Annexes to COM(2013)938 - Application of the directive on energy end-use efficiency and energy services and of the directive on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2013)938 - Application of the directive on energy end-use efficiency and energy services and of the directive on the promotion of ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2013)938  |
| date | January 8, 2014 |
AT || || X || || X || || || || ||
BE || || X[18] || || || || || || ||
BG || X || X || || X || || X || || ||
CY || X || X || X || || || || || ||
CZ || || X || X || X || || || || ||
DK || X || || || X[19] || || || X || X ||
EE || X || X || || X || || || X || || X
FI || || || || || || || || X ||
FR || || || || || || X || || ||
DE || || X[20] || || || || || || || X
GR || X || X || X || X || || || || ||
HU || || || || X || || || || ||
IE || X || || X || || X || X || || X || X
IT || X || X || X || || || X || || ||
LT || X || X || X || X || || X || X || ||
LV || || X || || || || || || ||
LU || || X || || || || || || ||
MT || X || X || || || || X || || ||
NL || || X || || || || || || ||
PL || X || || || X || || X || || ||
PT || || X || || || || || || ||
RO || || || || || || || || ||
SK || || X || || || || || || ||
SI || || X || X || X || || X || || X ||
ES || || X || X || || || || || ||
SE || || || || X || || X || || ||
UK || || || || || || X || || ||
Implementing Directive 2004/8/EC on the promotion of cogeneration
High-efficiency cogeneration (defined as the simultaneous generation in one process of thermal energy and electrical and/or mechanical energy) has significant potential in terms of saving energy, but is largely untapped within the EU. The objective of the CHP Directive is therefore to establish a transparent common framework to promote and facilitate the installation of cogeneration plants. In the short term, the Directive should make it possible to consolidate existing cogeneration installations and promote new plants. In the medium to long term, the Directive should create the necessary framework for high efficiency cogeneration to reduce emissions of CO2 and other substances and to contribute to sustainable development.
Under the CHP Directive Member States were required to analyse their national potential for high-efficiency cogeneration, to evaluate barriers and administrative frameworks and to assess the reliability of the guarantees of origin system (Article 10(1) of the CHP Directive). Every four years starting from 21 February 2007, Member States had to evaluate the progress made in increasing the share of high-efficiency cogeneration (CHP) in energy provision. Member States had to publish 2nd national progress reports by 11 October 2011, and the Commission is required to review the application of the CHP Directive on the basis of those reports. All Member States complied with the obligation to analyse their national cogeneration potential and the barriers to achieve this potential and to evaluate their administrative frameworks, including the guarantees of origin system. All Member States have also submitted the first and the second progress reports as required under the CHP Directive although with some delays. To facilitate reporting and to provide comparable information for evaluation, the Commission provided non–compulsory templates and questionnaires to Member States, but not all Member States used these questionnaires or the templates or filled them out completely. This has led to divergences in quality, completeness and methodology. Information provided in the national reports about progress in increasing the share of high-efficiency cogeneration is therefore often not comparable and of varying degrees of detail and comprehensiveness. This is also true of the national analyses of potential.
Although the CHP Directive has been transposed into national legislation, in some Member States the guarantees of origin system or the calculation methodologies for the quantity of electricity from high-efficiency cogeneration were still not fully operational in 2010 or little used in practice. National grid system rules regarding connection and access to the grid for high-efficiency cogeneration have been implemented in various ways and show great divergence. Although there has been progress in making grid rules objective and transparent, connection scheduling and charging conditions are often still complex and burdensome, especially for distributed cogeneration.
Member States also had an obligation to assess barriers to cogeneration. Member States identified fuel prices, heating and cooling demand, the complexity of the law, lack of promotion and access rules to electricity grids as the most common barriers to cogeneration. Other important barriers were economic risk, uncertainties due to the Emissions Trading System, the lack of (heat) infrastructure and financial resources, the lack of awareness and immaturity of certain technologies.
In their second progress reports, most Member States provided information on their support schemes for cogeneration, although this information was not legally required. Feed-in tariffs, price premiums or a guaranteed purchase price for cogeneration were the most frequent form of support in the reporting period (up to 2010), used in seventeen Member States. These price support mechanisms were coupled with capital grants in fifteen Member States. Energy and business tax exemptions and accelerated fiscal allowances were also used in many Member States. Some Member States combined several support mechanisms, such as certificates coupled with quota systems (four Member States). The scope, conditions and duration of national support schemes varied greatly. Support schemes often addressed a specific segment of cogeneration, e.g. selected by fuel, such as biomass, or capacity, e.g. below 10 MW[21].
Progress in increasing the share of high-efficiency cogeneration remained limited since the entry into force of the CHP Directive in 2004. The share of CHP in gross electricity generation in the EU-27 increased from 10.5% in 2004 to 11.2% in 2011. In absolute terms, electricity generation from CHP has increased by 38 TWh[22]: from 337 TWh in 2004 to 375 TWh in 2011.
On the basis of the national reports submitted pursuant to Article 10 of the CHP Directive, which reflect the situation until 2010 with a focus on the period from 2008 onwards, the overall evolution of electricity production from high-efficiency cogeneration show a great variety across Member States.
There was a slight decline in total generation from CHP in 2009, especially in industry, probably due to the economic downturn, followed by a rebound in 2010. From 2008 to 2009, electrical capacity has increased but electricity production decreased, showing an underutilisation of capacity. Heat production from cogeneration is stabilised with no decline registered, and overall, there has been steady growth since 2004. A moderate increase is primarily due to the increase in district heating in the residential, commercial and services sector.
The share of cogeneration in (thermal) heat production varies from over 30% in Sweden (40%), Bulgaria (33%), Czech Republic (33%) and Estonia (31%) to below 1% in Greece, Malta and Cyprus. There has been a consistent increase in the use of natural gas in this period from 39% to 48% as fuel for cogeneration, while coal and lignite have shown a declining trend from 35% to 21%. Biomass and biogas show an overall growing trend from 9% in 2005 to 15% in 2010. The most common technology is still steam condensing extraction turbine but this is steadily decreasing from 40% in 2005 to 36% in 2010, while the share of gas combined cycle turbines is growing (from 23% in 2005 to 29% in 2010). Overall while the share of high-efficiency cogeneration in the electricity market has increased, progress remained limited, reaching only 12% in the share of electricity production instead of the economic potential of 21% identified by the Member States in their national potential analysis[23].
Conclusion
In practice implementation of the ESD has resulted, above all, in measures targeting energy end use, for example, programmes to refurbish and renovate buildings. Member States' EEAPs indicate high levels of final energy savings achieved up to 2010 and suggest that the 9% indicative target for 2016 will be comfortably exceeded by most Member States. This is encouraging and shows that Member States' commitment pays off in terms of energy saving. The progress achieved should be maintained in views of achieving the EU's ambitious 2020 energy savings target of 20%, and the concrete transposition and implementation of the EED, a key instrument to achieving that target.
In terms of the CHP Directive, the overall evolution of electricity production from high-efficiency cogeneration shows a moderate increase primarily due to the increase in district heating in the residential, commercial and services sectors. There has been steady growth in heat production from cogeneration been since 2004.
Proposals for additional measures or amendments to either the ESD or CHP Directive are not considered appropriate at this time. This is because both Directives will be repealed and have been replaced by the EED, which has taken over their provisions and strengthened the obligations placed upon the Member States.
[1] OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p.64
[2] Although Croatia submitted an EEAP in April 2013, it was not required to do so under the ESD as the obligation occurred before Croatia's accession to the EU.
[3] OJ L 52, 21,2,2004, P. 50
[4] Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p.1
[5] Annex I to the Directive specifies that Member States should calculate their target referring to their average annual final inland energy consumption for the most recent five year period previous to the implementation of this Directive.
[6] See section 3.2 of Accompanying SWD(2013) 541 final on Progress Report on energy efficiency in the European Union
[7] See Section 4 of Accompanying SWD(2013) 541 final
[8] These are certificates issued by independent certifying bodies confirming the energy savings claims of market actors as a consequence of energy efficiency improvement measures (Article 3(s) ESD)
[9] See section 4.9 and table 10 of Accompanying SWD(2013) 541 final
[10] 2016 figures for Bulgaria represent the bottom-up savings totals given in the EEAP.
[11] Figures for Cyprus, Ireland and the Netherlands are shown in Primary Energy Equivalent. As the ESD does not specifically define "primary" or "final" energy savings, the Member States have submitted figures based on their definitions.
[12] The Czech Republic does not clearly state intermediate savings achieved. The 2010 figure shown above is one third of the forecast figure for 2016.
[13] To account for recessionary influences, Greece adjusted a very high interim savings figure given by top-down methods to have a more realistic range of likely savings achieved. The 2010 figure shown here represents the low end of the range. No clear forecast of energy savings in 2016 exists. The value shown assumes that the 9% indicative target is achieved.
[14] No savings forecast given for 2016 for Romania. 2016 figure shown represents the 9% ESD indicative target.
[15] The calculation of the 9% ESD target for Spain is unclear from the EEAP.
[16] EU-funded project on energy efficiency indicators (http://www.odyssee-indicators.org/) using top-down methodologies similar to the methodologies used in the second EEAPs by many Member States.
[17] The table is of a descriptive nature only to show that Member States have been taking different types of measures in their second EEAPs. The number of crosses is not linked to the comprehensiveness or quality of the measures included in the second EEAP.
[18] Separate measures for Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels regions.
[19] Measure or strategy mentioned but no detail provided.
[20] CHP measures described in the EEAP focus mainly on end-use or micro-CHP installations.
[21] Megawatts.
[22] Terawatt hours.
[23] Annex X to the Impact Assessment for the Energy Efficiency Directive, (SEC(2011) 779 final)