d2.1 compilation of good practices case study reports - publenef...

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020

research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 696069

D2.1 Compilation of good

practices case study reports

Work Package: 2 Deliverable: 2.1

Work Package Leader: TEA Team Leader: CEI

Authors: Ana Mostečak & Dean Smolar, CEI, Paula Gallagher & Chris

Noonan, TEA

Date of Delivery: September 2016

The sole responsibility for the content of this [webpage, publication etc.] lies with the authors.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held

responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

D2.1 Compilation of good practices case study reports

Preface

This Deliverable Report (D2.1 Compilation of good practices case study reports) has been

generated following the completion of T2.1, Work Package 2 and provides the main outputs

required from this task.

2

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4

2 Task Management ..................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Task Management Structure ............................................................................... 6

3 Task 2.1.1 Template for good practice models ............................................................ 7

3.1 Template preparation & consultation .................................................................. 7

3.1.1 Initial Template Draft ........................................................................................... 8

3.1.2 Modification of Template ..................................................................................... 8

3.1.3 Consultation with partners ................................................................................ 10

3.1.4 Final template .................................................................................................... 10

3.1.5 Learnings and Outcomes from T2.1 ................................................................... 13

4 Task 2.1.2 Gathering, selection and analysis of the good practices case study reports 14

4.1 Gathering of Responses ..................................................................................... 14

4.1.1 Initial Collection Period ...................................................................................... 14

4.1.2 Extended Collection Period ................................................................................ 14

4.1.3 Responses Received ........................................................................................... 15

4.1.4 Outcomes from Section 4.1 - T2.1 ..................................................................... 15

4.2 Analysis of the Good Practices ........................................................................... 16

4.2.1 Initial SWOT Template Draft .............................................................................. 16

4.2.2 Modification of SWOT Template ........................................................................ 16

4.2.3 Final SWOT Template ......................................................................................... 17

4.2.4 SWOT Analysis of Responses Received .............................................................. 17

4.2.5 Learning Outcomes from Section 4.2 – T 2.1 ..................................................... 19

4.3 Selection of Good Practices ............................................................................... 19

4.3.1 Good Practice Responses ................................................................................... 19

4.3.2 Selection of 20 Good Practices ........................................................................... 22

4.3.3 Good Practice Summaries .................................................................................. 23

4.3.4 Learning Outcomes from Section 4.3 - T2.1 ....................................................... 18

5 Summary ................................................................................................................. 20

6 Appendix 1. Final SWOT analysis template ............................................................... 21

7 Appendix 2. Final SWOT analysis results ................................................................... 24

3

Tables of Figures

Figure 1. Timeline of task ........................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2. First draft of Good Practice Factsheet ........................................................................ 8

Figure 3. Updated Good Practice Factsheet .............................................................................. 9

Figure 4. Final Good Practice Factsheet ................................................................................... 13

Figure 5. Summary of responses from respective partners ..................................................... 15

Figure 6. Example of SWOT analysis ........................................................................................ 16

Figure 7. List of Good Practices SWOT score ........................................................................... 19

Figure 8. Good Practices distribution based on scope ............................................................ 20

Figure 9. Good Practices distribution based on country of origin ........................................... 21

Figure 10. List of the Top 20 Good Practices ............................................................................ 22

Figure 11. Top 20 GP Summaries ............................................................................................. 17

Figure 12. Weaknesses category of SWOT analysis ................................................................. 21

Figure 13. Strengths category of SWOT analysis...................................................................... 22

Figure 14. Opportunities category of SWOT analysis .............................................................. 22

Figure 15. Threats category of SWOT analysis ......................................................................... 23

4

1 Introduction

PUBLENEF ((Support Public Authorities for Implementing Energy Efficiency Policies) Work

Package 2, Task 2.1 – Assessment of good practices on national, regional and local EE policies,

was completed during M1-M6 of the work program. This Work Package was led by the

Tipperary Energy Agency (TEA), with the Centre for Monitoring Business Activities in the

Energy Sector and Investments (CEI) performing the role of Task Leader.

The purpose of the Publenef project is to help EU member states to implement useful

sustainable energy policies, by showcasing examples of effective practices from other member

states.

WP2 (Assessment of good practices and needs for energy efficiency policies at national,

regional and local level) is the main ‘research’ component of PUBLENEF, which will explore in

the three dimensions (national, regional and local) of the project the capacity and other needs

(such as financing tools, staff expertise, policy procedures etc.) expressed from policy makers

through an analytical stakeholder process (carried out in the communication WP6), and will

assimilate the tools and best practices that can be replicable to other MS for covering these

needs.

The objective of this Work Package is to gather Good Practice examples, as well as Needs

Assessments from within the member states. These Good Practices and Needs Assessments

will then be used in the following Work Package to match up organizations. We have defined

a good practice as a practice which showcases some of the following traits:

1. Having a broad scope (i.e. applicable to National, Regional and Local levels) 2. Being easy to deliver, with an experienced delivery team 3. Including an innovative approach, or resulted in an innovation being delivered 4. Including a strong financing mechanism 5. Having energy savings potential (kwh) 6. Including an interdisciplinary approach (with multiple professionals & academia

involved in its preparation and/or delivery) 7. Including international co-operation 8. Where the legislative framework offered a good basis for its implementation 9. Having potential opportunity for replication 10. Offering a good return on investment 11. Providing learning opportunities in the future 12. Not being influenced by the economic stability of its country of origin 13. Where the awareness of energy efficiency strongly influenced the project 14. Where unexpected risks did not significantly influence the implementation of the

practice

5

The main objective of this task is to showcase, and better understand the fundamental drivers

of good practices in EE policy design and implementation (at various administrative levels;

national, regional and local).

This task is comprised of two specific steps:

2.1.1. The preparation of a template for good practice models and

2.1.2. The gathering, selection analysis of the good practices case study reports.

This Deliverable Report (D2.1 Compilation of good practices case study reports) describes the

results of this task. The template for Good Practices was prepared, with the aim of drawing

out as much useful information from the organisations, while not being too long so as to

discourage organisations from filling it out.

The Good Practice template was designed in an effort to retrieve all the relevant information,

while also remaining as brief as possible in order not to discourage our sample from filling it

out.

The template was given to each partner, who then collected responses. These responses were

then analysed to identify the most suitable ones.

6

2 Task Management

Through regular communication between the task leader and the work package leader, the

good practice measures outlined below were delivered in a time efficient manner.

2.1 Task Management Structure

The task leader was responsible for drafting the template, conducting the SWOT (Strengths,

Weakness, Opportunities, Threats) analysis and compiling the good practice measures, while

the work package leader provided consultation.

Actions and Responsibilities

In order to grade the good practices, a SWOT Analysis was used. Due to the large number of

respondents, and the need for transparency, ensuring that the SWOT analysis remained

objective was of the upmost importance. In order to do so, the work package leader served as

a secondary consultant to ensure the delivery of an objective method of analysis.

Once the good practices had been collected, they were sorted, tracked, and uploaded to

Dropbox.

Communication

Communication between work package leader and task leader was primarily conducted via email, while the work package team communicated by means of a monthly Skype call.

7

3 Task 2.1.1 Template for good practice models

In accordance with the PUBLENEF proposal T 2.1.1, the survey identified and examined 55

good practice case studies at each level: local, regional and national. Each partner contacted

the relevant stakeholders in each country, distributed the questionnaires and collected the

responses. Initially the WP leader proposed a template for the questionnaire, which was later

modified by all of the relevant partners in order to fit their national context. The main points

addressed are:

• Technical overview: Technical aspects of the project/ funding scheme (in addition to meeting

some of the beneficiaries and discussing the real benefits citizens may experience).

• Financing mechanism and Q&A session: This is was concerned with the financial

particularities; funding sources, cash flows, funding levels, criteria for draw down, auditing

methods, administration costs etc.

• Project delivery structure: This outlined how the project was delivered on the ground. Ideally

it ought to include an organisational chart, how applicant/ beneficiaries or agents applied,

how they were evaluated, and how internal resources were allocated.

3.1 Template preparation & consultation

-

Figure 1. Timeline of task

As was agreed at the initial meeting in Bruxelles, TEA provided an initial template draft for the

Good Practice questionnaire, which the CEI then modified in accordance with the evaluation

methodology suggested by TEA. The questionnaires were then distributed to all PUBLENEF

partners for consultation. The final draft of the Good Practice measures and Needs

K-O meeting in Bruxelles

March 2nd & 3rd 2016

First draft of the questionnnaires sent to partners for consultation

March 11th

2016

End of the consultation

with PUBLENEF partners

March 25th 2016

Circulation of the questionnaires and

start of the interview phase

May 4th 20162016 2016

Deadline for returning of

questionnaires

August 8th 2016

Interview Phase

Consultation period

Corrections of draftDraft

creation

8

Assessment Questionnaires were then released to all PUBLENEF partners, to begin the

interview process in line with the Task Timeline presented in Figure 1 above.

3.1.1 Initial Template Draft

Figure 2. First draft of Good Practice Factsheet

3.1.2 Modification of Template

CEI modified the initial template to align the questions to the SWOT evaluation methodology.

Several questions were used to collect basic information on potential Good Practice examples.

The questions listed on the initial template were modified over time, while other, less suited

ones were removed. For the purpose of this deliverable, particular emphasis was put on the

questions which focused on SWOT categories to ensure the resulting responses could be

subjected to objective analysis. When trying to decipher the strengths of various practices, a

number of questions were used, such as, previous experiences, the particularities of internal

resource allocation, what professionals were necessary for delivery, and the possibility for

improvement.

Good Practice Factsheet

Case Study Presented by: COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

Core Theme and Topic: e.g. energy efficient financing

Name of work programme/project: e.g. EE_ FINANCE FOR SMEs

PROJECT SCOPE AND TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION

Short description of the good practice and what it hopes to achieve Description

What is the scope of the programme? - National/Regional/Local - Facilty type/owner

Who was the target audience? - public authorities - communities

When did it start and end? Start Date, End Date

FINANCE MECHANISM

What was the cost of the project? €

Outline in financing terms the funding sources, cash flows, criteria for draw down, auditing methods, administration costs etc.Grant aid, Finance models, EPC/ESCO etc.

PROJECT DELIVERY

Who are the key people involved? -Installers - Local Authorities - Energy Agency

How was this project delivered on the ground?

Please attach an organisational chart for the project delivery structure of delivery team and roles, project coordinator

How applicant/ beneficiaries or agents applied and how they were evaluated?

How were internal resources allocated? dedicated staff time/resources

PROJECT OUTCOMES & COMMUNICATION

What were the key achievements?

What were the outcomes and expected benefits?

What were the key lessons learned?

Is there anything you would do differently in future?

What makes this a good practice example?

Is the good practice transferable?

Web links to further information

Contact details of named person for further information

Please indicate if this case study can be made available to the public?

9

Questions which were focused on trying to find weaknesses looked at unforeseen risks during

implementation, and trying to highly how these practices could be improved.

The opportunities section contained questions aimed at gathered information on

transferability of the Good Practice, role of legislation and international, and cooperation with

academia. The threats section focused on the potential influence of the economic backdrop

to the given practice, and the influence this may have had on the result.

Figure 3. Updated Good Practice Factsheet

Good Practice Factsheet

Case Study Presented by: COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

Core Theme and Topic: e.g. energy efficient financing

Name of work programme/project: e.g. EE_ FINANCE FOR SMEs

PROJECT SCOPE AND TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION

Short description of the good practice and what it hopes to achieve Description

What is the scope of the programme? - National/Regional/Local - Facilty type/owner

Who was the target audience? - public authorities - communities

When did it start and end? Start Date, End Date

Which EED article was addressed by this project? dropdown list of artcles, multiple answers available

FINANCE MECHANISM

What was the cost of the project? € (define range of amounts as multiple options)

Outline in financing terms the funding sources, cash flows, criteria for draw down, auditing methods, administration costs etc.Grant aid, Finance models, EPC/ESCO etc.

Please specify when is the return of investment expected? years

PROJECT DELIVERY, PROJECT OUTCOMES & COMMUNICATION

Who are the key people involved? -Installers - Local Authorities - Energy Agency

How was this project delivered on the ground?

Please attach an organisational chart for the project delivery structure of delivery team and roles, project coordinator

How did applicant/ beneficiaries or agents apply for project approval and how were they evaluated?

What were the key achievements?

What were the outcomes and expected benefits?



Please specify expected savings? in €, energy and CO2 emissions if applicable

How were internal resources allocated? dedicated staff time/resources

Which professionals were relevant for delivery of this project?

Did your organization have any previous experience in this field relevant for the implementation of the project? if so, please provide a few details

Does this project include an innovative approach or results in an innovation ?


Please specify any unexpected risks that occured during implementation

Is the good practice transferable?

Would you say that legislative framework in your country offered a good basis for implementation of this project?

Did this project include an international cooperation? if so, please specify country/ies included

Did this project include an interdisciplinary cooperation? if so, please specify professions included

Did this project include cooperation with academia? if so, please specify institutions included

How did economic stability of your country influence the project?

How did the awareness of EE influence implementation of the project?

in the context of both local and regional governments and

targeted audience *




10

3.1.3 Consultation with partners

All PUBLENEF partners were given the opportunity to consult on the draft template (for both

the Good Practice Questionnaire and the Needs Assessment questionnaire together). The goal

was to gather feedback on the content contained therein, and to test the responses with real

examples. The feedback which was received focused mainly on the applicability of certain

questions to a given national context, and the need for provision of additional sample

responses to guide both the respondent and the interviewee. After the work Package leaders

approved all the modifications, the final template of the questionnaire was prepared.

3.1.4 Final template

On April 18th 2016, the final ‘Good Practice and Needs Assessment’ Questionnaires, were

distributed to all PUBLENEF partners. Partners were informed of the requirement for each

partner to complete a minimum of 4 responses (i.e. 4 Good Practices, 1 National Needs

Assessment, 1 Regional Needs Assessment and 2 Local Needs Assessments). The deadline for

submission of these responses was 30th May 2016.

Partners could modify the questionnaires as they saw fit, however, given the number of

responses, each respondent had to remained conscious of a need for consistency.

Questionnaires were then to be distributed to the stakeholders, as defined under T6.1

(Stakeholder list). Each Partner was responsible for collecting data by distributing the

questionnaire to stakeholders, and delivering their response to the WP leader. As discussed

at the initial meeting, it was possible to extend the range of stakeholders beyond partner

countries.

Section 1: Good Practice Factsheet

Case Study Presented by: Country of Origin

If other:

Core Theme and Topic:

Name of work programme/project:

Good Practice Scope and Technical Description

Short description of the good practice and what it hopes to achieve.

(Max 50 words)

11

What is the scope of the good practice?

Who was the target audience?

When did it start and end?

Which EED article was addressed by this good practice?

Choose an article.

Finance Mechanism

What was the cost of the project? €

Outline in financing terms the funding sources, cash flows, criteria for draw down, auditing methods, administration costs etc.

(Max 50 words)

Please specify when is the return of investment expected?

years

Good Practice Delivery

Who are the key people involved?

How was this good practice delivered on the ground?

(Max 50 words)

Please attach an organisational chart for the good practice delivery

How did applicant/ beneficiaries or agents apply for project approval and how were they evaluated?

(Max 50 words)

Good Practice Outcomes

What were expected benefits of this good practice?

What were the outcomes?


12


Is this good practice transferable? Yes No

If yes, then at what level: Choose an item.

Please specify expected savings? €

kWh

kg of CO2

How were internal resources allocated?

Which professionals were relevant for delivery of the good practice?

Did your organization have any previous experience in this field relevant for the implementation of the good practice?

Yes No

If so, please provide some details:

Does this good practice include an

innovative approach or result in an

innovation? If so, please provide a few

details.

Yes No



Yes No


Please specify any unexpected risks that occured during implementation.

Would you say that legislative framework in your country offered a good basis for implementation of this good practice?

(Max 50 words)

Good Practice Communication

Did this good practice include an international cooperation?

Yes No

If so, please specify country(ies) included.

13

Did this good practice include an interdisciplinary cooperation?

Yes No

If so, please specify professions included.

Did this good practice include cooperation with academia?

Yes No

If so, please specify institutions included.

Was the good practice communicated to the general public to generate awareness?

Yes No

If so, how was this done?

How did economic stability of your country influence the good practice?

How did the awareness of EE influence implementation of the good practice? (in the context of both local and regional governments and targeted audience)

(Max 150 words)

Further Information




Yes No

Figure 4. Final Good Practice Factsheet

3.1.5 Learnings and Outcomes from T2.1

Questionnaire was distributed in the Word doc format, using official PUBLENEF layout. This

format allowed partners to modify the introduction to the questionnaire in order to fit their

national context. Due to questionnaire specifics (in scope and complexity), an online survey

format was not considered. Content of the questionnaire was divided into three sections: first

section focused on Good Practice while the second and third section covered national and

regional/local aspects of the Needs Assessment questionnaire.

14

4 Task 2.1.2 Gathering, selection and analysis of the good practices case study reports

In accordance with the PUBLENEF proposal T 2.1.2, the best practices, which were selected

were examined by the partners in close coordination with managing authorities, and relevant

experts and stakeholders. The most suited 20 case studies were ultimately selected for the

purposes of this reports. The selection process was based on criteria such as: level of efficiency

obtained, type of technology, type of financial mechanisms, project delivery structure, cost-

effectiveness, and level of reproducibility (i.e. dependence on country context).

4.1 Gathering of Responses

CEI was responsible for gathering the Croatian practices, while the TEA was in charge of

collecting responses from the rest of the partners.

4.1.1 Initial Collection Period

The ‘Good Practice and Needs Assessment’ Questionnaires were issued to all partners on May

5th 2016. If necessary, each partner translated the questionnaire to their national language,

and then distributed the questionnaire to the relevant stakeholders. The official deadline for

the consultation period was June 22nd.

4.1.2 Extended Collection Period

As the initial response rate was quite low and the deadline was extended initially to July 11th

and subsequently to the 8th of August. The need for good quality responses for use in the

development of roadmaps under WP3 was acknowledged as a priority output from WP2.

15

4.1.3 Responses Received

GP35 ESV - Upper Austria GP1 TEA - Kerry CoCo

GP42 ESV - Upper Austria Homes GP2 TEA - REGEA

GP51 ESV - UA Public Buildings GP21 TEA - GCC

GP52 ESV - UA SME GP22 TEA - SEAI

GP40 TEA - SEAI (2)

GP4 FEDARENE - Zlin

GP5 FEDARENE - Cote D'Azur GP32 ENEA - Catania

GP6 FEDARENE - ESS GP33 ENEA - CNR

GP7 FEDARENE - REGEA GP34 ENEA - Kyoto

GP18 FEDARENE - Andaluza GP43 ENEA - Salvare

GP19 FEDARENE - CKEA GP53 ENEA - Messina

GP20 ABEA - SME GP3 JIN - Hague

GP27 ABEA - Sredna GP39 JIN - Zuidhorn

GP28 ABEA - Gaborovo

GP29 ABEA - iURBAN GP31 KAPE - Czestochowa

GP30 ABEA - BSREC GP36 KAPE - Niepolomice

GP37 KAPE - Poland

GP8 CEI - APN GP38 KAPE - Miechow

GP9 CEI - REGEA GP44 KAPE - MaŁopolska1

GP10 CEI - SMIV GP45 KAPE - MaŁopolska2

GP11 CEI - DOOR GP46 KAPE - Stupsk

GP47 KAPE - Opole

GP12 ARENE - GPSOe

GP13 ARENE - Plaine GP48 AEEPM - Bucharest1 (1)

GP14 ARENE - Poissy GP49 AEEPM - Bucharest1 (2)

GP50 AEEPM - Art 28 EED

GP15 EnergyCities - Bielsko-Biala GP54 AEEPM - SEAP Alba - Iulia

GP16 EnergyCities - ABMEE GP55 AEEPM - Bucharest SEAP 1

GP17 EnergyCities - Litomerice

GP23 CIEMAT - IDAE

GP41 CRES - Exoikonomo GP24 CIEMAT - Alicante

GP25 CIEMAT - AEMVA

GP26 CIEMAT - AGENERGIA

TEA

ARENE

FRANCE

ENERGY CITIES

IRELAND

CROATIA

CEI

BELGIUM

FEDARENE

ESV

AUSTRIA

FRANCE

BULGARIA

ABEA

GREECE

CRES

AEEPM

JIN

SPAIN

CIEMAT

NETHERLANDS

ITALY

ENEA

POLAND

KAPE

ROMANIA

Figure 5. Summary of responses from respective partners

4.1.4 Outcomes from Section 4.1 - T2.1

Overall, the gathering of responses proved to be much more time-consuming than was

originally planned. The extension of time was mainly as a result of the fact that the

questionnaires were extremely comprehensive. Additionally, testing of interpretation

methodology was also put on hold, given the fact that there were not enough responses to

test the evaluation instruments.

As would be expected, the most fruitful method for obtaining responses was an

interview/meeting style.

16

4.2 Analysis of the Good Practices

The TEA, as the Work Package leader, provided an initial SWOT template, after the Good

practice questionnaire had been finalized, for the purpose of evaluating responses. This

template was modified several times to fit questions from the questionnaire. CEI’s main focus

was concentrated on aligning the SWOT evaluation instrument scale to the type of responses

expected from Good Practice Questionnaire. Analysis of responses was dependent on the

finalization of the response-gathering phase.

4.2.1 Initial SWOT Template Draft

The TEA provided an initial SWOT template in Excel file format, with four sheets scoring SWOT

categories. The evaluation consisted of adding scores from the Strengths and Opportunities

section, and subtracting score from the Weaknesses and Threats section. It needed to be

tailored to suit the final good practice questionnaire, and to reflect the responses expected.

Figure 6. Example of SWOT analysis

4.2.2 Modification of SWOT Template

CEI was in charge of the modification and scoring of the Good Practice responses. This process

required several iterations in order to arrive at the final results.

Firstly, several SWOT categories needed to be updated and modified so the instrument

correlated with questions from Good Practice questionnaire.

17

Secondly, the initial template used a 1-7 scale, which later proved to be impractical. Due to

the nature of questions asked in the questionnaire, i.e. mostly yes/no responses and several

qualitative open-ended questions, evaluation instrument scale, score from 1 to 7 did not

correlate adequately. Unfortunately, this discrepancy was not noticed until late in the process,

due to the fact that feedback had been received in a rather sluggish manner. Therefore, the

SWOT analysis instrument was modified during the deadline extension.

Respondents skipping questions, or answers which lacked sufficient detail created additional

difficulties; answers not related to the questions asked was also common. The scaling needed

to be modification in order to appropriately reflect responses and to provide a good basis for

the assessment of each practices.

For positive categories, no response, response stating N/A or not relating to the questions

were scored with zero points. For negative categories N/A or no response was sometimes

scored with four or even seven (negative) points and therefore, to not provide a response to

these questions automatically influenced the score. The reason behind this decision was that

emphasis was put on certain questions in these negative categories. This correlates well with

the fact that questions in positive categories (Strengths and Weaknesses) provided answers

much more frequently and the questions were more numerous. Otherwise, there would be

no differentiation in scoring between good quality questionnaires and simple or incomplete

questionnaires. As a result, response evaluation consisted of a detailed scale for each type of

response.

4.2.3 Final SWOT Template

According to the modifications required, the final SWOT template was finalised at the

beginning of July 2016. The complete SWOT analysis template is available in Appendix 1.

4.2.4 SWOT Analysis of Responses Received

Table below lists SWOT analysis results for a total number of questionnaires received; 55. The

average score for GP is 25.74.

GP SWOT SCORE LIST

GP Reference Score

GP1 TEA - Kerry CoCo 27

GP2 TEA - REGEA 32

18

GP3 JIN - Hague 8

GP4 FEDARENE - Zlin 29

GP5 FEDARENE - Cote D'Azur 24

GP6 FEDARENE - ESS 49

GP7 FEDARENE - REGEA 16

GP8 CEI - APN 33

GP9 CEI - REGEA 16

GP10 CEI - SMIV 46

GP11 CEI - DOOR 52

GP12 ARENE - GPSOe 5

GP13 ARENE - Plaine 21

GP14 ARENE - Poissy 12

GP15 EnergyCities - Bielsko-Biala 36

GP16 EnergyCities - ABMEE 30

GP17 EnergyCities - Litomerice 22

GP18 FEDARENE - Andaluza 54

GP19 FEDARENE - CKEA 40

GP20 ABEA - SME 32

GP21 TEA - GCC 30

GP22 TEA - SEAI 27

GP23 CIEMAT - IDAE 30

GP24 CIEMAT - Alicante 41

GP25 CIEMAT - AEMVA 7

GP26 CIEMAT - AGENERGIA 38

GP27 ABEA - Sredna 31

GP28 ABEA - Gaborovo 16

GP29 ABEA - iURBAN 42

GP30 ABEA - BSREC 28

GP31 KAPE - Czestochowa 23

GP32 ENEA - Catania 27

GP33 ENEA - CNR 21

GP34 ENEA - Kyoto 9

GP35 ESV - Upper Austria 42

GP36 KAPE - Niepolomice 23

GP37 KAPE - Poland 14

GP38 KAPE - Miechow 1

GP39 JIN - Zuidhorn 27

GP40 TEA - SEAI (2) 25

GP41 CRES - Exoikonomo -9

GP42 ESV - Upper Austria Homes 36

GP43 ENEA - Salvare 29

GP44 KAPE - MaŁopolska1 17

GP45 KAPE - MaŁopolska2 16

19

GP46 KAPE - Stupsk 20

GP47 KAPE - Opole 33

GP48 AEEPM - Bucharest1 (1) 11

GP49 AEEPM - Bucharest1 (2) 22

GP50 AEEPM - Art 28 EED 15

GP51 ESV - UA Public Buildings 29

GP52 ESV - UA SME 38

GP53 ENEA - Messina 27

GP54 AEEPM - SEAP Alba - Iulia 24

GP55 AEEPM - Bucharest SEAP 1 22

Figure 7. List of Good Practices SWOT score

4.2.5 Learning Outcomes from Section 4.2 – T 2.1

The fact that the SWOT template was developed after the completion of the Good Practice

questionnaires created some difficulties in trying to ensure that the grading instrument

correlated appropriately with the questionnaires.

4.3 Selection of Good Practices

Good practice examples were selected based on the results of the SWOT analysis.

4.3.1 Good Practice Responses

The distribution of responses relating to scope (national, regional, local), and country of origin

are shown in figure 8 and figure 9 respectively.

20

Figure 8. Good Practices distribution based on scope

GP8 CEI - APN LOCAL GP6 FEDARENE - ESS

GP20 ABEA - SME GP12 ARENE - GPSOe

GP22 TEA - SEAI GP13 ARENE - Plaine

GP23 CIEMAT - IDAE GP15 EnergyCities - Bielsko-Biala

GP37 KAPE - Poland GP16 EnergyCities - ABMEE

GP40 TEA - SEAI (2) GP17 EnergyCities - Litomerice

GP50 AEEPM - Art 28 EED GP21 TEA - GCC

GP24 CIEMAT - Alicante

GP2 TEA - REGEA GP25 CIEMAT - AEMVA

GP5 FEDARENE - Cote D'Azur GP28 ABEA - Gaborovo

GP7 FEDARENE - REGEA GP29 ABEA - iURBAN

GP9 CEI - REGEA GP31 KAPE - Czestochowa

GP18 FEDARENE - Andaluza GP38 KAPE - Miechow

GP27 ABEA - Sredna GP39 JIN - Zuidhorn

GP30 ABEA - BSREC GP43 ENEA - Salvare

GP35 ESV - Upper Austria GP47 KAPE - Opole

GP36 KAPE - Niepolomice GP54 AEEPM - SEAP Alba - Iulia

GP42 ESV - Upper Austria Homes

GP44 KAPE - MaŁopolska1 N+R+L GP10 CEI - SMIV

GP45 KAPE - MaŁopolska2 GP11 CEI - DOOR

GP51 ESV - UA Public Buildings

GP52 ESV - UA SME R+L GP1 TEA - Kerry CoCo

GP3 JIN - Hague

GP4 FEDARENE - Zlin

GP19 FEDARENE - CKEA

NATIONAL

REGIONAL

21

GP35 ESV - Upper Austria GP32 ENEA - Catania

GP42 ESV - Upper Austria Homes GP33 ENEA - CNR

GP51 ESV - UA Public Buildings GP34 ENEA - Kyoto

GP52 ESV - UA SME GP43 ENEA - Salvare

GP53 ENEA - Messina

GP20 ABEA - SME

GP27 ABEA - Sredna GP3 JIN - Hague

GP28 ABEA - Gaborovo GP39 JIN - Zuidhorn

GP29 ABEA - iURBAN

GP30 ABEA - BSREC

GP15 EnergyCities - Bielsko-Biala

GP2 TEA - REGEA GP31 KAPE - Czestochowa

GP8 CEI - APN GP36 KAPE - Niepolomice

GP7 FEDARENE - REGEA GP37 KAPE - Poland

GP9 CEI - REGEA GP38 KAPE - Miechow

GP10 CEI - SMIV GP44 KAPE - MaŁopolska1

GP11 CEI - DOOR GP45 KAPE - MaŁopolska2

GP46 KAPE - Stupsk

GP4 FEDARENE - Zlin GP47 KAPE - Opole

GP17 EnergyCities - Litomerice

GP16 EnergyCities - ABMEE

GP5 FEDARENE - Cote D'Azur GP48 AEEPM - Bucharest1 (1)

GP12 ARENE - GPSOe GP49 AEEPM - Bucharest1 (2)

GP13 ARENE - Plaine GP50 AEEPM - Art 28 EED

GP14 ARENE - Poissy GP54 AEEPM - SEAP Alba - Iulia

GP55 AEEPM - Bucharest SEAP 1

GP41 CRES - Exoikonomo

GP23 CIEMAT - IDAE

GP1 TEA - Kerry CoCo GP24 CIEMAT - Alicante

GP21 TEA - GCC GP25 CIEMAT - AEMVA

GP22 TEA - SEAI GP26 CIEMAT - AGENERGIA

GP40 TEA - SEAI (2)

GP19 FEDARENE - CKEA

CZECH REPUBLIC

IRELAND

CROATIA

BULGARIA

GREECE

AUSTRIA

GP18 FEDARENE - Andaluza

SWEDEN GP6 FEDARENE - ESS

FRANCE

ITALY

NETHERLANDS

POLAND

ROMANIA

SPAIN

Figure 9. Good Practices distribution based on country of origin

22

4.3.2 Selection of 20 Good Practices

SWOT SCORE LIST

GP REFERENCE SCORE

GP18 FEDARENE - Andaluza 54

GP11 CEI - DOOR 52

GP6 FEDARENE - ESS 49

GP10 CEI - SMIV 46

GP29 ABEA - iURBAN 42

GP35 ESV - Upper Austria 42

GP24 CIEMAT - Alicante 41

GP19 FEDARENE - CKEA 40

GP26 CIEMAT - AGENERGIA 38

GP52 ESV - UA SME 38

GP15 EnergyCities - Bielsko-Biala 36

GP42 ESV - Upper Austria Homes 36

GP8 CEI - APN 33

GP47 KAPE - Opole 33

GP2 TEA - REGEA 32

GP20 ABEA - SME 32

GP27 ABEA - Sredna 31

GP16 EnergyCities - ABMEE 30

GP21 TEA - GCC 30

GP23 CIEMAT - IDAE 30

Figure 10. List of the Top 20 Good Practices

Good practices in the Top 20 originate from six out of eleven countries participating in the

project. Four Good Practices came from Croatia, as well as Spain, three came from Bulgaria

and Austria, two came from Ireland and Poland, and one was received from Sweden and

Romania. Distribution according to scope in the Top 20 includes seven GPs with local scope,

six GPs with regional scope and three with national. Three examples have a combination of

scopes, one is both regional and local and two are national-regional-local, while for one GP

scope was not specified. Regarding the EED Articles GPs refer to, the majority of projects

focuses on Article 3 – Energy efficiency targets, Article 5 –Exemplary role of public bodies’

buildings, Article 8 – Energy audits and energy management systems and Article 18 – Energy

services. Several GPs have the same final scores, but ranking priority was given according to

the received date i.e. GP reference number.

23

4.3.3 Good Practice Summaries

For each of the Top 20 Good Practices a short summary is presented to outline the basic

information about the project, its Strengths and Opportunities which lead to a good overall

score, and any information of interest specific to each given practice.

24

1. GP18 FEDARENE – Andaluza

Case Study Presented by: Spain: Agencia Andaluza de la Energia, Regional Ministry of Employment, Business and Trade, Junta de Andalucia

Name of work programme/project: Programa de impulso a la construcción sostenible en Andalucía - The Sustainable Construction Programme in Andalusia (PICSA)

SUMMARY

The Sustainable Construction Programme in Andalusia is a combination of economic measures

(subsidies and incentives) and other actions such as regulatory, training and fiscal, that seek,

through energy saving and energy, and renewable energy, to promote the energy

rehabilitation of buildings, urban rehabilitation, improve the competitiveness of companies of

the construction sector, create skilled employment and reduce energy poverty.

The aim of the project is to achieve a low carbon economy in Andalusia and a more sustainable

and environmentally respectful construction model, in line with the EU’s objectives.

Scope: regional Duration of the project: 03/2014 – 12/2015

STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNIES OVERVIEW

ease of delivery, relevant previous experience and innovative approach

funded by European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

strong international cooperation, significant interdisciplinarity and cooperation with

academia

transferability at regional level

existing legal framework

Savings: 280 Million € (economic savings in energy bills); 36.000 toe/year of energy saved and /or diversified and 85.000 tons of CO2 avoided.

The initiative included a public-private partnership with more than 8,300 collaborating companies and more than 17,000 direct jobs created.

As a result of the project the Andalusian Energy Agency is leading an Interreg project BUILD2LC Boosting Low Carbon Innovative Building Rehabilitation in the European Region.

GP SCORE: 54

25

2. GP11 CEI – DOOR

Case Study Presented by: Croatia: Society for Sustainable Development Design (DOOR)

Name of work programme/project: REACH

SUMMARY

REACH project aims to empower energy poor households to take actions to save energy and

change their habits in order to improve their living conditions and to establish energy poverty

as an issue that demands tailor-made policies and measures at local, national and EU level.

The aim of REACH is to contribute to energy poverty abatement at practical and structural

level.

Scope: local, national and EU level Duration of the project: 1.3.2014 – 28.2.2017.


ease of delivery, relevant previous experience on project CENEP

funded by EU through IEE programme and in Croatia co-financed by Environmental

Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund and Government Office for Cooperation with

NGOs


academia

transferability at various levels

Savings: 55€/household in Croatia (amounts differ in other countries), 670 kWh/household in Croatia, 60 kg of CO2/per household in Croatia.

Through REACH project first mapping of energy poverty was undertaken in Croatia.

As a result of the project, energy poverty issue has been recognized by local, national and EU authorities through organized round tables and conferences where results of conducted studies have been presented.

GP SCORE: 52

0

3. GP6 FEDARENE – ESS

Case Study Presented by: Sweden: Energy Agency for Southeast Sweden

Name of work programme/project: The Night Hawks project- Night Walks

SUMMARY

Night walks are on-site energy surveys held at times when businesses are closed to the public.

Energy experts conduct the survey with a view to identifying areas of energy waste within a

business, in order that a bespoke action plan can be produced and implemented to enable

direct and significant energy savings. Goal is to improve energy efficiency in shopping centres,

retail parks and shops by introducing energy advice visits during night visits and to kick-start

and train stakeholders to start their own energy efficiency work and how to priority energy

efficiency measures from an economical and technical point of view.

Scope: local Duration of the project: 2014 – 2015


relevant previous experience on large number of local, regional, national and

international projects

project mostly funded by EU through IEE

strong international cooperation (more than seven different countries)

transferability at national level


Savings: 2,220,000 €, 13860 MWh/year, 4135 kg of CO2/ year.

A tailor made handbook guide to facilitate management’s decision-making was developed through the project.

The target ‘’number of trained persons’’ was exceeded by 46% (in total, 1523 persons were trained during 119 trainings). In total 123 Night Walks were performed and 75% of the participating facilities follows one or more energy advices given through the project.

Economic context had no or little influence on the implementation of the project.

GP SCORE: 49

1

4. GP10 CEI – SMIV

Case Study Presented by: Croatia: Center for Monitoring Business Activities in the Energy Sector and Investments (CEI)

Name of work programme/project: SMiV – System for Monitoring and Verification in Croatia

SUMMARY

SMIV is the first Monitoring and Verification Platform developed as an online application that

incorporates National Energy Efficiency Action Plans, Regional and Local Energy Efficiency

Action Plans and planning instruments together with specially devised tools that allow all users

to generate reports, plans and calculations of their energy savings under the same unified

methodology, defined by EU principles.

Special national legislation was developed in order to implement SMIV in all relevant fields.

Obligatory users of SMIV defined by these regulations are counties, large cities (over 35 000

inhabitants), ESCO companies and subsidy providers. During implementation phase of the

project, all users representatives received education and technical support through multiple

regional workshops.

Scope: local, regional and national level Duration of the project: 07/2014 – ongoing


innovative approach resulting in a web application that offers data collection of EE

savings while also offering tools for calculations, devising reports and projections of

energy usage goals in order to enable planning for the end users

funding was provided by Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

(GIZ)

strong international cooperation and interdisciplinarity; transferability

through development of the MVP existing Croatian legislative was updated and

improved (Energy Efficiency Act, Official Gazette 127/14)

Savings: N/A due to the nature of the project

More than 7 000 energy efficiency measures documented up to date, with daily entries.

GIZ and CEI continue to collaborate in sharing their experience with Southern European countries, where SIMV is currently being implemented (Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia) and with EU countries through Horizon 2020 project - ‘’multEE’’.

GP SCORE: 46

2

5. GP29 ABEA – iUrban

Case Study Presented by: Bulgaria: -

Name of work programme/project: iURBAN project, co-financed by EC within FP7

SUMMARY

The iURBAN project is aimed at building and piloting a real-time energy monitoring and

management system at urban level. It covers both public and private buildings, both energy

consumption (electrical energy, heating energy, water and gas) and energy production (PV

and solar thermal). The iURBAN system is a first of a kind urban energy monitoring and

management system. Its major achievement is the successful integration of existing

technologies into a fully functional system operating through hardware, software and cloud-

base solutions.

Scope: local Duration of the project: 10/2013 – 12/2015


innovative approach by creating a highly integrated platform using information from

smart meters and producing datasets for Local and Central Decision Support System

co-financed by EC within FP7


academia

transferability at local level

Development of Virtual Power Plan that simulates urban energy balance Savings.

Energy management and monitoring systems deployed in 2 pilot cities, covering more than 50 buildings.

There is potential for the system to be integrated with environmental parameters and transport sector datasets.

Awareness of the EE had positive effect on the implementation of the project.

GP SCORE: 42

3

6. GP35 ESV – Upper Austria

Case Study Presented by: Austria: OÖ Energiesparverband

Name of work programme/project: Energy Contracting Programme Upper Austria

SUMMARY

Upper Austria was the first region to implement a support scheme for Energy Contracting. The

regional "Energy Contracting Programme" supports energy efficiency projects and

investments in renewable energy technologies in the public and business sectors. The

programme combines a financial incentive, information and advice (facilitation service). An

important part of the programme is that the regional energy agency is responsible for market

facilitation that includes consulting for ESCOs and clients as well as information and awareness

raising.

Scope: regional Duration of the project: 1998 – ongoing


long experience in supporting public bodies and private persons/companies in energy

related investment decisions

wide-ranging awareness raising activities targeting both the “supply side” (ESCOS) as

well as the “demand side” (e.g. municipalities and )

strong international cooperation – presently ongoing EU project Streetlight EPC



Savings: 6.9 million € investment, 4,212 MWh/a energy savings, 421,700 €/a cost savings.

More than 200 EPC projects were implemented and 16 ESCOs are active that already successfully implemented EPC projects.

Using a well-targeted approach, the project managed to establish a functioning contracting market in Upper Austria.

GP SCORE: 42

4

7. GP24 CIEMAT – Alicante

Case Study Presented by: Spain: Provincial Energy Agency of Alicante

Name of work programme/project: Saving Energy Provincial Plan

SUMMARY

Province of Alicante creates and develops a Provincial Plan to realize investments in energy

efficiency, savings, renewables through municipal signatories of the European initiative the

Covenant of Mayors. Province of Alicante publishes the investments public calls and Provincial

Energy Agency of Alicante helps to develop them together in order to present them to

municipality’s beneficiaries.

Scope: local Duration of the project: 2012 – ongoing


innovative approach offers municipalities the option of developing their SEAPs by

providing them with investments and the use of European methodology in investment

made on a provincial level

95% of the funding came from Province of Alicante’s own resources and municipalities

participated with 5 % in the investment

strong international cooperation – Covenant of Mayors and interdisciplinarity


Savings: 2.820.474 €, 20.317.000 kWh, 4.875.000 kg of CO2.

Investments achieved in 110 municipalities.

Awareness of the EE had positive effect on the implementation of the project.

GP SCORE: 41

5

8. GP19 FEDARENE – CKEA

Case Study Presented by: Ireland: Carlow County Council

Name of work programme/project: ClimAtlantic Project

SUMMARY

The project focuses on four essential issues: mobility, energy, territorial management and

social behaviour by developing concrete strategies to be validated through pilot actions. As a

final product, partners created a common strategy for the Atlantic Area, based on the four

thematic strategies. In Ireland a pilot action was developed to reduce the expense and carbon

footprint of Carlow County Council. The pilot action consisted of identifying and implementing

energy efficiency improvement measures targeting the most energy consuming activities of

Carlow County Council: water supply, wastewater treatment, building usage and public

lighting. These measures included efficient lighting retrofit, pump replacement, caretaker

training, aeration comparison, control systems, equipment sizing, etc.

Scope: regional and local level Duration of the project: 2011 – 2012


relevant previous experience and innovative approach in the terms of green

procurement guidelines that were followed and trainings that were hosted after

implementation of the new energy savings projects

co-funded by European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

international cooperation


existing legal framework in the area of Green Public Procurement

Savings: €15,223.34, 138,394 kWh, 73,210 kg of CO2

A proposal outlining energy saving measures was submitted to the South East Regional Authority (SERA) for inclusion in the proposal to the Interreg IVB funded Climatlantic project.

Carlow County Council made a commitment to reduce its energy consumption by 3% per annum from 2009 to 2020. The 2012 pilot measures contributed to approximately a 1.5% reduction in energy consumption that year.

GP SCORE: 40

6

9. GP26 CIEMAT – AGENERGIA

Case Study Presented by: Spain: Agencia Insular de la Energía de Tenerife (AIET)

Name of work programme/project: PROMISE – Promoting best practices to support energy efficient consumer behaviour on European islands

SUMMARY

In the frame of this project, AIET carried out an awareness campaign in the island of Tenerife

that lasted 18 months targeting households and the islands’ energy policy makers to promote

energy efficiency behaviour among the population.

Scope: unspecified Duration of the project: 01.06.2011 – 30.11.2013.


relevant previous experience on various projects and innovative approach in

developing an app that allows to perform energy checks at home (based on a series of

tools developed by other partners of the consortium)

financed from IEE Programme 2010 (promotion/dissemination projects: SAVE,

ALTENER, STEER and integrated initiatives)

good international cooperation and interdisciplinarity

transferability – one of the goals was to replicate the lessons learnt. This goal has been

fully reached by involving six islands as so-called ‘Island buddies’ in the project: Isle of

Bute, Lanzarote/La Graciosa, Aeroe, Paxos, Syros and Cyprus.

Savings: 5161€ (Tenerife), 35598 kWh/year (Tenerife), 6800 kg of CO2 (Tenerife). Average energy savings in the target islands range from 1.300 kWh (Tenerife) to 8.200 kWh (Grimsey) with an average of 4.000 kWh per household.

PROMISE experts have been directly engaged in the dialogue with households and, in this respect, the PROMISE uses bottom-up approach – starting with the households.

Economic context had positive influence on the implementation of the project – it affected the interest of the citizens.

GP SCORE: 38

7

10. GP52 ESV – UA SME


Name of work programme/project: Energy audit programme for businesses (Energy Advice Service)

SUMMARY

The Upper Austrian Energy Agency (ESV) runs an energy audit programme (energy advice) for

businesses (there is also a service for municipalities and private households following a similar

approach but not described in detail here). Product-independent and 75 % funded advice is

provided on any issue relating to energy efficiency and renewable energy sources to

businesses from any sector in Upper Austria.

Topics often addressed include thermal building renovation, exchange of heating systems

(often to renewable energy sources), optimisation of energy costs and the use of the different

funding programmes offered by the regional and national governments. A network of highly

specialised business energy advisers, who are paid on a fee basis, provides advice. ESV ensures

quality control and the commercial independence of the advice (that it is not linked to the

sales of a product/service). In total, around 200 businesses are advised every year.



comprehensive experience in the field and significant cross-learning effect from other

programmes managed by the ESV

easy participation and simple formal requirements

financed by national and regional government

strong interdisciplinarity


Savings: the programme triggers energy savings at least 60 GWh per year.

The advice programme embedded in the regional energy policies is used to make other policies more effective.

There is a high level of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources reached in Upper Austria.

GP SCORE: 38

8

11. GP15 EnergyCities – Bielsko-Biała

Case Study Presented by: Poland: The City of Bielsko-Biała

Name of work programme/project: EURONET 50/50

SUMMARY

50/50 initiative is to unlock energy saving in schools by educating students and through them

their families. Ensuring that future generations consume energy responsibly. Students are

being encouraged to save energy through financial benefits - the half of the saved amount is

being handed over for the purposes of the school. Expect to achieve 10% energy savings. In

2010 - 2016 two local public schools joined the project and in 2016 - 2018 the project

continued in 32 schools.

Scope: local Duration of the project: 2010 – 2016; 2016 – 2018


relevant previous experience and innovative approach funded by the City of Bielsko- Biała international cooperation with 49 other European cities transferability at national level

Savings: 10% of financial frugalities on different types of the energy and water.

There is no need for the high expenditure, with the return of capital in less than 1 year it is possible to repeat this example.

Savings were achieved without the fall in comfort or high costs.

GP SCORE: 36

9

12. GP52 ESV – Upper Austria Homes


Name of work programme/project: Energy Advice Service to households

SUMMARY

The Upper Austrian Energy Agency provides energy advice services on energy efficiency and

renewables to households. Free advice is given by telephone, e-mail, in the advisory office, at

advisory sessions held regularly in public buildings in the region, or in the home. It covers

energy efficiency and renewables, ranging from simple questions to details of renovation or

construction.

Homeowners applying for a building subsidy in general come to the energy agency first,

enabling the agency to explain the minimum energy efficiency levels they must achieve and

to encourage them to aim for higher levels, eligible for higher subsidy. The energy agency is

the first point of contact, and manages a network of trained advisers, who are paid on a fee

basis as sub-contractors. Many are self-employed or work for small engineering companies.



long experience as consulting agency

innovative approach combining financial incentive and awareness raising &

information programme

financed by regional government

interdisciplinarity


The high number of advice sessions given annually which makes ESV to a leading organisation in Europe in this field.

Through the programme a network of energy advisers was developed.

In Upper Austria, energy advice is considered a vital instrument to achieve the regional energy policy targets.

GP SCORE: 36

10

13. GP8 CEI – APN

Case Study Presented by: Croatia: Agency for Transactions and Mediation in Immovable Properties (APN)

Name of work programme/project: Energy management information system (EMIS)

SUMMARY

EMIS is a web application for monitoring and analysis of energy and water consumption data

in public sector buildings and as such provides a transparent oversight and control of energy

consumption in all public sector buildings that makes it an inevitable tool for Systematic

Energy Management in the Public sector. For each building of the public sector experts

responsible for energy management gather and enter relevant data and information in EMIS.

Once the data is in the system, EMIS application enables easy access by log in from any

computer with Internet access by typing your own user name and password. After initial

implementation of EMIS in city/county/ministry, almost every building will achieve a certain

drop in the consumption. EMIS greatly simplifies the process of sustainable energy

management in public buildings because it allows easy access to data on energy and water

consumption, enables easy graphical and tabular display and print of the data.

Scope: national Duration of the project: 2006 – ongoing


innovative approach – first application of this type used on a national level

funded by The Global Environment Facility (GEF) and Croatian Environmental

Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund




Data contained in the EMIS is used for many energy performance calculations, analysis and continuous overview and control of energy usage.

Data allows a preparation of plan of investments according to available funding as well as an established structure for verification of achieved savings, both energy and money wise.

GP SCORE: 33

11

14. GP47 KAPE – Opole

Case Study Presented by: Poland: City of Opole

Name of work programme/project: “Low carbon economy plan for the City of Opole”

SUMMARY

A team was created to determine the requirements of implementing the Low Carbon Economy

Plan and ensuring a correct delivery date, as well as to monitor the plan's implementation.

The team began its work in May 2016. The progress and the effects of its work will be observed

in the next four years. The realization of the tasks included in the low carbon economy plan

will result in: a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, decreased final energy

consumption via improving energy efficiency, increasing the share of renewable energy

sources in total energy use, and improving air quality within the city’s area.



previous experience

funded by City of Opole



Savings: 1437420 kWh/year, 778219,2 kg CO2/year.

In the future, plan is to create the position of the City Energy Manager.

The low carbon economy plan includes further informational campaigns increasing social awareness.

Economic context had positive influence on the implementation of the project.

GP SCORE: 33

12

15. GP2 TEA – REGEA

Case Study Presented by: Croatia: North-west Croatia Regional Energy Agency (REGEA)

Name of work programme/project: NEWLIGHT

SUMMARY

The North-West Croatia Regional Energy Agency is implementing the NEWLIGHT project. The

project main goal is modernisation of public lighting systems in 57 Croatian cities and

municipalities based in Zagreb County and Krapina-Zagorje County. The investments needed

for the modernisation will be implemented mainly through Energy Performance Contracting

(EPC).



project is first of its kind in Croatian and also has an innovative approach in the follow

up national financing model

project received technical assistance from the ELENA/EIB fund and it is financed using

ESCO (PPP)

strong international cooperation and significant interdisciplinarity


Savings: 1.5 Million €/annually; 15 GWh (electric); 5000 T of CO2.

Simple payback period – SPP (without non-refundable grants, subsidies or financial aids, based on energy savings alone).

Based on the Good Practice described the project is now evolving into a national scheme which it is proposed will be funded by Innovative financing instruments – combination of EFSI and ESIF.

All information related to public lighting system that could be collected during energy audits will be entered in the Geographic Information System (GIS). This advanced and market-oriented product with high export potential, the first of that kind which will be implemented in Croatia, provides a completely new way of collecting data.

GP SCORE: 32

13

16. GP20 ABEA – SME


Name of work programme/project: Operational Programme Development of the competitiveness of the Bulgarian economy

SUMMARY

Project focuses on development of dynamic economy competitive on the EU and international

markets; encouragement of innovations and increasing the efficiency of enterprises and

improvement of business environment.

The objectives are reducing energy intensity and diversification of energy sources. They will

contribute to achieving the main objectives of the programme interventions, i.e. restructuring

of the national and sustainable growth. The achievement of this goal is based on investment

support to develop competitive enterprises and improvement of the business environment by

providing enterprises with easily accessible, high-quality information and consultancy

services. The introduction of environmentally sound, low- emission, energy -saving industrial

technologies and RES have been promoted with the intention of reducing energy intensity and

harmful environmental effects. The Energy efficiency projects will support the transition to a

low- carbon economy in all sectors.

Scope: national Duration of the project: 2007 – 2013


relevant previous experience

funded by Credit line for energy efficiency and renewable energy sources (BEEECLE);

financial assistance from the EU and the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB)



Savings: 103 169 МWh/year.

Awareness rising campaign and information days were organized as a part of the project.

GP SCORE: 32

14

17. GP27 ABEA – Sredna


Name of work programme/project: Project Regional Networks for the development of a SustainableMarket for Bioenergy in Europe (BioRegions)

SUMMARY

Creation of regional networks for development of efficient and reliable markets for biomass,

stimulation of the investments into bioenergy projects and trading businesses of local

stakeholders, creation of Biomass Logistics Centers, promotion of biomass for heating of

residential buildings, establishment of small district heating biomass based plans, use of

biomass for industry, training of municipal administrations, introduction of energy education.

5 bioenergy regions were created in representative locations of Europe and one of them – in

Bulgaria. Each region formally adopted an Action Plan with a timetable and milestones to

enhance their bio-energy to at least 1/3 of the energy demand for electricity and heating.

Scope: regional Duration of the project: 2010 – 2013


funded by Operational programs, private investments, ESupllyCO financing and other

grants

strong international cooperation and interdisciplinarity



Savings: 122 644 MWh/a energy savings, 143 908 MWh/a - projected renewable energy production.

For the first time in Bulgaria Regional Action Plan for biomass utilization was developed.

Sredna gora Bioregion achieved new biomass heating installations in 7 public and private buildings and 1 factory with total capacity of 3,580 kW.

Other regions in Bulgaria were encouraged to replicate these activities.

GP SCORE: 31

15

18. GP16 EnergyCities – ABMEE

Case Study Presented by: Romania: Brasov

Name of work programme/project: EMS / Database for public buildings energy consumption

SUMMARY

The project aimed at developing an instrument to monitor energy consumption and water in

public buildings > all data for decision makers. Between 2005 and 2014 an investment of

€23.5bn resulted in an average 45% energy consumption decrease achieved within the 120

municipal buildings monitored in Brasov.



innovative approach with monitoring and education done at the same time

funded by municipal funds

good interdisciplinarity and cooperation with academia



Savings: Between 2005-2009 10% energy cost reduction was achieved simply by monitoring consumption and reviewing contracts buildings use.

Good cooperation with municipal building’s workers was essential for implementation.

Short return of investment with concrete results.

GP SCORE: 30

16

19. GP21 TEA – GCC

Case Study Presented by: Ireland: Galway County Council

Name of work programme/project: Facilitation of Energy Project Investment in Local Authorities

SUMMARY

To overcome energy project funding constraints and maximise the gains made from energy

savings within the Local Authority an innovative solution to funding future energy upgrades

was established. This innovative funding solution is such that the Energy Conservation Budget

is utilised with an internal Energy performance Contract (EPC). This is equivalent to an Internal

ESCO (Energy Services Company). The ESCO provides the investment for an energy saving

project, with the investment being repaid out of the reduced energy costs because of the

energy savings made. The seed capital for the conservation budget was achieved through

energy cost savings.

Scope: local Duration of the project: 2013 – ongoing


financed from Local Authority’s operational budget and savings from previous energy

cost reductions

provides an innovative financing solution to LAs struggling to gain investment in energy

projects

transferability at local level and existing legal framework

maintained an annual energy project investment despite difficult economic constraints

nationally

Savings: €80,433; 682,364 kWh Thermally (results for 2013).

Through the programme, Galway County Council have delivered 16.6% energy savings from the baseline.

This programme offers a solution to Local Authorities struggling to gain investment in energy projects. It adds a structure to energy project assessment with performance indicators and financial models.

GP SCORE: 30

17

20. GP23 CIEMAT – IDAE

Case Study Presented by: Spain: Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía (IDAE)

Name of work programme/project: PAREER Program

SUMMARY

PAREER Program is a financing aid program aimed at existing buildings of residential and hotel

use. The beneficiary’s actions may be of the following types: improving energy efficiency of

the thermal envelope and/or of thermal installations and lighting; substitution of conventional

energy by biomass and / or geothermal energy in thermal installations. Target audience are

natural and legal persons, owners of residential buildings and hotels; communities of owners

or groups of communities of owners of residential buildings; owners of single-family houses

or the sole owners of residential building and ESCOs.

Scope: national Duration of the project: 01/10/2013 – 31/12/2016


extensive previous experience in managing different aid programs for energy

efficiency and renewable energy

initial budget originates from the funds for financing energy efficiency plans, in 2015

the budget has been extended additionally from the General State Budget




Savings: 42.475 ktep (primary energy), 108.539 ktCO2.

Within the eligible actions, the program considers unconventional construction solutions known as "bioclimatic architecture” as well encourages the use of geothermal energy.

Figure 11. Top 20 GP Summaries

GP SCORE: 30

18

4.3.4 Learning Outcomes from Section 4.3 - T2.1

Task 2.1 resulted in 55 collected Good Practices, out of which 20 were selected based on the

SWOT analysis score. Collection of the questionnaires proved to be demanding and time-

consuming, with deadline extensions postponed which delayed the process of analysis. After

completing task 2.1 we conclude that using an automated instrument, for example an online

survey platform, might have been more straightforward, both for the responders, as well as

for the purpose of our analysis.

Regarding the content of the questionnaire, and the results received, it seems necessary to

highlight that some of the questions asked were unclear; a situation which meant respondents

had some difficulties when trying to interpret their meaning.

It is probable that some of these difficulties are due to the format of the questionnaire (Word

doc). Individuals were able to adapt the document for the purpose of distribution within their

district, and in doing so, they often changed the format. As a result the end document was not

uniformly formatted, and creating issues with regard to assessment; this could have been

avoided if a less editable form of questionnaire was used. Furthermore, all data collection was

done in conditions outside of the evaluator’s control (the distribution, collection, and

translation of the questionnaires, etc.).

Question related to the scope of the a given ‘Good Practice’ had example response with a

predefined scale for every expected response. Failing to specify the scope in those exact

terms, lead to 0 points being given. Several projects dealt with awareness raising; In those

cases, 0 points were given in respect to savings expected. In the Threats category, few

responders understood the questions correctly.

The first question related to the economic stability of the country where GP was implemented

and whether it influenced the implementation of the project or not.

The second question dealt with existing awareness of the EE and if it influenced the GP;

whereas most respondents interpreted this in exactly the opposite way.

In two of the questionnaires, the questions referring to the professionals needed to

implement a given practice were missing, and therefore could not be graded. We concluded

that the reason these questions were missing is that they were lost during the process of

translation.

19

The output from our SWOT analysis is a list of the top 20 best practice measures for the

purpose of ensuring energy efficiency in public sector. It also bears mentioning that even

those practices which failed to reach the top 20, offered some useful insights.

20

5 Summary

This Deliverable Report (D2.1 Compilation of good practices case study reports) describes the

results of the preparation of a template for good practice models, the gathering of 55 good

practice responses, selection of the Top 20 good practices and the production of 20 good

practice case study reports.

D2.1 provides PubleNef project stakeholders with an information base to cherry-pick from

practices and experiences successfully implemented by other public bodies.

The knowledge gained from WP2 will feed directly into WP3 (Development and

implementation of Energy Efficiency roadmaps) which will take the needs expressed by

policymakers and matches them with the specific tools in a series of MS, groups of regions

and municipalities that face similar needs.

21

6 Appendix 1. Final SWOT analysis template

Figure 12. Weaknesses category of SWOT analysis

Parameter Response 1 - Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Slightly Disagree 4 - Neither 5 - Slightly Agree 6 - Agree 7 - Strongly Agree Strength Rating Category Responses Evaluation

1 Scope of GP No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scope of GP

National + Regional + Local level = 7

N+R, N+L, R+L = 6

N or R or L = 5

no response, N/A = 0

2

Ease of delivery - Did your organization

have any previous experience in this field

relevant for the implementation of the

project?

No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ease of delivery - Did your

organization have any

previous experience in this

field relevant for the

implementation of the

project?

Yes = 7

No = 1


3Does this project include an innovative

approah or results in an innovation ?No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Does this project include an

innovative approah or results

in an innovation ?

Yes = 7

No = 1


4 Finance Mechanism No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Finance Mechanism

good finance mechanism = 7

poor finance mechanism = 1

5 Savings potential kwh No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Savings potential kwh

savings = 7

no savings = 1


6Which professionals were relevant for

delivery of this project?No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Which professionals were

relevant for delivery of this

project?

example: Engineers, Lawyers,

Economists etc.

≥ 3 professions = 7

2 professions = 6

no interdisciplinarity = 1


Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22

Parameter Response1 - Strongly

Disagree

2 -

Disagree

3 - Slightly

Disagree4 - Neither

5 - Slightly

Agree6 - Agree 7 - Strongly Agree Weakness Rating Response evaluation

1Please specify when is the return of investment

expected? No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1-3 years = 1

4-9 years = 3

10-20 years = 6

>20 years = 7


2 Is there anything you would do differently in future? No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Yes (based on details) = 7 - 5

No = 1


3Please specify any unexpected risks that occured

during implementation No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Yes (based on details) = 7 - 5

No = 1

no response = 7

N/A = 4

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 13. Strengths category of SWOT analysis

Figure 14. Opportunities category of SWOT analysis

Parameter Response 1 - Very Poor2 - Poor3 - Slightly Poor4 - Fair5 - Slightly Good6 - Good 7 - Very GoodOpportunity Rating Category Response evaluation

1 Did this project include an international cooperation? No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Did this project include an international

cooperation?

≥ 4 countries = 7

3 countries = 6

2 countries = 5

1 country = 4

No = 1


2Would you say that legislative framework in your country offered a

good basis for implementation of this project?No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Would you say that legislative framework in your

country offered a good basis for implementation of

this project?

Yes = 7

No = 1


3 Did this project include an interdisciplinary cooperation? No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Did this project include an interdisciplinary

cooperation?

≥ 3 professions = 7

2 professions = 6

no interdisciplinarity = 1


4Potential opportunities for replication - Is the good practice

transferable? No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Potential opportunities for replication - Is the good

practice transferable?

Yes = 7

No = 1

5 Did this project include cooperation with academia? No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Did this project include cooperation with academia?

≥ 4 institutions = 7

3 institutions = 6

2 institutions = 5

1 institution = 4

No = 1


Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23

Figure 15. Threats category of SWOT analysis

Parameter Response1 - Very

Poor

2 - Poor

Influence

3 - Slightly Poor

Influence

4 - Fair

Influence

5 - Slightly Large

Influence

6 - Large

Influence

7 - Very Large

InfluenceThreat Rating Response evaluation

1How did ecnomic stability of your country

influence the project? No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Influence (based on details) = 7 - 5

No influence = 1

No response = 7

N/A = 4

2How did the awareness of EE influence

implementation of the project? No Items 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No influence or positive influence = 1

Negative influence (based on details) =

7 - 5

no response, N/A = 4Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24

7 Appendix 2. Final SWOT analysis results

GP REFERENCE STRENGHTS

SCORE WEAKNESSES

SCORE OPPORTUNITIES

SCORE THREATS

SCORE S+O W+T

OVERALL SCORE

[(S+O)-(W+T)]

1 GP18 FEDARENE - Andaluza 40 15 34 5 74 20 54

2 GP11 CEI - DOOR 42 14 32 8 74 22 52

3 GP6 FEDARENE - ESS 39 8 23 5 62 13 49

4 GP10 CEI - SMIV 35 10 29 8 64 18 46

5 GP29 ABEA - iURBAN 33 12 26 5 59 17 42

6 GP35 ESV - Upper Austria 39 12 23 8 62 20 42

7 GP24 CIEMAT - Alicante 33 9 22 5 55 14 41

8 GP19 FEDARENE - CKEA 40 14 23 9 63 23 40

9 GP26 CIEMAT - AGENERGIA 34 10 19 5 53 15 38

10 GP52 ESV - UA SME 33 10 23 8 56 18 38

11 GP15 EnergyCities - Bielsko-Biala 26 7 22 5 48 12 36

12 GP42 ESV - Upper Austria Homes 32 10 22 8 54 18 36

13 GP47 KAPE - Opole 28 13 23 5 51 18 33

14 GP8 CEI - APN 26 13 26 6 52 19 33

15 GP2 TEA - REGEA 34 18 26 10 60 28 32

16 GP20 ABEA - SME 40 13 16 11 56 24 32

17 GP27 ABEA - Sredna 34 12 19 10 53 22 31

18 GP16 EnergyCities - ABMEE 20 7 28 11 48 18 30

25

19 GP21 TEA - GCC 33 11 17 9 50 20 30

20 GP23 CIEMAT - IDAE 34 18 23 9 57 27 30

21 GP4 FEDARENE - Zlin 26 26 15 8 52 23 29

22 GP43 ENEA - Salvare 33 14 15 5 48 19 29

23 GP51 ESV - UA Public Buildings 26 12 23 8 49 20 29

24 GP30 ABEA - BSREC 34 13 15 8 49 21 28

25 GP1 TEA - Kerry CoCo 34 14 16 9 50 23 27

26 GP22 TEA - SEAI 27 14 23 9 50 23 27

27 GP32 ENEA - Catania 23 15 25 6 48 21 27

28 GP39 JIN - Zuidhorn 26 17 26 8 52 25 27

29 GP53 ENEA - Messina 29 13 20 9 49 22 27

30 GP40 TEA - SEAI (2) 27 16 23 9 50 25 25

31 GP5 FEDARENE - Cote D'Azur 28 14 21 11 49 25 24

32 GP54 AEEPM - SEAP Alba - Iulia 33 14 16 11 49 25 24

33 GP31 KAPE - Czestochowa 28 16 16 5 44 21 23

34 GP36 KAPE - Niepolomice 27 16 17 5 44 21 23

35 GP17 EnergyCities - Litomerice 26 6 10 8 36 14 22

36 GP49 AEEPM - Bucharest1 (2) 29 15 16 8 45 23 22

37 GP55 AEEPM - Bucharest SEAP 1 28 13 15 8 43 21 22

38 GP13 ARENE - Plaine 28 16 20 11 48 27 21

39 GP33 ENEA - CNR 17 14 23 5 40 19 21

40 GP46 KAPE - Stupsk 23 6 11 8 34 14 20

41 GP44 KAPE - MaŁopolska1 20 12 17 8 37 20 17

42 GP28 ABEA - Gaborovo 27 14 14 11 41 25 16

43 GP45 KAPE - MaŁopolska2 21 12 18 11 39 23 16

44 GP7 FEDARENE - REGEA 22 9 14 11 36 20 16

26

45 GP9 CEI - REGEA 34 14 7 11 41 25 16

46 GP50 AEEPM - Art 28 EED 20 12 15 8 35 20 15

47 GP37 KAPE - Poland 21 13 16 10 37 23 14

48 GP14 ARENE - Poissy 15 9 17 11 32 20 12

49 GP48 AEEPM - Bucharest1 (1) 17 14 16 8 33 22 11

50 GP34 ENEA - Kyoto 9 12 17 5 26 17 9

51 GP3 JIN - Hague 13 16 22 11 35 27 8

52 GP25 CIEMAT - AEMVA 25 17 7 8 32 25 7

53 GP12 ARENE - GPSOe 15 16 17 11 32 27 5

54 GP38 KAPE - Miechow 14 12 10 11 24 23 1

55 GP41 CRES - Exoikonomo 10 12 4 11 14 23 -9

d2.1 compilation of good practices case study reports - publenef...

Documents