The Flanders (BE) regional utility obligations

1. The Flanders (BE) regional utility obligations Ann Collys Ministry of Flanders Department of Natural Resources and Energy 3 March 2005 - European Parliament Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples

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

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

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

5. Legal Framework • Target in the years 2004 up to 2007 includes the implementation of the resolution of the Flemish Parliament: • in 2004-2005: every head of the family must receive a free voucher which can be exchanged for an energy saving light bulb, energy saving shower head or an energy meter • in 2006-2007: every other member of the family receives a voucher for an energy saving light bulb Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples

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

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

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

9. Examples Action Premium Saving/year Energy saving bulb free 168 kWh Energy saving shower free 1311 kWh Condensing boiler 125 Euro 7800 kWh Solar boiler 625 Euro 2410 kWh Roof insulation 1,25 Euro/m2 158 kWh/m2 Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples

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

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

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

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

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

15. Domestic clients excl. actions for protected clients Premiums: 13.629 Amount: 2,86 million Euro Primary energy savings: 76,72 GWhp cost effectiveness: av. 3,7 €cent/kWhp between 0,5 and 113 €cent/kWhp Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples

16. Light energy saving bulb Energy saving showerhead Premiums 225.822 145.210 Costs 0,7 M€ 0,5 M€ Primary Energy Saving 38,166 GWhp 190,368 GWhp Cost effectiveness 1,7 €cent/kWhp 0,25 €cent/kWhp Protected clients Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples

17. Domestic Actions Energ saving showerhead Radiator foil Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples

18. Non-household clients Premiums: 2.828 Amount: 4,73 million Euro Primary energy saving: 457,718 GWhp Cost effectiveness: av. 1,03 €cent/kWhp between 0,25 en 152 €cent/kWhp Bottom-up measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvements: national & regional examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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