Energy news: the refusal of the twenty-five, at the Energy Council on 29 November, to impose mandatory targets for energy savings you interfere with it
François Moisan: Expected. What is important is that the objectives of energy efficiency and energy services directive project are taken seriously. Make it binding can contribute, but this is not the key point of the text. The essence is quantified objectives and post these savings in the same way in different States. The debate revolves around methods of calculation.
E.n.: What are these methods
F.M.: Consider the case of a lamp low consumption, consuming eight times less than a conventional lamp. The problem is to convert the "eight times less" kWh saved, because everything depends on the life of the lamp. To estimate the economy, must be a common convention to all the Member States, in order to avoid that some consider that it is lit 24 hours a day and others that it is only four hours per day. Since then, the overall objective of 1 per year (2) energy savings would be more or less quickly reached by States. Current discussions focus on two methods - the top down and bottom up. Talking of top down if we consider for example that energy intensity (3) should decrease by 1 per year for ten years. The EC3E - it is indeed also the position of the Commission - is not very favourable to the only consideration of energy intensity. It could indeed have a mismatch between the new members of the Union (whose high energy intensity will spontaneously decrease even if they are not specific policy - there is in all developed economies a decrease in the intensity of 0.8 to 1 per year) and the countries which are already very good in this area and more difficult to reduce. The decrease of energy intensity being almost natural, the target of 1 of energy savings would be very ambitious. It seem preferable to focus on the bottom up method, which measure the number of kWh saved through such tax credit, such regulation. It should however so do not count twice same energy savings that would have resulted from several incentives.
E.n.: Must directive take into account the energy taxation
F.M.: It is a question that there is much debate. The difference of a measure targeted - as a label on an electric device-, taxation is transverse. If are accrued energy taxation, it must review the increase in the target of 1. Because, if we take into account the taxes on CO2 or energy, some countries will in fact their energy savings multiplied by two. Therefore, we are not going to fight on the 1 target without knowing how it is determined.
E.n.: Can the directive promoting substitution of energy
F.M.: Yes, it can encourage substitution, as she counts the economies on primary or final energy. Comparing a heater and a boiler gas, in terms of final energy, the first has perform better than the second - because all electricity is recovered as heat while the boiler is only 60 yield. If, on the other hand, the reference is the primary energy, the performance of the systems of electricity generation is that of the order of 33, the gain will be more important for the gas. Therefore, depending on whether the directive refer to the primary energy or final, the consumer make savings in one case, and not the other...
President of the EC3E (European Council for an economy including energy efficiency)
1. On 29 November, of the energy of twenty-five Ministers discussed the proposal for a directive "on the energy end-use efficiency and energy services" presented by the Commission in December 2003. The text proposes a global objective of energy savings of 1 per year (1.5 for the public sector). See energy news no. 71, pages 6-9.
2. See note 1.
3. Energy intensity is the ratio between energy consumption and GDP.