1. No category

How to calculate energy savings and
costs of energy saving obligations in a
harmonized way?
Demet Suna
Institute of Energy Systems and Electrical Drives-Energy Economics Group
Vienna University of Technology
Gusshausstrasse 25-29/370-3
1040 Vienna
Austria
suna@eeg.tuwien.ac.at
Reinhard Haas
Institute of Energy Systems and Electrical Drives-Energy Economics Group
Vienna University of Technology
Gusshausstrasse 25-29/370-3
1040 Vienna
Austria
haas@eeg.tuwien.ac.at
Keywords
Introduction
energy savings certificates, energy savings calculation, cost effectiveness
The new Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) prescribes
that “each member state shall set up an energy efficiency obligation scheme”. Currently within the European Union Energy
Saving Obligations (ESOs) for utilities are implemented in the
United Kingdom (UK), France (FR), Italy (IT), Denmark (DK)
and the Flemish part of Belgium (BE-FL). In this context, Figure 1 illustrates, according to a general energy supply chain,
which countries impose obligations on which type of utilities.
Moreover, this graph also indicates the target sector(s) of the
ESO schemes.
On the one hand, the design features as well as calculation
methods differ fundamentally from country to country which
makes a comparative analysis a challenge. On the other hand,
defining a harmonized methodology can help to compare the
implemented ESO schemes so that countries can learn from
the experience gained within the case studies. Thus, this paper attempts to define and apply a consistent methodology to
compare achieved energy savings and related costs, whereby
attention will be given to transform quantitative targets and
measured progress into comparable units (e.g. converting targets in toe vs. kWh) and to derive at valuable indicators. From
a methodological viewpoint this means to apply a standardised
approach to deal with (harmonised) discount rates, to incorporate the rebound effect in a consistent manner, to define and
apply an approach to derive net energy/monetary savings, and
to consider consistently the lifetime of savings within these calculations. The applicability of such a harmonised approach is
demonstrated exemplarily for two countries, namely the United Kingdom and Italy.
Subsequently the general frameworks of implemented utility
obligations are explained briefly for these two countries, focussing on the periods analysed in detail throughout this assessment.
Abstract
The relevance of Energy Saving Obligations (ESOs) as a key
policy tool for the achievement of energy efficiency targets
increased throughout last couple of years. At the European
level this was confirmed recently by the new Energy Efficiency
Directive (Directive 2012/27/EU) adopted by the European
Parliament and Council in October 2012, where nationally
implemented mandatory ESOs imposed on energy supplier
are one of the key measures to bring forward energy efficiency
implementation.
Within the EU Energy Saving Obligations for utilities have
already been implemented in the United Kingdom, France, Italy,
Denmark and the Flemish region of Belgium. However, design
features of programs differ from country to country fundamentally. A comparative analysis of achieved energy savings and related costs becomes a challenging exercise since implemented
ESOs generally differ in (sector, time etc.) coverage as well as
in the approach used for calculation and measuring of savings.
Several studies exist that analyze ESO experiences, identify
the differences between country-specific implementations and
that allow to draw tentative conclusions on likely advantages
or disadvantages arising from them. Nevertheless the authors
of this abstract are not familiar with a study comparing the
achieved energy savings and costs in different ESO implementing countries using a harmonized approach.
Thus, this paper attempts to define a consistent methodology
and to apply this approach to compare two country examples;
namely the United Kingdom and Italy.
ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings 2105
7-425-13 Suna, Haas
7. Monitoring and evaluation
Figure 1. Energy Saving Obligations in EU countries: obligated utilities and sector coverage (residential and commercial consumers) by
implementing country.
EEC-CERT in the United Kingdom
Within Europe the UK is the most experienced country with
respect to utility obligations for energy efficiency measures.
A first obligation scheme has already started in 1994, at that
time called “Energy Efficiency Standards of Performance Programme (EESoP)” and continued until 2002. In April 2002
the current system called the “Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC)” was put into operation, whereby the first phase
(EEC1) ended by March 2005 (Forfori, 2006). The EEC is a
legal requirement imposed on electricity and gas suppliers
in order to improve energy efficiency in the UK’s household
sector. The EEC does not establish a trading platform for certificates but bilateral trade of energy savings between suppliers is allowed. The suppliers (retailers) have been obligated
to increase energy efficiency in households in the regulatory
rounds in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2008. During these periods, although the name of instruments has been changed,
the continuity of implementations has been maintained (Eyre
et al., 2009). In 2008 the name EEC was changed to CERT
(Carbon Emission Reduction Target) and obligations are
since then expressed in CO2 savings instead of fuel standardized energy (FS) which was the applied unit for target description in EEC1 and EEC2.
Within this program energy suppliers undertake activities
such as marketing for energy-efficient products or offering
subsidies for energy efficiency measures. These measures are
delivered through several ways such as contracts with installers, retailers of efficient appliances, local authorities etc. For
end users, CERT means that energy suppliers provide grants
or offer assistance to implement efficiency measures and / or
renewable energy technologies for their homes while it is not a
precondition to be customer of these gas or electricity suppliers. Most energy suppliers are implementing these measures by
themselves and provide loft and cavity wall insulation for free
2106 ECEEE 2013 SUMMER STUDY – RETHINK, RENEW, RESTART
to certain building owners (e.g. elderly people over 70 years or
customers in receipt of certain benefits ) (UK-EST, n.d.).
In this paper the second period of the Energy Efficiency
Commitment, subsequently named as EEC2 (2005-2008) will
be analysed. The main characteristics of the ESO scheme in this
period are:
• For suppliers an overall energy saving target of 130 Fuel
Standardised (FS)1 TWh was set.
• At least 50 % of this target had to be achieved in the low
income Priority Group.
• Suppliers had been allowed to carry forward 35 TWh of en-
ergy savings from EEC1 into EEC2, just over half of which
were realised within the Priority Group.
The Italian TEE2
The utility ESO scheme in Italy has been launched in January
2005 with the aim of increasing end-use energy efficiency. The
obligation is imposed to electricity and gas distribution companies (distribution system operators) which have at least 50,000
customers (Di Santo et al., 2011). The reduction target is set in
primary energy, accounted in tons of oil equivalents (toe), and
the saving can be derived through actions among (all types of)
end-users. Before 2008 targets for the electricity sector were set
separately for low and high voltage consumers. This has been
changed to distinguish among residential and non-residential
consumers from 2008 on. One of the central elements of this
scheme is the trading of certificates which are called as TEE.
Until the latest reforming at the end of 2011 where the Ital-
1. “Fuel standardized” indicates carbon weighted final energy. The used FS factors
within EEC2 are; 0.801 for electricity, 0.353 for gas and 0.464 for oil.
2. TEE- acronym of the Italian legislative definition “titoli di efficienza energetica”,
meaning “energy efficiency certificates”.
7. Monitoring and evaluation
ian Electricity and Gas Authority (AEEG) changed the rules
regarding lifetimes and discounting, see (Di Santo et al., 2012),
in the Italian scheme the lifetime of saving was 5 years for most
types of measures . Only for measures related to the building
envelope 8 years were applied, and 10 years for high efficient
CHP (Pavan, 2012).
In the Italian program saving is accounted via three ways:
deemed saving approach, engineering estimates and monitoring planning (M.P.) approach. The so called “deemed saving
approach” is used for some actions for what AEEG has defined
“special files” on standardized savings making (expensive)
on-field measurement unnecessary. Special files with on-field
measurement are called engineering estimates. In the other
cases, when it is not possible to obtain a simplified file, so called
“monitoring plans” serve as an alternative where the proponents must get a prior approval for the measurement and evaluation (Di Santo et al., 2011).
Evaluation of “net energy saving” and specific “cost of
energy saving (CES)”
Next we illustrate the approach elaborated and applied to derive the “net energy saving” as well as for calculating the specific “Cost of Energy Saving (CES)”.
Deriving net energy saving
In order to calculate specific cost of derived energy saving within a certain policy programme or measure, firstly it is necessary
to define how within the programme energy saving is defined,
measured and/or calculated. For the assessed ESO schemes in
the UK and Italy the applied calculation methods differ substantially. In general, for calculating net energy savings the following parameters are essential to be considered.
Baseline/Additionality
The term baseline describes the level of energy saving which
would also have been achieved in the absence of the analyzed
program, because of technical improvements, behavioural
changes as well as exiting policies. In this respect the “free
rider” effect – i.e. the people who would invest in any case in
efficient systems – is also a part of baseline definition. Bertoldi
and Rezessy (2009) indicates that the baseline can be determined by either taking into account i) the sales average and
performance of appliances and historic rates of retrofits insulations in the buildings or ii) the average consumption of current
installed stocks.
As an evaluation of energy savings should only focus on additional savings, it should also exclusively focus on additional
costs. This can be explained by the following example: Assume
that a refrigerator has reached the end of its lifetime and, thus,
needs to be replaced by a new one. The new device may now
either be a Standard (ST) or a Best Available Technology (BAT).
The difference between the cost of ST (what one has to pay in
any case) and BAT is considered as additional cost indicating
the initial investment and usually considered for calculation of
specific cost of saving.
In both the UK and the Italian scheme baselines and/additionality have been considered. How this issue is handled within
the analysed schemes is discussed in the following sections on
“Annual Saving for UK EEC2” and “Annual Saving for IT-TEE”.
7-425-13 Suna, Haas
Rebound factor
Sorrell (2007) defines the direct rebound effect as follows: energy efficiency measures make energy services cheaper and accordingly the consumption of these services increases which
cause that the efficiency improvements do not lead to the predicted reduction of consumptions.
This phenomenon has been keeping economists busy for
many years. Sorrell (2007) reviewed several studies on rebound
effect and concluded that 30 % represents a reasonable rebound
factor value for the evaluation of energy efficiency policies.
This value is also considered by Defra, the UK’s Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for the accredited
insulation measures within the program EEC2.3 On the other
hand, Defra’s own research depicted that the rebound factor
(which is called comfort factor in the UK scheme) for insulation measures is below 15 %. Thus, the evaluation report from
Lees (2008) considered this lower value and within our calculations we also followed this estimation. For residential lighting
the rebound effect is estimated between 5 and 12 % (Greening
et al., 2000). This estimation fits also to the evaluation of Lees
(2008), deriving an rebound factor of 7 % for the case of lighting measures within EEC2.
Technical reduction factor
Especially in the case of measures related to buildings such as
cavity wall and loft insulation – the mainly implemented measures in the UK – a difference between estimated and (actually)
derived energy saving occurs. In this respect Sanders and Phillipson (2006) reviewed thirteen papers related to this phenomenon in the UK and called it a “reduction factor”. Note that this
includes rebound factor (e.g. changed indoor temperature) as
well as technical reduction factors such as insulation performance, ventilation, tiles areas of wall, lintels, areas of solid wall
as well as any underperformance of insulated areas of wall (for
example due to imperfect fill) etc. (Ofgem, 2008a).Sanders and
Phillipson (2006) reviewed 13 papers relating to the predicted
and the actual energy saving in the case of housing insulation.
Accordingly they estimated this reduction factor as 50% of the
theoretically expected savings of which the rebound factor is
15% and a technical reduction factor 35%.
Regarding rebound effects it has to be mentioned that the
estimations from the evaluation report on UK’s EEC2 from
Lees (2008) accord to a large extent with the review study from
Greening et al. (2000). Finally, Table 1 summarizes rebound
and technical reduction factors considered for our evaluation.
Deriving net “annual energy saving”
Deriving of annual energy savings is important for our specific
cost assessment as well as for comparing these two schemes
in respect of further calculation of achieved lifetime savings.
Figure 2 shows which steps have been taken in order to deduce
annual net saving for both analysed countries. The annual savings which are called also “first year saving” within some ESO
schemes are not comparable as the implemented measures differ from country to country and the lifetimes of measures differ
from each other, In general, it is decisive for encouraging some
specific measures to set the measurement of savings within a
3. An exception to this general rule is hot water tank wraps.
ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings 2107
7-425-13 Suna, Haas
7. Monitoring and evaluation
Table 1. Summary of considered rebound and technical reduction factors.
Rebound Technical reduction
Main categories for residential sector
Building insulation measures
Measures relating heat demand for DHW
Lighting
Energy Efficiency Appliances
Boilers
Innovative heating (heat pumps, solar thermal etc.)
15%*
#
#
15%*
7% *°
0 *°
0*
0*
Measures in Service Sector
Measures in Industry sector
35%
0
10%
+
Sources: * (Lees, 2008), ° (Greening et al., 2000), + average of 0–20 % given in Greening et al. (2000), # (Sanders and Phillipson, 2006).
Official Data
on achieved
saving (from
OFGEM)
UK-EEC2 (2005-2008)
Fuel Standardizied (FS)
lifetime discounted final
energy saving [TWh]
IT- TEE (2005-2010)
mainly 5 (some cases 8)
years lifetime primary energy
saving [toe]
Distinguishing of saving
between final gas, electricity
and others (mainly oil) by
measures
Converting primary energy to
the final energy [TWh]
Converting FS energy to the
actual energy
Official Data
on achieved
saving (from
AEEG)
Distinguishing of saving
between final gas, electricity
and others (mainly oil) by
measures
Deriving annual energy
saving by considering
program lifetimes and 3.5%
discount rate
Deriving annual energy
saving (Annual energy
savings of 2010)
Remove factors: rebound,
technical reduction, free
rider and uplift
Remove factors: rebound
and technical reduction
Lifetime discounted energy saving (harmonic lifetimes and
discount rate)
Figure 2. Deriving actual annual energy saving for UK-EEC2 (2005–2008) and IT-TEE (2008–2010).
programme on an annual basis or to follow a lifetime approach.
For example in the UK where lifetime saving is considered, saving is derived mainly from insulation measures, characterised
by a long lifetime. In comparison to that, within Italy where accounted lifetimes of savings are set artificially mainly to 5 years
(short-term impacting) lighting measures were of dominance.
Annual saving for UK-EEC2 (1 April 2005–31 March 2008)
Lees (2008) evaluates the EEC2 period for the Department of
Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and explains in more detail how the data are assessed. In order to derive the net annual
saving for this scheme we have mostly followed the line of this
study and its approach.
In UK’s EEC2 scheme the saving is measured based on an exante approach where “baseline” has been defined preliminarily
by estimating the “free rider effects” (which is called “deadweight effects” within this program). Lees (2007) indicates that
in the first period of EEC1 the free rider effect was minimized,
2108 ECEEE 2013 SUMMER STUDY – RETHINK, RENEW, RESTART
but through the increase of activities, some costumers were
supported, who would have taken the measures also in the absence of this programme. Therefore, Defra undertook an approximation of this effect based on an assessment of historical
levels of installations that took place in the absence of the energy efficiency measure, reflecting a “business as usual (BAU)”
trend. However, Defra has deducted the free rider effect only
for the estimation of net carbon saving (Lees, 2008) but not for
the energy saving. Within our calculation the free rider effect
was used for both the derivation of net energy saving as well as
for the related cost assessment, whereby data used was based
on (Lees, 2008).
Under EEC the term “additionally” was defined by the question “which saving does EEC program bring additionally?”.
This issue can be explained according to the following examples in further detail: In UK’s EEC program suppliers were obligated by deriving at least 50 % of saving in the “priority group”
namely low income consumers and those over 70 years of age
7. Monitoring and evaluation
in order to reduce their “fuel poverty”. In this respect suppliers
choose to interact with other fuel poverty programmes such
as “Warm Front” in order to comply with this requirement. If
for example the programme “Warm Front” allowed installing
a new central heating the suppliers provided the insulation
measures. On the other hand, suppliers had to demonstrate
that they implemented additional measures in comparison to
other schemes, and that, consequently corresponding additional costs occurred. A correct definition of “additionality” was a
key issue for such kind of programmes (Ofgem, 2008b).
Accordingly, it can be concluded that except “free rider effect” the additional saving has been accredited within this program and the official data on achieved savings expresses the
“additional savings” to a sufficient extent.
As above mentioned within EEC2 rebound is called as “comfort factor”. Comfort factors are determined but not considered
for certification of achieved savings. They consider this only in
forthcoming ex-post evaluations. In order to derive net saving
these factors should also be considered (see Table 1) for both
analysed ESO schemes.
In order to estimate the real saving of EEC2 the measures
have been considered which were accounted to fulfil EEC2 targets (without EEC1 carryover).
Table 2 provides an overview on the energy saving measures counted towards EEC2 period based on Lees (2008).
Lees (2008) has calculated achieved saving of all measures to
be 127.2 TWh FS, using a 50 % uplift factor4, meaning that in
Table 2 given measures cover about 99 % of this value. On the
other hand, an inconsistency could be seen between data given
in (Lees, 2008), where it is indicated that new Ofgem data are
used, in comparison to data given in Ofgem’s own EEC2 evaluation report (Ofgem, 2008b). In Ofgem’s report total achieved
saving has been denoted as 130.3 TWh FS and total uplift
equals 3.6 % of achieved target5 which means by reducing this
factor the actually achieved net savings account to 125.7 TWh
FS. Despite of this discrepancy the value from Lees (2008) has
been considered in this study as Lees (2008) points out that
the data he used is newer than the one in Ofgem’s evaluation
report.
Table 2 summaries annual net energy savings by original
fuels as well. These values are calculated based on FS factors
as well as estimations from Lees (2008) regarding free rider,
rebound and the proportional breakdown of saving to the
original fuels.
Annual Saving for IT-TEE (January 2005–December 2010)
In the case of the Italian scheme only additional savings in relation to baseline are considered. The baseline is defined by using
market averages for the energy savings from lighting, appliances and boilers whereas the building regulation requirements
pose the baseline in the case of new buildings (Lees, 2010).
For the measures such as solar water heater, PV systems or improvement of thermal insulation in the buildings the energy
4. Within EEC2 an innovation uplift factor of 50 % has been implemented for measures such as solar water heating, ground and air-sourced heat pumps, combined
heat and power (CHP) units, integrated digital TVs (iDTVs) and TV recorders, set
top boxes, imaging equipment, stand-by savers and potentially for other renewable
energy sources (Lees, 2008).
5. 130.3 TWh is the reported achieved saving which includes about 2.57 TWh innovation uplift and 2.1 TWh Energy service uplift (Ofgem, 2008b).
7-425-13 Suna, Haas
consumption without the added device or insulation is considered (Bertoldi and Rezessy, 2009). Accordingly the official
data indicates the “additional savings” but without considering
“free rider” effect.
For the time period from the beginning of the scheme in
2005 up to the end of 2010 the cumulative saving data is taken
from (AEEG, 2011a) By the year 2011 there are 29 technological measures for the deemed and engineering estimates files. If
we look at the cumulative savings by the end of 2010, seven of
these measures account for 97 % of all savings based on deemed
and engineering estimates, meaning that there is a large concentration on certain types of measures (see also Mebane and
Piccinno (2012)). 21.4 % of total saving is derived from different measures evaluated by monitoring planning. Table 3 shows
the categories where most of the savings were derived while
the rest is summed under the category “others”. Accordingly, all
savings, including monitoring plans, are fragmented based on
the three main sectors; residential, service and industry.
The cumulative primary energy has been converted to the
final energy by considering different assumptions. In line with
the approach used by Mebane and Piccinno (2012) and taking
the information from (Odyssee, n.d.) regarding fuel-specific
final energy use for water heating in Italy into account, we calculated average figures for the period 2005 to 2010, considering information given on energy saving by different fuels from
(AEEG, 2011a). AEEG (2011a) gives the information that the
achieved cumulative energy saving of 8.017 Mtoe is divided
into the fuels as follows: 72 % refers to electricity, 23 % to gas
and 5 % to other fuels. Accordingly, about 57 TWh final energy
was saved within the period 2005 to 2010 based on the conversion factors 0.187 toe/MWh for electricity (indicates Italian
production mix) and 0.086 toe/MWh (Di Santo et al., 2011)
for gas and other fossil fuels. For measures relating to water
heating, 27 % electricity, 73 % gas and 10 % oil savings are considered. For the monitoring planning measures in the industry
and service sectors again the primary energy has been divided
to the final energy in accordance with abovementioned information. Thus, our estimations indicate a total saving of 58 TWh
in terms of final energy which fits well to the abovementioned
savings according to (AEEG, 2011a).
In Italy, saving is accredited on a yearly basis and needs to be
reported to AEEG until May 31st of the year subsequent to the
obligation (Di Santo et al., 2011). One year saving of a measure
is accredited through program lifetimes (e,g. a measure implemented in 2005 accounts for 5 years, i.e. in the period 2005
to 2009). In order to derive the annual saving of savings from
2005–2010, the difference between cumulative saving from
2010 (AEEG, 2011b) and 2009 (AEEG, 2010) has been taken
into consideration. This value indicates the annual saving of the
year 2010 which comprises all annual savings of implementations until 2010 except those which have been taken in the year
20056.
6. In 2005 the program was put into operation and 287 toe (AEEG, 2006) were
reported as derived energy saving from the program start (January 2005) until
31 May 2006. Considering cumulative saving in 2010, this represents about 3.6 %
of the cumulative saving in 2010, but there is no information applicable which part
of this could be derived already in 2005 and which in the first half year of 2006.
Therefore, data for this first reporting year was neglected in our assessment and
has consequently not been added to the annual saving (of prior measures taken)
in 2010.
ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings 2109
7-425-13 Suna, Haas
7. Monitoring and evaluation
Table 2. Energy saving measures counted towards EEC2 period and converted values to the net annual saving by original fuel (UK).
Energy efficiency measures
CWI pre & post 1976
Loft insulation (top up)
Loft insulation (virgin)
DIY loft insulation (sq metres)
Solid wall insulation
Hot water tank jackets
Glazing (sq metres)
CFLs retail
CFLs direct
Energy eff. cold appliances
Energy efficient wet appliances
Standby savers
Integrated digital TVs
All boilers
Heating controls (individual TRVs)
Fuel switching
Innovative heating
Totals
Number of
measures
1,460,063
688,645
354,255
4,532,582
7,060
83,129
1,460,359
33,597,730
17,547,498
3,777,526
4,565,817
2,943,384
9,450,182
2,082,812
2,054,508
1,403
2,892
84,609,845
FS lifetime
discounted
energy
savings
GWh/yr
62,110
10,219
22,773
1,284
479
188
230
7,172
3,716
2,194
932
2,005
3,471
7,837
195
100
479
125,384
Annual FS
GWh
saving
2,908
556
1,238
70
26
23
16
544
282
227
96
174
568
680
17
9
22
7,456
Actual
GWh net
electricity
saving
GWh/yr
157
61
129
0
2
0
1
518
103
172
19
109
354
0
0
2
4
1,631
Actual
GWh net
gas saving
GWh/yr
2,766
483
1,236
0
11
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,806
24
1
2
6,338
Actual
GWh net
other fossil
saving
GWh/yr
223
51
139
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
0
5
15
473
CWI: Cavity Wall insulation, CFL: Compact fluorescent lamp and TRVs: Thermostatic radiator valves.
Taking the annual saving of 2010 into consideration and
removing the side effects, in this case the rebound effect, net
annual final energy saving has been calculated by original fuel
as listed in Table 3.
In order to compare both schemes in respect of their total savings the lifetime-discounted saving is calculated. The determination of lifetimes for different measures in the residential sector is based on UK’s current ESO scheme CERT (see (Ofgem,
2008a)). Within this current UK scheme lifetimes are estimated
based on long years experiences of UK’s program, and according to Lees ( 2008) they can be regarded as realistic. In this
respect the lifetime defined within the CERT7 program are also
considered for the implemented measures in the household
sector in our subsequent own quantitative comparison of both
assessed schemes UK-EEC2 and IT-TEE (2005–2008).
For measures in the Italian scheme such as hot water savings,
UK’s CERT scheme does not provide information on lifetimes.
Therefore the lifetime estimations from Pavan (2012) have been
taken into consideration. For the necessary discount rate we
followed the approach used in EEC2, applying 3.5 % as estimate. Note that a discount rate in respect of energy saving can
be understood as deterioration of technical measures over its
lifetime actualizing annual savings for different measures with
different life spans (Bertoldi and Rezessy, 2009).
Figure 3 indicates the calculated net lifetime-discounted
final energy saving for the two analysed ESO schemes. Thus,
“net saving” shall mean that all related side effects are removed.
For dominating measures we expressed also explicitly the saving value within this graph, and for all measures the applied
lifetimes are applicable in the legend. Accordingly, in the UKEEC2 scheme within the three years evaluation period the implemented measures brought forward net lifetime-discounted
saving of 144.5 TWh only in the residential sector. Despite
the fact that all side effects and uplift factors are removed, this
value (which can be classified as actual saving) is considerably
higher than the calculated FS saving within the EEC2 scheme
(130.3 TWh FS based on (Ofgem, 2008b)) as the lifetimes of
insulation measures – a key measure in the UKs scheme- is
considered as 40 years in this work which is 30 years in EEC2.
In comparison to the UK the Italian net final lifetime-discounted energy saving amounts to about 221 TWh in cumulative terms, i.e. within their six years of period. This figure comprises all main economic sectors, namely residential, service
and industry. Assuming a linear implementation, a reasonable
estimate for (virtually) three years of implementation would
lead to a value of 110.5 TWh (in consistency with the UK).
About 126 TWh (or 57 % of the total) can be estimated as
lifetime discounted saving achieved in the Italian residential
sector. As indicated above, lighting measures account for the
majority of savings.
Table 4 shows a comparison of both schemes in respect of
derived net annual saving per capita and the ratio of saving in
comparison to total final energy consumption.8 Annual saving of implemented measures within “virtually one year” is
calculated in order to allow a reasonable comparison of these
7. The main difference between CERT and EEC2 with respect to the lifetimes is that
the insulation measures have been calculated over 40 years within CERT whereas
the lifetime is 30 years in EEC2.
8. Note that for both countries the applied figure on final energy consumption reflects the country-specific average annual final energy consumption of the period
2005 to 2008.
Lifetime discounted programme net energy saving: UK-EEC2 vs.
IT-TEE
2110 ECEEE 2013 SUMMER STUDY – RETHINK, RENEW, RESTART
7. Monitoring and evaluation
7-425-13 Suna, Haas
Table 3. Energy saving measures counted towards IT-TEE (2005–2010) converted to the net annual saving by original fuel.
Energy efficiency measures
toe
[%] in
total
Total Net
Final energy
[GWh]
Residential
1 – Lighting (CFL)
12 – Energy Eff. Appliances
8 – Solar thermal collectors for DHW*
13a – Low flow shower taps
14 – Low-flow water taps aerators
Service
4,366,239
69,823
137,919
1,073,041
363,749
54%
1%
2%
13%
5%
23,359
374
1,531
11,908
4,037
18 – MV Public lighting lamps->HPS
lamps
180,679
2%
967
13c- 2nd Group Low flow shower taps in
sport centres
106,999
1%
105,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
587,000
451,000
271,000
214,511
8,016,960
M.P: CIV-T
M.P: CIV -GEN
M.P: CIV-E
M.P: IP
Industry
M.P: IND-GEN
M.P: IND-T
M.P: IND-E
Others (deemed+engineering)
Total
Annual Net Final energy [GWh/yr]
Electricity
Gas
Other fossil
6,969
101
54
402
150
–
–
318
360
880
–
–
44
323
121
146
–
–
1,187
96
564
77
1%
0%
0%
0%
1,004
287
161
161
73
-10
47
8
231
-32
–
–
91
-13
–
–
7%
6%
3%
3%
100%
5,610
4,310
1,450
1,839
58,183
333
611
761
129
9,869
1,053
1,931
–
237
7,542
417
765
–
57
1,882
DHW: Domestic Heat Water
MV: Mercury Vapor
HPS: High Pressure Sodium
M.P: Monitoring Planning
CIV -T: Service sector: measures for reduction of heat demand (efficient boilers, water heaters, building related measures etc.)
CIV-GEN: Industrial processes: electricity generation from renewable sources, heat recovery, or cogeneration
CIV -E: Service sector: measures for reduction of electricity demand (efficient appliances, lighting etc.)
IP: efficient public lighting
IND-GEN: Industrial processes: electricity generation from renewable sources, heat recovery, or cogeneration
IND-T: Industrial processes: generation or heat recovery for cooling, drying, burning, and melting
IND-E: Industrial processes: efficient drive systems (motors, etc.), automation and power factor measures
UK-­‐CERT2 (3-­‐year period) Lifetime discounted saving [%]
100%
90%
4%
12%
80%
70%
Others
All boilers (12 years)
31%
60%
Loft insulation (40 years)
40%
Others
90%
5%
5%
80%
21%
70%
50%
12%
3%
3%
10%
40%
46%
Cavity wall insulation
20%
6%
10%
0%
M.P: E-­‐IND (20 years) M.P: T-­‐IND (20 years) M.P: GEN-­‐IND (20 years) M.P: T-­‐CIV (20 years)
RS-­‐Solar thermal (20 years)
30%
20%
Lighting (18 years)
10%
0%
100%
60%
50%
30%
IT-­‐TEE (3-­‐year period) Lifetime discounted saving [%] 42%
RS-­‐Low flow water taps (6 years)
RS-­‐Lighting (18 years)
Figure 3. Lifetime discounted saving in UK and IT schemes (Right in Italian scheme, R.S means residential sector).
ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings 2111
7-425-13 Suna, Haas
7. Monitoring and evaluation
Table 4. Indicators on energy saving in both assessed schemes (Source: Own assessment, complemented by data from (Odyssee, n.d.)).
Population
in 1000
(2009)
UK-EEC2 (2005–2008)
IT-TEE (2005–2010)
Annual net
saving (one
year) [GWh/yr]
61,792
60,340
2,814
3,215
programs. For this achieved (cumulative) savings in the final
year and the years of operation of the assessed programs were
considered.9
Accordingly, although the UK’s scheme comprises just the
residential sector the achieved one year (average of three years)
annual within the period 2005 to 2008 is equivalent to 0.16 %
of total consumption whereas the Italian TEE scheme has led
to 0.20 % (average of 6 years). Moreover, the Italian scheme
implies also higher savings per capita.
Calculation of specific cost of energy saving
In order to calculate the specific costs the annuity method is
applied, reflecting a common approach in this respect. Assuming that the annual saving and the annual costs (despite investment) are constant the specific cost of saving can be calculated
according to the following formula.
(ΔI 0 * CRF ) + ΔCom − p * ΔE (1 − f side )
CES =
ΔE (1 − f side )
(ΔI 0 * CRF ) + ΔCom − p * ΔE (1 − f side )
(Eurocent/kWh)
CES =
ΔE (1 − f side )
where,
ΔI0
Total initial additional investment (difference between efficiency measures to baseline)
CRF
Capital recovery factor
CRF =
i * (1 + i) n
1
=
PVF (1 + i) n − 1
where,
ΔCom Additional annual operation and maintenance
costs (Note: in this study neglected)
p
Average energy prices of programme period (e.g.
Eurocent/kWh)
ΔE Annual energy saving (kWh/yr) (considered as
constant)
i
Discount rate
n
Depreciation time (yr)
fside
Side factors, included rebound , technical reduction factors and free rider
9. For UK-EEC2 the yearly saving was calculated by dividing achieved cumulative
savings in the final year (2008) by 3, reflecting the three years of operation, while
for IT-TEE the calculation is consequently done by dividing cumulative savings in
the final year 2010 by 6, reflecting the six years of operational period from 2005
to 2010.
2112 ECEEE 2013 SUMMER STUDY – RETHINK, RENEW, RESTART
Average yearly
final energy
consumption
(2005-2008)
[GWh]
1,798,425
1,577,921
Total annual
saving (one
year) per
capita
[kWh/cap]
46
53
Annual (one
year) saving
ratio in total
final
consumption
[%]
0.16%
0.20%
For the economic evaluation of selected programmes from different stakeholders’ viewpoints Table 5 summarizes discount
rates as well as depreciation periods mainly based on (VROM,
1998) cited in (Joosen and Harmelink, 2006). These values are
used for the Energy Saving Programmes analysed within AIDEE10 projects.
Cost of Energy Saving (CES) for the Society as a whole
In order to calculate the CES from different actor’s viewpoint
there is need to know the investment costs broken down among
the stakeholders such as consumers, utilities, government as
well as third parties like Energy Service Contracting Companies (ESCOs) etc.
Lees (2008) provides a comprehensive overview on estimates
of average cost of implemented measures for the UK, offering a
fragmentation of investment costs for the UK’s EEC2 scheme11
based on prices from July 2006. In order to allow a cross-country comparison these values given in national currency have
been translated into Euro, and all costs and fuel prices have
been converted to €2005-PPP as summarised in Table 6.
In the case of the Italian scheme there is no information how
the costs are shared by different actors. Nevertheless, it can be
stated that in most of the projects the investments are carried
by the end-users, while ESCOs and distributors participate as
consultants in order to receive the white certificates. This can
also happen if the end-user qualifies to present the project directly as an organization with an energy manager. Only seldom
the investment costs are paid by the ESCOs and DSOs (Distribution System Companies).12 On the other hand, estimation
on the whole private investment can be found in Mebane and
Piccinno (2012).13 By converting these values into 2005-PPP
the private investment cost by different measures are shown
in Table 6. For the Italian scheme the public contribution for
the first five years (by end of 2009) is given in (AEEG, 2011c)
as about 531 million Euro. Summing up, with the 326 million
Euro (AEEG, 2011d) for the year 2010, 857 million Euro was
the public contribution between 2005 and 2010. This indicates
the total reimbursement given to the obliged DSOs for their
certificates presented to the AEEG. Certificate prices ranged
10. AID-EE: Active Implementation of the European Directive on Energy Efficiency,
Intelligent Energy Europe, EIHOR/EIE/04/114/2004 (more detail see Joosen and
Harmelink (2006)).
11. In this study the costs estimations generally indicate “additional cost”, indicating the “marginal costs” that are needed for the change of purchase decision
of householders. In few exceptional cases such as insulation, CFLs and heating
controls these costs indicate however the total costs (Lees, 2008).
12. Di Santo Dario, personal communication, 6 January 2013.
13. Please note that for the Italian scheme also the “additional investment costs”
are considered in Mebane and Piccinno (2012). Nevertheless, detailed information on how this issue was treated by measures could not be derived.
7. Monitoring and evaluation
7-425-13 Suna, Haas
Table 5. Default assumptions on discount rates by sector and on depreciation periods of energy saving measures. Source: (VROM, 1998) cited in Joosen and
Harmelink (2006).
Default discount rates in sectors
Default depreciation period of energy saving measures
Discount
Rate (%)
4
Sector
Government
Other Organisations
4
End-user
Households
Agriculture
Services
Industry
Transport
Society (as a whole)
8
8
15
15
15
4
Type of energy saving measure
Depreciation period
(years)
Installation, appliances
10
Measures connected to buildings
(e.g. insulation)
25
Table 6. Investment cost by different actors for UK-EEC2 (2005–2008) and private vs. public contribution for IT TEE (2005–2010).
UK-EEC2 [M€2005-PPP]
Measures
CWI pre & post 1976
Loft insulation (top up)
Loft insulation (virgin)
IT-TEE [M€2005-PPP]
Suppliers
Customer
Third Party
Cost
contribution
contributions
348
114
76
62
22
7
DIY loft insulation (sq metres)
4
8
Solid wall insulation
Hot water tank jackets
Glazing (sq metres)
4
1
1
0
0
10
CFLs retail
14
18
CFLs direct
31
0
Energy eff. cold appliances
Energy efficient wet appliances
Standby savers
Integrated digital TVs
All boilers
17
8
6
12
39
30
Heating controls (individual TRVs)
1
Fuel switching
Innovative heating
1
6
Total
681
Privat
Public
Investment
cost
Residential
1 – Lighting (CFL)
12 – Energy Eff. Appliances
8 – Solar thermal collectors
for DHW
13a – Low flow shower taps
14 – Low-flow water taps
aerators
Service
390
165
472
8
107
15
129
284
116
39
18 – MV Public lighting
lamps->HPS lamps
14
20
13c – 2nd Group Low flow
shower taps in sport centres
14
12
185
-38
60
2
11
3
3
3
6
M.P: T-CIV
M.P: GEN-CIV
M.P: E-CIV
M.P: IP
Industry
5
2
M.P: GEN-IND
249
63
0
11
1
2
M.P: T-IND
M.P: E-IND
741
537
49
29
Others
(deemed+engineering)
319
23
3159
867
174
from 88.92 to 100.00 Euro per toe from 2005 to 2010 (Di Santo
et al., 2011)).
Total public costs are divided in accordance with derived toe
saving by different measures in order to divide public costs by
measures (see Table 6).
In line with above, the specific CES can be calculated based
on the formula given above, taking into account a 4 % discount
rate for the society (as a whole) and default depreciation times
given in Table 5. For the “society as a whole” investments costs
from all actors can be summed up as follows.
19
20
5
Measures
19
0
73
Total
ΔI0 = ΔIConsumers + ΔIUtility + ΔIGovernment + ΔIThird_Party
The economical benefits of energy saving is calculated based
on average fuel prices (IEA, 2011) of analysed periods without
all levies and taxes. Joosen and Harmelink, (2006) justifies the
use of this approach arguing that taxes for one sector cancel out
benefits for another sector. However, it must be kept in mind
that these prices contain generation costs, grid tariffs rates as
well as the utility profits.
ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings 2113
7-425-13 Suna, Haas
7. Monitoring and evaluation
UK-­‐EEC2 (2005-­‐2008), CES for the society [€cent 2005-­‐PPP/kWh]
IT-­‐TEE (2005-­‐2010), CES for the society [€cent 2005-­‐PPP/kWh]
All
7.66
All
-­‐0.30 Fuel switching 1.85
-­‐2.12 M.P: T-­‐IND -­‐1.68 All boilers -­‐3.18 M.P: GEN-­‐IND -­‐7.00 Integrated digital TVs M.P: E-­‐CIV -­‐2.08 Energy e fficient wet appliances M.P: GEN-­‐CIV -­‐6.22 Energy e ff. c old appliances -­‐0.02 M.P: T-­‐CIV -­‐3.74 Lighting (CFLs direct )
10.13
Others (deemed+engineering)
0.00
6.95
-­‐4.68 Low flow shower taps for r esidential -­‐2.25 Loft insulation (virgin) -­‐2.08 Solar thermal collectors for DHW
Energy e fficiency appliances
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
-­‐2.00
-­‐4.00
-­‐6.00
-­‐8.00
-­‐12.00
-­‐14.00
-­‐16.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
6.56
Lighting
-­‐12.77
0.00
-­‐2.00
-­‐4.00
-­‐6.00
-­‐1.57 CWI pre & post 1976 -­‐8.00
1.75
Low flow water taps areators
-­‐2.15
0.00
-­‐1.04 Loft insulation (top up) -­‐10.00
3.27
All r esidential
Solid wall insulation DIY loft insulation (sq metres)
2.74
Public ligting
-­‐12.32
Glazing (sq metres)
Hot water tank jackets 2.29
-­‐5.02 Low flow shower taps for sport c .
Lighting (CFLs r etail)
-­‐10.00
-­‐6.64
-­‐12.00
M.P: IP -­‐10.30
Standby savers -­‐6.75
2.00
Heating c ontrols (individual TRVs) 2.58
-­‐4.60 M.P: E-­‐IND 0.00
-­‐2.3
Innovative heating Figure 4. CES for the society by dominating measures (left for UK-EEC2 (2005–2008 and right for IT-TEE (2005–2010).
On the other hand, Joosen and Harmelink (2006) also say
that the subsidies for the cost calculation from the societies
viewpoint should not be included. Nevertheless, in this study
government expenditures related to analysed programs have
been added as the aim of this work is to show the total costs of
energy saving measures for which we see directly related governmental expenditures being an essential part of.
Despite the rebound factor related increases of comfort can
be regarded as a benefit for the end users and, accordingly,
also for the society as a whole, we have removed all side effects (rebound technical reduction and free rider) as the main
target of an energy efficiency programme is to achieve “energy
saving”.
Accordingly, the CES for the society as a whole by different
implemented measures are shown in Figure 4. Partly negative
costs occur, indicating that the benefits for the society outweigh
the costs. Within the UK-EEC2 the specific cost of saving of
all measures amounts to -2.3 Eurocent2005-PPP/kWh, considering the weighted average of insulation measures (62 % of total,
depreciation time is 25 years, see Table 5, whose specific costs
are -1.73 Eurocent2005-PPP/kWh and other measures (installation and appliances depreciation time 10 years) ) whose CES
is 3.4 Eurocent2005-PPP /kWh. In comparison to the UK scheme
in Italy the specific CES of all measures conducted amount to
2.58 Eurocent2005-PPP /kWh, and the corresponding figure for the
residential sector is 1.75 Eurocent2005-PPP/kWh.
Considering the measures for the residential sector it can be
seen that efficient appliances and lighting are common measures which are implemented within both schemes in representative terms. Thus, significant differences with respect to
the resulting specific CES are becoming apparent. In the case
of efficient appliances the CES in the UK scheme is -2.08 and
-6.22 Eurocent2005-PPP (wet and cold appliances) whereas this is
in Italy in size of about 6.56 Eurocent2005-PPP/kWh. If we look
2114 ECEEE 2013 SUMMER STUDY – RETHINK, RENEW, RESTART
at the specific (additional) investment costs for the appliances,
e.g. investment costs expressed per achieved kWh saving, we
see that the Italian scheme has higher costs per kWh than the
UK’s scheme which largely explains the higher CES for appliances in Italy.14
The other category lighting indicates also significant differences for CES between the UK and Italy but in contrast to
above the societal benefit is now almost twice as high in Italy
compared to the UK (i.e. -6.64 vs. -12.77 Eurocent2005-PPP/kWh).
This can be explained by the comparatively high electricity
prices in Italy (in contrast to the UK) – i.e. the average electricity prices without taxes amount to 14 Eurocent2005-PPP/kWh in
Italy which is almost twice as high the corresponding figure for
the UK (7.4 Eurocent2005-PPP/kWh). This consequently means
that each kWh saved electricity through lighting measures
leads in Italy to also almost twice as high savings for the society
in comparison to the UK.
Results and Conclusions
Deriving annual saving has shown that the UK-EEC2 scheme
has provided 8.4 TWh net annual programme saving only in
the residential sector through measures implemented within
three years (2005–2008). The corresponding figures for the Italian TEE scheme are 19.3 TWh but the programme was implemented over a period of six years (2005–2010) and comprised
all main economic sectors. Lifetime-discounted net saving
of both schemes have been calculated, indicating for the UK
144.5 TWh (2005–2008) and 221 TWh (2005–2010) (approxi14. The reasons for differences in investment costs between the two countries may
lie in the consideration of “additional savings” and “additional costs” in practice
– despite the fact that in theory an almost identical baseline definition is used,
and which is based on market averages. Other reason may also be differences in
purchase prices of appliances due to differing market and retail structures.
7. Monitoring and evaluation
mation for three years: 110.5 TWh) in Italy where about 57 % is
derived through measures in the residential sector.
In contrast to above, the comparison of energy saving indicators shows that the Italian programme has slightly more
favourable values if we consider the annual savings of one year
average of both countries and take the different implementation periods into account. Accordingly, the achieved net annual saving amounts to 0.16 % of total yearly final energy for
the UK, while in Italy average annual savings in size of 0.20 %
were achieved.
In respect of specific cost of energy saving (CES) for the
society it can be seen that, considering all implemented measures, the average CES amounts to -2.3 Eurocent2005-PPP/kWh
for the UK, indicating net benefits, whereas this is in size of
2.58 Eurocent2005-PPP/kWh for the Italian scheme, meaning net
costs. The CES in the Italian scheme for the measures in the
residential sector amounts to 1.75 Eurocent2005-PPP/kWh, indicating slightly more favourable conditions in comparison to
the overall figure.
The comparative assessment of the two ESO implementations, namely the Italian-TEE (2005–2010) and the UK-EEC2
(2005–2008) system, conducted within this paper represents
a first attempt to define and apply a consistent methodology.
Thus, the work has proven the ability for doing so but it also
helped to gain further insights on difficulties and bottlenecks.
Moreover, it allows drawing first conclusions:
The main conclusion of this work is that a quantitative comparison of different ESO implementations appears feasible
but data requirements are significant. Thus, a standardised
documentation of the progress achieved in energy efficiency
programme, and in particular in ESO schemes, should be facilitated, better to say required, with the call for EU wide ESO
implementations as set out by the new Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU). Thus, a detailed catalogue allowing a standardised documentation of forthcoming ESO implementations,
including standardised approaches also related to the consideration of side effects such as rebound and free rider as well as
for the identification of baseline, additional savings and related
additional cost appears indispensable.
In general, a quantitative cross-country analysis makes sense
as long as a harmonised approach is used for doing so since
otherwise one can hardly compare savings or cost. Using the
saving indicators is also essential to understand what the results
really mean.
The comparison of specific cost by different measures shows
that there are significant differences in the case of some common measures between both programmes (e.g. efficient appliances and lighting). There is a need for further research to
explain these differences.
References
AEEG, 2006. Primo Rapporto annuale sul meccanismo dei
titoli di efficienza energetica-Situazione al 31 maggio
2006- (1st Annual Report on the TEE mechanism).
AEEG, 2010. Il mleccaniismo dei Tiitollii di Effiiciienza
Energetiica (certiifiicatii biianchii) dall 1° gennaio all 31
maggiio 2010.
7-425-13 Suna, Haas
AEEG, 2011a. Il meccanismo dei Titoli di Efficienza Energetica (certificati bianchi) dal 1° giugno al 31 dicembre 2010.
AEEG, 2011b. Il meccanismo dei Titoli di Efficienza Energetica (certificati bianchi) dal 1° gennaio al 31 maggio 2011.
AEEG, 2011c. Quinto Rapporto Annuale sul meccanismo dei
titoli di efficienza energetica – Situazione al 31 maggio
2010 – (5th Annual Report on the TEE mechanism).
AEEG, 2011d. Delibera EEN 10/11 – Nella riunione del 3
novembre 2011 – Tabella [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.autorita.energia.it/it/docs/11/010-11een.htm
(accessed 1.14.13).
Bertoldi, P., Rezessy, S., 2009. Energy Saving Obligations and
Tradable White Certificates (Report prepared by the Joint
Research Centre of the European Commission).
Di Santo, D., Forni, D., Biele, E., 2012. White certificates for
the industrial sector, in: ECEEE 2012 Summer Study on
Energy Efficiency in Industry.
Di Santo, D., Forni, D., Venturini, V., Biele, E., 2011. The white
certificate scheme: the Italian experience and proposals
for improvement, in: ECEEE 2011 Summer Study – Energy Efficiency First: The Foundation for a Low-carbon
Society. pp. 249–260.
Forfori, F., 2006. Evaluation of the British Energy Efficiency
Commitment – Within the Framework of the AID_EE
Project (AID-EE Project /supported by Intelligent Energy
Europe).
Greening, L.A., Greene, D.L., Difiglio, C., 2000. Energy efficiency and consumption – the rebound effect – a survey.
Energy Policy 28, 389–401.
IEA, 2011. IEA Statistics- Energy Prices and Taxes 2011 –
Quarterly Statistics Fourth Quarter 2011.
Joosen, S., Harmelink, M., 2006. Guidelines for the ex-post
evaluation of 20 energy efficiency instruments applied
across Europe (Intelligent Energy Europe No. AID-EE
Project).
Lees, E., 2007. European Experience of White Certificates
(WEC, ADEME project on energy efficiency policies).
WEC, ADEME project on energy efficiency policies.
Lees, E., 2008. Evaluation of the Energy Efficiency Commitment 2005–08 (Report to DECC (Department of Energy
and Climate Change)).
Lees, E., 2010. European and South American Experience of
White Certificates- WEC-ADEME Case study on Energy
Efficiency Measures and Policies.
Mebane, W., Piccinno, E., 2012. Economic analysis of energy
efficiency programs in Italy. Energia, Ambiente e Innovazione 2/2012, 62–68.
Odyssee, n.d. Energy Efficiency Indicators | Odyssee | Energy
efficiency in Europe [WWW Document]. Odyssee_Energy Efficiency Indicators in Europe. URL http://www.
odyssee-indicators.org/ (accessed 2.7.12).
Ofgem, 2008a. Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT)
2008–2011 Technical Guidance Manual (Guidance No.
Ref: 85/08).
Ofgem, 2008b. A review of the Energy Efficiency Commitment 2005–2008 (Report to the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs No. Ref: 109/08).
Pavan, M., 2012. The Italian experience with white certificates.
ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings 2115
7-425-13 Suna, Haas
Sanders, C., Phillipson, M., 2006. Review of Differences
between Measured and Theoretical Energy Savings for
Insulation Measures.
Sorrell, S., 2007. The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the
evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency. UKERC- UK Energy Research
Centre.
UK-EST, n.d. UK-Energy saving trust [WWW Document].
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Take-action/Grantsand-savings/About-CERT. URL (accessed 1.25.12).
2116 ECEEE 2013 SUMMER STUDY – RETHINK, RENEW, RESTART
7. Monitoring and evaluation
VROM, 1998. Costs and benefits of environmental policies
– Definitions and calculations methods (Kosten en baten
van milieubeleid – Definities en berekeningemethoden).
Publicatiereeks Milieustrategie1998/6, Den Hague.
Acknowledgements
The authors of this paper gratefully acknowledge the useful
comments and data provided by Mr. Dario Di Santo and Mr.
William Mebane regarding the Italian Scheme.