Docstoc

EWG 06-2005 Final Proceedings

Document Sample
EWG 06-2005 Final Proceedings Powered By Docstoc
					   APEC PROJECT EWG 06/2005 “Energy efficiency indicators
workshop: capacity building and technical co-operation in monitoring
    energy efficiency progress within APEC economies through
                     disaggregated indicators”

           Hotel “Slavianka”, MOSCOW, 12th to 15th SEPTEMBER 2005

                         Hosted by Centre for Energy Policy
    Under the auspices of Ministry of Education and Science, Ministry of Foreign
     Affairs, and Ministry of Industry and Energy (all of the Russian Federation)

The symposium attracted nearly 30 participants from Chile; China; Hong Kong,
China; Japan; Malaysia; New Zealand; Russia; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; and USA.
Proceedings were produced by the project organiser, Frank Pool of New Zealand, and
are available on CD ROM on request. Questions can be directed to Frank Pool at
frank.pool@paradise.net.nz The project was undertaken under the direction of the
project overseer Mr Sergei Molodtosv of the Russian Federation, who can be
contacted on sergei-molodtsov@yandex.ru Presentations can be found at
http://www.energy.ru/eng/news/120905.htm

 Opening Session

Mr Valentin Valukov, (Head of Economic Security Department, Security Council of
the Russian Federation) from the host economy (Russian Federation) opened the
Workshop, and stressed the strong desire for Russia to learn from APEC energy
efficiency best practices.

Mr Anatoli Yanovski (Head of Department, Ministry of Industry and Energy of the
RF) – highlighted the development of oil and gas in Eastern Siberia, an issue of
particular interest to APEC, starting with LNG exports from Sakhalin fields. Russia is
taking a great interest in energy supply to developed Asian APEC member
economies, and therefore APEC links are seen as very important.

Mr Boris Reutzov (Head of Department, Ministry of Education and Science, RF) –
stressed that energy efficiency is very important for Russia, and energy efficiency
will be an important component of Russia’s chairing of the G8 in 2006. Mr Reutzov
highlighted that Russia pays due attention to energy efficiency alongside energy
supply issues. It was mentioned that Russia has a program on using hydrogen,
especially for automotive uses, and a strong focus on utilisation of biomass energy,
which is seen as particularly important for areas where there are no centralised fossil
fuel supplies (such as natural gas) nor centralised heating systems available.

There was then a brief self-introduction by workshop participants.



Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development               1
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
Frank Pool then briefly overviewed the background to the workshop and its genesis in
the previous APEC EWG 03/2000 Indicators Symposium held in Manila in March
2002.


Indicators of Energy Efficiency as a tool for Measuring the Energy Use Performance
in the APEC forum – Garegin Aslanian – Executive Vice-President, Centre for
Energy Policy, Russian Federation
 All APEC member economies have a strong focus on energy efficiency
 APEC is an important region for global energy supply and demand – APEC
    accounts for 60% of world primary energy
 Need to approach energy intensity analysis carefully and systematically when
    undertaking top-down decomposition of activities forming energy demand,
    comprising energy services demand.
 Energy efficiency indicators can be considered within four dimensional
    sustainability concept in IAEA sustainable energy demand framework
 Well established energy efficiency disaggregation methodologies now available
 Important to allow for structural effects in final energy demand and separate this
    from “tangible” energy efficiency effects
 Largest single sector is still manufacturing, needs to be broken down in sub-sectors
 Second largest sector is transportation, but well known problems in determining
    energy services outputs, and common data problems
 Commercial and services sector is a large and complex sector with strong growth
 Residential sector is also relevant
 APEC Indicators can usefully be considered under low – medium – high income
    country categories
 An APEC-wide methodology is proposed to evaluate performance indicators by
    sector and by industry branch, eg for iron and steel industries

Questions/Comments
 Could be a different definition of energy efficiency in US re structural effect than
   that proposed.
 Nice world view laid out for APEC, but mostly driving force – state - response
   indicators, but do not so much focus into why things happen, eg program level
   indicators
Answers
 Changing from private car to public transport in Russia is not included
 Need debate at this workshop on what is needed in operationalising the explanation
   of indicators

Reference – Garegin Aslanian - Indicators of Energy Efficiency as a Tool for
  Measuring the Energy Use Performance in the APEC forum (35 slides)


Energy Efficiency Indicators Drivers and Perspectives - Frank Pool,
Sustainable Energy Development Specialist, Philippines (ADB) and New
Zealand
 Kyoto is only small first step towards 60% global CO2 reductions required

Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development               2
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 Now entered 3rd phase of energy efficiency with end of higher oil prices, reductions
    in energy underpricing esp from oil price subsidies growing, CO2 savings now
    having a hard currency market value, end of honeymoon period from electricity
    market reform as spare generation and transmission capacity is used up, CCGTs
    (Combined Cycle Gas Turbines) using cheap and plentiful natural gas becoming
    no longer viable, challenges in funding new energy infrastructure
 Increasing focus on policies/programs/projects that give “measurable” energy
    efficiency gains
 GEF and CDM methodologies point the way to what is needed in design and
    indicators terms
 CDM not yet a useful mechanism for energy efficiency additional funding
 Need realistic view of necessary policy/program/policy attributes
 G8 Gleneagles conclusions leading to serious ramp up of energy efficiency at
    World Bank, ADB, IEA and hence into energy efficiency indicators

References – Frank Pool - Why Policy-Program-Project Energy Efficiency Indicators
Matter (13 slides)
           – Frank Pool - Energy Efficiency Drivers and Perspectives on Indicators (8 pages)


The Inclusion of Indicators in Energy Efficiency Standards Regimes – David Cogan
(New Zealand) – APEC Energy Efficiency Test Coordinator
 Standards can be defined to be any document designed to improve consistency
 Need to chose one’s metrics carefully
 Need to carefully measure and evaluate all effects, eg refrigerator efficiency
programs as well as old refrigerators retained and moved to garage to keep beer cold
 Monitoring of programs is usually under-funded and in practice even the under-
funded monitoring often does not happen
 Equipment performance can be done in a lab and can be repeated or re-done later
 Programs are hard to measure and one does not get a second chance if data is not
gathered at the right time
 Effects of integrated programs are hard to evaluate, so need to establish and monitor
a series of indicators
 Indicators are an art as well as a science
 With energy efficiency going to be worth real money, going to be need to step up in
indicators quality

No Questions/Comments

References – David Cogan - The inclusion of indicators in energy efficiency
standards regimes (4 pages)
           - David Cogan – The inclusion of indicators in energy efficiency standards
regimes (13 slides)


Indicators as Analytical Tools – Lucille Lanlglous – Head of Energy-Economics-
Environment Analysis Unit, IAEA
 When UN came up with indicators for sustainable development, only 2 out of 198
    indicators were related to energy
Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development         3
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 So indicators initiative managed by IAEA undertaken and prepared by 5 agencies --
    IAEA, UNDESA, EEA, IEA/OECD, Eurostat
 Developed Social, Economic and Environment indicators
 EISD (Energy Indicators for sustainable Development) can be linked to MDG
    (Millenium Development Goals) and SD (Sustainable Development) goals
 But, indicators do not define all the relevant aspects of sustainable development
 Taken by themselves, none of these indicators tell one what is sustainable or even
    desirable – they do not give the WHY
 Eg a rising or falling trend of energy intensity does not necessarily mean anything7
 Using several indicators in tandem can help clarify understanding: explore the why
 Need to look behind indicators to underlying trends and relate to SD objectives
 Need to do a reality check on policies, eg consistency between energy and access
    goals, is it a continuation or a quantum leap from all past trends
 Indicators need to be used, not just sit on a shelf
 EISD now being used for policy assessment in 14 Asian countries as an integral
    part of energy system modelling and analysis

Questions/Comments
 How does this link to atomic energy?
 Usually weights used to aggregate upwards to a consolidated index
 Development of indicators should be only 20% of the work, they are part of a much
    bigger process.
 IAEA have been very useful as understanding overall system, including the role of
    nuclear within wider energy systems
Responses
 Cannot look at atomic energy in a vacuum, so IAEA provides energy analysis to
    UN member states, including atomic power. UN does not do benchmarks or
    comparisons
 Weighting a real problem, so IAEA have done some work on consolidation
 Just have to keep asking yourself “how much” and “why”, the indicators are only a
    guide

Reference – Lucille Langlois - EISD as Analytical Tools (27 slides)


Saving Energy and Transforming Markets: Indicators for Public Sector Efficiency –
Jeffrey Harris – Group Leader, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL),
USA
 Indicators inform policy making
 Indicators needed for program and portfolio decisions
 Indicators also needed for project management and evaluation
 Important to differentiate between measuring what you can versus what you’d like
    to.
 Ideally would define indicators for desired “energy services”, eg bldg energy/sqm
    or per occupant
 US DOE/EIA Indicators Web Site established about 10 years ago, now new US
    DOE website established that deals with a new system of energy intensity
    indicators
Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development              4
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 New system of indicators separates energy intensity from structural effects, weather
   effects, size effects, eg shift to SUVs and larger houses
 Key outcome sought is reduced consumption of non-renewable energy
 Also economic benefits, environmental benefits, security benefits
 Key assumptions include that R&D programs meet cost and performance targets
   and that new EE & RE technologies achieve market penetration
 But many costs and benefits are not included because they are not easy to measure
 The reason for focus on the public sector is because it accounts for 10-20% of GDP,
   is biggest energy user, and is largest single buyer of energy using products, so
   successful public sector programmes can transform the energy efficiency of the
   wider economy
 Need to understand leadership effect, indicators of tangible progress
 Role of building energy performance benchmarking systems
 Potential roles for indicators, separate govtenergy data from services/commercial
   sector data, compile/compare govt programs

Reference – Jeffrey Harris - Saving Energy and Transforming Markets:
Indicators for Public Sector Energy Efficiency (26 slides)


Industrial Energy “Efficiency Improvements: the US DOE BestPractices Program –
Anthony Wright – ORNL, USA
 Industrial Technologies Program targets the largest opportunity to save energy in
    the US
 Many collaborative R&D elements are contained in BestPractices Program
 BestPractices Program now incorporates former US “challenge” programs
 Focus on very large industrial energy users, working with stakeholders and partners
 Opportunity assessments, training in various software tools, targeted assessments of
    plants with training element for plant personnel
 Plant-wide assessments underway
 Industrial assessment centres based on 23 engineering schools helping medium
    sized industries, typically within 150 mile radius

Reference – Anthony Wright – Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvements –
The U.S. DOE BestPractices Program (19 slides)

Establishing a Framework for Monitoring Energy Efficiency Indicators – Peter du
Pont – DEM, Thailand
 Indicators provide data, but need a monitoring framework
 Focus on monitoring at the project level and how this can be aggregated up to
    program level success indicators
 Example given of using indicators to inform appliance policy, eg suggested that
    imports of air-conditioners into Australia were less energy efficient than the
    energy efficiency of typical models sold in the importing markets
 Example given of establishment of international review of energy efficiency
    monitoring and indicators system for South Africa, based on survey of existing
    practices


Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development              5
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 Key result was that few energy program people felt that countries were monitoring
   energy efficiency or doing it well
 Needs included sector level monitoring, program level monitoring and energy
   service level monitoring
 Monitoring needs to be ongoing and continuous, speedy and transparent
 Evaluation is more in-depth
 Needs policy leadership, gives a mandate for reporting and review
 Good monitoring provides a solid basis for program evaluation

Reference – Peter du Pont - Establishing a Framework for Monitoring Energy
                   Efficiency Indicators (31 slides)


Questions - for previous 3 presentations
 Are the energy savings figures estimated or measures
 Assumptions made at program design, has anyone ever done a reality check?

Answers
 Savings were initially estimates, with some post-project self-reporting. But even
    measured data does not necessarily accurately indicate conscious energy
    efficiency impacts, often shows other impacts/effects.
 Little hard monitoring of real progress. Historically, projected market uptake
    figures have been optimistic.

  Comments
 Indicators need to be tracked over time, and data is often deemed to be confidential
    and is thus not accessible. For some large plants they already track energy
    efficiency, but challenge is accessing the data.
 Appliances can be assumed to be fixed in efficiency over its life. For buildings
    persistence is a real problem.


Energy Efficiency Indicators and Energy Conservation for the Industrial Sector in
Chinese Taipei – David Yi-Liang Chan, Manager, Industrial Technology Research
Institute
 Major energy conference held in Chinese Taipei after COP3 set GHG reduction
    targets
 Set up SEC (Specific Energy Consumption) Benchmarking system
 Established categories of energy benchmarking with linkages through the energy
    indicators pyramid from individual users to economy wide statistics
 Top 100 out of 2000 major industrial energy users account for 55% of industrial
    energy use
 Very comprehensive system established to visit sites, establish extra metering,
    interpolate data, gather, validate and aggregate energy end use data in a
    confidential database, with an annual public report
 Companies are provided reports of their data compared with best and worst and
    average levels.
 Takes account of capacity factors, broken down into range of second and 3rd order
    SIC categories
Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development           6
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 Tried to use “Top Runner” approach but limitations for single industries or
   processes
 Measure standard industrial equipment by category, use as basis of estimating
   energy savings potentials
 Use SEC Benchmarks as reference for government to evaluate results of energy
   conservation programs
 SEC Benchmark system has strong links to Kyoto Protocol coming into force, can
   establish results of past energy conservation programs of around $10M in 2000-
   2004, used to establish huge specific potential for future savings

Questions
 Extent to which data is measured or interpolated
 Extension to water and waste

  Answer
 Some site visits to check data
 No desire to complicate further the SEC Benchmarking system and potentially lose
   focus in system by extending to cover water, waste and other objectives

 Reference – David Yi-Liang Chan, Energy Efficiency Indicators and Energy
 Conservation for the Industrial Sector in Chinese Taipei (24 slides)


Current Situation, priority field and indicators of energy efficiency in China – Jin
Minghong. China National Institute of Standardisation (CNIS)
 Coal accounts for nearly 2/3 of commercial energy use, oil only 27%
 Energy intensity is 2.4 times that of average world level
 Since 2001 energy elasticity is greater than 1.0 -ie demand for commercial energy
    incl electricity now growing faster than GDP growth
 For manufacturing, products, equipment, buildings, vehicles etc energy use in
    China is much higher than in developed world, although strong progress is being
    achieved in some areas
 Many initiatives underway to improve energy efficiency in China
 Enforcement of standards remains a challenge in a large country like China
 China has ambitious targets to reduce energy intensity by nearly half from 2003 to
    2020, as set out in medium and long term targets established in 2004 (by NDRC)
 Targets are broken down onto targets by specific product and equipment types
 Example given of establishment of MEPS for air-conditioners, where a very
    comprehensive analytical approach has been followed over many years, due to
    massive growth on sales of air conditioners in China
 Starting point is statistical analysis of existing products on the market
 Engineering-economic analysis undertaken of possible energy efficiency options
 Approach used is an integrated mixture on energy labelling and MEPS

 Reference - Energy Efficiency Indicators in China (29 slides)


  Energy Efficiency Programmes and Indicators in Hong Kong – CK Lee
 Energy Efficiency Office now in place for 10 years, staff of 42
Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development            7
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 Most visible programs are energy efficiency graded and recognition labelling
    schemes, all programs are voluntary to date
 2600 labels issued to date for electrical appliances, office equipment and petrol cars
 Consultation on mandatory labelling now underway for air-conditioners,
    refrigerators and CFLs
 Have building energy codes of practice, used performance-based code approach,
    but slow uptake
 Building energy efficiency registration scheme, also energy management tools
 Promoting district cooling systems and evaporative cooling systems
 Promoting public transport
 Government program now underway, now savings target of 6% over 4 years
 Awards and promotional activities
 Have been gathering energy use data by sector and available in energy end use
    database
 Have established indicators by sector and sub-sector
 Established benchmarking tools
 Regression analysis of 9000 vehicles to correlate fuel use with determinants such as
    engine size, vehicle type, monthly ambient temperature (for aircon use)
 On road consumption found to be much higher (say 50%) than standard test results
 Importance of energy data and indicators as tool for policy analysis, estimisation of
    savings achieved,
 Limitations of data availability and assumptions that need to be made

  Questions
 Is bldg code voluntary or mandators
 Why did Asian economic crisis not affect oil demand, in fact oil product demand
    went up
  Answers
 Building code is voluntary
 There was a time lag, Asian economic crisis did not impact Hong Kong until 1999
    as Hong Kong had a property boom holding up economic demand to 1999, Also
    new airport opened in 1998 and oil figures include international transport fuel
    supply

 Reference - CK Lee - Energy Efficiency Programmes and Indicators in HongKong
 (41 slides)


IEA’s Indicators Approach: A tool for accessing energy demand and efficiency trends
– Fridtjof Unanader, IEA
 Gleneagles Plan of Action (G8+5 Communique), “We will [G8 Heads of States] ..
    invite the IEA …..to develop energy indicators to assess efficiency…”, this will
    mean a 3 year program of work at IEA
 IEA has become more serious about energy efficiency – now top of the IEA agenda
 Indicators work at IEA underway since 1996, building on previous LBNL (US)
    work, EU collaboration, database of energy end use as many IEA countries as
    possible, for policy analysis
 Matching analysis and data – the Indicators Pyramid

Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development                8
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 IEA has had to collect scattered national data at the process efficiency level
 Key publication “30 Years of Energy Use in IEA Countries” launched, available as
    free pdf file on IEA database, based on IEA Energy Indicator Database, detailed
    look at underlying factors
 IEA’s decomposition approach uses Laspeyres indicies to follow trends over time,
    energy savings are taken as being the technical residual
 Only moderate overall energy growth 1973 – 1998, “energy savings” of 50%
    compared to frozen efficiency.
 Rate of energy savings has slowed since 1990 leading to rapid demand growth
 Oil price shocks in the 1970s did more to reduce emissions and to increase
    efficiency than achieved by policies implemented in the 1990s.
 As a consequence, CO2 emissions are now growing rapidly along with oil and
    electricity demand.
 Update of “30 Years of Energy Use in IEA Countries” underway to extend
    conclusions beyond 1998
 Indicators will be key focus of IEA work following Gleneagles, working with non-
    OECD/IEA member countries, input to energy modelling work including 2006
    IEA World Energy Outlook

  Reference – IEA’s Indicator Approach: A tool for assessing energy demand and
efficiency trends (45 slides)


Energy Efficiency Indicators and Energy Efficiency Policy in Russia – Sergey
Molodotsov (Russia)
 Currently energy use per unit GDP in Russia is around 3 times that in OECD
    countries, similar results obtained when physical units used
 Electricity distribution losses have increased, electricity and heat distribution losses
    are high by OECD standards
 Reasons include very old energy using equipment, also cold climate, large territory,
    energy intensive structure, poor development of financial mechanisms, relatively
    low prices, weak legislation and enforcement, lack of incentives, lack of
    information and education
 Main focus in energy policy is oil price
 Macro objectives of Russia’s energy efficiency policy, improve structural reforms
    incl growth in services and relative reduction in energy intensive industry, realise
    large technical energy efficiency potentials of 1/3 to ½ of energy supply,
    prospects based on $18/bbl oil, even optimistic scenario has oil at $30/bbl, so
    potentials still understated
 Some progress in energy efficiency, increased capacity utilisation in industry, some
    progress in construction sector with improved insulation, labels on nearly all
    refrigerators in domestic market now
 Construction of and use of energy efficiency indicators has some problems in terms
    of data availability, statistical accessibility, and quality of statistics
 Even an Energy Services Company struggles obtaining data for energy audits

  Questions
 What is population of Russia?
  Answers
Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development                  9
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 Around 146 million, estimated 15 million in Moscow, most use Metro for transport

Reference – Sergey Molodtsov - Energy Efficiency Indicators and Energy Efficiency
Policy in Russia (15 slides)


Evaluation Standards of Top Runner Program for Machinery and Appliance – Junichi
Noka, Energy Conservation Center (Japan)
 In Japan Industrial energy use has stayed flat in spite of production increases due to
    aggressive and sustained energy conservation efforts
 Growth in energy demand has come from consumer and transport sector – provides
    strong impetus for the focus of Top Runner Program in those sectors, in particular
    household sector which shows the largest growth in energy demand
 For Top Runner, target products are ones used in large quantities in Japan, with
    significant energy use, and requiring intensive improvement in energy efficiency
 Targets are set based on best performing products available in the market
 Target year is usually 4 – 8 years from the setting of a target value
 Success is judged by weighted average of shipments by each product category
    covered by Top Runner
 In 1999 Top Runner started with 11 products designated, 7 additional products
    designated in 2002, total 18 products now covered
 Top Runner covers key machinery, equipment and vehicle categories
 Voluntary Energy Saving Labeling Program for efficiency improvement in
    household appliances launched in 2000
 Top Runner and Labelling programs are evaluated to be effective programs in
    consumer and transportation sectors
 Planned to extend Top Runner and Labelling programs to more product classes
 Range of committees established to develop necessary standards
 Further information available on ECCJ website of
    http://www.eccj.or.jp/index_e.html

Reference – Junichi Noka - Evaluation Standards of Top Runner Program for
Machinery and Appliances in Japan (21 slides)


A Consistent Multi-Sectoral Energy Efficiency Indicator and Policy Implication –
Yungchang Bor, Chung-Hua Institution For Economic Research (Chinese Taipei)
 Objective is to trace the drivers of energy use by multi-sectoral industries, improve
   traditional decomposition methodologies and re-evaluate energy conservation
   effect to obtain policy insights
 Factor decomposition undertaken by two common methodologies, Lespeyres and
   Divisia index methods
 Theoretical background is that economic based factor decomposition leaves a
   residual, interesting in mathematics but not useful in policy analysis. Too many
   factors can be used in decomposition and it is too hard to get a hard result.
 Use physical output as activity level attribute rather than using GDP as a measure of
   (economic) output
 Can then evaluate economic efficiency (energy profitability) and physical energy
   efficiency
Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development 10
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 Analysis can be expended to cover land, labor, capital and environmental quality to
   get total factor productivity. Therefore, there is an argument that major references
   that follow Ang (1994) may have serious methodology limitations. An alternative
   approach ignoring the cumbersome mathematics in traditional index
   decomposition methods can instead be used

Reference – Yungchang Bor - A Consistent Multi-Sectoral Energy Efficiency
Indicator and Policy Implication (43 slides)


  Energy Efficiency Indicators in Chile - Eduardo Munoz Bustos (Chile)
 Chile has an area of 2 million km2, population 15 million, GDP/capita US$4500, 4
    electric grids ranging from thermal to hydro dominance
 Final energy intensity is mostly flat, whilst electric intensity is rising
 Structural and fuel effects are mostly flat, energy demand driven mainly by
    increased activity, no apparent efficiency factor occurring to date
 Considerable energy efficiency economic and market potential when analysed by
    sector
 Question is how to achieve the energy efficiency potential

Reference – Eduardo Munoz Bustos - Energy Efficiency Indicators in Chile (19
slides)




Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development              11
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
The National Energy Efficiency Program – Ivan Ernesto Couso Salas (Chile)
 In Jan 2005 launched a presidential initiative comprising a public-private
    partnership focussing on delivering same or better energy services at lower
    overall cost
 Rationale is that energy efficiency is a good business, requires many actors to work
    together, is also a way of thinking, eg a European would not buy an energy
    inefficient house
 Chile has not yet achieved a disconnect between economic growth and energy
    demand as achieved in many OECD countries
 Program contains an early list of programs to lead action on energy efficiency
 Role of state is understood to be very important

 Questions
  Budget?
  Monitoring and evaluation, eg ESCOs need to prove savings
  Energy indicators primarily at national and sectoral level
 Answers
  Program initially $100,000 budget, now increased to $1M/yr
  Recognise need for energy audits, early experience gained
  Some benchmarking has been undertaken at industry branch level


Discussion/Comments and Wrap up for Day
 How can APEC better interact with the IEA in indicators work? Collaboration on
    data exchange and use of common methodology could be done in principle. An
    idea is for IEA to hold a workshop, both for member countries and for non-IEA
    non-member countries
 Likely resources from APEC could be $50-100,000 for a project to get experts
    together, beyond this need to feed the message up to Energy Ministers
 Not realistic to expect IEA or APEC to provide all the necessary resources, this
    must be an individual economy led initiative for it to make an impact.
 Geneagles G8 communique will help get a focus at APEC on indicators. Pledge and
    review within APEC is also a good avenue into enhanced use of program level
    indicators.
 At Manila Indicators workshop in 2002 there was a focus on basic energy indicators
    analysis. Now need to move focus on to evaluation.
 How could APEC move things forward from here?
 Individual countries need to understand that it is their responsibility to gather data,
    where IEA can help is at methodology level. This sort of activity does not need a
    lot of money. A good example is the IEA energy statistics, where gradually over
    time the capacity to gather consistent statistics has improved.
 Highly likely that some activity could move forward in APEC.
 Need to start at macro level, then move analysis down as far as possible
 When IAEA started work on indicators, data availability clearly was a problem,
    first analysis was what level of necessary data existed. Then set up guidelines on
    how to gather data or chose a surrogate indicator or data.



Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development               12
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 Some work has been done at APERC, so no need to start from scratch, but this
   work did not persist. Partly, APERC got impatient and started work on specific
   areas, which was interesting but also in turn did not persist.
 APEC-ESIS was set up as an ongoing initiative, to replace a few one-off studies.
   Parallels with needs for energy indicators within APEC. Need to develop
   consistent set of “how to” guides to develop and implement indicators.
 There is a lot of literature on indicators, but much of this literature often just takes
   existing data sets regardless of their quality. Even if the purposes are different,
   there are common data sources available, but many of the available sources have
   significant quality and consistency etc needs.
 Need debate at this workshop on needs, issues and uses for indicators, then report
   up through EGEEC to EWG pointing out that indicators are important, that
   without a focus on indicators then energy efficiency policies/programs/projects
   will be less effective, and then seek EWG or Energy Ministerial Meeting
   mandate for greater future emphasis on indicators.
 Noting that Russia has participated in IAEA process, if this group or another APEC
   body asked, then IAEA and IEA could in principle run a training workshop to
   identify data needs and availability.


 Wednesday Workshop Session

Thailand’s Energy Efficiency Programs and Indicators – Sinsukprasert Prasert,
Ministry of Energy (Thailand)
 Thailand consumes around 1 Million bbl/day oil (comprising 51% of commercial
    energy consumption), oil imports account for 12% of Thailand’s total import bill
 Thailand’s commercial energy supply is 35% natural gas and 12% coal
 60% of Thailand’s commercial energy imported
 Over the past 15 years, Thailand’s energy/GDP elasticity has averaged 1.4, target is
    by 2008 to reduce energy:GDP elasticity to 1.0
 Since 2003, Thailand has had a comprehensive energy efficiency policy and a range
    of programs of funding, technical assistance, incentives and subsidies,
    regulations, improving confidence in savings projections, and information
    provision
 The transport program aims to better utilise rail, support conversion to dual fuel
    CNG, and promote better driving
 The industrial energy efficiency program aims to change industrial sector to less
    intensive structures, uses soft loans to encourage investment, provide R&D,
    training and capacity development, tax breaks for ESCOs, import tax exemptions
    for energy efficient products, performance based incentives
 Compulsory program for large industrial sites: - Appoint energy manager,
    record/submit data, identify targets and establish plans, bonus is soft loans for
    necessary energy efficiency investments
 Over 85% of designated large users have appointed energy managers, but only
    15% have implemented energy audit recommendations
 An energy efficiency revolving fund of USD50 million has been established,
    working through 6 commercial banks, over USD 80M invested in 85 projects to
    date, annual savings now are USD 35M/yr

Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development                13
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 Some analysis of energy intensity by sub-sector, but statistics are unstable as output
   is in terms of GDP which can change markedly between years without necessarily
   representing physical output changes

  Questions
 Does Thailand use data from mandatory reporting as main energy end use data
   source?

  Answers
 Designated facilities account for 80% of sectoral energy use, moves are underfoot
   to link the various energy data sources

Comment
 Thailand seen as a leader in its region in terms of energy efficiency policies and
   programs.

Reference – Prasert Sinsukprasert - Thailand’s Energy Efficiency Programs and
Indicators (20 slides)


Energy Efficiency: Policies, Programs and Indicators in Malaysia – Faridah Mohd
Taha (Malaysia)
 On 5th May Malaysian government decided to periodically reduce petroleum
    subsidies, on 1 Aug 05 retail prices of petrol, diesel, and LPG rose by 5 – 20
    Sen/litre
 In 2003 primary energy rose 6.8%, GDP grew at 5.5%
 Petroleum accounts for 67% of primary energy, but current petroleum reserves
    would only last 19 years at current rate of supply
 Malaysia has domestic car industry, no attempt yet to improve vehicle fuel
    economy
 72.5% of electricity comes from natural gas, which is subsidised and supplied at
    much lower prices than the international price
 Malaysia has had an Energy Efficiency Policy since 1979 that in theory provides
    the necessary focus on energy efficiency
 2001 budget provided fiscal incentives for energy efficiency
 Some initiatives underway, by Energy Centre and Energy Commission (created in
    2002)
 Malaysia Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement Project (MIEEIP) (USD21
    GEF project) is now underway, including energy audits in 48 factories from 8
    energy intensive sub-sectors
 A High Efficiency Motors program is underway, using EU EFF1 level as definition
    of high efficiency motors, aiming to use a mix of mandatory and voluntary
    measures
 Energy Efficient Building design, buildings account for 27% of Malaysia’s energy
    use, some initial design studies underway, new Energy Code with guidelines of
    energy efficiency
 Refrigerator program finally underway, uses star rating label, being officially
    launched Sept 2005
 Increasing trend in energy intensity is of concern to government
Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development 14
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 Malaysia has the highest energy use per capita in ASEAN, energy intensity is mid-
   level for ASEAN
 Most programs are voluntary, key new feature is government decision to reduce
   energy subsidies

Questions
 How is the 19 years of oil production calculated?
 Are there regulations to support refrigeration energy labelling

Answers
In around 8 years Malaysia will no longer be self-sufficient in oil supply
 Regulations are in the pipeline

Reference – Faridah Mohd Taha - Energy Efficiency: Policies, Programs and
Indicators in Malaysia (29 slides)
            - Faridah Mohd Taha - Energy Efficiency: Policies, Programs and
Indicators in Malaysia (15 pages)


Energy Efficiency Indicators in China Government Sector – Liu Caifeng (China) –
CECP (China Certification Centre for Energy conservation Products)
 Estimated that government agencies account for 5% of national overall energy
    consumption
 Strong link to sustainable development , directive on resource saving society issued
    by NDRC in 2005, range of sustainable development indicators being developed
    by CECP to include energy and other resources (energy, water and waste)
 Objective of indicators is to establish baseline, to set short and long term targets, to
    provide a means of verification and monitoring
 Initial indicators for public sector established in 2004, use MJ/m2/yr in tenant areas
    of office buildings, also MJ.m2/year, MJ/km for passenger vehicles (found to be
    15.8 litre/100km)., 109m3 water/person (includes gardens etc)
 Experience is that training of data collectors is required, need to establish a data
    collection system, benchmarks of energy performance indicators required
 Comprehensive and ambitious plan developed in 2005, covering design, supervision
    through to commissioning of new buildings, energy audits and retrofits of existing
    buildings, develop management systems with reference to ISO 9000
 Questions
 In Latin America, problem with who keeps the savings in govt sector, how is this
    dealt with in China
 How to control the data in such a ambitious program?
 Do indicators provided include water pumping, sewerage, public lighting?
Answers
 Target set, budget cut in expectation of cuts, key issue is what is the incentive for
    individual agencies, Thailand tried but difficult if govt agencies don’t pay energy
    bills anyway.
 Data quality is a very difficult issue, key issue is to train collectors and clear
    definition of energy to be gathered


Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development                15
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
Reference – Liu Caifeng - Energy Efficiency Indicators in China Government Sector
(19 slides)


Maximising the Policy guiding value of energy efficiency indicators: best practice in
definitions, conceptual framework, analytical and reporting methods – Nigel Jollands
(New Zealand)
 Link to workshop goals of building capacity, analytical methods and methodology
 Link to Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, Millenium Development Goals, local
    criteria such as NZ RMA, NZ NEECS targets of 20% energy efficiency
    improvement by 2012
 There is no one unequivocal definition of energy efficiency
 Efficiency from Greek roots is “effectiveness of achieving stated goals”
 Energy efficiency is therefore useful outputs for given inputs
 Definitions of energy efficiency are necessarily contextually bound
 Seminal reference is Patterson M 1996, “What is energy efficiency, indicators and
    methodological issues”, Energy Policy, 25(5) 377-390
 Several indicators, thermodynamics,
 The New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act 2000 states that energy
    efficiency is “net benefits per unit energy input”
 Indicators area hot topic, but current definitions are lacking, can use semiotics to
    shed some light on issue
 Using semiotics, energy efficiency indicators needs to be a measure of energy
    efficiency, use scientifically grounded conventions, produced with a clear
    communicative intent, aim to inform the decisions, and have a clearly defined
    audience
 Conceptual frameworks are necessary , but can use driving force- state- response
    framework, but can also be policy oriented, media oriented
 Analytical techniques, core starting point is WYMIWYG (what you measure is
    what you get), need suite of indicators
 Ex-post approach, principal components analysis to help unravel data
 System wide input-output analysis
 Ex Ante future-casting and modelling
 Reporting and communicating energy efficiency indicators
 So significant rationale for monitoring energy efficiency
 Recommend “multi-layered, and multi-tool analytical system

Questions
 Tension of ease of measurement and putting undue on what we are trying to
    achieve. Can fall into only doing what is measured.
 IEA indicators approach seems very impressive
 IEA technique is very simple, but can lead to over emphasis on just one approach
 Need to move back from indicators to asking the why we want to know and what
    they mean.

Answers
 Agreed to be trap of only doing what is measured


Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development             16
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 IEA approach is a very strong effort and is very clear on definitions, but risk that
    undue emphasis on one approach limits the insights available
 Need for multiple approaches to answer different questions

Reference – Nigel Jollands - Maximising the policy-guiding value of energy efficiency
indicators (36 slides)




Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development                17
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
Symposium Conclusions and Recommendations

Key Workshop Findings
 Indicators are not an end but a means to better understand energy and
   energy efficiency trends
 Considerable common ground exists
 Some differences apparent of views in terms of data and priorities within
   aggregate/programs/projects focus
 Multiple levels of indicators (economy-wide, sectoral, or
   process/site/project) are needed
 Seems to be more experience in indicators disaggregating down rather than
   aggregating from bottom-up
 Indicators give a backwards looking snapshot, also need forward looking
   view
 Different approaches possible of indicators determining data needs vs
   using available (project) data as indicators, eg CDM with its multiyear
   monitoring requirement, ESCO projects with their ongoing monitoring
   basis for payment, MEPS and Top Runner with its basis in current best
   practice to set future sales weighted levels, mandatory and voluntary
   Building/Industry Reporting, and Benchmarking.

Key Gaps Identified
 Lack of consistency in terms of definitions, methods, and so forth.
 How to link top-down and bottom-up approaches?
 Which questions are best answered by (continuous) indicators and which
   questions can be better answered through other approaches such as
   periodic focussed approaches such as program/project evaluation?
 Clearer definition of energy efficiency and energy efficiency indicators
   needed.




Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development          18
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
 Workshop Conclusions

The importance of energy efficiency is clearly increasing due to oil prices
appearing to have now risen to a new higher equilibrium level from the 1990’s
level/range, as well as similar significant natural gas price increases underway
in a number of APEC member economies (also called the end of cheap oil/gas
and/or peak oil/gas). The impact of these higher prices is placing considerable
pressure on some APEC member economies’ practice of keeping/subsidising
the price of oil and gas to well below international market levels, generally for
social and industrial policy reasons. So there is a growing impetus towards
more market led energy prices, which will also increase the cost effectiveness
on energy efficiency and hence the overall practical uptake of potential energy
efficiency measures.

A key further impetus for energy efficiency is the establishment of a market-
led monetary value for energy efficiency savings beyond the traditional driver
of direct cost reduction to end users. These energy efficiency monetary values
are driven in particular through developing carbon emissions trading
mechanisms both within individual APEC member economies and
internationally through CDM (UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism) for
developing to developed economies and JI (Joint Implementation) for
developed to developed economy trading - the so-called Kyoto flexibility
mechanisms, but also including developments in energy efficiency - the so-
called “white” certificates energy efficiency obligations underway in Italy and
under wider consideration in the EU.

There is also a developing market for verifiable time and location specific
energy efficiency measures - both to meet growing specific electricity network
constraints and also as demand responsive resources (DRR – with major work
underway in this area in the IEA) to be bid into electricity markets to reduce
price volatility and mitigate the exercise of supply side electricity market
power and hence reduce electricity spot market price volatility.

The value of these extra energy efficiency revenue streams can be
considerable, and there are indications that early 2005 CDM prices of around
US$5/ton CO2 may be in the process of sharply increasing, with the current
EU ETS (Emission Trading System) prices of around Euro 30/ton CO2
reflecting the background penalty prices of Euro 40/ton CO2 in 2005-07 and
with further major upside potential at the Euro 100/ton CO2 ETS penalty price
set for 2008-12. There are indications that CDM prices are starting to mirror
ETS prices with a discount to reflect issues around the importation of CDM/JI
CO2 credits into the ETS “bubble”.

So overall, verified energy-efficiency improvements now often have a new
and additional fiscal value beyond direct end-user energy cost savings, as well
as a new political urgency due to growing concerns about security of energy
supply, environmental impacts of energy use, and climate change.

As a reflection of this new reality, the G8 in its Gleneagles Communiqué has
reflected the critical role of being able to monitor and measure the
Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development 19
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
achievements of energy-efficiency programmes; and the IEA has now placed
energy-efficiency as its top agenda item in its future work program. It is also
almost certain that the new focus on energy efficiency arising from Gleneagles
will be reflected in increased funding for energy efficiency
policies/programs/projects by the World Bank, ADB and GEF and other
multilateral development funding agencies, with an allied growing need for
soundly-based energy efficiency indicators.

Given these international trends, it is necessary to have improved information
on both energy-efficiency potentials and the savings attributable to particular
energy-efficiency policies/programs/projects. Energy efficiency is now
widely recognized as an extremely valuable resource; however, energy
efficiency is difficult to define and to difficult to measure and considerable
work is clearly needed to refine these definitions and common understandings.

Energy efficiency indicators are a critical tool for evaluating and
understanding the impacts of energy-efficiency. They are a fundamental tool
for prioritising and designing energy-efficiency programs; for measuring the
impact and effects of energy policy; for making cross-sector and cross country
comparisons; and for justifying both new and continued energy efficiency
policy and program funding.

Building on the results of the 2002 Manila Indicators workshop (EWG
03/2001) and this Moscow Indicators workshop (EWG 06/2005) it is clear that
much more work needs to be undertaken in future to provide the energy
efficiency indicators that will be needed. A key workshop conclusion is that
ongoing co-operation and capacity building within APEC is justified. It is also
clear that the IEA energy efficiency indicators approach provides a sound
initial common framework for top-down disaggregated energy indicators
analysis. It is also clear that there would be value from further work on
refining the IEA framework to utilise physical sub-sectoral output data and
linking to individual sub-sectoral best practices. It was also useful to learn that
in principle technical assistance and capacity building would be available on
request from both the IEA and IAEA in energy efficiency indicators
development.

Such enhanced cooperation and capacity building within APEC on energy-
efficiency indicators would: -
       Provide consistency of terminology and international comparisons;
       Enable the appropriate and consistent selection of indicators for
different purposes and different target audiences;
       Enable measurements to be made early in the program/project cycle in
order to develop a meaningful baseline to compare subsequent project results
against;
       Enable reliable determination of energy savings achieved at the
program/project, sector, and economy levels;
       Enable comparisons to be made against predetermined policy
benchmarks; and


Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development                 20
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
      Help to justify support for energy-efficiency programs by clearly
communicating the complex benefits of energy-efficiency efforts in an
accessible manner.


Potential Workshop Follow-on Project/Activity Ideas

A. Hold Further Periodic Workshops
It was clear from both the 2002 Manila Indicators workshop (EWG 03/2001) and
this 2005 Moscow Indicators workshop (EWG 06/2005) that there is considerable
merit in holding periodic indicators workshops with a complementary focus to build
a common view and share experiences in the many inter-related aspects of energy
efficiency indicators. Follow-up energy efficiency indicators workshops could be
self-funded or APEC project funded. Such workshops could also seek to utilise the
in-principle IAEA or IEA resources that are likely to be available on request.

One area where there seems to be a gap in understanding at the EGEEC level is in:
the more specific program and project level indicators, both to justify new activities
and to justify the continuation of existing activities; as well as the energy efficiency
indicators requirement of donor funded projects, multilateral development bank
funded projects, and in obtaining additional energy efficiency income streams from
CDM/JI and deferring transmission/distribution capacity investments, or mobilising
energy efficiency to be bid into electricity markets (eg demand responsive resources
as being developed under the IEA DSM Implementing Agreement).

Reference – Frank Pool – Energy Efficiency Indicators Summary to EGEEC 27 (11
slides)
          -- Summary EE Indicators Workshop Report-Findings (2 pages)


B. Working with Interested Economies Towards Common Definitions

The workshop identified a clear need for energy efficiency indicators’
common definitions, frameworks and methodologies.

Definitions- Ensuring accurate and timely monitoring and evaluation of
energy efficiency policies in APEC economies requires agreed common
definitions of energy efficiency and what is meant by the term energy
efficiency indicators. Such common definitions are required for two
compelling reasons: a) to facilitate clear communication between analysts and
researchers in APEC economies, and b) to ensure that inter-economy or
regional comparisons are comparing the same things. In order for agreement
to be developed for these common definitions, there is an urgent need for
researchers and analysts within APEC economies to collaborate closely in this
area.

Methodologies
It was clear from the Moscow Indicators Workshop that there is a need to
improve analytical methods used for analysing changes in energy efficiency.

Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development                 21
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
The IEA has adopted the general pyramid concept to underpin its work on
Energy Efficiency Indicators. The IEA approach uses traditional
decomposition methods to analyse trends in Energy Efficiencies in major
OECD/IEA countries as well as in some special countries of IEA co-operation
(Russia, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa).

However, the IEA decomposition method has several major methodological
constraints. First, there is a problem with the residual effect, which means that
the calculated change of energy is not equal to the sum of changes of
decomposition effects. Second, although there are some methods that can
eliminate the residual by re-allocating the weights to the decomposition
effects, these methods are primarily interesting in pure mathematical
methodology terms.

These residual re-allocation methodologies are not completely satisfactory in
understanding Energy Efficiency changes over time. In addition, users of
traditional decomposition methods often fail to take into consideration the
consistency between upper level and lower level sectors and sub-sectors
during the aggregation of efficiency changes, nor have they been able to
provide a full rationale for any energy policies needed. Finally, IEA
decomposition methods do not touch the wider overarching issue of
sustainable of energy supply and demand.

In order to achieve the multi-policy purposes of APEC member economics
and to facilitate meaningful international comparisons, there is a need to
establish three different kinds of fundamental Energy Efficiency Indicators.

1. End-use Energy Efficiency Indicators
End-use Energy Efficiency Indicators focus on the micro level. At least two
types of Energy Efficiency Indicators are needed. They are Physical-Economic
Energy Efficiency Indicators (using GDP as the numerator) as well as Physical
Energy Efficiency Indicators (based on physical quantity outputs). The Energy
Efficiency Indicators should follow the general pyramid concept to build
Energy Efficiency Indicators at the top economy wide level and then move
down to sectoral levels, equipment levels, and process levels as far as possible.
However, using end-use Energy Efficiency Indicators could avoid the above
drawbacks. Such improved methodologies were reviewed by Dr. Yunchang
Jeffrey Bor (Chinese Taipei) at the Moscow Indicators expert workshop.

2. Indicators that measure system-wide energy efficiency
Macro Energy Efficiency Indicators focus on the macro-foundation of
industrial co-relationships as detailed in Input-Output Tables. The aim is to
measure the direct and indirect flow-on energy efficiency effects in a given
economy. Macro Energy Efficiency Indicators should include both primary
energy and secondary energy effects. Since energy demand is a derived
demand of economic production and consumption behaviour, the usage of
energy is closely related to the wider closed-loop production process. Take for
example, the consumer demand for a sheet of paper. This final demand for
paper will be reflected in the production process of the papermaking industry,
Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development 22
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
and the production of this sheet of paper will involve the process engineering
processes of raw materials processing, pulping, sheet forming and finishing.
Hence, along the production flow, a close relationship will exist between an
upstream pulping factory, a midstream papermaking factory and a downstream
finishing factory. The electricity, coal, and fuel oil etc consumed within these
factories is accounted for as energy consumption within the papermaking
industry. Furthermore, as plant fibres are the raw material for papermaking,
timber must be considered as the primary input of the papermaking industry.
Consequently, energy consumed by the mechanical equipment used in
logging, an activity listed under the forestry industry, must then be considered
as a derived energy consumption from the papermaking industry. Thus, all
these direct and indirect effects should be counted in estimating the macro
Energy Efficiency Indicators for a given economy. Basically, the resulting
indicator is an economic indicator and the target is taken to be to maximize the
net benefits for a given economy as a whole.

3. Sustainable Energy Efficiency Indicators
Sustainable Energy Efficiency Indicators focus on the energy-environmental-
economics-social dimensions of sustainable development. Sustainable
development is a long-term issue which not only emphasizes economic
efficiency but also emphasizes social justice and environmental protection
aspects. The basic methodology used in this field is the SPR (State-Pressure-
Response) method. It is a useful approach for better understanding the status
quo and any policy reactions.

Need for common database for Energy Efficiency Indicators

It is clearly critical that a common database for each APEC economy be
developed on the three basic types of Energy Efficiency Indicators as above.
The key issues in building common databases are consistency and continuity.
Consistency is needed to ensure that a common definition of data is followed
to maintain high and consistent data quality. Continuity is necessary to collect
the necessary data and assemble it in a consistent time series.


C. Establish An APEC Energy Efficiency Indicators Website
The workshop agreed that it would be useful to make the results of the workshop and
economy specific summaries available on a specific website, possibly utilising
APEC-ESIS and/or the EGEEC website

D. Develop a Standard Overview Presentation on Energy Efficiency
   Indicators (“Energy Efficiency Indicators 101”)

The purpose of this proposed activity would be to create a standard
information/promotional presentation on energy efficiency indicators; this
presentation could be used by APEC member economies to describe what energy
efficiency indicator are and to promote their value and wider use. The final
document would be a set of PowerPoint slides, including explanatory notes that
would be available on the EGEEC Website to all APEC member economies.

Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development               23
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
Key activities would include at least the following:

   Create an initial outline of the topics that would be covered in the presentation
    materials, and obtain agreement on the topics to be covered;

   Identify experts to develop materials for specific slides in the presentation. For
    example, one person could create slides on the definition of energy efficiency
    indicators, and someone else could create slides on the value of energy
    efficiency indicators, and so forth.

   Submit draft slides to selected slide reviewers, obtain consensus on final slide
    contents, and create the final agreed set of slides for use by APEC member
    economies.

E. Institutional Arrangements

Given the importance of energy efficiency indicators, there is a rationale to establish
an institutional framework or program of activities (possibly under EGEEC) to follow
on from the Manila and Moscow workshops to foster energy efficiency indicators in
an ongoing and sustained way, in particular to foster stronger links with EGEDA and
APERC, and also ongoing interaction with IEA and IAEA. If there is to be a co-
ordinated APEC energy efficiency indicator activity, a central body or focal point
would be useful as a technical secretariat. Such a central body would also facilitate
this APEC wide energy efficiency indicators program’s continuity and sustainability.
APERC, or some other existing body such as EGEDA, could be approached to
provide such a technical secretariat role. Alternatively, an APEC member economy or
set of economies could undertake this role as a self-funded program under EGEEC. In
addition, each APEC member economy would ideally also establish a nominated
focal point to ensure consistency in communications and work activities.

The potential range of future tasks ranges from basic groundwork, to establishing
common definitions and methodologies, to developing benchmarking at the products
and process levels. The suggested scope of the work program is also potentially very
wide and could potentially deal with all levels of indicators; from economy level;
sub-sector level; and down to project levels. Many APEC member economies would
need to develop capacity to be able to fully participate in such APEC wide indicators
activities. Such an APEC wide energy efficiency indicators work program then would
ideally become a long term routine collaborative exercise for APEC member
economies.

F. Definition of Practical Best Practice
There was considerable discussion at the workshop on the value of Practical Best
Energy Efficiency Practice Indicators, such as the Japanese Top Runner program, US
Best Practice Industrial Program, and various other sectoral best practices data
sources. In particular such comparisons were seen as being particularly relevant for
specific sectors, such as the Iron and Steel sector, to establish broad targets for energy
efficiency based on best energy efficiency practice in the APEC region. There was
also some interest in considering Practical Best Practice Energy Efficiency Indicators

Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development                 24
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002
at a regional and comparable level of economy GDP/capita, development, climate,
population density and so forth.

G. Inventory of Current APEC Member Economy Energy Efficiency
   Indicators’ Practices

The purpose of this proposed activity would be to create a brief summary of present
APEC member economy energy efficiency indicator practices; this would serve to
communicate such practices among all APEC member economies. The final result
from this activity would be an APEC review document which could be aimed
primarily for internal APEC communication purposes, or could be aimed to provide
a link to wider international energy efficiency initiatives.

Key activities would include the following:

   Develop a template of questions related to energy efficiency indicator activities
    – for example, one question could be describe what type of energy efficiency
    indicator activities are underway in each APEC member economy.

   After the form of the proposed questions is finalised, submit the energy
    efficiency indicator survey questions to appropriate representatives from each
    APEC member economy. The response sought from each member economy is
    envisaged to be a maximum of 1-2 pages in length.

   Compile all APEC member economy responses into one final document and
    submit the final document for transmittal to all APEC member economies.

H. Demonstrating Applicability of energy efficiency indicators to a particular
    (public?) sector
There was interest at the workshop in using a specific example from a given sector
(eg the public sector) to demonstrate the specific use and value of indicators within
and between APEC member economies. One rationale for selecting the public sector
was that it may be easier to gain access to non-proprietary data, compared with data
for private enterprises or buildings. A second rationale was that, by setting an
example in data collection and benchmarking, public agencies would be in a better
position to encourage similar data collection, indicator development, and
benchmarking by other sectors.

Specific activities could include:
    Encouraging whole-economy indicator systems (such as the IEA’s data and
       indicators system) to separate data on the public sector from the rest of the
       Services sector
    Developing specific energy performance indicators for public sector end-uses,
       in public buildings and other facilities (street lighting, water supply and
       treatment, waste water pumping and treatment, public transit, etc.)
    Exchanging information among APEC economies, based on common public
       sector indicators (including early experience with methods of gathering data
       and benchmarking energy efficiency in public sector facilities and practices)


Final Proceedings APEC EWG 03-2002 Symposium on the Development               25
and Coordination of Energy Efficiency Programs and Standards during
Energy Market Restructuring, Taipei 29 Oct – 1 Nov 2002

				
DOCUMENT INFO