http://www.eceee.org/columnists/columns A collection for all columns basesyndication http://www.eceee.org/logo.png http://www.eceee.org/columnists/columns http://www.eceee.org/columnists/erica-riley/The-benefits-of-energy-savings http://www.eceee.org/columnists/erica-riley/The-benefits-of-energy-savings Ever driven a €500 000 car? We have: a hybrid hydrogen / electric test car from Daimler Chrysler. And as we whizzed happily around Brussels, we thought about how the car symbolised the end of Europe’s reliance on fossil fuels. Europe built itself with fossil fuels - coal, mostly, and oil. That’s what powered the industrial revolutions and made the EU what it is today: the world’s biggest economy. But we now import 80% of our oil and 60% of our gas. Coal imports have doubled since 1990. The International Energy Agency puts the EU’s oil and gas import bill at a whopping €420 billion per year. Most goes to Russia. It’s clear that it’s time to adapt to changing circumstances. Europe could continue to scramble for fossil fuels on the international markets and prolong its financial haemorrhage. But this would be burying its head in sand. Or it can save energy and meet its lower demand with locally produced power. This requires legislation. An electric car uses roughly 5 times less energy than a conventional petrol or diesel model. It’s an obvious energy savings solution (especially in conjunction with high efficiency renewable power generation). But consumer demand isn’t high enough to take the electric car market beyond its current niche for the wealthy environmentally aware. Make it obligatory to save energy, however, and electric cars will get a much-needed shot in the arm. So will other energy savings solutions such as more efficient power generation or better insulated buildings. Translated into policy terms, this means the EU must get serious about its 20% by 2020 energy savings target and the draft Energy Efficiency Directive which is supposed to deliver it. Instead of the current voluntary 20% target - which has proved hopelessly ineffective - the EU must set binding legislation. This will reassure investors. Member States must also stop lobbying for a weak Directive which would allow them to double-count savings or to credit savings before they have actually been made. Such accounting tricks are the energy policy equivalent of an own-goal. Consider the figures: according to the Commission, making the Directive strong enough to meet the 20% target would cut energy costs by over €200 billion per year. This would help fix national budget deficits. Businesses would become more competitive by producing more efficient goods with less energy. There would be up to 2 million new jobs by 2020. Carbon emissions would fall, reducing the costs of dealing with climate change. This Wednesday’s EU summit on growth and jobs is the chance to take a fresh look at the opportunities of the Energy Efficiency Directive dossier. The French and Greek elections have shown there is appetite for structural reform without (too much) austerity, and it’s easy to see that saving energy is a solution that adds up. Come to think of it, is there a better one? annebe Tue, 22 May 2012 09:30:00 +0200 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/erica-riley/Council-must-rethink-its-position-on-EED http://www.eceee.org/columnists/erica-riley/Council-must-rethink-its-position-on-EED Throw a frog into boiling water, the story goes, and it will jump out. But if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated it will not perceive the danger and will be boiled to death.  This is just what is happening to the draft Energy Efficiency Directive. Each successive amendment from the European Council weakens the text a little more. Now the Council's version - a compilation of the most unambitious points from each member state - has almost reached junk status.  Already last year - before the directive’s release in June 2011 - the Council had pressured the Commission into proposing a number of loosely-linked binding measures instead of a binding overall 20% target (which Commission analysis shows would have been the best option).  Since then the Council has been steadily watering down all the main measures in the directive - especially the 3% renovation rate for public buildings and the measure with the highest savings potential: the 1.5% annual savings target. Council amendments started by specifying that the 3% renovation rate for public buildings should initially only apply to surface areas over 500m2. This excludes, for example, most social housing in the UK. So those most in need of better insulated and cheaper-to-run homes would be left out.  Some weeks later the Council proposed that only ‘Central Government Authorities’ should be covered by the 3% target. In Germany this narrows the scope of the target to around 30 buildings.  Meanwhile, the Council is squeezing the 1.5% annual savings target from all sides. First, by reducing its scope: the 1.5% target covers final energy - the energy used by businesses and consumers after it has been transformed into electricity, or refined into petrol or diesel. The Commission had already excluded the transport sector (the European Parliament, rightly, wants it back in). But now the Council wants to exempt 40% of the industries covered by the EU Emissions Trading System. If allowed, this means only half of the EU's final energy use would be covered by the 1.5% target.  Second, the Council wishes to revise the 1.5% target downwards. Its latest amendments call for a gradual phase in of “1.0% in 2014 and 2015, 1.25% in 2016 and 2017 and 1.5% in 2018, 2019 and 2020”. This would reduce projected savings over the 2014-2020 period by about 14-15%.  Then there is the quality of the savings. The Council - led by Austria - is pushing for ‘early actions’ to allow member states to credit savings made before the introduction of the directive. Picture the reactions if a government sought to correct a budget deficit by statistically transferring the effects of previous economic measures. Yet this is standard Council practice for energy savings. Based on past experience with the 2006 Energy Services Directive this could slash the 1.5% target to around 1%. Some member states also wish to credit ‘future actions’. This would allow savings to be credited before they have actually been delivered - meaning that each year’s 1.5% target would actually be delivered over a 5-25 year timeframe. Real annual savings would be just a fraction of the claimed savings.  Finally, there is the strong Council pressure to allow member states to “fulfil up to 20% of the [1.5% target] through energy savings achieved in the energy transformation sector” (i.e. power plants). This is bad for two reasons. The first is that the 1.5% target is intended to reduce energy consumption by businesses and consumers, not to make energy production more efficient. That was the task of other measures in the directive (which have also been watered down).  The second reason is more serious. If this amendment goes through, member states could meet the 20% contribution simply by fulfilling their 2020 renewable energy target obligations. Producing electricity from wind and solar energy is far more efficient than fossil fuel and nuclear generation (there are no thermal conversion losses from wind and solar). But the benefits of switching to renewables are already factored into estimates of the EU’s likely energy savings by 2020. These estimates - which the Council agrees with - show existing legislation is not enough to meet the EU's 20% by 2020 energy savings target. There is a gap, which the Energy Efficiency Directive must close. It will not do so by counting savings that will happen anyway.  So the frog is slowly being boiled. But the good news is that the boiling frog anecdote is not actually true - frogs will jump out of the water, even when gradually heated. Will EU policymakers be similarly wise? Alarm bells are starting to be heard. A recent paper from the Commission estimates that “the impact of the Council version would represent 38% of the expected impact of the Commission's proposal”. And of course the Commission’s own proposal is not tough enough to close the savings gap and meet the 2020 savings target (only the European Parliament’s version would do so).  It is not too late to stop and think. Official negotiations with the European Parliament and Commission on the final text of the directive are still in their early stages. Governments repeatedly insist on the need to cut carbon emissions, save money, create jobs and reduce energy imports. A strong Energy Efficiency Directive is their best chance to do so.   By Brook Riley (Friends of the Earth Europe) and Erica Hope (Climate Action Network Europe) annebe Mon, 07 May 2012 18:00:00 +0200 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/sea-rotmann/Are-we-citizens-or-consumers http://www.eceee.org/columnists/sea-rotmann/Are-we-citizens-or-consumers These questions have fascinated me for years. Watching the excellent Adam Curtis documentary ‘The Century of the Self’, I gathered a lot of new insights. (you can stream it here ) The true (evil?) genius of one man lies behind much of the shift in attitudes that happened over the last century: Edward Bernays. Sigmund Freud’s nephew, who grew up in the United States, used the teachings of his uncle to create a new approach he called ‘engineering of consent’. He is often referred to as the ‘father of public relations’, after distancing himself of the term propaganda (the title of his best-known book) when he learned how his works influenced Joseph Goebbel’s anti-jewish propaganda. One of his first, and best-known public relations efforts were for the American Tobacco Company in the late 20's. ATC realised that only half of their potential customer base was buying their products, as it was socially unacceptable for women to smoke. So, Bernays dressed up some New York debuttantes as suffragettes and marched them down the NY Easter Parade. They stopped in front of the world cameras to pull up their skirts and take out their cigarette holders, proudly igniting their ‘torches of freedom’. Within 5 years, smoking in women had risen by 13%. He later fronted an anti-smoking campaign in the 60's. One thing that Bernays understood better than anyone, was our innate desire for short-term gratification. Where products were about durability, practicability and quality before the war, it was all about luxury, quantity and rampant consumerism after Bernays and his contempories ‘engineered our consent’. Of course Bernays cannot be blamed for our obvious ambition to achieve status and happiness by consuming and displaying largely needless things, something later termed ‘Affluenza’. He merely exploited a very strong human bias: the inability to weigh long-term consequences, especially negative ones, when faced with short-term benefits to the contrary. Even though many of us understand the concept of climate change, resource depletion and peak everything, it plays little part when we are making short-term purchasing or energy-using decisions. Our limbic brain usually overrides the complex workings required to calculate the ongoing, planetary effects of our actions, and simply enjoys the luxury of retail therapy, instant mobility or any other ‘treat’ afforded by seemingly limitless energy, and other resources. Nobel price winner Daniel Kahneman describes this ‘dual process theory’, as ‘System 1 (intuition)’ and ‘System 2 (rationality)’ duel during our waking lives. System 1 usually wins, something Edward Bernays and most corporations know well how to exploit. In light of this inherent human bias towards short-term gratification, not to mention the other 100s of cognitive biases (type it into Wikipedia, I dare you!) that are constantly (mis)-leading the human brain, is it really possible to achieve the utopia of more sustainable lifestyles, low-carbon energy transition and long-term behaviour changes? Are we even still capable to take the rational, altruistic path away from rampant consumerism towards inclusive citizenship and community spirit? I don’t have an answer to this question, and instinctively fear that only a major climate crisis, war or resource deficit, will return us onto the ‘right’ path. For centuries, we managed to live within our, and our planetary constraints. Other than an elite few, we were forced to be citizens of our small communities, as rampant individualism would have spelled certain doom for all. It has only been 3-4 generations since we really ‘turned‘ and much of the world’s population has yet to follow our bad example. I hope that there is a way to stop before it’s too late, and I believe that understanding and positively affecting (rather than manipulating, as Bernays et al arguably did) human behaviour will be an ever more important tool for policymakers and community groups. Germany managed to reduce its emissions by 23% since 1990, whilst continuing to be a world powerhouse. It is possible. If you have any ideas on how to make it happen, or simply want to engage in the discussion, drop me a line at drsea@orcon.net.nz annebe Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:40:00 +0200 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/erica-riley/2012-04-19 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/erica-riley/2012-04-19 On 8 April climate change minister Greg Barker told the Financial Times “We are working patiently and quietly behind the scenes with EU partners to convince them of the strong economic as well as environmental reasons why we should go for 30 per cent [greenhouse gas emission cuts] rather than 20 per cent”. Barker hopes to win his case in today’s meeting of EU environment ministers in Horsens, Denmark. Good for him. But there is a catch. Barker’s Department of Energy and Climate Change is just as patiently and quietly working to weaken a proposal for tougher EU energy savings legislation. This proposal – the draft Energy Efficiency Directive - is also being debated in Denmark. Leaked copies of official comments are clear proof of the UK's opposition. It is rejecting proposals to make the EU’s 20% by 2020 energy savings target legally binding – despite experience with greenhouse gas and renewable targets showing such targets to be the most effective solution. It is blocking mandatory audits and follow-up energy efficiency improvements for businesses. And in a farcical spy games twist, the UK is also opposing widespread renovations for public buildings on the grounds of public security (see the full story from Reuters). Analysis from the European Commission - which UK climate officials say they agree with - shows the EU needs to meet its 20% by 2020 energy savings target to achieve higher greenhouse gas cuts. The reason? Fossil fuels still account for 80% of the EU’s energy use. So using less energy is the most effective way to cut emissions.  At present rates, however, only 10% savings are expected; the draft Energy Efficiency Directive is supposed to close the gap. So the UK is going to Denmark to lobby for a 30% greenhouse gas target while opposing the policy which can do most to cut emissions. Hardly a victory for joined-up thinking.   By Brook Riley (Friends of the Earth Europe) and Erica Hope (Climate Action Network Europe) annebe Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:15:00 +0200 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/erica-riley/EED-accounting-tricks-vol1 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/erica-riley/EED-accounting-tricks-vol1 Member States are rightly shunned by their peers for getting creative with budget deficit figures. So why is there so much support from national governments to apply the same methods to the EU’s draft Energy Efficiency Directive? Leaked documents from European Council meetings show that at least 12 out of 27 Member States are seeking to include ‘early actions’ in the Directive. If successful, they would be allowed to credit savings made before the implementation of the Directive (hence ‘early action’). Why is this so important? At present rates the EU will only reduce its energy use by 9% in 2020, missing its 20% savings target by over half. Logically, all new legislation and measures to save energy have to be additional to existing polices – otherwise the target won’t be met. Early action is a bogus way to double count and avoid making additional savings. And there is a worrying precedent: The 2006 Energy Services Directive (‘ESD’, which set annual 1% savings targets) allowed Member States to credit savings from as far back as the mid-1990s. This means only 50% of the energy savings were actually new measures. Ironically, the early action-induced failure of the ESD is one of the main reasons for preparing the new Energy Efficiency Directive. Figure 1: Meeting the 20% savings target requires a combination of new and existing measures Figure 2: Crediting early action allows Member States to reduce the amount of new, additional savings Figure 3: Real energy savings assuming 50% double counting from early action (the level allowed by the 2006 Energy Services Directive) Early action is especially damning when we look at the benefits the 20% savings target is expected to deliver: cost savings of over €200 billion per year, reduced dependency on oil and gas imports and a higher CO2 reduction target. The crucial point is that Member States crediting early action will statistically meet their energy savings goals. But their real savings will be much lower – and so will CO2 reductions and savings on energy bills. This is fraudulent accounting. Note to Permanent Representations Countries which have done a lot to save energy in recent years understandably want this to be recognised in the Energy Efficiency Directive. It is fair to take past efforts into account when allocating binding national targets that demonstrably add up to the overall 20% objective. This is what happened with the 20% renewable energy targets. But early action must not be allowed to undermine central measures in the Energy Efficiency Directive – as Member States are trying to do with the 1.5% annual savings target in Article 6. To do so would lead to the consistent and deliberate misreporting that governments are usually so quick to denounce. annebe Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:40:00 +0200 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/erica-riley/EED-accounting-tricks-vol%202 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/erica-riley/EED-accounting-tricks-vol%202 We call it salami tactics: the EU Council is cutting away the Energy Efficiency Directive slice by slice. One tactic is to count savings made prior to the directive’s implementation (see our story on ‘early action’ ). Another is to credit savings before they have actually been achieved. How this works: several member states are trying to set the 1.5% target in Article 6 so that each year’s required savings would actually be delivered over a 15-25 year timeframe. This means that real annual savings would be just a fraction of the official savings reported to the Commission. We’re still not sure exactly how many member states are in favour of this definition of ‘lifetime savings’. But it seems the UK is one of them. This at least is what officials from the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) told us in a meeting in London on March 21st.  See below for our follow up email to Tom Bastin, Sarah Meagher and James Acord, three of the DECC officials leading the UK’s work on the directive. Our figures are in terawatt hours. 1000 TWh are equivalent to 85 million tons of oil equivalent (mtoe). See IEA conversion table “Dear Tom, Sarah, James, Thanks again for a very interesting meeting on Wednesday. We’re writing to follow up the discussion on the 1.5% target in Article 6 and in particular the lifetime savings model you described. If our understanding of your lifetime model is correct then we’re seriously concerned that the statistical savings are totally disconnected from the real savings. Your point – if we understood it correctly – is that each year’s target does not have to be met by real savings delivered in that year. Instead, measures would be put in place that would deliver the savings over their whole lifetime. As the Commission puts it in their non-paper, this means “claiming savings that will, in reality, not materialise for many years to come”. Let’s try this out with some numbers: The UK’s final energy consumption (minus transport) is very roughly 1000 TWh / year. In order to meet the 1.5% target the UK would have to achieve 1 st year savings of 15 TWh. According to the method you described in the meeting these 15TWh would be met by installing measures that over their lifetime would deliver 15TWh. Assuming a lifetime of 20 years this means the real 1 st year savings would actually be 1/20 of 15 TWh = 0.75 TWh. If this is your understanding of the 1.5% target then we have some serious problems. The most obvious is that the benefits that result from energy savings would be lost. Take GHG reductions: savings of 15TWh roughly correspond to 3 million tons of CO2 equivalent. But savings of 0.75 TWh are the equivalent of just 0.15 MT CO2e. A huge difference – especially given the scientific case for large short term GHG reductions. Please get back to us as soon as possible on this issue! Our position: a 1 st year target of 15 TWh must be met with 15 TWh real on-the-ground savings in that year”. Does DECC fully realise the implications of what it’s calling for? We’re still waiting for their reply. The point is that if accounting tricks to meet the 1.5% target are disastrous for greenhouse gas emission cuts, they’re equally bad for cost savings and energy imports. Salami tactics indeed. annebe Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:25:00 +0200 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Hans_Nilsson/2012-03-26 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Hans_Nilsson/2012-03-26 We are about to witness a huge battle over energy efficiency in Europe when the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) enters the last stretch of a long running fight. The Commission adopted  its legislative proposal  back in June 2011 with the intention to close the gap to a 20% saving till 2020. The Parliament improved  the Commission’s  proposal  considerably when it was hauled through its Committee for Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) in a hailstorm of suggestions for changes. Now the Council, under the leadership of the Danish Presidency, is trying hard to do their part in finding consensus among the contentious factions of the Member States, almost all of whom seem to be firing on our common good and our future . If the Parliamentary process was a hailstorm, the Council is, it appears, “Fire and brimstone” with a Biblical expression. No effort is saved from the capitals all over Europe to portray the EED as the end of civilization as we know it. It is amazing to see and hear that the same governments that ever so often stand up and praise energy efficiency as our best resource since it is cheap and clean, now fire everything they have to shoot it down. In spite of the fact that the EED is designed to release well documented profitable savings. The savings that pay for themselves. The “free lunch that you are paid to eat”. EED will, as Barroso, the head Commissioner, has communicated, save every European household 1000€ per year, create 2 million new jobs and reduce dependency on imported energy. No! – Say the capitals of Europe – We don’t want more money, more jobs and less energy dependency. Why you may ask? And to the best of my understanding the arguments are mainly about subsidiarity. We want to decide ourselves, we don’t want Brussels to command us. Not even if it is good and provides a level playing field and common goals and tools for our common cause. An argument that is acceptable from a child who wants to gain it’s independence from parents, but come on! The capitals of Europe are supposed to be grown-ups! Behind the arguments we may imagine some strong interest from energy supply industries that either gain their living from selling energy, regardless if it is useful or not, and from energy-using industries who want to safeguard their image as being rational. When the battle is over we will probably have to face the new geopolitics for the future fight over energy efficiency. Brussels is becoming dead-locked! The opposing armies of the Commission, Council and European Parliament are camped out on distant hills, so far apart from each other that it will be difficult for them now to engage. A weak armistice or an extended cease fire are possibly the best outcomes we can expect. The next battle line for the fight to achieve something that puts Europe on track and gives our industry hope to take a lead for a profound greening of markets and society will probably not be in Brussels, but be in the Member States. It will be guerilla and civil warfare, fought openly and sincerely, with blank weapons – but showing little mercy, as we all know that time is quickly running out! ECEEE-members will now have to be more active on the home front because the enemy clearly is within! annebe Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:16:21 +0200 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/sea-rotmann/why-change-behaviours http://www.eceee.org/columnists/sea-rotmann/why-change-behaviours I truly believe we can change the world for the better. I believe there is a key to improving our energy security, energy affordability, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and comfort. I believe that this can be achieved for very little money, and very little loss in the service that we have grown to expect from using energy. I also believe it is doable. What I can’t believe, is how long it has taken us to put some real, sustained effort into understanding, accessing and using this key. The key I am talking about is human behaviour and decision making. It isn’t just the entire reason why we have such a problem with resource depletion, climate change, fuel poverty,  inefficiency and wasteful use of energy and seriously health effects - it is also the entire solution to these problems. However, when I mention the words ‘behaviour change’ in most, even the most informed cycles, people often jump to the wrong conclusions. ‘She is telling us what to do. She is telling us what not to do. She wants us to take shorter showers. She is telling us what we do is wrong and is killing the planet. She is trying to guilt-trip us into changing.’ I don’t actually want to tell anyone what to do or not to do. I just want to make people understand that the key to improving our lives lies within us, as does the power to make a change. Or chose not to. There are many times and examples in my own life where I don’t behave as well as I should, or would like. I probably emit as much carbon as anyone who doesn’t spend his whole working life researching and working on energy efficiency and sustainability implementation. My international travel for both work and to see family and friends makes sure of that, as does my passion for roadtrips in my oldtimer Mercedes. So as long as I don’t practice perfectly sustainable behaviours myself, I really shouldn’t be justified to preach about it, right? That’s why I don’t want to preach about behaviour change, I want to show how, when and where it can be done with the least amount of pain. I am really interested to find out why I behave the way I do and where I can make better decisions without losing the things that I love doing. I want to learn from other experts - researchers, policy makers and implementers of behaviour change programmes, and share my ideas. I want to understand the ‘average’ energy end user and what (in)forms their social norms. I want all of us to come together, in one ‘super brain’ and use this enormous amount of our combined knowledge, experience, research and beliefs to figure out what triggers our behaviours and how we can get inspired to change what is bad for us. We contracted what is termed ‘Affluenza’ these past few generations, especially since the last world war. We could use and consume all we wanted, because we had unlimited fossil resources to fuel our lifestyles. However, the world, and our understanding of the consequences of over-consumption and unlimited growth, have since changed. We now know that we are on the brink of disaster - resource peaks, climate change, systemic economic failure and financial crises, pollution and destruction of biohabitats. We know we need to change. We just don’t know how to affect such a massive paradigm shift without causing riots. That’s why we keep going after the ‘technological silver bullet’ solution to our problems. There is unlimited belief in our technological progress and innovativeness, and little heed is paid to the underlying resource limitations that are also going to limit any major technological revolutions and paradigm shifts. I just don’t think that we have the fossil resources, rare earths and necessary usable land left to completely re-build our civilisation with new, non-emitting, highly efficient technologies. And technology and innovation are also hugely dependent on human behaviour and decision making - designing, purchasing and correctly using the most energy efficient technologies are all dependent on the vagaries and irrationalities of the human mind, our habits, values, cultural idiosyncracies and social norms. I believe that behaviour change is a big key to solving some of our problems and mitigating many of our impacts. I don’t believe there is a behavioural ‘silver bullet’, or one model that fits all people and all circumstances. But I do believe that a better understanding of the contexts that influence our behaviours will help unlock some mysteries. If you are interested in joining me, and other ‘believers’ in combining our knowledge, experience, research and beliefs on behaviour change, please contact me at drsea@orcon.net.nz . The time is ripe to try something different. annebe Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:30:35 +0100 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Alan_Meier/deconstructing-folk-labels http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Alan_Meier/deconstructing-folk-labels You’ve almost certainly seen them: a yellow post-it on the thermostat or a brief note scribbled near the boiler controls, or perhaps a dog-eared card taped to the clothes washer.  These are reminders to ourselves (or visitors) about how to operate the device.  I call them “folk labels” so as to distinguish them from “official labels” such as the Euro energy labels, Energy Star, or other information provided by the manufacturer. I have observed unusual folk labels in homes and offices around the world. They cover many topics but energy-related aspects certainly rank high on the list. Thermostats seem to be the most frequent targets of folk labels (at least regarding their operation).  For example, many hotels find it necessary to supplement the regular interface with a folk label like “for heat turn red switch to ‘heat’ “.  Some of the labels are unintentionally funny. A hotel in Korea used little pictures of chili peppers to designate “more heat” on the room thermostats because South Asian visitors understand that image more easily than a fractured English or Korean explanation.  In other situations, the folk label is needed because the controls are completely opaque.  One of my favorites was, “To override motion sensor, flick switch rapidly 5 times”. Folk labels are just as important to auditors and other energy efficiency professionals as to the occupants because they are signals of problematic operation and a clue that energy is being wasted.  Thus an energy auditor should be especially attentive when encountering folk labels. Do the occupants truly understand how to operate that thermostat or is the folk label describing an energy-inefficient workaround?  The designers of appliance controls should also monitor the appearance of folk labels on their products.  In many cases, a folk label is evidence of a design failure.  I noticed that some commercial lighting controls get “folk-labeled” because they lack essential information like “off” or “this is a light switch”! Folk labels have shown that the presence of motion sensors or external controls is particularly vexing to users.  My colleagues and I observed numerous labels advising users not to fiddle with a switch because the light was controlled by a motion sensor.  We need a new universal symbol to alert people that a light, fan, or other device is controlled by something more than that switch. As appliances get smarter and control more aspects of their operation, the interface with users becomes more–not less–important.  A frustrated user will disable the most energy-efficient settings in order to get the desired results without reading a manual or spending 10 minutes re-learning the procedure.  There is something truly ironic when folk labels are needed to operate “smart” thermostats, lighting systems, or appliances. I would like to ask your help in assembling more examples of folk labels.  Please e-mail me your photographs (or even sketches) at akmeier@homeenergy.org . I will create a library so that we can all view and learn from them.   Perhaps you will see the fruits of this compilation at the next eceee summer study! I would like to acknowledge and credit my colleagues, Jessica Granderson, Therese Peffer, Cecilia Aragon, Gari Kloss, Marco Pritoni, and Daniel Perry for their contributions to the ideas expressed above.  Jessica Granderson, in particular, has transformed these casual observations into sensible categories; these are described in our presentation at the  2011 Behavior and Climate Change Conference (BECC), Folk Labeling: After-Market Graffiti to Fix Broken Usability Photos: Folk label on a light switch in a Japanese office telling occupants to leave that switch on. The label was added during the summer 2011 electricity crisis.  Credit: Alan Meier. Folk labels on a lighting control for a lecture room in a research building.  The labels appear to have been created from post-its that had been pre-printed with “Please sign here”.  Curiously, users found these labels confusing and then wrote “on” and “off” (seen faintly).  This is an example of two layers of folk labeling.  Credit: Gari Kloss. Folk label on a photocopy machine.  The photocopy machine’s user interface failed to clearly explain its power management behavior, forcing the users to provide their own instructions.  Credit: Gari Kloss.                   . annebe Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:40:00 +0100 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Rod_Janssen/creating_jobs-in-the-energy-efficiency-field http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Rod_Janssen/creating_jobs-in-the-energy-efficiency-field Energy efficiency initiatives create jobs, and normally very good jobs.  Recent analysis shows that between 17 and 19 net jobs can be created for every million euros spent.  That is a million euros from all sources.  And since the analysis shows that energy efficiency activities are more labour-intensive than manufacturing, decision-makers should pay close attention.  The leverage of public and private funding is often five to one and some even estimate ten to one, meaning 1 million euros of public money can lead to investments of between five and ten million euros.  That means between 85 to 190 jobs for 1 million euros of public money.  By comparison, the renewable energy industry in Europe creates an estimated nine jobs per million euros. Jobs can be created relatively quickly if extra funding is provided to existing programmes or funding facilities.  For example, the KfW bank in Germany, one of the global leaders in funding energy efficiency projects, has the kind of infrastructure and pipeline that would make it feasible to put an extra €100 million to use quickly. In other cases, new programmes would have to be developed before the public could benefit from extra funding. The start-up process could take a considerable amount of time before financing could be made available for new programmes such as the Green Deal in the UK or the Energy Efficiency Obligations (EEOs) that are being discussed as part of the draft Energy Efficiency Directive, which has experience only in in a few Member States.  The Green Deal is expected to become operational later this year after a development phase that has taken a couple of years.  That is a normal developmental time, based on the ramp-up time of countries that have energy efficiency obligations. But the development phase means a delay in realising fundable projects and the jobs they bring with them. In the context of the Energy Efficiency Directive, there will be an implementation “experiment” in about 20 member states for the EEO because they have no experience in that area. Ramping-up will probably be slow but once these energy efficiency obligations are fully operational, job creation could be quite significant. Furthermore, a proposal for deep renovation on 3% of public buildings above 250 m2 every year would almost certainly have a slow rate of implementation at the beginning, but would produce good efficiency when up and running.  Doing a deep renovation on such buildings will require complex analysis to determine the optimal measures to install.  That will require architects and designers to work together with equipment providers, financiers and the like.  That will not happen quickly, unless the planning for those projects has already taken place.  And a deep renovation takes more care than a normal renovation.  The building constitutes an entire system, with all elements installed to the highest standard.  That means that workers will most likely require training, especially if a 3% target is to be achieved. Care has to be taken not to over-estimate what can be accomplished in the short term.  The future is clearly positive but only if all the right pieces are put in place.  Poor results could hurt the credibility for a generation. For maximum impact of an Energy Efficiency Directive there must be a parallel jobs strategy to ensure a comprehensive approach to implementation. Jobs to improve energy efficiency in all end-use sectors are of high value.  Many require technical qualifications, such as engineering or architectural degrees.  Many require re-training from existing jobs. There will be a demand for financial specialists, construction engineers, behaviour specialists, project managers, auditors, data base managers, policy analysts and the like.  And these jobs are available to all, regardless of age or gender. The hard work of creating these jobs begins once the Directive is finally approved.  The long-term policy framework needs to be in place and the funding and implementation strategy need to be well developed. But in the longer term, opportunity is knocking at the door, and it deserves a welcome mat. annebe Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:45:00 +0100 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Rob_Kool/gambling-on-good-policies http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Rob_Kool/gambling-on-good-policies There is a rumour that the development of the new European Energy policy is sponsored by bookmakers. The odds the policy will be based on binding targets or binding measures change so often that it makes this process the perfect betting topic. Not only can one bet on the final outcome, but also on the behaviour of different Member States during the process and at this moment the European Parliament will force a new impact assessment to slow down the whole process to a complete standstill. This Brussels game will keep press and politicians occupied for a while. But at the end of the day we have to deliver energy efficiency, at least if we care about minor details such as saving the planet as is. When we look at the National Energy Efficiency Action Plans (NEEAPs) there is no reason to worry. Individual member states are excellent in showing that they will reach their goals, thereby often ignoring the critics who point to the economic crisis as the major contributor to the achievements, instead of the actions of the first NEEAPS. Now we get to the question: are you a “glass half full” of “glass half empty” type of person? If you’re the half full type, you have good stuff to support you. The Odyssee/Mure database has a long list of policy measures and quite often there is an impact assessment of policies in place. The concerted action of the Energy Services Directive also provides good data on tailor-made policy implementation in the 28 countries that participate. There is no denying, there are numerous examples of policies that do deliver. The half empty type of person will put the latest IEA scenarios on the table that show that limiting climate change to a 2 o degrees temperature rise is by now almost impossible to achieve, with all consequences that go with it. They have the weak results of Bonn, Copenhagen and Durban on their side to preach gloom and doom. Recently I saw an outside-the-box-approach of the half full/half empty paradigm: If you see your glass is not filled to your satisfaction, look for the tap! And that’s what eceee will be doing: look for the tap of energy efficiency ideas. Because we need more new and innovative policies, measures and technologies if we want to reach the 80-90% reduction of energy use that’s described as a “spot on the horizon” in the 2050 roadmaps. That won’t be an easy fix. But there are so many good examples known to the eceee network that evidence-based solutions can be offered to policy makers and the model makers that work on the long term roadmaps. (The eceee network includes parties like ACEEE, IEA and all top research institutes in Europe.) This year eceee will assemble packages of actions that can be used to implement the EU policy, regardless the type of “binding” that will be at the end of the political rainbow. These actions won’t be presented as the only path to success, but as elements of a huge portfolio that has to be used in the broadest possible way to reduce the exhaust of greenhouse gases with > 2%/annum. Each package will be based on evaluation reports and impact assessments that are available within the network. And we will try to define the conditions that are necessary to make them work. In our summer studies we will keep bringing people together that not only discuss innovative technology and the way how to use it, but also can debate cross-cutting issues. The socio-economic insights are finding their way into our work and make it possible to identify options that can’t be realised by a single technocratic approach. We will start using social media to discuss pressing matters and open up the network to many more people on an informal basis. You can find us on Facebook and LinkedIn , where you can choose to make general remarks on topics, or to participate in a more structured debate in a theme discussion. In the end there will be no silver bullet or magical wand waving, but there will be solid evidence available for those who work for results instead of the political game. And maybe, and I do realise that this is a dream, we can change the agenda setting of this political topic in such a way that it’s judged on realism and not on political desires.  We’re willing to bet on it. annebe Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:02:32 +0100 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Rob_Kool/durban-what-now http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Rob_Kool/durban-what-now Advertorial - One of these strange new “English” words that entered my native Dutch. A column that tries to sell you something. Well, as it is an eceee summer study (and a new one!), I think I’m allowed to do so. What’s the thing? We had Durban, and politicians did what they do best: They saved their faces. This instead of saving the planet, the real reason they flew into South Africa. The final declaration, and this is my own personal opinion, should be put into the recycle bin to show they can do at least one thing right. I had to be in South Africa recently, and got the feeling the Climate Summits are growing to the size of the Olympic Games. They have their own logo of the organising city, over 10.000 participants and lots of journalists. The people I spoke to were proud they were going to have their summit. Not as exciting as the World Championship Soccer, but close. As I stated, in my opinion the whole event was a failure, with the exception of the proud South African organisation of the event. The Dutch newspaper “Trouw” mentioned our national contribution. The delegation of the Netherlands has diminished the last years: 70 in Copenhagen, 30 in Cancún and now 12 in Durban. The smallest of the EU, now even smaller than Luxemburg. The excuses mentioned by deputy minister of environment Atsma not to save the planet aren’t worthwhile to repeat. They’re the usual mix of topics that sound nice to the electorate and, at the same time avoid a pledge to make a difference. One interesting line he did mention: “Let the enterprises do the job”. As we all know the “enterprises” is not a coherent entity.  Illegal waste dumping seems to be one of the fastest growing activities of organised crime, and it is hardly those people we expect to do the job. But then there are the “good guys”: Part of the industry has come to the realisation that a life-cycle approach, reducing feedstock and energy use, is not only good for the company and its profits, but also helps saving the earth. This insight hasn’t come over night. It’s been a growing awareness for years now. And it doesn’t limit itself to some local grocery stores. A number of multinationals are working in a structured way to become completely green in a couple of years. They can afford to make long term plans that prepare them for a competitive future in a world where feedstock will be expensive and low energetic recycling will be the cornerstone of survival for the company. The CEO and board members  of those companies have a much longer professional “life-expectancy” than the 4 to 8 years we grant our politicians. So if they really want a sustainable future, they have a much better chance of achieving it than mediocre politicians running for re-election. Still, I disagree with our deputy minister when he states that enterprises will do the job. The fact is we’ve passed the point where we can even hope to find a single silver bullet solution. The only road is a portfolio approach where everybody realises they have to contribute to the transformation towards a sustainable society both alone and in collaboration. And they have to accept that there will be no equal shares, as parties are too diverse. Now here is what we at eceee do best. Bringing parties together to discuss technical and institutional options and challenge each other to implement these to the best of our abilities. Some industrial sectors have gained an average energy efficiency of 2% a year for a numbers of years now, clearly documented in programmes like the Dutch Long Term Agreement. That’s a challenging figure and can maybe even improve if we are able to correct some market barriers and imperfections that need leadership of our politicians. The beauty of it is that actions necessary to do this can be defined within the “usual” political lifespan of our leaders. Getting back to the ad of the advertorial: a column is not a place for well defined studies and robust solutions. Papers at the summer study are. So grab your chance, submit and be present at the first  eceee summer study on energy efficiency in industry in the Netherlands in September 2012. admin Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:02:36 +0100 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Eoin_Lees/Do_EEOs_work_part_2 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Eoin_Lees/Do_EEOs_work_part_2 In my earlier column in May 2011 entitled “Do Energy Efficiency Obligations Work?” , I addressed the issue based on a “top down” analysis by looking at the reduction in the total annual residential gas demand in Britain between 2004 and 2009 of around 15% despite an increase in gas customer numbers of 7%.  Since then, a “bottom up” analysis has been published confirming the general points that I made in the May column and I thought it would be of interest to eceee members.  Furthermore, the analysis was undertaken on behalf of the largest residential gas supplier in Britain – British Gas. In GB, natural gas is the main (non-transport) fuel used in the residential sector accounting for over 70% of final energy demand in households.  Prior to 2005, residential gas demand was increasing between 1 and 2% per year. However in 2005, there were three important developments which all impacted to reduce demand.  First, the Energy Efficiency obligation doubled in that year and 72% of the delivered energy savings between 2005 and 2008 came from insulation measures in gas households.  Second, the Government introduced building regulations on boiler replacement which meant that condensing boilers had to be installed unless there were excessive costs or technical problems.  Third the price of gas to the residential sector increased in line with European trends. British Gas has undertaken an analysis of the energy bills of ~4 million customers on their database (about 40% of their customers) and has observed that there has been a 22% reduction in the gas consumption per household during the period 2006 to 2009 [1] .  This is equivalent to gas demand falling by around 4.9%per annum compound over this period. The study looked at factors affecting demand such as: Households, population, income and tenure of property External and internal temperatures Changes in behaviour, lifestyles, increased climate change awareness etc. Energy efficiency measures They found that: Retail gas prices changes are not significantly correlated with household natural gas consumption changes (this somewhat surprising finding may possibly be due to customers switching to cheaper tariffs). The economic factors did decrease annual consumption in some years but over the period slightly increased consumption. Behaviour and lifestyle changes (including greater awareness of climate change issues and energy efficiency advice by British Gas) reduced gas demand by ~ 2.7% per annum. Annual reduction in gas customer demand was 3.3% as a direct result of energy efficiency measures (mainly insulation and heating). Their conclusion is that the major contribution to this reduction in gas consumption per household is due to energy efficiency (measures and behavioural changes). Clearly both the top down and bottom up estimate are showing significant reduction in gas consumption per household over the period due to more insulation, better boilers, consumer behavioural changes and increased energy prices.  None of these on their own can account for the observed reduction, but British Gas claims from analysis of their customer database that most of their observed 22% reduction per household (equivalent to falling 4.9% compound over the period 2006-2010) is due to energy efficiency. Historically, electricity and gas companies in the residential sector have had a business model which is strongly linked with increasing sales.  So the 22% reduction observed by British Gas is of significant concern to them!  Indeed, it might well explain why British Gas is now the largest installer of photovoltaics in the UK, has started and grown its own insulation business and continues to have a significant market share in the installation and maintenance of heating systems. Undoubtedly, a further driver for this apparent move to energy services is that although electricity and gas prices are not regulated in Britain, the Government and Regulator are focussing particular attention on the margins being made by energy suppliers such as British Gas.  Perhaps the incentive of moving more of their business income to the unregulated activities of providing energy services is a welcome relief from the “glare” by the Government, the Regulator and consumer organisations on their gas and electricity supply business? However, it is early days to say whether this is the long awaited transformation from an energy supply company to an energy service provider, but certainly the drivers from implementing significant energy efficiency obligation activities are pushing such a transformation business model in the right direction. [1] British Gas Home Energy Report 2011 – An Assessment of the drivers of Domestic Natural Gas Consumption, February 2011, Centre for Economics and Business Research Ltd admin Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:50:00 +0100 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Rod_Janssen/time-to-listen http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Rod_Janssen/time-to-listen These are trying and worrying times in the EU decision-making world when it comes to energy efficiency.  The Commission’s proposed Energy Efficiency Directive, which is wending its way through the approval process, was designed to have policies in place to meet the 2020 energy savings target.  Since many believe the Directive falls short of the 2020 target, proposals are now being tabled to amend and strengthen it further.  As a committed supporter of improved energy efficiency, I laud the efforts at improvement. But I’m worried.  There is a lot of strong language and accusations that Member States are delinquent and foot-dragging.  It is turning into a blame game, with neither “side” showing much willingness to accommodate the interests of the other. One side, the energy efficiency community, is pushing with all the effort it can muster for measures to ensure the illusive low carbon society.  The other side, the policy-makers, is more phlegmatic, stepping away from the priority of adopting binding energy efficiency plans , accepting binding sectorial obligations, or accepting an overall, binding—yet quite flexible—energy savings target.  Even the United Kingdom appears to not be supporting energy supplier obligations, a policy that has been championed for years by the UK. While division and even contention fester in the energy efficiency world, there are entirely different dynamics in the energy supply sector, with major investments in new oil and shale gas deposits, pipelines and other fuel transport facilities, transmission systems, expansion of renewables as appropriate, R&D, market development and more. The debates are about security, ensuring adequate energy supply, developing adequate infrastructure to meet modern needs, financing investments, and market reform.  The energy supply systems in every EU Member State are being reviewed and revamped to ensure the needs of their economies will be met in years to come.  Investments in fossil fuels are increasing constantly. Energy supply concerns are certainly not pre-occupied with the constraints of planning for a low carbon society. This dynamic support for supply options is reflected in an apparent loss of belief in commitment by Member States to high efficiency and low carbon. They seem to be almost wishing away the efficiency target and are certainly not interested in making it binding. The energy efficiency community sees the overall binding savings target as a thin red line and – barring major break-throughs for the acceptance of forceful binding sectorial measures and targets, will accept nothing less ambitious.  While this community is not pleased with the lack of progress and commitment to 2020 targets for energy savings, the concern runs deeper than just the balance of priorities between supply and efficiency options, and beyond energy policy or climate change policy. As budgets in many Member States are slashed, good policy analysts and programme managers are losing their jobs, reducing the capacity to analyse and deliver.  Reduced capacity inevitably means Member States are less willing to make commitments.  With budget concerns of its own, the European Commission may have its own capacity constraints to develop and implement policies if there are staff cuts. And for obvious reasons, in the current financial and economic crisis, the policy barometer is on jobs, banking reform, growth strategies and the like. Adding to the brake on progress, there are even challenges to the legitimacy of the European Union to make energy policy. Some object to giving more powers to the European Union, preferring to see energy policy remain the responsibility of individual Member States, through their own initiatives at the national, regional and local level.  The fact is that Member States have already transferred authority to bodies such as the International Energy Agency for energy security and the Lisbon Treaty itself increased the EU’s responsibility in energy policy. But these challenge of authority only contribute to the slowing of progress. I worry that in this hiatus, two solitudes are developing:  two sides that have essentially stopped listening to each other about how to make progress in energy efficiency.  Both sides have valid claims but seem to have lost that willingness to carefully lay out one’s position in a way that it will be understood by the other side.. The energy efficiency community needs to strengthen its ability to explain that improved energy efficiency can and will make a much bigger contribution to addressing climate change, energy, and budget concerns of Member States through channels such as non-exportable job creation, economic activity, reduced fuel poverty, better health and living conditions, improvement of long-term infrastructure, and many, many more benefits. But the case made by the energy efficiency communities has to be analytically sound, devoid of emotion and easily communicated and understood by the other communities involved.  And clearly, supporters of energy efficiency need to find allies in the energy supply industries, in the finance ministries, and among other stakeholder communities across the economy. And the case made by other stakeholders really has to be listened to and understood. For example, the energy supply industries, especially the electricity generators, seem now genuinely to be in constant fear that a surplus of electricity will be reached in the near future. For this reason they are opposing strong energy efficiency measures that can and will further reduce electricity demand and increase the surplus of electricity, lead to falling electricity prices and plunging profits. Increasing renewable energy production, combined with continuing production of coal- and gas-fired electricity due to low taxes on carbon, low ETS allowance prices/low EU CO2 targets have all been contributing to this perceived and possibly real danger of an imbalance on the electricity markets in several parts of Europe. In short, there has to be much more of an effort to reach common understanding and consensus-building and much less running to the barricades to continue the long and destructive sniper war of  scoring of points on a given paragraph of the proposed directive and other policy proposals. There is already some consensus that we must move to a low carbon society. We need desperately to make peace and to build on that consensus. But consensus happens less when we talk than when we listen.  It really is time to listen.  And then we can truly start moving forward. admin Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:40:00 +0100 http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Alan_Meier/the-bumpy-road-to-net-zero-energy http://www.eceee.org/columnists/Alan_Meier/the-bumpy-road-to-net-zero-energy It’s easy to lose the longer perspective when we are involved in the day-to-day efforts to save energy.  That’s why I want to focus on a single home—Danny Parker’s home in Florida, USA—to illustrate the bumpy road to zero-energy use. The chart shows monthly electricity use for twenty-one years, along with many of the major events in his household. (Follow the green line to see the consumption smoothed of its summer air conditioning spikes.) Click the image to download a larger version. When the Parkers moved into the house in 1989, Mr. Parker and his wife used roughly 10,000 kWh/year. This was already considerably less energy than the average in his region and, by coincidence, it’s also the US average residential electricity use. Over the next 20 years, Mr. Parker installed many conservation measures and improvements. He added insulation, sealed ducts, installed a whole-house fan, replaced the refrigerator and air conditioner, and installed a PV-powered pump for the swimming pool. He also replaced all his incandescent lights with CFLs. There were other events affecting energy use. The babies arrived: first Sarah, then Wade. In 1998, they added 50 m 2 of floor area. In 2005 the children–no longer babies–convinced their parents to buy a DVR and flat screen. In 2006, Mr. Parker bought an energy feedback device though it wasn’t clear if anybody besides him understood it. Finally, in 2009, the Parkers installed a 5 kW PV system. Meanwhile, appliances were being replaced again. In 2010, the Parkers replaced the refrigerator again. The “new” air conditioner was replaced in 2010. Over those twenty-one years, the Parker’s energy use fell about 50% through efficiency improvements; they then eliminated the remaining 50% of grid-supplied power by installing a PV array.  Now, in 2011, the Parker’s house is exporting electricity. This house was in no way special and yet through choice of appliance, equipment and components, it was able to reach zero energy through using both efficiency and renewable energy. Arguably, many millions of households around the world could achieve a similar outcome, taking into account different cultural and climatic differences. This chart tells us much more. A lengthy report would be needed to explore all of the features and implications but here are some. The policy implications are in italics. The progress of the Parker household towards net zero electricity consumption is bumpy. More puzzling, the fluctuations in energy use don’t seem to correspond to the installation of the conservation measures (or at least not always). Policymakers will need better evaluation tools to monitor progress towards their goals. Many conservation measures are required to significantly reduce electricity use.  Policymakers must think comprehensively about efficiency. Some of the bumps are good: the birth of two kids seemed to raise electricity use. That’s not really a surprise, but we shouldn’t forget this connection. (On the other hand, per-capita electricity use fell 50%.) Policymakers need to make allowances for the good bumps. Homes can grow in size. This one increased roughly 25% in floor area. Nevertheless, we don’t see much increase in electricity use. That’s because Mr. Parker was careful in the design and construction of the addition. Policymakers need to target renovations as well as new construction. Major appliances, such as the refrigerator, needed to be replaced twice during the 20-year period. This means that policymakers may get two opportunities to improve the efficiency of the appliance stock on the path towards zero net energy. We must also expect to visit each home many times. In summers, electricity consumption still exceeds available supply; thus we will need to take into account peak consumption as well as average. Europeans may have difficulty imagining the transformation that must occur in order to achieve the emissions targets by 2030 (and beyond), but the Parker household gives a realistic portrait of the steps–both forwards and backwards–that could make it happen. Surely if the Parker household in Florida can achieve this, then so can the households of Monsieur Dupont, Señora Gomez, and Herr Schmidt in Europe. Of course we can argue that this home is not a fair example and that we ignored the energy use of their cars, and the new households soon to be created by Danny’s children Sarah and Wade. These are all valid objections but they don’t detract from the larger conclusion that a combination of vigorous conservation measures and appropriate use of renewable sources can achieve some–if not all–of our climate mitigation goals. admin Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:25:00 +0200