energy efficiency in lithuania and some other cee countries in lithuania.pdf · and some other cee...

INOGATE New ITS Project

Energy efficiency in Lithuania and some other CEE countries

by prof. Vidmantas JankauskasEnergy Regulatory Expert

Tbilisi28 February 2013

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Tajikistan

Uzbekistan

Moldova

Georgia

Armenia

Ukraine

Azerbaijan

Kazakhstan

Belarus

Turkey

Russia

Poland

Latvia

Lithuania

Hungary

Estonia

Italy

Germany

Finland

Denmark

Netherlands

Sweden

GDP (PPP)/cap

TP

ES

/cap

Relation between energy consumption and GDP

2

Energy intensity of economy (PPP)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

Tajikistan

Uzbekistan

Moldova

GeorgiaArmenia

Ukraine

Azerbaijan

Kazakhstan

Belarus

Turkey

Russia

Poland

Latvia

Lithuania

Hungary

Estonia

ItalyGermany

Finland

Denmark Netherlands

Sweden

GDP (PPP)/cap

TP

ES

/GD

P (

PP

P)

3

Electricity consumption and GDP

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

TajikistanUzbekistan

MoldovaGeorgia

Armenia

Ukraine

Azerbaijan

Kazakhstan

Belarus

Turkey

Russia

Poland

Latvia

LithuaniaHungary

Estonia

Italy

Germany

Finland

DenmarkNetherlands

Sweden

GDP (PPP)/cap

El/cap

4

Energy intensity in EU Member States in 2007

Eurostat, 2011

Lithuania

Latvia

5

Primary energy intensity in 2010

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Germany

France

EU-27

Portugal

Finland

Slovenia

Lithuania

Latvia

Poland

Hungary

Slovakia

Romania

Bulgaria

kgoe/€

6

Fuel poverty

7

8

Annual progress in energy efficiency in industry

Source: Lapillone and Pollier 2007

Fuel poverty is caused by a convergence of four factors

• Low income, which is often linked to absolute poverty

• High fuel prices, including the use of relatively expensive fuel sources

• Poor energy efficiency of a home, e.g. through low levels of insulation and old or inefficient heating systems

• Under-occupancy: some old people in fuel poverty live in larger than average homes or flats

9

Estimated potential for GHG mitigation in 2030 in different cost categories , transition economies

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Buidlings Industry Agriculture Energy supply Forestry Waste Transport

Gton CO2eq.

<20 <0 0-20 20-100

Cost categories* (US$/tCO2eq)

* For the buildings, forestry, waste and transport sectors, the potential is split into three cost categories: at net negative costs, at 0-20

US$/tCO2, and 20-100 US$/tCO2. For the industrial, forestry, and energy suppy sectors, the potential is split into two categories: at costs

below 20 US$/tCO2 and at 20-100 US$/tCO2.

Source: CEU research for IPCC

10

Why it is difficult to harvest the potentials

• While cost-effective, long payback times

• Substantial capital investment needs

– But very limited liquidity of population and institutions

• Perverse governmrnt’s incentives (e.g. procurement, support schemes)

• Millions of stakeholders to be mobilised

• Huge transaction costs

• Markets, businesses, experts and public awareness not ready

• others11

Co-benefits of improved energy efficiency in CEE buildings

• Employment creation– “producing” energy through energy efficiency or renewables is

more employment intensive than through traditional ways

– a 20% reduction in EU energy consumption by 2020 can potentially create 1 mln new jobs in Europe

• new business opportunities– for developed countries a market opportunity of € 5–10 billion

in energy service markets in Europe

• Increased comfort– noise reduction, reduction in indoor pollution –> reduced need

for cleaning and improved health; property values increased

• Reduced energy costs will make businesses more competitive

12

Poland: development of energy intensity

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

kg

oe

/eu

ro0

0

Intensity of primary energy Climate corrected Intensity of final energy Climate corrected

13

Poland: legislation in energy efficiency

• Law on energy (1997)

• Law on thermal modernisation (1998)

• Law on thermal modernisation and maintenance (2008)

• Law on energy efficiency (2011)

14

Poland: National energy efficiency action plans (NEEAP)

• NEEAP1 (2007)

– National energy efficiency targets

– Exemplary role of the public sector

• NEEAP2 (2011)

– System of white certificates

– System of monitoring of the efficiency results

– Energy Efficiency Fund

– Training auditors for industry

15

Poland: white certificates system

• white certificates are tradable and combined with an obligation to achieve a certain target of energy savings

• covers large scale interventions in EE by energy producers greater than 5 MW and final energy consumers who use more than 400 GWh/year

• projects can include industry installations, the modernisation of buildings, the modernisation of industrial installations, heat grids and plants and other

• for the period 2010-2016, the saving of 1.84 Mtoe of energy would cost EUR 9.05 billion

16

Poland: Thermal & Refurbishment Fund

• The Law on supporting thermal performance improvement projects – 1998• The Law on supporting thermal performance improvement projects and refurbishment –2008/2010.• Ministry’s of Infrastructure Ordinance on the scope and form of the energy effectiveness audit, thermal and refurbishment subsidies, and thermal undertakings effectiveness calculation -2009• Ministry’s of Infrastructure Ordinance on verification of the energy efficiency audit, verification entity requirements - 2009

17

Poland: thermal modernisation process

18

Poland: results for thermal modernisation of buildings until 2010

• Number of applications:• 16 977

• 15753 successfully approved

• On average:• energy savings: 45%

• cost of modernisation: 22 Euro/m2

• cost of reduction of 1GJ: 50 Euro/GJ

Source: KAPE (National Energy Conservation Agency)19

Lithuania: growth rates in 2000-2009

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

GDP Electricity Energy Heat(district)

Heat losses

%

20

Lithuania: energy consumption and saving potential

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Total Residentialbuildings

Publicbuildings

Industry Transport

use savings

TWh

Source: Energy Agency21

Lithuania: energy saving potential

Multifamily houses

24%

Cottages 17%

Public buildings

20%

Services8%

Industry23%

Transport7%

Agriculture1%

Source: Energy Agency22

Lithuania: Energy saving plan for 2008-2016

0,5 1,0

1,5

3,1

4,7

6,3

7,8

9,4

11,0

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

360

400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Ene

rgijo

s ta

up

ymo

ro

dik

lis,

%

Suta

up

ytas

en

erg

ijos

kie

kis,

ktn

e

Source: Energy Agency

ktoe

23

Obvious conclusion

• Renovating the buildings of Lithuania is a safe, sure way of increasing energy security, improving quality of life and substantially boosting the economy

www.euractiv.com/energy

24

Lithuania: heat energy consumption in buildings

0

50

100

150

200

250

kWh/m2

New5%

Efficient17%

In-efficient

56%

Very bad22%

25

Requirements for the new buildings in Lithuania

26

Renovation (thermal modernisation) scheme

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Before After

savings

investmentrepayment

heating

kWh/m2

27

Thank you for your attention

28