||   
 SE ||   || No information received ||   
 UK || no ||   || no 
Overall assessment of replies to the
questions in Part C of the questionnaire
Five Member States reported preferential
access to the grid for co-generators, but this was not for all classes of
generator. Austria reported no preferential access but that all generators have
easy access to connection. One other Member State, the  UK, and the Belgian
region of Flanders reported no priority access. Eleven Member States provided
no information.
From the workshop held in Brussels in 2011
all the delegates agreed that there was not a real problem anymore with
accessing the grid. However, it is known that in at least one Member State
connections are deterred from connecting due to the potential downstream costs
being attributed to them, so called “deep charging” whereas only one
specifically stated that deep.
(Deep charging is where a developer
is charged for reinforcement costs deep in and remote from the actual specific
connection works)
5.           Support schemes
Under the Cogeneration Directive the Member
States are asked to assess their national potential for cogeneration and to
carry out various enabling assessments (of barriers, support mechanisms,
verification through Guarantees of Origin) and then update the Commission on
progress towards achieving the potential. Member States were required to produce the following
reports:
-                       
Analysis of the national potential for
cogeneration. Article 10(1) and Article 6(1);
-                       
Review of barriers to the wider use of
cogeneration. Article 10(1) and Article 6(2)(c);
-                       
Administrative and procedural situation. Article
10(1);
-                       
Guarantees of origin. Article 10(1) and Article
5(3);
-                       
Progress Report on Cogeneration Directive.
Article 10(2), Article 6(3).
By 2010, all the Member states had provided
that information to the Commission (many countries with considerable delay, the
due date was 2007). The information provided was already discussed by the European
Commission in the previous edition of the progress report. To assist the member
states to prepare their new progress report according to Articles 6(3) and
10(2), the Commission prepared a questionnaire (Annex A) with a total of 11
questions. In this chapter, following the same approach that in chapter 3, we
will refer to this new delivery of national reports like “new” or “second”
round of national reports. The tenth and eleventh questions, related to the
support schemes, were:
Q10 Does your country have support
schemes for cogeneration/CHP based on Directive 2004/8/EC (operational and/or
investment aid)? What kind of support is provided (feed-in tariffs,
certificates and quota, priority access to the grid, etc.)? Are they designed
to provide stable long-term investment conditions? Which sectors will be
targeted (agricultural and/or industrial and/or heating cogeneration)? 
Q11 How much money on a yearly basis has
been provided in this way in the past years to the promotion of high-efficiency
cogeneration in particular? And how much money is expected to be made available
on a yearly basis to the promotion of high-efficiency cogeneration in the
coming years?
This chapter summarizes the information,
about the kind of support schemes, gathered by the Commission, from the
national reports  presents a summary of the answers to the tenth and eleventh
question.
Table 38: Overview of support schemes for
CHP used in all EU Member States, according the Impact assessment and the new
round of National reports
   || Feed-in Tariff/ guaranteed purchase price || Certificate scheme || Capital grants || Energy tax exemption || Accelerated fiscal allowance for investment || Business tax exemption 
   || Impact Assessment 2011 || New Report || Impact Assessment 2011 || New Report || Impact Assessment 2011 || New Report || Impact Assessment 2011 || New Report || Impact Assessment 2011 || New Report || Impact Assessment 2011 || New Report 
 Austria ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Belgium ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Bulgaria ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Cyprus ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Czech Republic ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Denmark ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Estonia ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Finland ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 France ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Germany ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Greece ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Hungary ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Ireland ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Italy ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Latvia ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Lithuania ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Luxembourg ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Malta ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Netherlands ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Poland ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Portugal ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Romania ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Slovakia ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Slovenia ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Spain ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Sweden ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 United Kingdom ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
In table 38, the columns corresponding to
“impact assessment 2011” has the kind of support scheme identified by the Commission
in the Impact Assessment[82],
The column with the heading “new Report” contains the support scheme identified
from the new round of national reports. The countries with a yellow background
are the ones that have delivered a new edition of their national report. For
countries that have not delivered a new edition of their progress report at the
time of drafting, the column “new report’ reflects the kind of support scheme
already identified in the “Impact Assessment 2011”.
Among the changes in support schemes
observed in the next table, what stands out that is that two additional
countries have established feed-in tariff recently (Finland and Ireland). On
the other hand, Hungary has discontinued their feed-in tariff in 2011 (there is
no reference to any other alternative support measures in the Hungarian national
report).
Countries that have discontinued their
support schemes on capital grants are Ireland (in 2010), from others, there is
no mention in their national reports to any kind of capital grants.
Table 39:
Summary of the support measures of the second round of National reports
   || Q10 || Q10 || Q10 || Q10 || Q11 || Q11 
   || Does your country have support schemes for cogeneration/CHP based on Directive 2004/8/EC (operational and/or investment aid)? || What kind of support is provided (feed-in tariffs, certificates and quota, priority access to the grid, etc.)? || Are they designed to provide stable long-term investment conditions? || Which sectors will be targeted (agricultural and/or industrial and/or heating cogeneration)? || How much money on a yearly basis has been provided in this way in the past years to the promotion of high-efficiency cogeneration in particular?   || And how much money is expected to be made available on a yearly basis to the promotion of high-efficiency cogeneration in the coming years? 
 Austria || Yes || There are several different support schemes under the Cogeneration Act:   - Operational aid for existing cogeneration plants which received money between 2003 and 2010 in order to maintain operation - Investment aid for new cogeneration plants from 2007 to 2012 - Investment aid for Waste lye-based cogeneration from 2009-2012 ||   || No discrimination, but 30% of the available funds are reserved for industrial cogeneration plants, and the investment aid for waste lye-based cogeneration are provided for the pulp and paper industry || Some EUR 350 million in operational aid under the Cogeneration Act was provided between 2003 and 2010.  Roughly EUR 50 million of the total available investment subsidies under the Cogeneration Act (EUR 55 million) has so far been provided. None of the EUR 10 million available under the Green Electricity Act to waste lye-based cogeneration plants has so far been provided. ||   
 Belgium ||   || The Federal state set up a scheme of tax reductions for individuals to support certain energy-saving investments including cogeneration. For 2011 incomes, this tax reduction amounts to 40% of the costs up to a maximum amount of EUR 2 830 per year per resident. Companies also benefit from a tax deduction for certain investments like cogeneration. The tax deduction rate amounts 13.5% of the total investment. ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Belgium || Walloon region   Most of these mechanisms were already in existence before the Directive. || Walloon region Green certificate mechanism which constitutes support for production: Every quarter, the producer sends the meter readings to the WEC. The WEC issues the GC for the production site on this basis. These GC can be negotiated on the GC market. These GCs are valid for a 5- year period. Every quarter, the supplies of electricity in Wallonia declared by suppliers, part of which is measured by the network operators, are sent to the WEC. On the basis of this information, suppliers and network operators are obliged to return a quota of GCs to the WEC that is proportional to the quantity of electricity supplied in the quarter. As an alternative solution to the sale of GCs, a system for the compulsory purchase of GCs by the local transmission system operator (LTSO Elia) at a minimum guaranteed price of EUR 65 was provided for in the Decree (6). These GCs are then cancelled and cannot be resold on the GC market.” ·  GOLs (Guarantee of origin labels); ·  Different types of support for investment: Energy Fund premiums (for all sectors including individuals), UREBA premiums (public sector) from the Walloon Region and investment support (UDE support – economic growth law essentially for the private sector); · Fiscal support (reduced tax at federal level for energy-saving investments for individuals and tax deductions for companies);  · Technical and promotional support via the “Cogeneration Facilitator” (since 1997) · Subsidizes for pre-feasibility studies of cogeneration (all sectors).   || Walloon region || Walloon region Some of the support (investment support) is aimed at one sector more than another, but ultimately almost all sectors are covered, including individuals                             || Walloon region Green certificate mechanism, which constitutes support for production (last WEC report) Year    MEUR Biomass 2008     58.22 2009     74.58   Offer of subsidies for studies on the relevance of cogeneration in the private sector Year || EUR 
 2009 || 76 081.25 
 2010 || 30 910.00 
 2011 || 126 071.00 (at end of September) 
Regional investment support (private and public
  sectors)
 Year || MEUR 
 2009 || 5.422 
 2010 || 1.004 
 2011 || 0.235 (at  end of August) 
Investment support for residential micro-cogeneration
  (around 1 kWe)
 Year || EUR 
 2009 || 88 541.00 
 2010 || 44 917.00 
 2011 || 29 017.00 (at end August) 
Walloon
  region
 Belgium ||   || Flemish region Cogeneration is supported mainly through a system of certificates with an annual quota. The present support system for quality CHP in Flanders has achieved a great deal: it has created a stable and sufficiently attractive investment climate, stimulating sufficient investment to meet the Flemish Government's targets for the production of electricity by means of quality CHP. Nevertheless, there are various reasons why the present cogeneration certificate systems should be evaluated and adapted where necessary. ·    A number of policy-relevant lessons may be learned from the eight years of experience gained of the way these systems work. ·    A number of recent – critical – analyses, recognising that the functioning of the certificate systems has a number of undesirable side-effects (windfall profits) and that the overall cost of the systems is increasing, have called for a discussion of the future development of the systems. ·    Thoroughgoing revision is therefore essential in order to make the support policy for renewable energy and qualitative regeneration sufficiently future-focused and also future-'proof'.   || Flemish region The cogeneration certificate (CC) system has supported high quality cogeneration in Flanders since 2005. Only CHP plants commissioned or significantly modified after 1 January 2002 are eligible for certificate support. This support is linked to the energy saved as a result of the CHP.   The Decree of 6 May 2011 also paved the way for the long-term rise in the cogeneration certificate quota: from 4.90 % in 2010 to 10.5 % in 2020   In 2011 the Flemish Government announced an in-depth evaluation of support policy.   || Flemish region || Flemish region Estimation of the support provided by the quota obligation Year       MEUR 2004      1.297 2005      8.451 2006     18.920 2007     47.045 2008     88.426 2009   131.648 2010   165.574   || Flemish region Support necessary to make the as-yet unrealized potential of CHP sufficiently profitable. Year    Margin of             Unprofitability 2011          14 2012          27 2013          42 2014          56 2015          66 2016          77 2017          95 2018        113 2019        150 2020        184 
 Belgium ||   || Brussels Capital region The Brussels Capital Region supports cogeneration since 2005. Within that time, the Region elaborated a fairly complete set of support including: ·          Expertise point of contact: An expert in cogeneration is available for free in order to advice professionals willing to study or install a properly-dimensioned CHP-unit. ·          Investment support scheme: The 'energy premiums' encourage project promoters when acquiring cogenerations. This investment support scheme is available for both the private and public sectors as well as for companies and households.   In 2011, the premium formula for combined heat and power installation is: EUR 3500   *√ (electric power of the CHP-unit in kW). ·          Specific grants for the so-called ‘economic expansion’ are available for local privately-owned SMEs. These grants also cover the acquisition of CHP-units and vary depending on the size of the company. ·          Operational support scheme: green certificates By general principle, green certificates (GC) may be granted for CHP energy after certification of the installation by BRUGEL and for installations that are not older than 10 years provided they can account for a CO2 saving of at least 5% in comparison to reference installations. || Brussels Capital region The granting of GCs is spread over a period of 10 years, and the GCs remain valid for 5 years.   || Brussels Capital region As from 2011, the Brussels Capital Region shall raise the GC level of support for gas fired CHP units installed in apartment blocks. The standard calculations of GC is enhanced with multiplying coefficients as follows: - GC * 2 for CHP units with an electric power of up to 50 kW; -  GC * 1.5 for CHP units with an electric power exceeding 50 kW.   || Brussels Capital region || Brussels Capital region The green certificate scheme will remain until 2020 and possibly beyond that point in time. Considering (a) the continuous efforts to promote CHP, (b) the sectoral focus detailed in the answer to question 10 and (c) the current review of the quota of green certificates electricity providers have to hand in, the number of green certificates allocated to CHP plants in the coming years is expected to increase substantially 
 Bulgaria ||   || Under the Energy Act (ZE), the State Energy and Water Regulation Commission (DKEVR) sets preferential prices, exclusive of VAT, for the sale of 1 MWh of electricity produced by electrical and heat energy cogeneration facilities based on individual production costs and supplements per producer group according to the following criteria: 1) Predominant nature of the main thermal load; 2)  Type of fuel used; 3) Cogeneration technology; 4) Unit/station capacity. The Energy Act (ZE) promotes cogeneration, mainly by: - The mandatory purchase of all energy produced through high efficiency cogeneration, registered with a certificate of origin, with the exception of energy generated for internal use, or energy used on the free energy market; - Energy produced through high-efficiency cogeneration must be purchased at preferential rates; - Where there is a declared need for thermal energy, new installations with an output exceeding 5 MW powered with natural gas must be designed as cogeneration plants. - All power stations producing electricity through high efficiency cogeneration with an installed capacity of up to 10 MW are given priority in being connected to the grid. ||   || Sale prices based on individual production costs and supplements for three main groups of producers (heat, industrial and agricultural producers) || From 01 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 the funding of the preferential prices amounted to BGN 80 million || For the pricing period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 an increase of around 21% is expected 
 Czech Republic ||   || The Czech Republic supports cogeneration of electricity and heat in the form of a bonus for electricity from high-efficiency cogeneration of electricity and heat. Cogeneration investment support projects, however, appear in grant programmes at the Czech Invest agency and the State Environmental Fund (SEF) only to a limited extent. There is also the right of preferential connection to the electrical network as long as the meet certain conditions of connection. Electricity generators that put into operation a new facility for the high-efficiency cogeneration of electricity and heat are entitled to a contribution to the price of electricity from high-efficiency cogeneration of electricity and heat for a period of at least 6 years from the date of putting the facility into operation.           || No long-term guarantee of the level of support is laid down and in this sense the support scheme does not therefore provide stable long-term investment conditions   Support is to be newly regulated from 1 January 2013 by new Act No. 165/2012 Sb. on promoted energy sources. The  principles, however, shall remain. Entitlement to preferential connection shall also remain   || The support scheme is universal and is not targeted to a specific sector.   || Additional costs of support for cogeneration of electricity and heat (thousands of CZK per annum) 2007        502 992 2008        416 342 2009        521 595 2010        696 091 2011        701 240   ||   
 Cyprus ||   || There are two different support schemes: one for the high-efficiency cogeneration investments and one for promotion of cogeneration using biomass (biogas). One scheme is for 'Legal persons and bodies in the public sector engaged in an economic activity'. This scheme covers only the funding of the electricity produced by the EAC at the price set by CERA. The other scheme is for 'Natural persons and organisations that are not engaged in an economic activity (non-profit making)'. This last scheme is for CHP units and high-efficiency and cogeneration units from renewable energy sources of up to 1MW. It offers grant of 30% of the eligible initial cost (with an upper limit of EUR 160 000 per investment) and a feed-in tariff for the electricity produced and supplied to the EAC network. Also, the support scheme for RES provides a minimum sale price of electricity produced from biomass and supplied to the distribution/transfer electricity grid will be EUR 0.1179/KWh for the first 20 years that the system exists. The subsidy issued by the Special Fund for RES will come from the difference between the total sale price and the market price of the electricity produced from renewable energy sources by the EAC, as set by CERA. The minimum sale price given above will be increased with a premium of 1.71 cents per KWh of electricity in cases where the electricity is produced by electricity cogeneration units for heat and/or cooling.     || Yes (assures a minimum price to electricity generated or the first 20 years of the facility) || There is one scheme for profit making organisations (for high efficiency and cogeneration from renewables) and other scheme for non-profit making organisations || In 2008 EUR 103 609 In 2009 EUR 436 906 No sum available in 2010 || Provision of EUR 50000 for 2011 
   ||   
 Denmark || Yes || Electricity produced together with heat is given priority grid access   Operating aid provided for High-efficiency cogeneration. The aid may be classified as: - Production-independent subsidies financed through the electricity price charged to consumers -Production-dependent subsidies financed by the budget   There are additional operating subsidies on the basis of renewable fuels (biomass and biogas) financed by electricity consumers   Until 2010, operating subsidies were also awarded for cogeneration using domestic waste as a fuel.   In the case of biomass-based cogeneration, heat production is also exempt from taxation. || Yes, designed to provide stable long-term investment conditions for electricity producers and will run for a period of 20 years from the date of establishment of the plant, and in any case for no less than 15 years from 2004.   || Subsidies are granted both for cogeneration geared towards the heat market and for industrial cogeneration.   || The Public Service Obligation cost of high efficient decentralised cogeneration were:   In 2005 DKK   906 m, In 2006 DKK   401 m In 2007 DKK 1 179 m In 2008 DKK    170 m In 2009 DKK 1 267 m In 2010 DKK   573 m The decentralised cogeneration costs, financed under the Finance Act (DKK million were: In 2005 DKK   245 m, In 2006 DKK   277 m In 2007 DKK   179 m In 2008 DKK   246 m In 2009 DKK   203 m In 2010 DKK    92 m   || The plan is to adjust the payments made under the Finance Act to basic amounts financed as PSO contributions.   Overall support for high-efficiency cogeneration (excluding special subsidies granted for biomass or biogas-based cogeneration) is expected to be at a similar level to 2010, i.e. approx. DKK 700 million per annum.   
 Estonia ||   || Support scheme provided under the Electricity Market Act – Feed in tariff for electricity produced in efficient cogeneration plants   There is an investment aid granted for low-capacity cogeneration plants using sustainable fuels. ||   || No distinction is drawn between sectors as regards the support schemes ||   || EUR 420–470 million has probably been spent solely on establishing cogeneration plants, to which must be added the cost of improving the electricity grid and modernising the district heating network.   
 Finland ||   || Funding of decentralised energy production through the Agency for Technology and Innovation (TEKES) Supporting of small-scale cogeneration based on biogas and wood through the feed-in tariff system for renewable energy introduced recently. Small biogas plants receive the extra support in the form of a heat premium Similar support is granted to small-scale, wood-fired cogeneration if it meets the minimum efficiency requirement. The State budget includes funding for energy support. These funds can be granted to energy projects that are eligible. Heat production based on cogeneration receives preferential treatment in taxation. It is subject to half of the CO2 tax rate, which is calculated by multiplying by 0.9 the heat produced by taxable fuels.   ||   || The government is supporting small-scale cogeneration based on biogas and wood through the feed-in tariff system for renewable energy. Small biogas plants receive the extra support in the form of a heat premium, similar support is grated to small scale, wood-fired cogeneration   || Feed-in tariff system introduced in 2011 and no support has yet been paid under that system In 2008-2010 energy support was granted to different sectors. Cogeneration is not in itself grounds for granting energy support. As support is granted on the basis of renewable energy use or new technology, there are no separate statistics on the support received by cogeneration plants.  Most of the energy-production projects based on wood, biogas or recycled fuels are carried out at cogenerations plants. The energy support 2008-2010 was of EUR 171.9 m (the report breaks down this amount by energy source)   ||   
 France ||   || The purchase tariff for natural-gas cogeneration installations applied since 2001 (duration of contracts 12 years, powers below 12 MWe).   For biomass cogeneration installations exceeding 12 MWe, a multi-annual invitation to tender composed of four stages to be launched annually between 2010 and 2013 for a cumulative power of 800 MWe. Electricity purchase obligation is guaranteed for 20 years. For medium-size biomass cogeneration installations, regulated purchase tariffs (duration of contracts: 20 years). The purchase tariff was adjusted upwards at the beginning of 2011 for installations between 5 and 12 MWe; if the threshold of 5 MWe is exceeded, this leads to the application of the ICPE authorisation system  However, it was decided at the beginning of 2011 that sawmills with cogeneration of at least 1 MWe for drying their products may be exempted from the 5 MWe threshold. In order to maintain a constant load, it was necessary to decrease slightly the purchase tariff for all installations (-3.6% compared to the adjusted purchase tariff).   || The purchase tariff for natural-gas cogeneration installations applied since 2001 has not been revised since the report from 2008 (duration of contracts of 12 years powers below 12MWe)       || Support measures based on the source of the energy source (for natural gas or biomass) || The compensation for the feed-in of electricity produced by cogeneration installations is estimated in 2011 at EUR 705.3 million as regards natural-gas-based units and at EUR 53.2 million for biomass-based units.   || The end of the 12-year purchase contracts for natural-gas-based cogeneration will gradually lower the amounts granted to this sector, which will be partly compensated by the development of biomass cogeneration.     
 Germany ||   || The Cogeneration Act (KraftWärme-Kopplungsgesetz, KWKG) promotes electricity generation in combined heat and power (CHP) plants through temporary subsidies topping up the market price for electricity, financed through levies. In the subsidy scheme the market price for electricity is topped up in the case of modernisation and building of new plants (subsidies amounting to between 5.11 and 1.5 ct/kWh, depending on the size of the plant). Like plants supported on the basis of the Renewable Energies Act, CHP plants are also entitled to priority access to the network and, for as long as they receive subsidies, to distribution of its electricity by the network operator. Moreover, since 2009 the construction of new and extension of existing heating networks have also been promoted through the scheme financed by levies under the Cogeneration Act.   || The subsidy scheme is limited in time (ranging from a fixed period of 10 years to a maximum of 30 000 operating hours, depending on the category of plant). ||   || The costs of the scheme are borne by electricity consumers. Since 2009 the total amount has been capped at EUR 750 million per year, of which EUR 150 million per year for network development. This limit has not been reached since, however, as the 'evolution' of older, large plants led to a constant decrease in the scheme's costs in the past couple of years. Meanwhile the construction of new plants followed a downward trend.   || Subsidy payments under the Cogeneration Act will drop from currently EUR 384 million (2010) to EUR 159 million (2011). In 2011 subsidy payments for CHP electricity will decrease from currently around EUR 342 million to EUR 109 million. On the other hand, subsidy payments to heating networks will increase from EUR 42 million to EUR 50 million in the same period. It is expected that subsidy payments will increase to a level of about EUR 630 million by 2017 and thereafter decrease to about EUR 560 million by 2020. The changes introduced by the current amendment to the Cogeneration Act could lead to additional subsidy costs of EUR 20-100 million per year. 
 Greece ||   || The previous Development Law 3299/2004 provided for the following types of aid for HECHP plant construction investment plans: (a) financial lease subsidy and/or aid; (b) tax exemption; (c) subsidy for the cost of the jobs created. The new Development Law 3908/2011 has provided for supporting investment plans, including construction of HECHP plants, by offering the following individual or combined types of aid:(a) income tax exemption; (b) subsidy consisting in payment by the State of an amount of money, free of charge, for covering part of the subsidized expenditures; (c) financial lease subsidy consisting in coverage by the State of part of the instalments paid for the acquisition of mechanical and other equipment.   Opportunities for financing the construction of HECHP plants were also granted by the Operational Programme on Competitiveness (2000-2006),   Currently, the Operational Programmes “Environment and Sustainable Development” and “Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship”, as included in the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) 2007-2013, are financing several investment aid programmes including the installation of cogeneration systems as eligible expenditures. Furthermore, a call for proposals for operations has been published with a view to including and financing district heating actions either through new projects or by expanding existing networks as part of the Operational Programme “Environment and Sustainable Development”, of a total budget of EUR 50 million.   ||   || The investment aid of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) from 2007-2013 are financing several investment aid programs focus on: a) High efficiency cogeneration on heat and power in hospitals b) Green tourism c) alternative tourism The tariff for the electricity from HECHP using biogas is calculated in different way that for rest of HECHP plants     || The financial support for the construction of new HECHP plants from 2000 to 2006 granted a total amount of EUR 357.3 m     The amount of money spent on purchasing electricity from HECHP plants was:   In 2006 EUR 0.665 m In 2007 EUR 2.482 m In 2008 EUR 2.540 m In 2009-2010 EUR 21.857 m     The amount of money spent on purchasing electricity from HECHP plants using biogas was   In 2006 EUR 2.071 m In 2007 EUR 1.711 m In 2008 EUR 1.481 m In 2009-2010 EUR 6.714 m || The investment aid of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) from 2007-2013 are financing several investment aid programs. With a total amount of EUR 65 m   
 Hungary ||   || The statutory rules on the mandatory off-take system are contained in Electricity Act LXXXVI of 2007 (‘the Electricity Act’). These provisions of the Electricity Act are governed by Act XXIX of 2011 amending energy-related Acts, which provides that producers of CHP using fossil fuels are not authorised to sell in the mandatory off-take system in accordance with Section 171(5a), (5f) and (5h) of the Electricity Act.   ||   ||   || According to the figures and calculations of the Hungarian Energy Office, the amount we spent promoting high-efficiency cogeneration (primarily to make district heating more affordable for households) rose steadily each year from HUF 8 billion in 2003 to around HUF 57 billion in 2010. Under current legislation, however, as mentioned in the previous point, co-generators are excluded from the mandatory off-take system by Section 171(5a), (5f) and (5h) of the Electricity Act, which Section entered into force on 30 March 2011. ||   
 Ireland ||   || Projects which receive REFIT preferred rates will have to demonstrate compliance with the threshold values in Annex III(a) when applying the methodology in Annex III(b) of Directive 2004/8/EC. The REFIT is a feed in tariff system, which acts as a floor price guarantee for generators from biomass. The support for cogeneration that will be provided by the REFIT is intrinsically linked to the achievement of the goals of the National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) prepared by Ireland under the Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC.  The anticipated 100 MWe of biomass CHP and 50 MWe of AD CHP are important contributions to the national renewable energy target of 16% by 2020. Financial tax incentives are available through the Accelerated Capital Allowance (ACA) scheme to encourage the purchase of plants that are highly efficient || Support by way of REFIT will be provided for a 15 year period, with tariffs index linked to the consumer price index (CPI).  It is anticipated that 100 MWe of biomass CHP and 50 MWe of AD CHP will be supported under this support programme.   || REFIT which has preferred rates for biomass CHP and anaerobic digestion CHP in the agricultural, commercial and industrial sectors. || Ireland has operated two capital grant support programmes through the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) from 2006 to the end of 2010. The SEAI CHP Deployment Programme provided funding of up to 30% of defined eligible costs for small scale, fossil fired CHP.  Under the programme 68 projects were supported resulting in a total installed capacity of 15.7 MWe.  This programme was closed at the end of 2010. The SEAI Biomass CHP / AD CHP Call for Proposals was targeted at biomass CHP and AD CHP.  The grant level was also up to 30% of defined eligible costs with no specified size limits.  This programme supported one biomass CHP project (installed capacity of 3 MWe) and one AD CHP project (installed capacity of 250 kWe).  This programme was closed at the end of 2010. In the period 2006 to 2010, through these two programmes, EUR 6.5 million in capital support was provided to small scale fossil CHP and biomass / AD CHP projects.     || The REFIT is a feed in tariff system, which acts as a floor price guarantee for generators from biomass. As such, there is no defined ‘budget’ for the measure, as the amount of support required will vary from year to year due to varying electricity prices. The measure is funded through the ‘Public Service Obligation’, a measure that has been in place for a number of years.   
 Italy ||   || Exemption from the obligation to purchase Green Certificates (an obligation imposed, in general, on electricity from non-renewable sources) The right to priority use, after electricity solely from renewable sources. The right to use the 'on-site exchange service' (for plants with a nominal output of no more than 200 kW) This service enables producers to feed excess electricity into the public grid and  then to withdraw it whenever their requirements exceed their production. Ability to obtain energy efficiency certificates (White Certificates) equivalent to the annual primary energy savings. Ability to obtain Green Certificates (only for HEC plants which are part of district heating networks and provided they fulfil requirements regarding the date of commissioning , or which are part of farming communities. Simplified electricity grid connection procedure; reduced connection costs .Simplified authorisation procedure (only for plants with an output of less than 1 MWe, provided they are certified). Special treatment regarding the transmission and distribution costs of the electricity produced, and regarding the purchase of back-up or additional electricity. On 5 September 2011, a decree set up a support scheme based on the issue of White Certificates equivalent to the plant's primary energy savings in a given year There is decree about to be adopted to simplify the installation and introduction of fiscal provisions for high-efficiency micro-cogeneration plants (with an output of up to 50kW). There are some provisions to support fiscally high-efficiency micro-cogeneration plants (with an output of up to 50kW). This decree will also simplify the payment of duties and other taxes and fiscal charges. || The White certificate system provides incentives for a minimum of ten years || Under certain conditions, green certificates are granted to cogeneration plants which form part of district heating networks    ||   ||   
 Latvia ||   || Aid for the generation of electricity by cogeneration is provided for in Cabinet Regulation No 221, which provides for the compulsory procurement of electricity generated by a cogeneration process for a set price, and provides for the right to receive guaranteed payment for the electrical capacity installed in a cogeneration station. Electricity generation by cogeneration is also facilitated by the European Union Cohesion Fund-financed activity “Development of cogeneration power stations using renewable energy sources”. Cabinet Regulation No 165, “Regulation on Operational Programme ‘Infrastructure and Services’ supplementary activity 3.5.2.2 ‘Development of cogeneration power stations using renewable energy sources” (hereinafter referred to as the “Activity”) entered into force on 17 February 2009 to implement the Operational Programme “Infrastructure and Services” supplementary activity 3.5.2.2 “Development of cogeneration power stations using renewable energy sources”,. The Activity provides for aid for the construction of cogeneration stations utilising renewable energy sources. ||   || There is no discrimination, however the objective of Cabinet Regulation No 165, “Regulation on Operational Programme ‘Infrastructure and Services’ supplementary activity 3.5.2.2 ‘Development of cogeneration power stations using renewable energy sources” is to significantly increase the amount of electricity and heat energy generated from renewable energy sources..   || Up to 1 July 2011, contracts have been concluded for ten projects within the framework of Activity 3.5.2.2, with Cohesion Fund funding of LVL 21 365 499.55.   ||   
 Lithuania ||   || The support mechanism is based on public service obligations (PSO). The support is granted to the power plants supplying heat to heating systems (district heat supply systems). The support is targeted towards heat cogeneration based on a useful demand of heat. The scopes of production of electricity from cogeneration and electricity feed-in tariffs are approved on an annual basis. The Rules for purchasing power from combined heat and power generators regulate the establishment of annual purchase quotas for electricity generated in cogeneration plants using non-renewable energy sources and the ways of purchasing such electricity. For cogeneration plants, the ratio of rated electric and thermal input shall be at least 0.45 and total efficiency in electricity and heat generation shall be at least 75 %. The National Control Commission for Prices and Energy (VKEK Commission), sets the price for the electricity that must be purchased on a mandatory basis. The Rules do not specify the feed-in price in respect of each power plant separately. The feed-in (purchase) price is a product of basic electricity price, which is the same for all power plant groups, and a ratio categorising a capacity value. On the basis of installed electrical capacity, power plants are attributed to one of the following 3 groups: group I – electrical capacity of more than 50 MW, group II – electrical capacity of 5 to 50 MW, and group III – electrical capacity of up to 5 MW. The basic electricity price is subject to recalculation on an annual basis, taking into account changes in natural gas prices.   || The Ministry for Energy sets the annual scope for purchasing electricity from cogeneration and the three-year purchase forecast based on, among other factors, the objective for the share of the electricity generated in cogeneration plants by 2025. That year, the share should be at least 35 % of the generated electricity. In the future, it is planned to follow the principle of gradual reduction of support for heat cogeneration using fossil fuels by establishing a gradual reduction in the annual quantities of supported electricity from this type of cogeneration:         900 GWh in 2012, 800 GWh in 2013,  700 GWh in 2014  600   GWh   in   2015   || Electricity from biomass, same as in case of electricity from any other renewable sources, is promoted under the Procedure for the fulfilment of public service obligations established by the Government. The procedure provides for promoted quotas and fixed tariffs. The fixed tariff shall be applied to electricity generated from renewable sources in respect of which a guarantee of origin has been issued in the statutory procedure. The fixed tariffs shall be set and promotion quotas shall be established by auctions. || Support funds for cogeneration plants using fossil fuel, from which electricity output was purchased at premium prices are In 2004 LTL 85.3 m In 2005 LTL 91.5 m In 2006 LTL 98 m In 2007 LTL 162.4 m In 2008 LTL 160.4 m In 2009 LTL 301.3 m In 2010 LTL 35.7 m In 2011 LTL 85.7 m In 2012 LTL 117.6 m       ||   
 Malta ||   ||   ||   ||   || In 2009 and 2010, the Government of Malta made available EUR 15 million through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the industrial sector to take steps to become more efficient in the use of energy. Although there was a lot of interest in these funds, only one proposal was related to cogeneration but unfortunately, it never came to a fruition. ||   
 Netherlands || Other than the Regulation on guarantees of origin for high‑efficiency cogeneration the Netherlands does not have any systems for cogeneration that are based directly on Directive 2004/8/EC || Also, an amendment to the 1998 Electricity Act is well under way. This amendment will regulate two things for high‑efficiency cogeneration: (a) priority connection to the grid and (b) priority access to transport capacity in the event of congestion in the grid. These support measures are intended as a means of structurally reducing risks in the development and operation of high‑efficiency cogeneration   Other relevant policy measures are, for example, exemption from environmental tax for installations generating electricity with an electrical yield of 30% or higher (Article 64 of the Environmental Taxes Act), and the tax rebate for energy investments through the Energy Investment Allowance (EIA). || The measures are not specifically aimed at a limited number of sectors, but are generally applicable.   ||   || In 2009 about EUR 9 million in fiscal support was promised to cogeneration in the Energy Investment Allowance (EIA), some EUR.2 million of it for bio-CHP. With this support total investment reached EUR.78 million. In addition to that, in the Subsidy Scheme on Sustainable Heat (part of the Energy and Innovation Subsidy Scheme) EUR 4 million was made available in 2010 for investments in micro‑CHP in existing houses. A good EUR 3 million of this had been allocated by mid‑2011, in particular to households and housing corporations. Likewise in 2010 in the Sustainable Energy Production Incentive Scheme (SDE) a budget of EUR 168 million was made available for high-efficiency cogeneration above 250 MWe, but no applications were received for this || The expectation is that the EIA will continue. In addition with a part of the SDE scheme a number of biomass projects will be honoured. A substantial amount of the EUR 1.8 billion expenditure expected in the period 2011‑2026 will relate to bio-CHP, for example in manure fermentation. Finally, from 2012 onwards SDE+, which will replace the SDE scheme as of 2011, will offer more possibilities of support for sustainable heat. Spending on sustainable heat, including that from bio-CHP, is expected to increase.   
 Portugal ||   || According to Decree Law No 23/2010, as amended by Law No 19/2010 of 23 August 2010, support for cogeneration is given by means of a reference tariff, efficiency premiums and renewable energy premiums. With regard to access to networks by cogeneration producers, this depends on the method of remuneration regime chosen. In the case of cogeneration produced under the special method, access is given under the terms of Decree Law No 312/2001 of 10 December 2001, as amended by Decree Law No 33-A/2005 of 16 February 2005, whilst under the general method, access is given on similar terms to those laid down for the ordinary regime for electricity production. The actual licensing of cogeneration producers complies with rules which are common to both remuneration methods, and is based on the system which applies to the production of electricity under the ordinary regime, mutatis mutandis, in particular those resulting from simplifying and streamlining procedures. || With regard to the sectors covered by the support schemes, there are no plans to make any distinctions in terms of its allocation.   ||   ||   ||   
 Poland ||   || Whereas cogeneration units with an installed electricity capacity below 1 MW pay only half of the connection fee to the distribution or transmission system almost all remaining producers pay 100% of the connections costs. However, in accordance with Article 5 of the Act of 2007, the fee charged for the connection of cogeneration units with an installed capacity not exceeding 5 MW shall be half of the calculated fee until 31 December 2011. Investors may apply for financial assistance to the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, hereinafter referred to as “NFOŚiGW”, under the programme for renewable energy sources and high-efficiency cogeneration facility initiatives. Investments in the conversion and construction of electricity and heat cogeneration units meeting the requirements for high-efficiency cogeneration are supported under the Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment, measure 9.2 High-efficiency generation. The support mechanism for undertakings producing electricity from high-efficiency cogeneration consists in the obligatory reception, transmission or distribution of the generated energy by the distribution system operator, and in the issuing of certificates of origin which are tradable on the Polish Power Exchange (Towarowa Giełda Energii S.A.).   || The implementation period of the programme NFOŚiGW is from 2009 to 2015.   || There are three types of certificates of origin: 1) Certificates of origin from gas-fired units or units of installed capacity below 1 MW; 2) Certificates of origin from other cogeneration sources; 3) Certificates of origin from cogeneration units burning methane released and captured during deep mining operations in coal mines (open, under liquidation or closed), or gas obtained by processing biomass. The cogeneration support system is complemented by the provisions of the Energy Law which make it possible to impose a fine on those undertakings that fail to comply with the obligation to cancel a sufficient number of certificates of origin from cogeneration or to pay the substitution fee.   || The total budget of the programme NFOŚiGW is PLN 1 400 million. Financial assistance to initiatives is provided in the form of loans, from PLN 4 million to PLN 50 million. Beneficiaries are selected in a competitive procedure, and are obliged to prove, inter alia, that the minimum total cost of the project is PLN 10 million.   Levels of substitution fees from 2007 to 2011 2007 -  117.0 PLN/MWh 2008 -  117.0 PLN/MWh 2009 -  128.8 PLN/MWh 2010 -  128.8 PLN/MWh 2011 -  127.15 PLN/MWh       ||   
 Slovakia ||   || Operational assistance: - Preferential connection or access to the distribution and transmission system. - Collection of electricity at a “loss-making electricity price” by the operator of the regional distribution system to which a plant is connected, directly or via a local distribution system - Supplement, i.e. the difference between the fixed set price (tariff) and the loss-making price of electricity; - Assumption of responsibility for deviations by operators of regional distribution systems; The price of electricity produced by high-efficiency combined production is set by an Order (e.g. Order No 7/2009, No 02/2010, ...) of the Regulatory Office for Network Industries (hereinafter the “Office”) for specific kinds of combined production technology and different types of fuel. The price is made up of the loss-making price of electricity and the supplement   Investment assistance: In order to support high-efficiency combined production, investment assistance was also provided through the use of money from the Structural Funds for the 2004-2006 programming period, in particular for industry through the Sectoral Operational Programme Industry and Services. In the 2007-2013 programming period, it was possible to draw on funds for high-efficiency combined production through four operational programmes:   || During the period of support (usually 15 years) the fixed price of electricity produced by high-efficiency combined production remains at least at the level set for the year in which the plant was brought into operation or the year of reconstruction or modernisation of the plant. The loss-making price of electricity may change, however, and the supplement will change with it automatically.   The price is made up of the loss-making price of electricity and the supplement It is set in such a way as to ensure a return on investment within about 12 years. ||   || Funds provided in the form of operational assistance for electricity produced by combined production prior to 1 January 2010 are not monitored separately. The corresponding after January 2010 has not yet been calculated. It can be expected that operational assistance amounting to about EUR 20 million was provided on the basis of Act No 309/2009 in 2010. Investment assistance from the Structural Funds that is provided for high-efficiency combined production plants through individual operational programmes cannot be established clearly, since these are projects involving other activities as well as the construction or reconstruction of combined production plants. Clearly identifiable assistance for high-efficiency combined production plants was provided in 2007-2010 from the Operational Programme Competitiveness and Economic Growth, amounting to EUR 10.67 million.   || The provision of investment assistance for high-efficiency combined production plants is not envisaged until the end of 2013. The future level of operational assistance depends on developments in the prices of primary energy sources as well as on the amount of electricity produced by high-efficiency combined production. It is provisionally expected to be EUR 20 million annually.   
 Slovenia || Amendments to the Energy Act EZ-C (OJ RS 70/08) created the statutory basis for the introduction of a new support scheme providing the right to support for electricity from high-efficiency cogeneration, as stipulated by Directive 2004/8/EC. The scheme has been implemented since November 2009 || Support for electricity produced in CHP equipment through guaranteed purchase of electricity Financial aid for current operations is allocated for net electricity generated for which a guarantee of origin has been received and which CHP electricity generators sell themselves on the market or use for their own consumption, provided that the costs of producing this energy are greater than the price that can be obtained for it on the electricity market. CHP generating equipment with nominal power up to 1 MW is eligible for guaranteed purchase of electricity. For such generating equipment, during the validity of the contract on guaranteed purchase the support centre regulates the registration of the operating forecast and balances the difference between the forecast and actual production, including the balance sheet affiliation. Operators of CHP generating equipment with nominal power of up to 1 MW may decide, instead of guaranteed purchase, to sell electricity independently in the market, and to receive operating support, where they must themselves arrange the registration of their operating forecast and balancing the difference between forecast and actual production, including balance sheet affiliation. Generating equipment using CHP with nominal power of 1 MW and more may receive only operating support. Operating support is the difference between the reference costs of producing electricity in individual types of generating equipment and the reference market price of electricity, which is forecast for each year with regard to market conditions. || The duration of support is defined in the decision allocating support, and is 10 years for new CHP generating equipment. Support is paid out for net electricity production for which the support centre receives guarantees of origin.   || Eligibility for support is held by new and mainly new CHP generating equipment that have a valid declaration for the generating equipment and that fulfil the prescribed conditions observed by the Energy Agency in the process of deciding on eligibility for support.   CHP generating plants that attain specific CO2 emissions of over 600 kg CO2/MWh in the generation of electricity, may not receive support.   || The amount of aid for high-efficiency cogeneration was   In 2004 EUR 7.0 m In 2005 EUR 6.0 m In 2006 EUR 5.9 m In 2007 EUR 7.9 m In 2008 EUR 7.0 m In 2009 EUR 5.7 m In 2008 EUR 13.0 m       || The Government prescribed in detail the method for determining the required quantity of funding for support, such that, before the start of each year being evaluated, the Support Centre at Borzen d.o.o. (market organiser) and the Energy Agency must prepare an estimate of the funding required. This is done on the basis of data on anticipated new investment in CHP generating equipment, and assessment of the likelihood that the equipment will be built and will receive a decision granting support within the envisaged interval, and on the basis of data from previous years for existing equipment. 
 Spain || In Spain there is a system of financial support for cogeneration provided for by Royal Decree No 661/2007, which is based on the Directive || The following support is provided for cogeneration: Priority access to the grid. The transfer of net electricity production to the grid via the transmission or distribution network provided that absorption by the grid is technically possible. Receipt for the sale of net electricity production of a financial return based on the financial scheme chosen, either sale at regulated tariffs or sale on the market. Where electricity is sold on the market, a premium on top of the market price is paid. In addition, the tariff and the premium are indexed to the price of the raw material (fuel) used for cogeneration. Receipt of an additional payment based on the extent to which the energy efficiency of cogeneration exceeds the minimum laid down.   ||   || As for the sectors covered, the support plan covers all activities that might require heat or cooling, including a considerable part of the industrial and tertiary sectors || The incentives provided over recent years were In 2007 EUR 571.4 million In 2008 EUR 714.6 million In 2009 EUR 1 035 million In 2010 EUR 1 302 million       || The incentives planned to promote cogeneration until 2020 are: In 2012 EUR 1235 million In 2013 EUR 1366 million In 2014 EUR 1496 million In 2015 EUR 1622 million In 2020 EUR 2080 million   
 Sweden ||   || Sweden support is based on an electricity certificate scheme. Other support schemes have also had a certain impact on the development of cogeneration, albeit only indirectly. The electricity certificate scheme is a market-based support scheme in which trading takes place between the producers of renewable electricity and those subject to the quota requirement. The aim of the scheme is to create competition between renewable sources of energy. The revenue gained by electricity producers when they sell electricity certificates replaces the investment aid and operational aid granted previously. Electricity suppliers are obliged to have electricity certificates corresponding to a certain share of the electricity they sell, i.e. the quota requirement. To meet the quota requirement, the electricity suppliers declare annually to the Swedish Energy Agency how much electricity they invoiced their customers for during the previous year and submit electricity certificates corresponding to a specific share (quota) of electricity sales. The declaration must be submitted by 1 March each year. Electricity-intensive industry and electricity users who have used electricity they have produced themselves, imported or bought on the Nordic power exchange are subject to quotas. Quotas have been set until 2035. Government proposal 2010/11:155 proposes a new Electricity Certificates Act which preserves the objectives and working methods of the current electricity certificate system unchanged but has simpler rules and has been extended to also cover other countries.   || The electricity certificate scheme was introduced in Sweden on 1 May 2003, and the quotas – electricity certificates that electricity suppliers are obliged to, have been set until 2035 || The Local Investment Programme (Lokala investeringsprogram, LIP) was another aid form that had a positive impact on the development of district heat between 1998-2002 when it existed, as does its successor, the Climate Investment Programme (Klimatinvesteringsprogrammet, KLIMP). These have enabled municipalities and other operators to apply for aid to take measures increasing ecological sustainability (LIP) and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (KLIMP). During the years in which LIP and KLIMP funding was paid out, approximately 260 district heating projects were granted funds[83].   ||   ||   
 United Kingdom   ||             || The support measures include:   Exemption from the Climate Change Levy, introduced in 2001 worth 0.48p/kWh on electricity and 0.15pkWh on Gas , from all fuel inputs and electricity outputs from Good Quality CHP, Eligibility for Enhanced Capital Allowances for Good Quality CHP, introduced in 2001. Business Rates exemption for CHP power generation plant and machinery Reduction in VAT on certain grant-funded domestic micro-CHP installations . Extending the eligibility for Renewable Obligation Certificates to include mixed waste plants which use Good Quality CHP. This adds CHP to the list of eligible advanced conversion technologies Favourable treatment in Phases II of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. CHP, as a low carbon technology, has benefited from the EU ETS as it does not have to buy as many allowances to emit CO2 as conventional power stations. CHP also benefits from the operation of the Carbon Reduction Commitment, which introduced carbon trading for large non-energy intensive industries. In particular, CHP heat used on site or exported to other consumers will be treated as if it were zero carbon, even if it comes from fossil fuels. Established feed-in tariffs (FIT) for distributed generation, including gas fired micro-CHP with capacity less than 2 KWe. || From April 2009, CHP plants fuelled by biomass received two Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for each MWh of electricity, compared to 1.5 ROCs for biomass power-only plants. The Government has also confirmed that the Renewables Obligation will continue up to 2037, providing long-term certainty about this source of revenue for renewable generators || Developers of new power stations have to show that they have explored fully any opportunities for existing and likely local business or community uses of heat. To facilitate this, the Guidance contains new heat maps which were developed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), indicating potential local heat customers. Whilst the UK Following a major upgrade, the Guidance can also be used by both small and large organisations to help identify the locations where the supply of CHP heat would have the greatest potential, and therefore the largest positive environmental impact. The map includes heat loads across all UK sectors including industrial, commercial, public and domestic.   || The value of the Climate Change Levy exemption for Good Quality CHP is in the order of EUR 60-80 million per year (total value to CHP operators of about EUR 600-800 million since 2001).   The total Enhanced Capital Allowance tax reduction benefit for investment in Good Quality CHP, since 2001, is estimated to be in the order of EUR 60 million for a total investment in the order of EUR 1.2 billion.   The Renewables Obligation Order which came into force on 1st April 2009, provides Good Quality CHP Schemes fuelled wholly by biomass with an uplift in Renewable Obligation Certificated (ROCs) benefit from 1.5 to 2 ROCs/MWh and schemes fuelled by waste with 1 ROC/MWh.  In the first 2 years since the Order came into force, the value of the additional ROCs issued has been estimated to be in the order of EUR 15-20 million per year to CHP operators.   ||   
6.           CHP Country Summaries
6.1.        Austria
Progress
The share of
cogeneration in the overall electricity production was 15.4% in 2010,
reflecting a stable level over the previous five-year period since 2005, when
this share was also 15.4%. The energy regulatory authority's (E-Control)'s
monitoring reports on security of supply describe plans to build new thermal
power stations[84].
Most of the proposed projects use cogeneration plants  and will
be located close to towns with district heating requirements. Some of these plants have received support in the
form of investment subsidies under the Cogeneration Act.
Support schemes
There are three support schemes :
·        
Operational aid for existing cogeneration plants
which received money between 2003 and 2010 in order to maintain operation;
·        
Investment aid for new cogeneration plants for
the 2007-2012 period (2014);
·        
Investment aid for waste lye-based cogeneration
plants (pulp/paper production) for the 2009-2012 period.
30 % of the available funds are
reserved for industrial cogeneration plants
Funding
Some EUR 350 million in operational
aid under the Cogeneration Act was provided between 2003 and 2010. Roughly
EUR 50 million of the total available investment subsidies under the
Cogeneration Act (EUR 55 million) has so far been provided.
None of the EUR 10 million available
under the Green Electricity Act to waste lye-based cogeneration plants has so
far been provided.
6.2.        Belgium
Progress
The
share of electricity from cogeneration has reached 16% in 2010, doubling the
8.5% share in 2005, according to Eurostat. This can be seen as a result of
ambitious policies, including targets, supported by certificate schemes in the
various regions. 
Region Wallonia
The share of cogeneration in relation to
the total consumption of electricity and heat in the Walloon Region is
progressing steadily. At the present time, the strongest growth is in
micro-cogeneration (<50 kWe), which means that the overall quantities of
heat and electricity produced by cogeneration are progressing relatively
slowly.
However, the share of high-efficiency
cogeneration is also progressing strongly in relation to cogeneration overall.
This is due mainly to the green certificate mechanism and other types of
support promoting high-quality cogeneration.
Flemish Region
Due to an effective support scheme for CHP
is based on a system of certificates with an annual quota, progress towards
reaching a targeted level of CHP has been quicker than expected
The Brussels Capital Region
The current electrical capacity installed
equals 23.4 MW in the Region. The data suggest cogeneration is increasing in
the Brussels Capital Region. The number of CHP has moved from 25 in 2006 to 40
in 2009 where 9 new installations were put in service and certified. The latter
should influence the production of electricity and heat as from 2010.
In 2020, the electrical capacity installed
in the Brussels Capital Region could go beyond 75 MW. 
6.3.        Bulgaria
Progress
According to the
national progress report the share of cogenerated
electricity in 2009 fell by 38 % compared to 2008. Bringing units and
their operation in line with European requirements for high efficiency
cogeneration resulted in a 4 % increase in 2010 in the production of
cogenerated energy compared with 2009.
The same trend has also been observed with
the cogeneration of thermal energy. There was a decline of 28 % in 2009
compared with 2008, and after the technological operation regime was brought in
line with high efficiency combined production, there was an increase in
cogenerated thermal energy of 10 % in 2010 over 2009. The share of
cogenerated thermal energy in total thermal energy generated grew from
70.70 % in 2009 to 78.17 % in 2010. Because of the increase in the
share of energy generated from renewable sources, despite the upward trend in
the production of electricity through cogeneration, the share of cogenerated
energy in total electricity output in Bulgaria in 2010 fell from 8.53 % in
2009 to 8.21 % in 2010 (or to 8% according to Eurostat). This however is
still an increase from the 6% reported in 2005.
Following a drop in output in 2009 at
heating power stations and industrial thermal power plants, in 2010 there was a
stabilisation of the thermal energy produced at such plants with slight upward
trend of 3.3 % observed on 2009. At industrial thermal power plants
thermal energy produced increased by 16 % on 2009.
The amounts of fuel used in cogeneration
followed the output of electricity and heat: a decrease in 2009 compared with
2008, and an increase in 2010.
Support schemes
There are preferential prices for the sale
of electricity produced by electrical and heat energy cogeneration facilities
based on individual production costs and supplements per producer group
according to the following criteria: 
Predominant nature of the main thermal
load; 
·        
Type of fuel used; 
·        
Cogeneration technology; 
·        
Unit/station capacity. 
There are three main groups of producers: 
1. Heat producers, where the main heat load
is for heating and domestic hot water; 
2. Industrial producers which supply
industry with the required thermal energy, mainly steam and hot water required
by the food industry;  
3. Agriculture, where thermal energy is
required for greenhouses, mainly for growing vegetables. 
Funding
During the pricing period from 01 July 2010
to 30 June 2011 for which the DKEVR set preferential prices, funding only from
the high efficiency power generation supplement stood at BGN 80 million, while
for the next pricing period from 01 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 an increase of
around 21 % is expected. 
6.4.        Cyprus 
Progress
There has not been
a significant increase in high-efficiency cogeneration since the last report on
national potential submitted in 2009. There was however a slight increase from the level of 0.3% in 2005 to 1% in 2010, as
reported by Eurostat. The biggest
high-efficiency cogeneration sector is industry (75%) and the rest is from
biomass units (biofuel) for electricity production. The principal
low-efficiency cogeneration sector is industry (50%) and the rest is from
biomass units for electricity production
Support schemes
In 2008 EUR 103 609 was made
available and in 2009 EUR 436 906 via the grant scheme Development of
Biomass/Combined heat and power. No sum was made available in 2010.
Funding
In 2011 provisions were made for EUR
50 000 out of the budget of the Special Fund for Energy Conservation and
Utilisation of Renewable Energy Sources.
6.5.        Czech Republic
Progress
The fraction of high-efficiency
CHP has remained at around  13% in the last three years as can be seen from the
Table 40 below on the total generation of electricity and heat 2008-2012[85]. 
According
to Eurostat, the share of cogeneration stood at 13.2% in 2010, a decrease
compared to the 16.8% share in 2005.
The initial situation in the Czech Republic
in terms of the use and development of cogeneration is perceived as good overall.
Sources of cogeneration and the centralised supply of heat have long traditions
in the Czech Republic. The application of condensation extraction and
back-pressure steam turbines in particular was supported and developed even
during the era of central planning. Modern technology is available, the network
of financial supports works well and there is enough operating experience and
know-how for the preparation and implementation of new cogeneration projects.
The Czech Republic applies support for
cogeneration in the form of a bonus for electricity from high-efficiency
cogeneration of electricity and heat.
There is no direct state aid for
cogeneration, but the legislation in force assumes support within the system of
price regulation conducted by the Energy Regulatory Authority in the form of a
price decision, which invariably lays down the level of support for the
following calendar year. No long-term guarantee of the level of support is laid
down and in this sense the support scheme does not therefore provide stable
long-term investment conditions. The support scheme is universal and is not
targeted to a specific sector.
It ensues from the specified legislative
development that the legislation in the Czech Republic relating to cogeneration
is currently in full compliance with the aims of Directive 2004/8/EC and
contributes significantly towards the possibility of making savings on primary
fuel and reducing the load on the environment.
Table 40:   Total generation of
electricity and heat 2008-2012 in Czech Republic
Table 41: Share of fuels in cogeneration in 2010 in Czech Republic
 Brown coal                      54 % Renewable sources          2 % Oil and oil products           2 % Biomass                            5 % Biogas and stored gas      2 % Waste                               1 % Other fuels                        5 % Natural gas                       7% Black coal                       22 % 
Support schemes
• A system of support for the purchase of
electricity from cogeneration through price regulation is in place, implemented
by the Energy Regulatory Office based on the energy-related legislation in
force.
• Cogeneration investment support projects,
however, appear in grant programmes at the CzechInvest agency and the State
Environmental Fund (SEF) only to a limited extent.
Funding
The total costs of operational support for
high-efficiency cogeneration of electricity and heat are presented in the table
below:
Table 42: Total
costs of operational support for high-efficiency cogeneration of electricity
and heat
 Year || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 
 Additional costs of support for cogeneration of electricity and heat (thousands of CZK per annum) || 502 992 || 416 342 || 521 595 || 696 091 || 701 240 
6.6.        Denmark
Progress
Although there has
been widespread expansion of cogeneration in Denmark, there is still a certain
technical potential for further expansion. According
to Eurostat, the share of cogeneration in electricity production was 49.2% in
2010.
The first
progress report, submitted to the Commission in February 2007, estimated the
technical potentials over and above the existing cogeneration. The potentials
were divided into three categories:
(1) 800 MW (electricity) in the form
of decentralised cogeneration. The potential assessment is based on the scope
to increase the Cm value (the power to heat ratio, i.e. electrical
output/thermal output) by establishing new cogeneration plants covering the
same heat markets as the current decentralised cogeneration plants;
(2) 1 200 MW industrial cogeneration;
(3) 2 200 MW in the form of
micro-cogeneration with an electrical output of less than 50 kW. This
potential is likely to be reduced since a large portion of the heat market
associated with the potential is expected to convert to heat pumps, district
heating, etc.
As the
potential assessment submitted by the Agency to the Commission in 2010 found
the socioeconomic potential of cogeneration to be limited, measures were not
taken to increase the share of high-efficiency cogeneration in Denmark.
Cogeneration
plays an absolutely crucial role in Danish energy supply, and Denmark is one of
the countries with the highest cogeneration cover in the European Union.
District
heating, which supplies around 60% of Danish households with heating energy, is
the most important basis for cogeneration, and nowadays the majority of
district heating is produced at cogeneration plants together with electricity.
In addition, there is some industrial cogeneration.
The widespread
cover through cogeneration is the result of a targeted policy of promoting this
form of production – a policy that has laid the foundations for cogeneration to
continue to make an important contribution to Danish energy supplies in the
future.
Proportion of
electricity and district heating produced by cogeneration:
In 2010
60 % of thermal electricity production (i.e. total production
excluding wind power and hydropower) was produced together with heat. The
proportion of electricity produced by cogeneration has generally risen: in 1990
cogeneration accounted for 37 %, compared to a mere 18 % in 1980.
There will be annual variations resulting from cold or warm winters, just as
levels of rainfall in the Nordic countries affect the price of electricity and
consequently the commercial profitability of cogeneration under market
conditions. In other words rainfall affects hydropower generation in the Nordic
countries and therefore the amount of electricity that Denmark exports, as
electricity for export is mainly produced at separate electricity production plants.
In 2010 a total
of approx. 78 % of district heating was produced by cogeneration, compared
to 59 % in 1990 and 39 % in 1980. On account of the market
conditions, electricity is not produced together with district heating if
electricity prices are low. The proportion of district heating produced by
cogeneration has decreased slightly as a consequence of the liberalisation of
the gas and electricity market, so electricity and heat are coproduced only
where there is a financial benefit to the cogeneration plants.
High shares of wind power in the
electricity system will – all other things being equal – reduce the proportion
of district heating produced by cogeneration on account of the resulting
reduction in electricity prices.
Table 43: Cogeneration production broken
down by type of production
 Sheet No 3   Technologies || TOTAL || CCGT with heat recovery || Steam back-pressure turbine || Steam condensing extraction turbine || Gas turbine with heat recovery || Internal combustion engine 
 2000 || electricity || capacity || [GW] || 6.5 || 0.51 || 0.68 || 4.10 || 0.27 || 0.91 
 output || [TWh] || 23.0 || 2.15 || 2.72 || 13.15 || 1.28 || 3.65 
 heat || capacity || [GW] || 9.1 || 0.55 || 2.34 || 4.47 || 0.50 || 1.21 
 output || [TWh] || 30.8 || 2.75 || 9.14 || 11.51 || 2.40 || 4.98 
 fuel || input || [PJ] || 245.4 || 20.24 || 50.56 || 123.16 || 15.86 || 35.55 
 2004 || electricity || capacity || [GW] || 5.9 || 1.08 || 0.70 || 2.84 || 0.28 || 1.00 
 output || [TWh] || 25.4 || 4.66 || 2.52 || 12.77 || 1.38 || 4.05 
 heat || capacity || [GW] || 9.0 || 1.17 || 2.29 || 3.63 || 0.58 || 1.33 
 output || [TWh] || 30.9 || 4.93 || 9.09 || 9.01 || 2.48 || 5.41 
 fuel || input || [PJ] || 261.2 || 42.82 || 47.81 || 116.01 || 16.27 || 38.26 
 2005 || electricity || capacity || [GW] || 6.8 || 1.08 || 0.61 || 3.85 || 0.28 || 1.02 
 output || [TWh] || 25.7 || 4.14 || 2.75 || 13.79 || 1.28 || 3.72 
 heat || capacity || [GW] || 9.2 || 1.14 || 1.94 || 4.21 || 0.56 || 1.35 
 output || [TWh] || 31.4 || 4.75 || 9.26 || 9.97 || 2.43 || 4.97 
 fuel || input || [PJ] || 265.2 || 38.64 || 49.07 || 127.02 || 15.41 || 35.06 
 2006 || electricity || capacity || [GW] || 6.4 || 1.08 || 0.61 || 3.46 || 0.29 || 1.00 
 output || [TWh] || 29.8 || 4.89 || 2.60 || 17.69 || 1.35 || 3.23 
 heat || capacity || [GW] || 8.7 || 1.14 || 1.94 || 3.76 || 0.57 || 1.31 
 output || [TWh] || 29.5 || 5.06 || 8.79 || 8.88 || 2.45 || 4.35 
 fuel || input || [PJ] || 294.5 || 44.55 || 46.60 || 157.02 || 15.73 || 30.61 
 2007 || electricity || capacity || [GW] || 6.3 || 1.08 || 0.84 || 3.14 || 0.20 || 1.02 
 output || [TWh] || 23.8 || 3.85 || 2.76 || 13.79 || 0.74 || 2.64 
 heat || capacity || [GW] || 9.6 || 1.16 || 2.78 || 3.94 || 0.40 || 1.33 
 output || [TWh] || 28.5 || 4.53 || 9.83 || 9.22 || 1.36 || 3.53 
 fuel || input || [PJ] || 249.0 || 36.84 || 51.75 || 126.71 || 8.93 || 24.74   
 2008 || electricity || capacity || [GW] || 6.2 || 1.07 || 0.77 || 3.14 || 0.19 || 1.03 
 output || [TWh] || 22.9 || 3.88 || 2.78 || 12.54 || 0.87 || 2.70 
 heat || capacity || [GW] || 9.3 || 1.14 || 2.50 || 3.94 || 0.39 || 1.33 
 output || [TWh] || 28.6 || 4.39 || 9.81 || 9.20 || 1.62 || 3.57 
 fuel || input || [PJ] || 240.6 || 36.08 || 51.93 || 116.76 || 10.57 || 25.22 
 2009 || electricity || capacity || [GW] || 5.6 || 1.05 || 0.59 || 2.74 || 0.24 || 1.02 
 output || [TWh] || 22.2 || 3.51 || 2.66 || 12.95 || 0.68 || 2.41 
 heat || capacity || [GW] || 8.2 || 1.07 || 1.83 || 3.51 || 0.41 || 1.33 
 output || [TWh] || 27.0 || 4.01 || 9.95 || 8.62 || 1.23 || 3.20 
 fuel || input || [PJ] || 231.6 || 32.32 || 50.86 || 117.78 || 8.14 || 22.50 
 2010 || electricity || capacity || [GW] || 6.2 || 1.06 || 0.58 || 3.31 || 0.24 || 1.04 
 output || [TWh] || 25.3 || 4.35 || 2.79 || 14.52 || 0.74 || 2.91 
 heat || capacity || [GW] || 8.9 || 1.12 || 1.79 || 4.18 || 0.48 || 1.34 
 output || [TWh] || 32.6 || 5.09 || 9.98 || 12.19 || 1.45 || 3.88 
 fuel || input || [PJ] || 265.7 || 40.67 || 52.38 || 136.55 || 9.01 || 27.05 
2010 was a cold
year, which meant that more heat was produced at both central and decentralised
cogeneration plants and more electricity was therefore also produced at Danish
cogeneration plants than in the previous two years.
Regarding the
production of electricity, broken down by fuel, the general trend is a fall in
electricity production based on coal and natural gas and a slight rise in
electricity production based on wind power and biomass. However, the picture is
blurred by significant variation in annual production.
Regarding the
production of district heating, broken down by production plant, cogeneration
in Denmark is mainly district heating-based. In 2010 gross production was
approx. 150 PJ, nearly half of which was produced at central cogeneration
plants, approx. 20% at decentralised cogeneration plants and just over 10% at
private cogeneration plants, while approx. 20% came from plants producing only
heat.
2010 was a cold
year, which meant that more heat was produced at both central and decentralised
cogeneration plants.
Support schemes
In Denmark
electricity produced together with heat is given priority grid access.
The production
and expansion of cogeneration are given the financial support required to cover
the necessary investment costs without unduly increasing the district heating
costs borne by consumers. Operating aid is also provided for high-efficiency
cogeneration. This aid may be classified as follows:
•     Production-independent
subsidies granted to electricity producers, financed as a PSO (Public Service
Obligations) contribution through the electricity price charged to consumers;
•     Production-dependent
subsidies (price supplements) granted to electricity producers, financed by the
budget.
Additional
operating subsidies for cogeneration are also granted on the basis of renewable
energy (biomass and biogas) and financed by electricity consumers as PSO
contributions. These subsidies are awarded as price supplements for biomass or
as a fixed total price (market price + operating subsidy) for biogas.
Until 2010
operating subsidies were also awarded for cogeneration using domestic waste as
a fuel. In the case of biomass-based cogeneration, heat production is also
exempt from taxation. Subsidies are granted both for cogeneration geared
towards the heat market and for industrial cogeneration.
The
high-efficiency cogeneration support schemes are designed to provide stable
long-term investment conditions for electricity producers and will run for a
period of 20 years from the date of establishment of the plant, and in any case
for no less than 15 years from 2004.
Funding
The PSO (Public Service Obligations)
contribution costs of environmentally friendly electricity production in
previous years are divided in Table 44 below into wind, biomass, etc., and decentralised
cogeneration. In 2010 the PSO costs of high-efficiency decentralised
cogeneration were, as may be seen, DKK 573 million.
Table 44: PSO
costs of environmentally friendly electricity production (DKK million)
 PSO costs of environmentally friendly electricity production (DKK million) 
   || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 
 Wind || 1 668 || 1 076 || 1 631 || 667 || 1 242 || 1 069 
 Biomass, etc. || 368 || 245 || 419 || 228 || 424 || 461 
 Decentralised cogeneration || 906 || 401 || 1 179 || 170 || 1 267 || 573 
 Total || 2 942 || 1 722 || 3 229 || 1 065 || 2 932 || 2 103 
In previous years the costs of
high-efficiency cogeneration, financed under the Finance Act, were as follows:
Table 45: Decentralised
cogeneration costs, financed under the Finance Act (DKK million)
 Decentralised cogeneration costs, financed under the Finance Act (DKK million) 
   || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 
 Natural gas-based cogeneration || 127 || 129 || 100 || 129 || 104 || 92 
 Waste-based cogeneration || 118 || 148 || 79 || 117 || 99 || 0 
 Total || 245 || 277 || 179 || 246 || 203 || 92 
It has been highlighted that the plan is to
adjust the payments made under the Finance Act to basic amounts financed as PSO
contributions.
Overall support for high-efficiency
cogeneration (excluding special subsidies granted for biomass or biogas-based
cogeneration) is expected to be at a similar level to 2010, i.e. approx.
DKK 700 million per annum.
6.7.        Estonia
According to the date
provided in the Excel template as part of the national progress report, the
share of cogeneration varied in the range of 7-10.8% between 2000 and 2010. It
was 7% in 2010 (10.3% according to Eurostat, which includes all cogeneration),
9.2% in 2009, 8.6% in 2008, 7.1% in 2007, 10.7 in 2006, 10.2% in 2005, 9.9% in
2004 and 10.8 in 2000. 
Measures which foster the
development of cogeneration are based on European Union legislation, national
legislation and support schemes. However, it is also necessary to recognise the
achievements of local authorities. Where district heating is used in densely
populated areas with a view to safeguarding district heating systems, they have
analysed the development of the local energy economy and in many cases
established district heating areas (areas in which district heating is the only
available source of heating). Local authorities and their utility companies
have searched actively for funding, e.g. from EU Funds, to improve the
condition of district heating systems and, as regards support, have provided the
co-financing required for projects.
The development of
cogeneration in Estonia can be considered satisfactory. The contribution of
cogeneration plants on the electricity market has been preserved in spite of
significant changes in the energy sector, such as the closure of old oil-shale
fuelled cogeneration plants in Estonia, the increase in natural gas prices to a
level comparable to that of other EU countries and the dwindling market in
heat. The use of local fuels in cogeneration is increasing. Peat and renewable
biofuel are local fuels with considerable energy potential which can be used
sustainably in small-scale cogeneration plants.
The fact that a considerable
proportion of the heating market is made up of relatively low-consumption
networks is a barrier to the development of cogeneration.
In addition to the support
scheme provided for under the Electricity Market Act under which support is
paid for electricity produced in efficient cogeneration plants, investment aid
is granted in Estonia for low-capacity cogeneration plants fuelled on
sustainable fuels. The aim of the support scheme provided for under the
Electricity Market Act is to stimulate investments in cogeneration. No
distinction is drawn between sectors as regards the support schemes. 
Some EUR 420–470 million
has been spent solely on establishing cogeneration plants, to which must be
added the cost of improving the electricity grid and modernising the district
heating network.
6.8.        Finland
Progress
Progress has been made in high-efficiency
cogeneration. This progress has been supported by investments in the
development of technology and its promotion, legally guaranteed equal access to
markets and good cooperation between private operators and public
organisations. It is difficult to identify the impact of individual measures on
the use and role of high-efficiency cogeneration. National legislation does not
set out to promote cogeneration in any particular way but nor does it put any
obstacles in the way of its use. 
In Finland 70-76% of district heat is
produced by cogeneration, depending on the average winter temperature There is
no longer much potential to increase this share in Finland, because the market
share of district heating is nearly half of the total heating demand of all
residential and service buildings and can exceed 90% in the biggest cities. 
In recent years cogeneration electricity
has accounted for about 35% of all Finnish electricity production. According to Eurostat data, the share of electricity from
cogeneration was 36.2% in 2010, one of the highest in Europe and covering the
majority of thermal power generation, including biomass. This is, however, a
slight decrease from previous years, e.g. the share stood at 38.9% in 2005.
In turn, cogeneration heat makes up nearly
80% of the heating energy used in industry and district heating. The volume of
district heating has continued to climb somewhat in recent years, but in order
to increase its share markedly it would often be necessary to introduce
district heating in areas where, due to low demand, it would not be able to
compete with other heating solutions on market terms. Whether the
energy-intensive industry can further increase cogeneration volumes depends
directly on its capacity utilisation rate and the possibility of raising it,
which in turn are dependent on the international competitiveness of these
sectors and on trends in global demand.
Figure 19:  CHP
heat production percentage in Finland
Table 46: Market
Shares of Heating:
 district heat                           49% electricity                               18% heat pump                            5% domestic fuel oil                12% wood                                      14% heavy fuel oil                       1% natural gas                            1% 
In recent years, district heating has had
to face ever-tighter competition on the heating market. A few individual
consumers have left existing district-heating networks and switched, for
example, to geothermal heat. The growing competition can be seen especially in
new residential areas, where there are discussions on which heating system(s)
can best meet the areas’ energy needs. Criteria include not just
competitiveness but also other factors such as suitability for the area,
reliability of the service, the company’s image and effects on emissions. 
In recent years, geothermal heat has
emerged as the biggest challenger of district heat on the heating market.
Geothermal heating systems work by transferring heat stored in the soil, rock
or water by a heat pump to the buildings to be heated. The system is
characterised by a rather high level of investment and relatively low operating
expenses based on electricity. The competitiveness of geothermal heat is
closely linked to the level of investment and trends in electricity prices. 
In addition to geothermal heat, various
hybrid systems that combine solar thermal/photovoltaic solar energy, heat pumps
or e.g. pellet heating, have become more popular and they are considered modern
heating systems such as geothermal heat.  
Support schemes
Cogeneration is not in itself grounds for
granting energy support. As support is granted on the basis of renewable energy
use or new technology, there are no separate statistics on the support received
by cogeneration plants. Most of the energy-production projects based on wood,
biogas or recycled fuels are carried out at cogenerations plants.
Funding
Total Support in 2008-2010 was EUR 171,9
million .
6.9.        France
Progress
In the beginning of the 2000s cogeneration
using fossil energy grew, then stabilised and started decreasing in 2008, in
accordance with energy policy objectives, which aim to develop cogeneration
based on biomass so that it would gradually replace existing natural-gas-based
installations.  
According to Eurostat data, the share of
electricity from cogeneration was 2.8% in 2010. This share was 4% in 2005.
Support schemes
There is a tendered guaranteed purchase
scheme at favourable rates.
Funding
The compensation for the feed-in of
electricity produced by cogeneration installations is estimated in 2011 at EUR
705.3 million as regards natural-gas-based units and at EUR 53.2 million for
biomass-based units.
6.10.      Germany
Progress
Net CHP electricity generation increased by
14 TWh, from around 76 TWh to approximately 90 TWh between 2002 and 2010.
The CHP share of total net electricity generation thus increased by 1.5 %
to currently 15.4 % (reported in the national progress report of May 2012).
In 2010, it stood at 13.2% as reported by Eurostat.
Of the total generated, i.e. approx.
90 TWh, around 53 TWh was generated by general supply plants. In industry, net
CHP electricity generation increased from 23 TWh to around 27 TWh. The CHP
share of electricity generation by plants supplying industry thus increased by
9 % to 62 %. CHP plants of less than 1 MW and biogenic CHP plants had
the most dynamic growth. Electricity generation in small conventional CHP
plants increased by 1.6 TWh to 3.5 TWh between 2002 and 2010. 
Support schemes
The contribution of biogenic CHP plants
receiving aid under the Renewable Energies Act (Erneubare-Energien-Gesetz, EEG)
increased from virtually nil in 2004 to 5.9 TWh.
Among plants receiving subsidies since
2002, small CHP plants of up to 2 MWe predominate in terms of
numbers, but contribute only around 4 % to total net CHP electricity
generation.
Electricity generation in high-efficiency
CHP plants is currently promoted in the framework of the Cogeneration Act
through a subsidy scheme financed by levies where the market price for
electricity is topped up in the case of modernisation and building of new
plants .  Since 2009 the construction of new and extension of existing heating
networks have also been promoted through the scheme financed by levies under
the Cogeneration Act.
Since 2009 the total amount has been capped
at EUR 750 million per year, of which EUR 150 million per year for
network development. This limit has not been reached since, however, as the
'evolution' of older, large plants led to a constant decrease in the scheme's
costs in the past couple of years. Meanwhile the construction of new plants
followed a downward trend.
According to the study carried out for the
interim review, subsidy payments under the Cogeneration Act will drop from
currently EUR 384 million (2010) to EUR 159 million (2011). The reason for this
is the expiry of subsidies for modernised CHP plants as well as for plants with
a capacity of 50 KW to 2 MW that came into operation between 2002 and 2008. As
a result, in 2011 subsidy payments for CHP electricity will decrease from
currently around EUR 342 million to EUR 109 million. On the other hand,
subsidy payments to heating networks will increase from EUR 42 million to EUR 50
million in the same period.
Based on the assumption that subsidy
payments to heating networks will remain stable at EUR 50 million per
year, the experts estimate that, due to the expected expansion of CHP
generation, total subsidy payments will nevertheless increase to a level of
about EUR 630 million by 2017 and thereafter decrease to about EUR 560
million by 2020.
6.11.      Greece
Progress
Overall
as reported by Eurostat, the share of cogeneration was 4.3% in 2010, a
significant increase compared to the 1.7% share in 2005. As regards progress
made in the last four years (in the period since the last progress report),
this is depicted in Figure 8 below and described in the section below. 
Figure 20:  Development of the
electricity and heat generated by HECHP plants in Greece
Figure 2020 clearly
presents a relatively steady increasing trend in electricity production in
2010, in contrast with heat production, which is marked with more intense
fluctuations. In particular, following a small drop in heat production in 2007
and steady production levels in 2008, there was a significant drop in 2009,
which went on in 2010. The drop was mainly due to fluctuations in the
production activity of units and was influenced by a number of factors, the
most important one being an increase in fuel prices which made the operation of
some units inexpedient. The effect of fuel prices can also be seen in the
change of the fuel mix used by HECHP units. Natural gas was the basic fuel used
by HECHP units in 2006; however, there was a significant reduction in its use
in 2007, followed by an increase. Increased penetration of diesel was observed
in 2007 and 2008, but its use dropped significantly in the following years.
Finally, the penetration of HECHP units
using biogas seems of particular importance since 7 units of a total installed
electric and thermal capacity of 8.9 MWe and 27.0 MWth,
respectively, operated in 2010.  
Important findings are derived from the
above graph for the period after 2009, during which, despite continued and
increased consequences from the economic recession, the institutional changes
and adjustments made from 2009 onwards within the context of transposing the
Directive appear to be boosting and reinforcing the share of HECHP units.
Taking into account the above behaviours,
the recent changes made in support of natural gas-fuelled CECHP and the development
of new financing instruments and reinforcement/activation of existing ones are
expected to contribute towards the growth of HECHP units, in particular in
sectors (“other sectors” category in the above graphs) including applications
mainly in the tertiary sector. Moreover, the expansion of the natural gas
network may support the prospect of developing district heating applications,
which has resulted in the appearance of relevant units since 2009.
Support schemes
There are a range of support schemes
including FITs and investment subsidies.
Funding
3 CHP investment plans were financed, of a
total budget of EUR 12.5 million, with State expenditure amounting to
EUR 4.4 million. In addition, as part of Measure 2.1.3 “Economic
incentives for supporting individual private energy investments”, 12 CHP
investment plans were financed, of a total capacity of 278.6 MW and a
total budget of EUR 1071.9 million, with State expenditure amounting to
EUR 352.9 million.
Figure 21:1
presents a breakdown of the electricity and heat generated by HECHP units per
operating sector for the years 2007 to 2010 in Greece. The largest percentage
of the electricity generated was observed in the industrial sector by 2008,
whereas district heating gradually occupied a significant share from 2009
onwards, finally reaching 23% of the heat generated by HECHP units. This,
however, is caused to a large extent by the drop in the heat generated by HECHP
units in industry, which was reduced by 81% in absolute figures. The
contribution to the generation of electricity from other sectors, despite being
steady by 2009, doubled in 2010, but their contribution to the generation of
heat rose more rapidly as far as the relevant share was concerned, reaching
almost 60% of the heat generated by HECHP units in 2010. Graph 8 presents
a breakdown of the electricity and heat generated by HECHP units per
technology. Steam turbine units were used in electricity generation mainly in
2007, while at the same time the share of internal combustion engines was rising
thus making them the key technology in 2009 and 2010. The share of gas turbine
units remained steady in the period under examination and tended to drop in
2009 and 2010. The same trend was observed in connection with heat generation,
where the operation of steam turbine units was gradually replaced by internal
combustion engines, whereas the share of gas turbine units was particularly
high in 2010 as compared to previous years.     
Taking into account
the above behaviours, the recent changes made in support of natural gas-fuelled
CECHP and the development of new financing instruments and
reinforcement/activation of existing ones are expected to contribute towards
the growth of HECHP units, in particular in sectors (“other sectors” category
in the above graphs) including applications mainly in the tertiary sector.
Moreover, the expansion of the natural gas network may support the prospect of
developing district heating applications, which has resulted in the appearance
of relevant units since 2009.
Support schemes
There are a range of support schemes
including FITs and investment subsidies.
Funding
3 CHP investment plans were financed, of a
total budget of EUR 12.5 million, with State expenditure amounting to
EUR 4.4 million. In addition, as part of Measure 2.1.3 “Economic
incentives for supporting individual private energy investments”, 12 CHP
investment plans were financed, of a total capacity of 278.6 MW and a
total budget of EUR 1071.9 million, with State expenditure amounting to
EUR 352.9 million.
Figure 21:1 Development of the electricity and heat
generated by HECHP plants in Greece
6.12.      Hungary
Progress
2000 high-efficiency cogenerated
electricity accounted for 9% of total electricity generation. In 2004 the rate
stood at 16%, in 2005 at 19% and in 2006 at 21%. After that, it hovered around
the 20% mark. In 2009 the rate fell slightly, to 18%. In 2000 high-efficiency
cogenerated heat accounted for 29% of total heat production. In 2004 the rate
stood at 44%, in 2005 at 55%, rising steadily to 66% in 2008. In 2009 it was
down to 56%. The sharp growth witnessed since 2000 was the result of the
introduction of a support system. The reasons for the slowdown and eventual
stalling of this growth may be the possible withdrawal of the support system in
the future and the limited nature of the heat market. Of total cogenerated heat
production, both high efficiency and non‑high efficiency, more than 80% of
total heat demand is met from cogeneration. The economic crisis that began in 2008
has also had a negative impact on both investment and production.
As regards fuels, natural gas accounted for
a significant share of the total fuels used throughout the period under review.
Natural gas represents more than 90% of electricity generation and since 2006
more than 80% of heat production. Since the middle of the decade there has been
an increase first in biogas then in biomass use, although they still account
for only a small share of the total.
In terms of sectors, by 2005 there had been
a sharp increase in ‘district heating’, while ‘non-district heating’ saw a
bigger increase in 2006 and 2007. The lowest increase was in the industrial
sector. 2009 saw a slump in industrial and non‑district heating, presumably due
to the economic crisis.
As regards the technology, CCGT with heat
recovery saw the biggest increase, though there was also a sharp rise in
internal combustion engine use during the period under review. Both
technologies had peaked by 2004/2005. There was a stagnation followed by a decline
in the use of gas turbines with heat recovery.
Support schemes
The sharp growth witnessed during the
period under review was the result of the introduction of a support system. The
reasons for the slowdown and eventual stalling of this growth may be the
possible withdrawal of the support system in the future and the limited nature
of the heat market. If we consider total cogenerated heat production, both high
efficiency and non-high efficiency, we can see that more than 80% of total heat
demand is met from cogeneration. The economic crisis that began in 2008 has
also had a negative impact on both investment and production.
Funding
The amount spent promoting high-efficiency
cogeneration (primarily to make district heating more affordable for households)
rose steadily each year from HUF 8 billion in 2003 to around
HUF 57 billion in 2010.
6.13.      Ireland
Progress
The operational CHP capacity at the end of
2010 was 280 MWe, which was the same as that which was operational
at the end of 2009.  This was 32 MWe below the most optimistic
projection of the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Potential in Ireland report
published in 2009.  However the output from these operational units increased
from 2009 to 2010 as follows:
·        
For electricity from 1.8 TWh to 1.92 TWh (+7%),
and
·        
For heat from 3.05 TWh to 3.32 TWh (+9%).
The barriers to CHP development are still
considerable. The general economic climate is particularly difficult and
militates against investment in CHP, such that there has been little or no
activity in terms of new plant development.
There are a number of significant barriers
to CHP development in Ireland ranging from market structure through economic
factors to appropriate heat loads to ensure compliance with the requirements of
Directive 2004/8/EC.
The structure of Ireland’s industrial base
and its housing pattern are not conducive to significant penetration of CHP. 
Ireland’s industry is primarily based on high value, low energy intensity
sectors such as pharmaceuticals, ICT and services industries.  One energy
intense industrial site (an alumina refinery) has a 160 MWe
cogeneration plant which accounts for more than 50% of the total national
installed capacity.  A recently opened waste-to-energy plant with a generating
capacity of 22 MWe is located in an area with no immediate local
heat load.  District heating which is often associated with CHP plants in other
European countries has no tradition in Ireland due to the distribution of a
relatively small population, a mild climate and low density and low rise
housing.  Indeed it is possible that improvements in the energy efficiency of
Irish housing stock that is currently being driven by government legislation
and capital supports will militate further against district heating by making
its economic viability more challenging.
The current economic climate is not
conducive to investment generally or to investment in CHP.  In addition, the
spark gap (ratio between electricity and gas price) remains at a level
(typically between 3.5 and 4.5 for industrial applications) which is
insufficient to provide an acceptable payback for most CHP operations.  There
are instances where units have been mothballed as a result.
Heat loads that are necessary for CHP to be
economically viable and to enable compliance with Directive 2004/8/EC are not
readily available in Ireland.  While some of the largest industries (cement
& periclase manufacture and mining) consume a significant proportion of
industrial fossil fuels and electricity, they are not suited to CHP due to the
mismatch between the heat output from CHP plants and the thermal demand of
those industries.  Other large scale industries, such as the dairy sector,
operate on a seasonal basis which does not favour economic operation of CHP.
Support schemes
Feed in tariffs.
6.14.      Italy
Progress
The marked increase (around 3 000 MW or
40%) in total cogeneration output is highly significant. This figure shows that
the policy of providing incentives for cogeneration was effective, even though
the process was still continuing during the period in question. Thanks to this
policy more than half of Italy's potential HEC output, estimates to be at least
17 000 MW, has been effectively realised.
The increase in electricity production, by
47%, was also significant, in spite of a slight drop in 2008 and 2009 (perhaps
due among other things to the difficult economic conditions at that time). 
As was to be expected, fuel consumption
increased (25%) less than electricity production. This is proof that plants'
average efficiency has improved. 
The most used fuel remains natural gas,
which still represents 70% and more of total consumption. Renewable sources are
almost completely missing. However, this is only an apparent absence, as there
are plants for which the incentives for renewable sources have been requested
rather than those for cogeneration, because the two categories cannot be
combined. Therefore these plants, which in fact are cogenerative, could not be
included in the table.
Finally, and most comfortingly, the fact is
that cogeneration enables Italy, each year, to save 27-28% of fuel compared to
the corresponding separate production, which equals around 4.5 million tonnes
of oil equivalent.
Figure 22: HEC electricity production
(TWh)
Figure 23:  HEC
electricity share of national total (%)
Figure 24:Energy saving from CHP compared
to separate production of electricity and heat (%)
Figure 25: Energy savings from CHP as compared
to separate production of electricity and heat (Mtoe)
District Heating
The share of the civil sector (which
practically coincides with the sector of district heating or to be more exact
of urban heating) has increased during the period in question, from 8% in 2004
to 16% in 2010. The increase, particularly evident in 2009, is mainly due to
the legislation which, under certain conditions, grants Green Certificates to
cogeneration plants which form part of district heating networks.
Technology
The most rapid development has been with
regard to internal combustion engines, where the total output has more than
doubled from 2004 to 2010.
Also very obvious was the growth (around
60% in output) of combined cycle gas-steam plants thanks to major recent
investment.
The number of gas turbines has decreased
following growth from 2005 to 2006. This can be explained by the common
practice of adding a steam turbine to an existing gas turbine so as to increase
total output. In this way a new combined cycle gas-steam turbine has apparently
taken over from the present gas turbine which seems to have 'disappeared'.
Finally, there is a clear decrease in steam turbines, output from which has
approximately halved during the period in question. This is another sign of the
renewal process going on in Italy's cogeneration.
6.15.      Latvia
Progress
Latvia has identified the necessity to
satisfy existing energy demand through the use of the maximum possible amount
of local energy sources and environmentally friendly and sustainable
technologies. Consequently, it remains essential to gradually replace existing
heat-production installations with cogeneration installations using local
energy sources. Their considered replacement, together with the efficient
utilisation of energy sources, would make a considerable contribution to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The relationship between district heating
energy produced in boiler houses and district heating energy produced by
cogeneration has changed since 2000, with the amount of heat energy produced by
cogeneration district heating systems in 2010 increasing by 20.9 percentage
points compared with 2000.
In 2010, Latvia’s high-efficiency
cogeneration power stations (with total installed electrical capacity of
898.3 MW and heat capacity of 997.8 MW) generated 2981 GWh of
electricity and 2790 GWh of heat energy, mainly utilising natural gas as
fuel (24.6 PJ). Only 0.01% (0.26 PJ) of all the fuel used in
cogeneration derived from renewable energy sources. The share of high‑efficiency
cogeneration in total electricity generation in 2010, compared with 2004,
increased by 16%, and the cogeneration share of district heating supply rose
significantly.
Around 22% of the necessary heat energy
used is produced by district heating systems, whereas 78% of heat energy is
produced by decentralised (local and individual) heating systems (2009,
Eurostat). In 2010, around 70% of the final consumption of district heating
systems’ heat energy was consumed by households. In recent years, the amount of
energy produced by district heating system boiler houses has gradually reduced,
as shown below.
Table 47:  Structure
of energy produced in Latvia from 2000 to 2010 (%)
   || 2000 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 
 Electricity generated || 12.92 || 15.05 || 20.46 || 19.94 || 22.31 || 22.01 || 27.75 
 Power stations ||   || 0.01 ||   || 0.01 || 0.02 || 0.03 || 0.07 
 Cogeneration stations || 12.92 || 15.04 || 20.46 || 19.93 || 22.29 || 21.97 || 27.68 
 Heat produced by district heating || 87.08 || 84.95 || 79.54 || 80.06 || 77.69 || 77.99 || 72.25 
 Cogeneration stations || 32.89 || 40.03 || 44.08 || 44.87 || 40.85 || 42.86 || 42.40 
 Boiler houses || 54.20 || 44.91 || 35.46 || 35.18 || 36.84 || 35.13 || 29.85 
Source: Central Statistical Bureau, Latvia
Looking at the structure of electricity
supply, gross national electricity consumption was 7500 GWh in 2010, of
which 2402 GWh was generated by large cogeneration stations (Riga TEC-1
and Riga TEC-2), while other cogeneration stations generated 648 GWh. The
cogeneration station share of gross national electricity consumption comprised
40.7% in 2010. The contribution of the said large cogeneration stations
increased from 19.6% in 2000 to 32.0% in 2010. In the same period, the share of
other cogeneration stations grew from 2.5% in 2000 to 8.6% in 2010. 
Looking at the structure of district
heating supply, 28.66 PJ was produced in 2010, of which cogeneration
stations produced 16.82 PJ and boiler houses produced 11.84 PJ of
heat energy. Consequently, of all the heat supplied by district heating
systems, cogeneration stations produced 58.7% and boiler houses 41.3%.
A rapid increase in the share of
high-efficiency cogeneration can be seen in Latvia’s energy sector since 2000.
In 2010, the share of electricity generated by a cogeneration process in Latvia
was 45% of the electricity generated in the country. Cogeneration is efficient
in terms of utilising primary energy, but the useful utilisation of the heat
energy produced is restricted by the seasonality of heating, and the lack of an
appropriate industrial heat load.
The share of electricity generated by
cogeneration has risen considerably, having increased by 132.3% from 2010 to
2000. In 2010, Latvia’s gross electricity consumption was 7.5 TWh while 2.98 TWh
was generated by high‑efficiency cogeneration, as shown in Table 48. 
Table 48: Number
of high-efficiency cogeneration stations, installed capacity and energy
generated
   || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 
 Number of high-efficiency cogeneration stations || 30 || 35 || 46 || 55 
 Installed electrical capacity (MW) || 555.1 || 876 || 891.4 || 898.3 
 Installed heat energy capacity (MW) || 880.3 || 971 || 990.4 || 997.8 
 Electricity generated (GWh). || 1911 || 1634 || 2000 || 2981 
 Heat energy produced (GWh) || 2568 || 2059 || 2029 || 2790 
Source: Ministry of Economy, Latvia
In 2010, cogeneration stations produced
4673 GWh (16.82 PJ) or 58.7%, while boiler houses produced
3289 GWh (11.84 PJ) or 41.3% of district heating system heat energy.
Efficient cogeneration, as seen in Table 3, generated 2981 GWh (10.73 PJ)
of electricity in 2010, 63% of the total amount of electricity generated by
cogeneration (Table 3).
Table 49: Number
of cogeneration stations, installed capacity and energy generated
   || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 
 Number of cogeneration stations || 43 || 48 || 56 || 71 
 Installed electrical capacity (MW) || 593.3 || 587.7 || 933.6 || 947.5 
 Installed heat energy capacity* (MW) || 3024.1 || 2737.3 || 2737.2 || 2856.6 
 Electricity generated (GWh) || 1983.9 || 2103.6 || 2057.2 || 3049.9 
 Heat energy produced** (GWh) || 4606.9 || 3990.2 || 4076.1 || 4730.8 
* Installed heat energy capacity shown
including installed capacity of water-heating boilers for producing heat energy

** Heat energy produced shown including heat
energy produced by water-heating boilers
Source: Central Statistical Bureau, Latvia
Given that implemented energy policy has
nominated increasing energy generating efficiency as one of the priorities, the
relationship between district heating energy produced in boiler houses and
district heating energy produced by cogeneration has changed since 2000: the
amount of heat energy produced by cogeneration district heating systems
increased from 12.03 PJ (37.8%) in 2000 to 16.82 PJ (58.7%) in 2010 and
the amount of heat energy produced by boiler houses fell from 19.83 PJ (62.2%)
in 2000 to 11.84 PJ (41.3%) in 2010. 
Latvia’s consumption of primary energy
sources has fallen considerably, from 333.2 PJ in 1990 to 200.5 PJ in
2010, with energy production by high‑efficiency cogeneration utilising
24.9 PJ of energy sources in 2010, of which 0.26 PJ were renewable
energy sources.
Currently, oil products (33.9% in 2010) and
wood fuel (24.6% in 2010) are the fuels most consumed in final energy
consumption. Natural gas is the main fuel utilised in Latvia’s cogeneration
stations. Small amounts of heating oil, peat, coal and biofuel (wood-chip fuel,
fuel residues, biogas and biodiesel) are used. The diagram in this report
displays the breakdown of fuel types used in all cogeneration stations, which
has remained fundamentally unchanged since 2000. 
Given the development level of cogeneration
technology and the cost of investment, the implementation in practice of
widely-used technologies – steam turbines, gas turbines, combined-cycle and
internal combustion engines – can be expected in Latvia over the next ten years
in populated areas with a sufficiently large, appropriate heat load. However,
in the next few years more extensive implementation of innovative technologies
is not expected in Latvia. Some utilisation of Stirling engine and Organic
Rankin Cycle technologies for cogeneration can be expected.
In 2010, 86.3% of the electricity generated
in high-efficiency cogeneration power stations was generated utilising combined
cycle gas turbines (CCGT) with heat utilisation, with 12.8% utilising internal
combustion engines, 0.7% utilising back pressure steam turbines, and 0.2%
utilising gas turbines with heat utilisation.
Numerous cogeneration stations with
installed capacity of up to 1 MW operate in Latvia. Operating these
stations does not require a licence, and the electricity generated is sold
pursuant to agreements with the transmission system operator, with the heat
energy sold pursuant to agreements with local heating supply companies.
District Heating
The rate of increasing the use of
high-efficiency efficient cogeneration installations for district heating
systems is being held back by the large amount of investment required, the
restricted capacity of local governments to obtain loans, and the low rate of
capital turnover. For these reasons, local governments continue to operate
inefficient installations resulting in increased over‑consumption of fuel and
the inability to supply heat at the required quality level. The energy
generating process can be optimised and heat losses in transmission systems
reduced through the complete overhaul of systems. Nevertheless, the overall
average efficiency level of heat production installations in Latvia can be
rated as high.
Efforts must also be made to maintain and
develop existing district heating systems in the future as they provide the
constant heat load and, to achieve the maximum impact, choose cogeneration
capacity appropriate to the existing heat load. A considerable increase is not
expected in the coming years.
Latvia is currently already paying
particular attention to the application of those cogeneration technologies
which use renewable energy sources to produce energy. Given the circumstances
in Latvia, that is mostly wood fuel. One of the current priorities is the
implementation of measures to promote energy produced from renewable energy sources,
increasing the share in total gross final energy consumption,[86]
which means support for the efficient utilisation of biomass not only for heat
energy but also to generate electricity. 
Considerable cogeneration potential also
exists in local and individual heating supply, the uptake of which does not
significantly affect existing district heating system cogeneration heat loads.
In promoting the development of
cogeneration stations and energy generation from renewable energy sources, the
potential electricity capacity in both transmission and distribution systems
must be increased
6.16.      Lithuania 
Progress
In 2004, energy in combined heat and power
(high-efficiency cogeneration) systems was produced by nine cogeneration units
(CU) with a total installed electrical capacity of 556 MW and heat capacity of
1117 MW. In 2010, the number of high-efficiency CUs grew up to 32 with an
increase in the total electrical capacity up to 777 MW and heat capacity up to
1809 MW, i.e., the number of high-efficiency CUs more than tripled from
2004 to 2010, demonstrating an increase in electrical capacity of up to 221 MW
and in heat capacity of up to 692 MW. Changes in the installed electrical and
heat capacities in high-efficiency cogeneration plants in Lithuania in 2004–2010
are displayed in Figure 1.
In Lithuania, steam condensing extraction
turbine-based cogeneration (combined-cycle) units account for the greatest
share of high-efficiency CUs by installed capacities. This technology has been
used in the biggest CUs in Vilnius, Kaunas and Mažeikiai. In 2004, installed
electrical and heat capacities of high-efficiency CUs using this technology in
Vilnius and Kaunas power plants amounted to 530 MW and 997 MW, respectively. In
2007, generation of electricity from high-efficiency cogeneration was started
in two more, previously insufficiently efficient, cogeneration units in
Mažeikiai with a total installed electrical capacity of 160 MW and heat
capacity of 560 MW. In 2007-2010, installed electrical and heat capacities of
high-efficiency CUs using the aforementioned technology amounted to 690 MW and
1555 MW, respectively.
There were minor changes in the number of
electricity production capacities and installed capacities of high-efficiency
cogeneration units using the steam back pressure turbine technology: from two
CUs of this type with a total installed electrical capacity of 24.75 MW and
heat capacity of up to 118 MW in 2004 up to five CUs of the aforementioned type
with a total installed electrical capacity of 36 MW and heat capacity of up to
202 MW in 2010.
In Lithuania, the first cogeneration unit
with 35 MW electrical capacity and 34 MW heat capacity, based on combined cycle
gas turbine with heat recovery, was constructed in Panevėžys in 2008.
Internal combustion engine appears to be
the most developed cogeneration technology by electricity production capacities
and installed capacities in 2004–2010. This technology has been mostly used by
small electricity and heat producers. In 2004, there were 3 high-efficiency
internal combustion engine-based cogeneration units with a total installed
electrical capacity of 0.52 MW and heat capacity of 0.86 MW. In 2010, this
technology was used by 20 CUs with installed electrical and heat capacities of
15.53 MW and 18.27 MW respectively, i.e., electrical capacity increased
by more than 30 times and heat capacity – by more than 20 times, as compared to
2004. The dynamics of the development of high-efficiency cogeneration plants
with different technologies is shown in Figure 2.
A comparison of the number of, and
capacities installed in, CUs of high-efficiency cogeneration plants operating
in the industrial sector and in the district heat supply (DHS) sector in
2004–2010 demonstrates a considerable increase in the capacities of power
plants of industrial undertakings in the total balance and as relatively
compared to the heat supply sector.
The share of electricity produced from
high-efficiency cogeneration has increased in the overall electricity
generation balance of the country from 9.91 % in 2004, when electricity
generated by way of high-efficiency cogeneration was 1.91 TWh and country’s
total electricity generation from all sources was 19.27 TWh, up to 31.04 %
in 2010, when electricity generated by way of high-efficiency cogeneration was
1.77 TWh and country’s total electricity generation from all sources was 5.7
TWh.
The share of thermal energy produced from
high-efficiency cogeneration has increased in the overall heat generation
balance of the country from 34.16 % in 2004, when heat generated by way of
high-efficiency cogeneration was 4.01 TWh and country’s total heat generation
from all sources was 11.73 TWh, up to 38.98 % in 2010, when thermal energy
generated by way of high-efficiency cogeneration was 4.29 TWh and country’s
total heat generation from all sources was 11.0 TWh.
There was a big increase in the percentage
share of electricity produced by way of high-efficiency cogeneration (from
11.5 % in 2009 up to 31 % in 2010) a result of the shutdown of the
then largest electricity producer, Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant, at the end of
2009.
In 2004, generation of electricity and heat
energy in CHP plants led to primary energy savings of 1.219 TWh, as compared to
non-CHP energy generation (i.e., generation of electricity in a
condensing cycle of a power plant, and generation of heat in separate water
boilers). This savings indicator kept regularly growing from 2004 to 2010 and
reached 1.41 TWh primary energy savings of CHP electricity and heat in 2010.
Funding
Feed-in tariff.
 Table 50: funds appropriated for cogeneration plants         ||   ||   
 Year || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 
 Funds, mio. LTL || 85.3 || 91.5 || 98 || 162.4 || 160.4 || 301.3 || 35.7 || 85.7 || 117.6 
6.17.      Luxemburg
No Information
6.18.      Malta
Progress
There is limited scope for CHP however the
government has made EUR 15 million available. Some installations are in
progress but are in the testing phase and not details are available
6.19.      Netherlands
Progress
In spite of the increase in installed
capacity  the share of high-efficiency cogeneration in electricity production
in 2009 is the same (35%) as in 2006. This finding is largely due to the fact
that the capacity of non‑high‑efficiency cogeneration and separate generation
also increase in the period in question. 
After 2006 the saving increased from 
81 PJ to 90 PJ in 2009. It can be seen from the spread sheet that
this increase is the result of an increase in installed capacity in the farming
sector, especially in greenhouse horticulture. This applies above all to
gas-fired combustion engines. The installed capacity of other techniques and in
other sectors remained largely stable between 2006 and 2009.
The above-mentioned increase can be
ascribed to the possibility of using the gas engines profitably in greenhouse
horticulture (see e.g. the report ‘Uneconomic top calculations for new cogeneration
capacity for 2009’, ECN-E--08-082). The best farm savings through cogeneration
in greenhouse horticulture are partly due to management policy. Relevant policy
measures are, for example, exemption from environmental tax for installations
generating electricity with an electrical yield of 30% or higher (Article 64 of
the Environmental Taxes Act), and the tax rebate for energy investments through
the Energy Investment Allowance (EIA).
Also, problems of congestion in the
electricity network have largely been put right. These problems appeared in
areas where the growth of cogeneration capacity was concentrated. With the
construction of a total of six new high‑voltage substations – in Horst aan de
Maas, Westland, Luttelgeest, Klazienaveen and IJmuiden – cogeneration operators
will once again have full marketplace access. The last of the new substations
will be handed over in January 2012.
Support schemes
Energy Investment Allowance (EIA),
Funding
In 2009 about EUR 9 million in fiscal
support was promised to cogeneration in the Energy Investment Allowance (EIA),
some EUR 2 million of it for bio-CHP. With this support total investment
reached EUR 78 million.
In addition to that, in the Subsidy Scheme
on Sustainable Heat (part of the Energy and Innovation Subsidy Scheme) EUR 4
million was made available in 2010 for investments in micro‑CHP in existing
houses. A good €3 million of this had been allocated by mid‑2011, in particular
to households and housing corporations.
Likewise in 2010 in the Sustainable Energy
Production Incentive Scheme (SDE) a budget of EUR 168 million was made
available for high-efficiency cogeneration above 250 MWe, but
no applications were received for this.
6.20.      Poland
Progress
Poland made progress in increasing the
production of electricity from high-efficiency cogeneration, going from a level
of ca. 15.6% in 2007 to ca. 17% in 2010.
The total installed capacity in the
national power system, was 35 949 MW as at the end of 2010. The vast
majority of the power (91%) is installed in the main activity producer
electricity plants and main activity producer combined heat and power plants ”
(32 757 MW in 2010). Both the installed capacities and the shares of
individual plant types have not changed significantly within the last 15 years.
Since 1995, the total installed capacity has changed by 2 789 MW (i.e.
just under plus  8%). Slight increases in installed capacities due to the
start-up of new generation units have been offset by the decommissioning of
obsolete units. The installed capacity in main activity producer CHP plants was
5 810 MW as at the end of 2006 and 6 163 MW as at the end of
2010.
The total annual electricity output in
Poland in 2010 was 15 7658 GWh, marking a reversal in the downward trend
initiated in 2008, which resulted from the global economic downturn. The shares
of individual power plant types are similar to those for the installed
capacity. The dominance of thermal power stations in the main activity producer
electricity plant category is even more remarkable. It results from the lower utilisation
time of installed capacity in other main activity producer electricity plants,
mostly hydroelectric plants.
In 2005, the production of cogenerated
electricity in main activity producer and auto-producer power plants and CHPs
was 21 702 GWh (13.8% of the total gross electricity production). In 2010,
the production increased to 26 377 GWh (16.7% of the total gross
electricity production), which means a 21.5% increase when compared with 2005.
On the other hand, considering the period from 2007 to 2010, the increase in
the production of cogeneration electricity in the categories of thermal power
stations, main activity producer CHP plants and auto-producer CHP plants was
not noticeable until the year 2010.
Electricity is cogenerated in Poland with a
substantial share of main activity producer combined heat and power plants
(18 832 GWh in 2010, 71.4% of the total cogeneration output). In 2010,
auto-producer CHP plants (with a capacity above 0.5 MW) generated 5 753
GWh of electricity in the cogeneration mode (21.8% of the total cogeneration
electricity). Main activity producer electricity plants have a minor share
(6.8% in 2010) in the cogeneration output.
The data on electricity production from
high-efficiency cogeneration covers not only main activity producer and
auto-producer generators, but also independent entities whose production is
considered to be high-efficiency cogeneration. In 2010, the total output of
cogeneration electricity was 26 892 GWh. It means that the annual output
increased by 1 961 GWh (7.9%) when compared with 2007. At the same time,
the share of electricity produced from high-efficiency cogeneration in the
gross total production of electricity in Poland increased from 15.6% in 2007 to
17.1% in 2010.
In 2006, the total heat generation capacity
of the heat plants of distribution and production companies, as well as main
activity producer electricity plants and CHP plants was 50 712 MW, of
which 25 656 MW was installed in heat plants, and 25 056 MW – in
electricity plants and CHP plants. In 2009, the heat generation capacity was
43 673 MW (15 205 MW – heat plants; 28 467 MW – electricity
plants and CHP plants). This structure shows that the share of heat generation
capacities of electricity plants and CHP plants are strongly increasing, with
relatively visible reductions in the capacities of heat plants in distribution
and production companies.
There has been a certain growth in
generation from biomass, mainly biogas.
Support schemes
A system of tradable certificates of origin
offers financial support
6.21.      Portugal
Progress
The economic and financial crisis which has
been affecting Portugal, together with the recent establishment of the current
Government, has been reflected – in the specific case of cogeneration – in the
need to review the existing proposals relating to Orders and support schemes,
in particular the reference tariff and premiums and other procedures contained
in Decree Law No 23/2010 of 25 March 2010. This crisis has also been reflected
in industry, particular in the demand for useful heat, which has contributed to
decreasing the potential of high-efficiency cogeneration initially identified.
Support schemes
Support for cogeneration is given by means
of a reference tariff, efficiency premiums and renewable energy premiums. 
6.22.      Romania
Progress
The national installed cogeneration
potential continues to be underused, as it is largely intended only for
seasonal useful heat demand (for heating), as the production technologies/units
installed before 2000 are not adapted to the new conditions on the market for
thermal energy (reduction by approximately 90% of the market for thermal energy
in the form of steam - industrial consumption).
There continues to be a slight downward
trend in useful heat demand for heating.
Romania is seeing the beginnings of an
upward trend (growth) in the production of electricity and useful heat by auto
producers (for industrial consumption). 
Actions of note include:
·        
The commissioning of a new cogeneration unit
using renewable energy sources (biomass) in Sebeş;  
·        
The decommissioning of cogeneration units
installed before 2000 in Piteşti and Giurgiu; 
·        
The start of the process of replacing
cogeneration units installed before 2000 in Braşov;
·        
The installation of new cogeneration units
(using internal combustion engines) in Bucharest.
From an operational point of view, the
focus continues to be on the efficient functioning of existing cogeneration
plants.  
Table 51: Production
of electricity and heat in cogeneration in Romania
 Year || Total electricity produced in cogeneration units || Electricity produced in cogeneration (Annex II to Directive 2004/8/EC) || of which:   || Share of electricity produced in cogeneration out of total national production || Useful heat produced in cogeneration units (Annex II to Directive 2004/8/EC) || of which:   
 Power plants || Auto-producers || Power plants || Auto-producers 
   || TWh || TWh || TWh || TWh || % || PJ || PJ || PJ 
 2007 || 14.23 || 6.62 || 5.65 || 0.97 || 10.7 || 73.2 || 61.7 || 11.6 
 2008 || 14.06 || 6.21 || 5.24 || 0.97 || 9.6  || 71.5 || 58.6 || 12.9 
 2009 || 12.33 || 6.26 || 5.40 || 0.86 || 10.8 || 66.3 || 54.7 || 11.6 
 2010 || 11.93 || 6.54 || 5.38 || 1.16 || 10.8 || 69.0 || 53.5 || 15.5 
Table 52: Electricity and heat
cogeneration capacities in Romania in 2010
 Cogeneration technology || Maximum capacity 
 Electricity (Gross) || Heat (Net) 
 MW || MW 
 Combined cycle || 185.60 || 187.83 
 Gas turbines with  heat recovery || 116.14 || 181.69 
 Internal combustion engines || 59.73 || 60.85 
 Steam backpressure turbines || 809.58 || 3308.06 
 Steam condensing turbines with heat recovery || 3411.00 || 7032.88 
 Total || 4582.05 || 10771.31 
Table 53:  Quantities
of fuel used to produce electricity and heat in cogeneration
 Year || Total fuel used by cogeneration units || Fuel used for cogeneration (Annex II to Directive 2004/8/EC) || of which: 
 Solid fossil fuel || Fuel oil || Natural gas || Renewables and waste || Other fuels 
   || PJ || PJ || % || % || % || % || % 
 2007 || 221.4 || 122.8 || 38.2 || 8.3 || 52.8 || 0.0 || 0.7 
 2008 || 216.8 || 118.1 || 39.5 || 6.3 || 52.8 || 0.0 || 1.4 
 2009 || 188.6 || 112.4 || 39.8 || 6.9 || 49.7 || 0.5 || 3.1 
 2010 || 186.1 || 117.3 || 38.6 || 3.8 || 50.8 || 1.9 || 4.9 
6.23.      Slovakia
Progress
The proportion of electricity produced by
high-efficiency combined production determined by individual combined
production plants recorded in the database on total electricity produced is
shown in Figure 26 below:
Figure 26: The proportion of electricity
produced by high-efficiency combined production determined by individual
combined production plants
The proportion of individual types of fuel
used for combined production remains almost unchanged. Since 2007, there has
been a gradual increase in the proportion of wood chips, which is mainly due to
the environmental policy of reducing emissions of sulphur oxides, but also due
to the national requirement to support the production of electricity from
biomass only in combined production plants.
Despite the progress in the area of
high-efficiency combined production up to 2007, the proportion of electricity
produced by high-efficiency combined production fell after 2007, mainly for the
following reasons:
·        
The consumption of usable heat is falling
through application of the energy efficiency policy, particularly in the
municipal housing sector and in industry, and the need for cooling is
increasing only minimally;
·        
The heat distribution systems for centralised
supplies of heat are physically and technically decrepit;
in view of the extensive network of gas pipelines
in the Slovak Republic, the favourable prices for natural gas and the
availability of high-efficiency boilers, a trend towards disconnection from
centralised heat supply systems is beginning to set in, thereby reducing the
potential of usable heat from high-efficiency combined production;
Increased use of renewable energy sources
in heating and in the preparation of hot water (heat pumps, solar collectors)
reduces the potential of usable heat from high-efficiency combined production;
increased use of renewable energy sources
for the production of electricity increases demand for regulated electricity,
which is provided mainly by combined production plants, as a result of which,
however, overall efficiency declines, and the proportion of electricity produced
by high-efficiency combined production falls;
the economic crisis and the subsequent gas
crisis have also negatively affected the proportion of electricity produced by
high-efficiency combined production (during the economic crisis 4 KVET power
sources were decommissioned, representing a total installed output of 87 MWe
and 271 MWth).
Construction of combined production
plants
Under Act No 656/2004 on energy, it is
possible to build electrical energy plants, including combined production
plants, only on the basis of a certificate confirming that the investment plan
conforms to the long-term energy policy concept issued by the Ministry of
Economy of the Slovak Republic. Such certificates do not apply to the
construction of facilities with a total installed output of less than 1 MWe.
This procedure gives an advantage to plants with a low output. No special
advantages have been put in place for combined production plants.
Since combined production plants also
produce heat, the construction of such plants is also subject to Act No
657/2004 on heat energy. Heat plant systems or parts thereof with a total
installed heat output of 10 MWth or more can be constructed only on the basis
of a certificate confirming that the planned construction of the heat plant systems
or parts thereof conforms to the long-term energy policy concept of the Slovak
Republic. The certificates are issued by Ministry of Economy of the Slovak
Republic. Certificates for the construction of heat production plants with a
heat output of up to 10 MWth are issued by local authorities. No special
advantages have been put in place for combined production plants.
The construction of combined production
plants with an output of up to 1 MWe is subject to an approval
process only at the level of the local authority, which issues a certificate on
the basis of an approved Municipal Development Plan for the area of heat
energy.
Support schemes
On the basis of Act No 309/2009 and Act No
267/2001 on regulation in network industries, the Regulatory Office for Network
Industries sets a fixed price for electricity produced by high-efficiency
combined production for a given period through a generally binding law and
along with this issues authorised entities with individual price decisions for
each calendar year. Combined production plant operators are obliged to submit
applications every year for the issuance of a price decision prior to the
issuance of the price decision.
Under Act No 267/2001, the price of heat is
also regulated. Heat prices applied by operators of heat production plants and
therefore also combined production plants are assessed individually by the
Regulatory Office for Network Industries. The benefits arising from the sale of
electricity produced by high-efficiency combined production must, under the
procedures set out in the implementing regulations for Act No 267/2001, be
taken into account by the operator in a heat price proposal, which is approved
by the Office through the issuance of a decision.
Collection of electricity at a loss-making
electricity price by the operator of the regional distribution system to which
a plant is connected, directly or via a local distribution system; applies to
all of the electricity produced by high-efficiency combined production in
plants with a total installed output of up to 125 MW or up to 200 MW where the
energy share for renewable energy sources in the fuel is higher than 20%. The
support can be applied to plants with a total installed output of up to 1 MW
throughout the lifetime and to other plants for 15 years from the year in which
the plant is brought into operation or from the year of reconstruction or
modernisation of the mechanical part of the plant.
Supplement, i.e. the difference
between the fixed set price (tariff) and the loss-making price of electricity applies
to all of the electricity produced by high-efficiency combined production in
plants with a total installed output of up to 10 MW and up to 125 MW or 200 MW,
where the proportion of usable heat supplied to the industrial sector is no more
than 40%. In the case of a higher proportion of usable heat supplied to the
industrial sector it is possible to apply the supplement only to the amount of
electricity which corresponds to a plant with a total installed output of up to
10 MW. The support may be applied for 15 years from the year in which the plant
is brought into operation or from the year of reconstruction or modernisation
of the mechanical parts of the plant. The supplement may also be applied to
plants in respect of which the electricity produced is consumed directly at the
place of production, therefore without being supplied to the distribution
network
Assumption of responsibility for deviations
by operators of regional distribution systems applies to plants with a total
installed output of up to 4 MW with effect from 1 April 2011 and, where
appropriate, only to plants with a total installed output of up to 1 MW.
The support may be applied to plants with a total installed output of up to
1 MW throughout their lifetime and to other plants for 15 years from the
year in which the plants were brought into operation or from the year of
reconstruction or modernisation of the mechanical parts of the plants.
Electricity produced by high-efficiency
combined production is exempt from the excise duty on electricity (Act No
609/2007 on excise duty on coal, electricity and natural gas as amended) where
it is supplied directly to the end consumer of electricity or is consumed by
the producer.
Investment assistance
In order to support high-efficiency combined
production, investment assistance was also provided through the use of money
from the Structural Funds for the 2004-2006 programming period, in particular
for industry through the Sectoral Operational Programme Industry and Services.
In the 2007-2013 programming period, it was possible to draw on funds for
high-efficiency combined production through the following operational
programmes:
Operational Programme Competitiveness and
Economic Growth (particularly industry),
Operational Programme Environment
(particularly for plants supplying heat for local authority housing, only
together with a change to the fuel base in existing heat production plants),
Operational Programme Bratislava Region
(small projects in the Bratislava region),
Rural Development Programme (particularly
in agriculture in relation to the use of biogas).
Funding
Funds provided in the form of operational
assistance for electricity produced by combined production prior to 1 January
2010 are not monitored separately. They form part of the assistance provided
for supporting the production of electricity from renewable sources and from
domestic brown coal.
The funds provided in the form of
operational assistance after 1 January 2010 have not yet been calculated. It
can be expected that operational assistance amounting to about EUR 20 million
was provided on the basis of Act No 309/2009 in 2010.
The future level of operational assistance
depends on developments in the prices of primary energy sources as well as on
the amount of electricity produced by high-efficiency combined production. It
is provisionally expected to be EUR 20 million annually.
Clearly identifiable assistance for
high-efficiency combined production plants was provided in 2007-2010 from the
Operational Programme Competitiveness and Economic Growth, amounting to EUR
10.67 million.
The provision of investment assistance for
high-efficiency combined production plants is not envisaged until the end of
2013.
In order to maintain the proportion of
electricity produced by high-efficiency combined production it is essential to
include in future programming periods sufficient funding for the reconstruction
of heat distribution pipes. If this does not happen, it can be expected that
the proportion of electricity produced by high-efficiency combined production
will fall.
[1]
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of
8 March 2011 – Energy Efficiency Plan 2011 [COM (2011) 109 final –
Not published in the Official Journal].
[2] Directive 2012/27/EU.
[3] The aggregate of gross inland consumption refers to the quantity of
energy consumed within the borders of a country. It is calculated as primary
production plus recovered products plus imports plus/minus stock changes minus
exports minus bunkers (i.e. quantities supplied to international sea - going
ships).
[4] Non-energy consumption of energy carriers in petrochemicals and
other sectors, such as chemical feedstocks, lubricants and asphalt for road construction.
[5]
Directive 2013/12/EU adapts Directive 2012/27/EU following the accession of
Croatia to the Euroepan Union and provides that the Union's 2020 energy
consumption should not be more than 1483 Mtoe of primary energy or no more than
1086 Mtoe of final energy.Progress towards the EU-28 target will be analysed
during the assessment of the NEEAPs to be submitted by 30 April 2014 under the
framework of the Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU).
[6] Directive 2010/30/EU.
[7] Assigned Amount Units are emission allowances regulated by the
Emission Trading Scheme under the Kyoto Protocol.
[8] Eurostat database, Energy statistics – supply, transformation,
consumption. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu

[9] The table is of a descriptive nature to only show that Member
States have been taking different types of measures in their second EEAPs. The
number of crosses is not directly linked to the comprehensiveness or quality of
the measures included in the second EEAP
[10] Separate measures for Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels regions.
[11] Measure or strategy mentioned but no detail
provided.
[12] CHP measures described in the EEAP focus
mainly on end-use or micro-CHP installations.
[13] Member States were required to submit their second national
progress report by 11 October 2011 following a request by the Commission of 11
April 2011 as required by Article 6(3) and 10(2) of the CHP Directive.  
[14] This corresponds to all 24 Member States
that submitted the spreadsheet, plus Romania, which submitted the same data in
tables in a report, minus Denmark and Spain, because they submitted only sheet
3 of the spreadsheet.
[15] Primary Energy Savings are based on
reference PES values (calculated according to Annex III of the Directive) for
the future CHP technology mix indicated in the templates. Since the resulting
coefficient (in
Mtoe/TWhe) has been applied at
aggregate level, a large error margin applies. Avoided CO2 emissions
are based on the Primary Energy Savings* and reference CO2 emissions
for the future fuel mix indicated in the Templates. Since the resulting
coefficient (in Mt CO2/Mtoe) has been applied at aggregate level, a
large error margin applies.
[16] The comparative inventory of barriers based on first and second
progress report is presented in Annex 5 on the Commission Progress Report. 
[17] There is an agreement between the central government and the states
regarding measures in the building sector.
[18] Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament
and of the Council setting emission performance standards for new passenger
cars as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO2
emissions from light-duty vehicles. Official Journal of the European Union.
[19] Fraunhofer ISI et al., 2009. Study on the
Energy Savings Potentials in EU Member-States, Candidate Countries and EEA
Countries. Final report for the European Commission Directorate-General Energy
and Transport. 15 March 2009 (see p.41).
[20] This high share can sometimes be partially due to the lack of data
about the results in the other sectors.
[21] See e.g. the BoligJobplan, a measure setting tax deductions on wage
costs incurred for help and renovation work (Denmark).
[22] In addition to regulations that by nature have an impact on both
owners and the construction sector.
[23] Employment Environment Alliance (Belgium),
Danish Knowledge Centre for Energy Savings in Buildings (Denmark), National
Plan for Buildings (France), Building the Future (Greece), National Strategy
for the Energy Performance of Buildings (Hungary), Better Energy (Ireland),
Eco-Innovation Cluster (Luxembourg), More with Less (The Netherlands), Construction/Living
Dialogue (Sweden).
[24] See e.g., Lorraine Murphy, Frits Meijer and
Henk Visscher, 2012. Effective National Energy Performance Instruments for
Existing Dwellings? Lessons from Front-Runners, Retrofit 2012 conference:
http://www.energy.salford.ac.uk/cms/resources/uploads/File/Retrofit%20Papers/022%20Murphy.pdf

[25] Making energy audits mandatory in medium sized to large buildings
and heating and cooling installations in the tertiary sector (Belgium –Brussels
Capital Region), mandatory energy managers for tertiary buildings with high
consumption (Italy), Environmental Management of Non-Residential Buildings Act with
several mandatory provisions, as the obligation of implementing actions with a
payback time of less than 5 years for business or public buildings above a
given consumption threshold (The Netherlands), obligation of renovations for
tertiary buildings between 2012 and 2020 (in France, furthermore energy audits
should be performed in all co-owned residential buildings before 2017).
[26] Gradual phasing-out of oil-fired and gas-fired boilers in buildings
(Denmark), minimum standards equivalent to condensing boilers (Ireland and UK),
minimum solar contribution to sanitary hot water (Spain).
[27] Reducing energy consumption in national
administration buildings by 10% in 2011 from 2006 levels (Denmark); Reconstruction
of 480 buildings with an aggregate usable area of 1.27 million m² for a budget
of €146.5 million (Estonia); Rate of 150,000 m² renovated/year for central
government buildings reaching at least the C class (Finland); Renovation plan
for central administration with the aim of a 40% consumption decrease in 8
years (France); Voluntary agreement to reduce CO2 emissions of the
federal buildings by on average 30% in the period 2008 to 2012 compared with
1990, with a further target of a reduction of 50% by 2020 compared with 1990
(Germany); Global objective of 33% consumption reduction by 2020 and assisting
public agencies to improve the energy rating of their buildings to B3 (or
better) by January 2012 and to A3 (or better) by January 2015 (Ireland); 1.3
million m² of rehabilitation for 2011-2016 i.e. about 15% of the public
building stock (Slovenia); Central government reduction target for carbon
emissions by 10% between 2010 and 2011 with an actual achievement of about 14%
and CO2 emissions from offices reduced by 17% in 2009/10 against the
target of 12.5% by 2010/11, relative to a 1999/00 baseline (UK).
[28] See www.epbd-ca.eu for more
information about the concerted action for the EPBD.
[29] Stricter technical requirements in some federal states for new
buildings or for renovations (Austria), passive standard for new and
'low-energy' standard for major renovations together with 30% of their
consumption to be provided with 'green energy' (Belgium – Brussels Capital
Region), 'low-energy' requirement for all new public buildings in 2012 (Belgium
– Wallonia), class A required for new buildings, and class C for basic repairs
to existing buildings (Finland), compulsory installation of central solar
thermal systems to meet domestic hot water requirements, and then 100% RES
supply from 2015 (Greece), higher standards for social housing (Ireland),
public buildings one phase ahead of the tightening for other buildings (The
Netherlands).
[30] See the programs Optimising Power @ Work and Better Energy
Workplaces.
[31] The e5 programme for energy efficient local authorities, the
Climate Alliance, the energy saving local authorities programme, environmental
local authorities, EKKO energy and climate model regions.
[32] For example, the phase out of oil-fired heating is mentioned by
Austria and Denmark; Greece reports on a successful programme for replacing old
air conditioners (including recycling), while Italy reports on significant
savings from maintenance of residential heating generators.
[33] Training activities included in the 'klima:aktiv'
programme with 5000 craftsmen trained so far (AT), similar activities included
in the Employment Environment Alliance with clear qualitative objectives (BE –
Brussels and Wallonia), "Low-energy house in the housing stock" model
projects aiming at accelerating the transfer of know-how and at developing and
increasing the awareness of innovative technologies and introducing them onto
the market (DE), among the objectives of the Danish Knowledge Centre for Energy
Savings in Buildings is the wider dissemination of knowledge among the parties
to the construction sector (DK), FEEBAT program  with 29 000 trainees for
2008-2010, plus an online platform for training (e-nergieBat) and several
networks and resource centres (FR), several training activities presented for
design and construction professionals and a national qualification roadmap (IE),
a dedicated training institute for buildings including applied training about
specific energy efficiency actions/practices plus annual training sessions for
the executives of relevant craft businesses related to energy in buildings (LU).
See also the Intelligent Energy Europe project BUILD UP Skills initiative (mentioned
by HU and IE): http://www.buildup.eu/news/18351

[34] Energy Roadmap 2050 Impact Assessment – Commission Staff Working
Paper, SEC(2011) 1565/2
[35] Bertoldi, P., Rezessy, S., Lees, E., Baudry, P., Jeandel, A. and
Labanca, N. 2009. Energy supplier obligations and white certificate schemes:
Comparative analysis of experiences in the European Union. Energy Policy.
38. 1455-1469. 
[36] Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/funding/funding_ops/cert/cert.aspx

[37] Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets, UK http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/EnergyEff/cesp/Pages/cesp.aspx

[38] Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/green_deal/green_deal.aspx

[39] The unit of measurement of EECs is a kWh of final energy cumulated
and actualised over the life of the product. One EEC equals 1 kWhcumac.
[40] Energy-using products
(EUPs) use, generate, transfer or measure
energy (electricity, gas, fossil fuel), such as boilers, computers,
televisions, transformers, industrial fans, industrial furnaces etc. Other energy-related products (ERPs) do not use energy but have an impact on energy and can therefore
contribute to saving energy, such as windows, insulation material, shower
heads, taps etc. Means of transport for persons and goods are out of the scope
of both the Ecodesign Directive and the Energy Labelling Directive. 
[41] The method for the calculation of the national final energy saving
targets was established in the Annex 1 of Directive 2006/32/EC on energy
end-use efficiency and energy services.
[42] 2016 figures for Bulgaria represent the bottom-up savings totals
given in the EEAP.
[43] Figures for Cyprus, Ireland and the Netherlands are shown in
Primary Energy Equivalent.
[44] The Czech Republic does not clearly state intermediate savings
achieved. The 2010 figure shown above is one third of the forecast figure for
2016.
[45] To account for recessionary influences, Greece adjusted a very high
interim savings figure given by top-down methods to get a more realistic range
of likely savings achieved. The 2010 figure shown here represents the low end
of the range. No clear forecast of energy savings in 2016 exists. The value
shown assumes that the 9% indicative target is achieved.
[46] No savings forecast given for 2016 for Romania. 2016 figure shown
represents the 9% ESD indicative target.
[47] The calculation of the 9% ESD target for Spain is unclear from the EEAP.
[48] Odyssee project on energy efficiency indicators (http://www.odyssee-indicators.org/)
using top-down methodologies similar to the methodologies used in the second
EEAPs by many Member States.
[49] In periods of economic turbulence, such as that experienced by some
Member States since 2008, the potential inaccuracy of the top-down calculation
methodology can be pronounced. In such cases, a top-down analysis might give an
inaccurate view of overall energy efficiency trends over a short 3-year period,
such as the period from 2008 to 2010 analysed in the EEAPs. Top-down methods can
be prone to misrepresenting developments where there are anomalies in activity
data or energy data used to calculate them. 
[50] European Commission, 2009, EU energy trends to 2030 – Update 2009.
Luxembourg.
[51] European Commission (2007): EU energy and transport trends to 2030
- update 2007.
[52] A total of 16 Member States explicitly state that EU ETS figures
are excluded from targets and savings (AT, BG, CY, DK, FI, FR, EL, IE, LV, LT,
LUX, MT, PL, SK, SL, SW); For 9 Member States the handling of EU ETS
consumption or savings is not fully clear and in some cases EU ETS is excluded
from calculations of the target, but exclusion from savings calculations is not
explicit (BE, CZ, EE, HU, IT, PT, RO, ES, UK). Two Member States declare that
some of the energy savings of EU ETS participants are included in their
industry figures (DE, NL).
[53] Examples of Member States who implemented or informed in the EEAPs
about plans to introduce energy saving obligation schemes include Belgium, Bulgaria,
Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland and the UK.
[54] Point Carbon 2012. Carry-over of AAUs from CP1
to CP2 – Future implications fro the climate regime. http://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/AAU-banking-briefing-paper-Point-Carbon.pdf

[55] For further information on TPF and ESCOs, please refer to section
4.6 Horizontal measures promotion of energy services, ESCOs, TPF.
[56] An example is the estimates made in the Spanish second EEAP about investments
needed for the 2011-2020 plan, distinguishing public aids and private
investments, and where a significant leverage effect is expected (about 5€ of
private investments for each euro of public investment).
[57]Regulation (EC) No 397/2009 OJ L 126, 21.5.2009, p 3. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/consultations/doc/2012_05_18_eeb/2012_eeb_consultation_paper.pdf
 
[58] JESSICA provided technical assistance for Member States. Its
objective was to assist Member States in the implementation of financial
instruments for urban development and regeneration
[59] How does JESSICA work?: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/instruments/jessica_en.cfm#3

[60] Maximising investment in sustainable energy
(ELENA): http://www.eib.org/products/elena/index.htm.
[61] Romania also reports on participation in the European Energy
Service Initiative (EESI) project for experience sharing: http://www.european-energy-service-initiative.net.
[62] E.g. risk covering fund to reduce the guarantees required from
borrowers on the part of the financial entities and facilitation of access to
credit for ESCOs.
[63] Obligations on energy distributors to offer grants for roof
insulation have been in place since 2009 in Flanders, Belgium.
[64] In 2011Greece has started the ambitious “Building the Future”
programme, a partnership between the public sector, construction industry and
citizens, aimed at both residential buildings, and commercial buildings (for
renovations). The main objective is to make possible investments through
voluntary agreements with all parties involved, with a total funding expected
of €41 billion. Another example is the ‘More with Less’ programme (2008), a
joint initiative of the Dutch government, housing corporations, building
companies, the installation sector and energy companies, with the objective for
2020 of making 3.2 million existing buildings 20 to 30% more energy-efficient.
[65] This option was also considered by Slovakia, but finally not
implemented to avoid an increase in energy prices, resulting in a significant
financing gap.
[66] EPC uses cost savings from reduced energy consumption to repay the
cost of putting in place energy conservation measures and ESCOs deliver these
energy efficiency improvement measures in a user's facility and pay part or all
of the upfront costs, which are paid back with the money saved on the energy
bills. In this type of performance based contract, the guarantees are provided
for the energy savings achieved. 
[67] IEA, Joint Public-Private Approaches for Energy Efficiency Finance,
2011. p. 48.
[68] Two thirds of savings result from early actions taken in the period
1991 – 2007.
[69] Dating back until 1991.
[70] Market share of 17%.
[71] Using only the top-down approach, the
savings achieved by 2009 were estimated at 5168 GWh.
[72] The national business as usual scenario anticipates that in 2020
primary energy consumption in Cyprus would reach 3219 ktoe.
[73] Energy: regulation under the Ecodesign
Directive on lamps (ban on incandescent light bulbs). Construction: 2012
Thermal Regulation, zero-rated eco-loan, sustainable development tax credit.
Transport: measures concerning the performance of new vehicles (bonus-malus,
scrapping premium, European regulations), HGV eco-tax. Agriculture:
introduction of mobile test benches for tuning tractors.
[74] This figure is based on the adjusted top-down methodology applied
by the Member State and it represents the low end of the range 5.1-10.9% in
reference to the ESD target.
[75] This percentage is calculated based on 2010 overall total energy
savings 47,711GWh declared in the second EEAP.
[76] 2020 savings figures relate to ESD-relevant sectors only and do not
constitute 2020 national savings targets. Separately, a
projected final energy savings figure of 22.76 PJ is given for 2020 compared to
a baseline forecast. 
[77] European
Commission, 2010, Preliminary draft excerpt – Recommendations on Measurement
and Verification Methods in the Framework of Directive 2006/32/EC on Energy
End-use Efficiency and Energy Services. Unpublished.
[78] See the Eurostat annual questionnaire “Electricity and Heat” (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/
ITY_SDDS/Annexes/nrg_indic_esms_an10.pdf) which defines CHP based on the
“Statistical Terminology Employed in the Electricity Supply Industry” (1991
edition) prepared by the International Union of Producers and Distributors of
Electrical Energy (UNIPEDE). This definition was established long before the
Directive on Cogeneration, and hence does not take into account the concept of
high-efficiency cogeneration.
[79] This corresponds to all 24 countries that
submitted the spreadsheet, plus Romania, who submitted the same data in tables
in a report, minus Denmark and Spain, because they submitted only sheet 3 of
the spreadsheet.
[80] “Economic analysis of CHP potentials”, JRC Scientific and Technical
Reports, 2011.
[81]Commission Progress Report on Implementing
the Cogeneration Directive. 
[82] Commission Staff working paper annexes to
the impact assessment accompanying the document Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on energy efficiency and amending and
subsequently repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32. SEC (2011)779 final.
·       [83] ‘Incentives for increased cogenerated production’ [Incitament
för ökad kraftvärmeproduktion] Report 2009:9.
[84] http://www.e-control.at/de/publikationen/publikationen-strom/berichte/monitoringreport-versorgungssicherheit
[85] Explanatory notes
for table:
Number of
companies: the number of
companies that use the relevant fuel for cogeneration of electricity and heat.
If the company has more than one type of fuel, it is counted for each one
separately in the table.
Number of
facilities: the number of
facilities for cogeneration (CEH), among which are steam gas facilities with
heat supply, back pressure steam turbines, condensation extraction turbines
with heat recuperation, combustion piston engines, micro-turbines, Stirling
engines, fuel cells, steam turbines, organic Rankin cycle or a combination of
the facilities and technologies stated. In the case of the combustion of more
than one type of fuel, the facility is only counted for the fuel which has the
main energy share.
Electrical and
heat power (MW): the
output of a cogeneration facility according to the technical data of the
producer.
Electricity
(GWh) and heat (TJ) generation: the values of cogeneration specified according to decree for the
relevant fuel. The generation of heat is defined as the “supply of useful
heat”, meaning heat generated in cogeneration for use by another natural or
legal person or for own technological use at the parent company (not for the
own use of the electricity and heat generating plant). The electricity
generated is therefore determined using the amount of useful heat.
Charge: the consumption of the relevant fuel in
cogeneration. The relevant unit is specified for each group of fuels.
[86] The share of energy generated using renewable energy sources must
reach 40% of total final gross energy consumption by 2020.