52012SA0021

GLOSSARY

Cohesion policy :

EU policy aiming at strengthening economic, territorial and social cohesion within the EU by reducing the development gap among the various regions. This audit concerned, in particular, the following two funds:

(a) The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), which invests in infrastructure, creates or preserves jobs and sustains the local development activities of small and medium-sized companies;

(b) The Cohesion Fund (CF), which strengthens economic and social cohesion by financing environment and transport projects in Member States with a GNP per capita of less than 90 % of the EU average.

Cost-effective investment : Lowest cost alternative for achieving a given level of performance or the highest level of performance alternative for a given level of cost. It may also be used for the comparison and prioritisation of alternative projects within a programme. (Kreith, F., Goswami, Y. D. Handbook of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, USA, 2007). The best relationship between resources employed and results achieved is a requirement of EU spending (see Article 27(2) of the Financial Regulation).

Cost-optimal methodology for buildings : The cost-optimal methodology aims to create a legal framework for raising the Member States’ minimum energy performance requirements for buildings to ensure that all economically rational measures are adopted.

Energy audit : A standard energy audit consists of a comprehensive energy analysis for the energy systems of a facility. In particular, it includes the development of a baseline for its energy use, an evaluation of potential energy savings, and the cost-effectiveness of appropriately selected energy conservation measures.

Energy efficiency : Energy efficiency refers to using less energy input for an equivalent level of economic activity or service. Investment in energy conservation and energy efficiency provides a better economic and societal return than investment in energy supply. Energy efficiency increases the potential for economic growth, makes companies more competitive, lowers household energy bills and leads to lower energy import dependency and reduced emissions.

Managing Authority : The national, regional or local body designated by the Member State, which proposes the operational programme to the Commission for adoption and is responsible for its subsequent management and implementation.

Measurement units of energy :

Tonne of oil equivalent (toe) is the amount of energy released by burning one tonne of crude oil, approximately 42 GJ.

Giga joule (GJ)

Giga/Mega/kilo watt hour (G/M/kWh)

National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (NEEAP) : In their NEEAPs, the Member States must explain how they intend to reach the 9 % indicative energy savings target by 2016, as required by Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy end-use efficiency and energy services. NEEAPs should describe intended energy efficiency improvement measures and the steps to be taken to comply with the provisions on the exemplary role of the public sector and providing information and advice to final consumers.

Operational Programme (OP) : A document submitted by a Member State and adopted by the Commission setting out a development strategy with a coherent set of priorities (known in the Regulation 1083/2006 as "priority axes") to be implemented with the aid of a Cohesion Policy fund. Priority axes comprise a group of operations which are related and have specific measurable goals. They are further broken down into measures. Measures (used in the report also to mean steps or processes) provide for a project or group of projects, which are selected by the managing authority (according to criteria laid down by the monitoring committee) and implemented by one or more beneficiaries.

Simple payback period : The payback period is one of the evaluation methods for cost-effectiveness. It measures the elapsed time between the time of an initial investment and the point in time at which accumulated savings are sufficient to repay the initial investment.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. The cost of increased energy consumption, the depletion of fossil fuel reserves and the effect of human activities on global climate change are drivers of recent energy efficiency policies. Since 2000, the European Union, through its Cohesion Policy funds, has made available almost 5 billion euro for co-financing energy efficiency measures in the Member States. The European Commission and the national and regional authorities are responsible for the sound financial management of these funds in accordance with the "shared management" system.

II. The European Court of Auditors assessed whether Cohesion Policy investments in energy efficiency were cost-effective. To answer this question, the Court asked whether:

(a) the right conditions in programming and financing had been set to enable cost-effective energy efficiency investments; and whether

(b) energy efficiency projects in public buildings were cost-effective.

III. The audit was carried out in the Czech Republic, Italy and Lithuania — the countries that had received the largest contributions from the Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund for energy efficiency measures for the 2007–13 programming period and had also allocated the highest amounts to projects by 2009. The audit included an examination of four operational programmes and a sample of 24 energy efficiency investment projects in public buildings.

IV. The Court concluded that:

(a) the right conditions in programming and finan-cing had not been set to enable cost-effective energy efficiency investments, since:

- The operational programmes audited had not benefited from proper needs assessments to identify the specific sectors where energy savings could be achieved and the options for achieving those savings in a cost-effective manner, thereby justifying the chosen measures and their cost. The national authorities did not ensure that they were integrated into the National Energy Efficiency Action Plans;

- Cost-effectiveness concept, or the best relationship between resources employed and results achieved, was not a determining factor when Member States allocated funding to energy efficiency measures and concrete projects. Neither was this concept part of the Commission’s assessment prior to approval of the operational programmes;

- Performance indicators for energy efficiency measures were not appropriate for the monitoring of the programmes. The Commission’s monitoring guidelines did not lay down indicators concerning energy efficiency. Therefore, the results of the energy efficiency measures reported by the individual managing authorities are not comparable across the EU and cannot be aggregated.

(b) the audited energy efficiency projects in public buildings were not cost-effective:

- Although all the audited projects produced the planned physical output, such as replaced windows and doors or insulated walls and roofs, the cost in relation to the potential energy savings was high. A more important consideration than energy efficiency was the need to refurbish public buildings. While the projects audited aimed at saving energy and improving comfort, they did not generate a good ratio between energy savings and the corresponding investment cost. The average planned payback period for the investments was around 50 years, which is far too long considering the lifetime of the refurbished components and even of the buildings themselves;

- Energy audits were either not mandatory (Italy, Lithuania) or, where they were required (Czech Republic), the investment options recommended in the energy audits were far too costly. In 18 out of 24 audited projects actual energy savings could not be verified since they had not been reliably measured.

V. The Court recommends that the Commission make the Cohesion Policy funding for energy efficiency measures subject to a proper needs assessment, regular monitoring and the use of comparable performance indicators as well as the use of transparent project selection criteria and standard investment costs per unit of energy to be saved, with a maximum acceptable simple payback period.

INTRODUCTION

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

1. Improved energy efficiency means using less energy input for an equivalent level of economic activity or service. Energy efficiency measures offer still untapped possibilities for reducing energy consumption, curbing the negative effects of human activities and fostering energy security [1]. Improved energy efficiency is important in residential, public and commercial buildings, the manufacturing industry, transport, and power generation and distribution.

2. Typical energy efficiency investments include the additional insulation of buildings, energy-efficient windows, thermoregulation, the upgrading of district heating systems, industrial motors, electrical and steam systems, combined heat and power generation and energy recovery from ventilation air and waste and recycling materials. In transport, a significant impact can be achieved by shifting transport from road to other modes [2] and through improved fuel efficiency.

3. As shown in Table 1, the potential for energy efficiency is far from being fully exploited (progress was assessed by the Commission through a comparison of the original projections made in 2007 and the most recent ones from 2009). Many factors hamper investments in energy efficiency. The most important are high initial costs and uncertain benefits. Investment decisions are influenced by energy prices, regulatory uncertainty, the availability of subsidies, and access to credit. These barriers can be tackled by public measures addressing market and regulatory failures.

EU POLICY OBJECTIVES

4. The promotion of energy efficiency is set by the Article 194(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and the need to preserve and improve the environment. In 2007, the EU set itself a nonbinding target of saving 20 % of its projected primary energy consumption by 2020 [3]. However, according to the Commission’s assessment [4] of current policies (including those still in the design phase), without further action the EU will have achieved overall only 9 % energy savings by 2020 (see Table 1). Most of the additional efforts to achieve the 20 % target will be required by the residential and tertiary (commercial and public buildings) sectors [5]. A new Energy Strategy for the 2011–20 period calls for stronger political commitment through "a clear definition of the objective" to be achieved and "strong compliance monitoring" of the EU legislation as enacted in national law [6].

TABLE 1

PROJECTED DEVELOPMENTS AND ENERGY SAVINGS POTENTIAL IN 2020

Source: Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact Assessment, Accompanying the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy efficiency and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, SEC(2011) 779 final.

| 2020 (baseline 2007) [Mtoe] | 2020 (baseline 2009) [Mtoe] | Expected progress in 2020 without further action (%) | 2020 Economic potential (%) |

| 1 | 2 | 3 [=(2-1)/1*100] | 4 |

Gross inland consumption minus final non-energy use | 1842 | 1678 | -9 % | -20 % (EU target) |

Final energy consumption, of which: | 1348 | 1214 | -10 % | -19 % |

Industry | 368 | 327 | -11 % | -13 % |

Transport | 439 | 395 | -10 % | -21 % |

Residential | 336 | 310 | -8 % | -24 % |

Tertiary | 205 | 181 | -12 % | -17 % |

Energy transformation, transmission and distribution | 494 | 464 | -6 % | -35 % |

COHESION POLICY FINANCIAL SUPPORT

5. The EU has several spending programmes [7] for promoting energy efficiency policy. The most significant funding sources are the Cohesion Policy funds (the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF)). In the 2000–06 programming period, the ERDF and CF supported projects in the field of energy efficiency with 306 million euro [8]. In the 2007–13 programming period, the overall planned allocations to energy efficiency have so far increased from 4192 million euro in 2008 to 5078 million euro in October 2012 (see Annex I for the breakdown by Member States in 2000–13). In the 2014–20 programming period, the Commission has proposed the allocation to be more than 17 billion euro [9].

SHARED MANAGEMENT

6. Within Cohesion Policy, the Commission issues guidelines for drawing up operational programmes. At the beginning of the programming period, it negotiates and approves the individual operational programmes proposed by the Member States. Its task is also to supervise the setting up and operation of management and control systems in the Member States. Later, its main role is to monitor the implementation of the operational programme, but it is not involved in the day-to-day management of individual projects. The Commission receives annual implementation reports from the Member States and participates in monitoring committees [10]. The Commission is ultimately responsible for the budget implementation [11].

7. The managing authorities, intermediate bodies and certifying authorities at the national, regional and local levels manage and monitor the implementation of the operational programmes [12]. The managing authorities or intermediate bodies select the projects and monitor their implementation. Project funding is subject to certain rules and conditions laid down partly at EU [13] and partly at Member State level (the criteria for selecting projects, the assessment of costs, benefits and potential earnings of projects as well as economic, social and environmental impact assessments are usually made at Member State level with the exception of major projects in the 2007–13 period, where the Commission adopts a decision to co-finance the projects).

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

8. The main audit question was whether the Cohesion Policy investments in energy efficiency were cost-effective. To answer this question, the Court examined whether:

- the right conditions had been established in programming and financing to enable cost-effective energy efficiency investments; and whether

- the co-financed public buildings projects were cost-effective.

9. Answering the question on programming and financing involved analysing the relevant operational programmes, their ex ante evaluations and the prioritisation of the energy efficiency policy at national level and within individual economic sectors. It also required an analysis of the achievement of national energy efficiency targets and the impact of the Cohesion Policy funds on this achievement, the availability of national and private co-funding and a review of other national financial support mechanisms.

10. The audit results shown in this Special Report are based on an examination of four operational programmes financed through the Cohesion Fund or the European Regional Development Fund in the Czech Republic, Italy and Lithuania. Three of the audited operational programmes are from the 2007–13 [14] programming period and one is from the 2000–06 programming period [15]. By the end of 2011, these countries had allocated 1199,3 million euro to energy efficiency projects under their respective operational programmes 33 % of the total amount of projects selected at that time under the Cohesion Policy funds allocated to energy efficiency in the 2007–13 programming period, see also Annex I).

11. In order to answer the question on the cost-effectiveness of the public building projects, the audit examined 24 completed investment projects in the public buildings sector. The audit of the projects involved a review of project proposals and an examination of the project outputs and results to verify their cost-effectiveness.

OBSERVATIONS

PLANNING AND FINANCING

OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES WERE NOT BASED ON PROPER NEEDS ASSESSMENTS

12. Operational programmes should be based on needs assessments and, for energy efficiency measures, they should consider the national and regional energy efficiency action plans. Such needs assessments should assess energy consumption by end-use in all sectors, identify the economy’s energy savings potentials and establish objectives and appropriate methods for evaluating the success of the plan as defined and promoted by the International Energy Agency [16]. The energy savings potentials should be explored to the extent they are cost-effective.

13. The Commission also encouraged the Member States to ensure that relevant Cohesion Policy investments were fully integrated into national energy efficiency strategies and, as appropriate, consult the managing authorities on relevant measures, particularly at regional and local level, for inclusion in the National Energy Efficiency Action Plans [17].

14. The audited operational programmes included a number of actions which were based on Community Strategic Guidelines, National Strategic Reference Frameworks and national strategic plans and priorities. The energy efficiency priority axes were in line with both the Community Strategic Guidelines and the National Strategic Reference Frameworks, but their broad guidelines did not help turn the operational programmes into solid economic development instruments as described below.

15. The national authorities had not established a link between the operational programmes and National Energy Efficiency Action Plans. None of the audited operational programmes was preceded by, or included, a proper needs assessment encompassing a detailed description and analysis of the overall energy savings potential of the economy, by sector and by region, identifying the economy’s energy savings potential and establishing objectives and adequate methods for monitoring the achievement of the objectives of the programme. Hence, it was not clear why the various sectors should be funded and to what extent the energy savings potential could be achieved via existing market instruments and public subsidies, including the ERDF and CF. As a consequence, the operational programmes did not identify the specific sectors where energy savings could be achieved and the options for achieving those savings, thereby justifying the chosen measures and their cost.

16. For illustration, Table 2 provides an overview of the contribution of the operational programmes to the energy savings objectives of the three Member States audited. The Environment OP’s energy savings target (Czech Republic) is 21,7 % of the energy savings target set by the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan by 2016. In the other two countries, the operational programmes were expected to play only a minor role. For the Basilicata OP, no energy savings target was set.

17. When approving operational programmes, the Commission did not require the Member States to support their allocation of funds to energy efficiency measures with the results of needs assessments.

TABLE 2

PLANNED CONTRIBUTION OF COHESION POLICY FUNDS TO THE ENERGY SAVINGS OBJECTIVES OF SELECTED MEMBER STATES

Source: Operational programmes, NEEAPs (2007), calculations by ECA.

Member States | Operational Programme (allocations to energy efficiency) | Energy savings target of the Member States by 2016 (in GJ) as stated in NEEAP (2007) | Energy savings target for the operational programme (in GJ) | % |

Czech Republic | Environment | 7143120 | 1550000 (in 2007, originally 430000) | 21,7 (6) |

Italy | Basilicata | 45477720 | Not set | N/A |

Energy IOP | 52500 | 0,1 |

Lithuania | Promotion of Cohesion (renovation of public buildings) | 13669200 | 360000 | 2,6 |

COST-EFFECTIVENESS WAS NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR WHEN ALLOCATING FUNDING TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES

18. An analysis of cost-effectiveness compares costs (of investments or other types of spending) with the effects to be achieved. Cost-effectiveness considerations should be a major determinant of public spending decisions [18]. The cost-effectiveness concept should be used especially when prioritising energy efficiency projects. The Commission has emphasised that the objective of saving 20 % of the EU’s projected energy consumption by 2020 can be achieved by introducing cost-effective measures, which means that the investments made will be paid back from the reduced energy bills within the lifetime of the energy savings measures, or often even much sooner [19].

19. Member States are required to ensure that energy efficiency improvement measures are taken by the public sector, focusing on cost-effective measures which generate the largest energy savings in the shortest span of time [20]. Given the low level of the projected achievement of the 20 % target (see paragraph 4), the allocation of funding and selection of projects should aim at maximising cost-effectiveness (see the Box for actual practice reported in Belgium and Denmark).

BOX

EXAMPLES OF THE USE OF THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS CONCEPT IN TWO MEMBER STATES

In Belgium, under the Flemish region’s "Energy management in Flemish government buildings" Action Plan, all regional investments with a payback period of seven years or less must be implemented within three years. The first phase must be assessed within five years to decide whether, and if so how, a second phase of investments with a payback period of 10 years or less can be implemented. In Denmark, government institutions are required to implement energy savings measures with payback times of up to five years [21].

20. In none of the operational programmes audited was cost-effectiveness a determining factor for the allocation of funds to investments in energy efficiency. The managing authorities explained that the allocation of Cohesion Policy funds to energy efficiency projects was decided on the basis of the governments’ estimates of energy consumption and its planned reduction made by the government and also, to a certain extent, on the pattern of the absorption of appropriations in the regions in the previous programming period. However, it did not include investment cost projections of such reductions. The audited operational programmes did not provide any analysis which would have clarified how the funds had been allocated to each priority or measure.

21. When assessing the operational programmes, the Commission did not require the Member States to justify their allocation of funds to energy efficiency measures on the basis of their cost-effectiveness, nor did it take this requirement into consideration in its inter-service consultations and Commission’s comments on draft operational programmes submitted by the managing authorities for approval.

22. The original version of the Environment OP (Czech Republic) was expected to result in an investment cost of 722 euro for each GJ saved, resulting in a simple payback time of 61 years (with the second reallocation, the cost decreased to 339 euro/GJ and the payback to 28 years) [22]. In Italy, the performance indicators and their values were not reliable. In the Basilicata OP 2000–06, the energy savings indicator related only to residential buildings. In the Energy IOP, the energy savings target was low, resulting in a very long payback period (from 288 to 444 years depending on the energy price). In Promotion of Cohesion OP (Lithuania), the cost of 1GJ saved was estimated at 861 euro, with a payback period of 72 to 96 years depending on the energy price (see Table 3). The payback periods are far too long considering the lifetime of the refurbished building components and also those of the buildings.

WEAKNESSES IN PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA

23. The selection criteria used by managing authorities should be transparent and should ensure that support is given to cost-effective energy efficiency projects. They should set a standard or accepted value for each selected parameter, such as the (maximum) simple payback period for an investment, or the cost per unit of energy saved, which would help direct funds towards cost-effective investments.

24. The managing authorities did not seek to ensure that the projects selected provided the best ratio between energy consumption reduction and the investment made. The selection criteria used showed a number of weaknesses as explained in the following paragraphs.

25. In the Environment OP (Czech Republic), the selection criteria were objective and transparent and helped the potential beneficiaries predict whether they would be successful. Each project proposal was checked against two ecological criteria (cost of 1GJ saved and annual cost of CO2 emissions reduction) and three technical criteria (percentage of energy saved against the original situation, cost of the renovation and energy standard achieved after project completion). In addition, projected five-year energy savings were deducted from the total eligible project cost. However, even though the project selection criteria were objective and included the cost per 1 GJ saved, the acceptable value was between 200 and 560 euro per GJ, indicating a payback period of 17 to 47 years, much longer than for the State Programmes (see footnote 22).

TABLE 3

COST OF 1 GJ SAVED IN FOUR AUDITED OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES

Source: Operational programmes, calculations by ECA.

Member States | Operational Programme (allocations to energy efficiency) | Energy savings target of the operational programme (in GJ) | Budget (in million euro) | Cost of 1 GJ saved (in euro) | Payback (in years) |

Czech Republic | Environment | 1550000 (430000) [9999] | 525 (310) [9999] | 339 (722) [9999] | 28 (61) [9999] |

Italy | Basilicata | Not set | 26 (17) [9999] | N/A | N/A |

Energy IOP | 52500 | 764 | 14560 | 288–444 |

Lithuania | Promotion of Cohesion | 360000 | 310 | 861 | 72–96 |

26. In the Basilicata OP (Italy), the managing authority adopted, as the sole evaluation criterion, the ratio between the estimated quantity of energy saved during the lifetime of the investment and the total eligible cost. The quantity of energy saved was calculated by the managing authority. Using this ratio, the managing authority intended to select projects which would potentially generate the highest return on total project cost. Since the calculations did not take into account the actual state of the buildings concerned (i.e. their energy class or actual energy consumption) and were therefore based on energy savings estimates instead of reliable data from energy audits, it is difficult to conclude whether the selected projects offered cost-effective solutions.

27. In the Energy IOP (Italy), the managing authority required that, in order to be selected, a project should be of an exemplary nature, consistent with the IOP and the objectives of the regional energy plans, "ready" (for the work to start) and innovative in terms of technology and materials, while the amount of energy saved and the cost incurred, and ratio, between these, was not a determining factor for selection.

28. In the Promotion of Cohesion OP (Lithuania), different project selection criteria were used at regional and national level for similar projects in the public building sector. In two measures out of three, although energy consumption was the main selection criterion, an energy audit was not required. Therefore projects related to public buildings with the highest energy consumption were selected for financing. Such criteria which do not include the cost of energy saved cannot, however, establish which building can bring the best ratio between energy savings and costs and will therefore only by chance result in cost-effective projects.

INADEQUATE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND MONITORING

29. The management of any spending programme or development project should set rational objectives and establish objectively verifiable indicators for their achievement. In the context of Cohesion Policy investments in energy efficiency, the managing authorities should establish a system of relevant and measurable performance indicators [23]. With the Commission’s help they should issue relevant guidelines in order to facilitate the monitoring of the achievements of projects, such as the quantity and cost of energy saved and their contribution to the achievement of energy efficiency policy objectives. Data collected should be of acceptable quality in terms of relevance, comparability and reliability [24].

30. The managing authorities lacked baseline data on energy savings potential in the sectors selected for investment when they were drawing up their operational programmes. Without these data, the policymakers did not have the information to estimate to what extent a programme could contribute towards the achievement of a policy objective and therefore could not decide whether a programme should be financed or not.

31. Performance indicators for energy efficiency measures were not adequate for the proper monitoring of the programmes. While the use of performance indicators was mandatory for the managing authorities, the type of indicator was not prescribed. As a result, the audited managing authorities used different measurement methodologies and units. Therefore, the results of the energy efficiency measures are not comparable across the EU and cannot be aggregated.

32. In the Environment OP (Czech Republic), the indicator for the energy efficiency measure was the total amount of energy saved by the measure in GJ. Data were reported at project level and then aggregated. These data were accurate and reliable since they were calculated by certified energy auditors. However, only technical output objectives (windows and doors replaced, walls and roofs insulated in m2) were binding for the projects, while energy savings targets were not.

33. In Italy, neither the baseline value on energy savings potential nor the measurement methodology had been established. In the Basilicata OP, the physical output indicator for energy savings was the number of projects, and the result indicator (energy savings in GJ/year) was based on theoretical estimates. In the Energy IOP, the absence of baseline data on energy savings potential was reflected in unreliable impact indicators. The result and physical output indicators lacked a measurement methodology, therefore their target values were not justified.

34. In the Promotion of Cohesion OP (Lithuania), the indicators were set for the operational programme, its priority axes and its measures. An increase or decrease in available funding for energy efficiency did not always result in change in the value of the indicators as normally is expected. At priority axis level, the indicators related to the decrease in energy intensity and, at measure level, the indicators regarded the number of projects and the amount of energy saved, but not the cost of energy saved.

35. The Commission’s monitoring guidelines did not give recommended or binding indicators concerning energy efficiency [25]. Furthermore, Cohesion Policy funds promote improved energy efficiency under many other headings in addition to energy efficiency (electricity, gas, petroleum products and various infrastructures). The Commission has not monitored the contribution of these measures to the achievement of the 2020 energy savings objective, nor has it envisaged the use of such performance indicators in the energy efficiency sector [26].

IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS PROJECTS

ENERGY EFFICIENCY NOT THE MAIN OBJECTIVE

36. The municipalities and regions should have plans based on needs assessments, which should include inventories of all their buildings and their energy costs and prioritise those with the highest energy savings potential. This strategy would give priority to funding energy efficiency measures in buildings with the highest energy savings potential.

37. The municipalities or regions did not have plans based on proper needs assessments. According to the managing authorities, buildings were typically regarded as being "ready" for funding if they were in need of refurbishment and their documentation complied with the requirements.

38. The projects selected for financing did not have rational objectives in terms of cost-effectiveness, i.e. cost per unit of energy saved. Their objectives were to save energy and improve comfort, but they were not selected for financing on the basis of their potential to produce financial benefits through energy savings, thus compensating for the cost incurred (see the Annex II for the payback periods for the audited projects).

39. None of the audited countries had approved cost-optimal minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building components, nor did they systematically collect data of the energy consumption profiles of existing buildings. Although national construction standards set limits for the thermal values of buildings and construction materials, beneficiaries used flexible approaches, technologies and materials to achieve various energy performance classes.

40. The managing authorities did not provide guidance for the implementation of energy efficiency measures, such as specifications for works, technologies to be employed and costs or optimal cost-benefit ratios to be achieved.

ENERGY AUDITS NOT ALWAYS OBLIGATORY OR NOT OF GOOD QUALITY

41. A standard energy audit includes the development of a baseline for a facility’s energy use, an evaluation of energy savings, and the cost-effectiveness of appropriately selected energy conservation measures and should be performed before the funding decision. The energy auditor should propose only options which lead to compliance with existing technical norms. The Commission is in favour of energy audits as they can be an appropriate tool for delivering energy savings, particularly in buildings and industry. For this reason, a number of Member States have introduced energy audits in the public sector and made them obligatory [27].

42. In the Czech Republic, energy audits were obligatory for public buildings with an energy consumption of more than 1500 GJ/year. The beneficiaries were fully reliant on the recommendations of these audits. The energy auditor usually recommended a very costly investment option, because it promised higher energy savings than the cheaper options. No cost-effective option was proposed.

43. In Italy, projects were not preceded by an energy audit. The project beneficiary was not required to monitor energy consumption before the project and after its completion.

44. In Lithuania, the energy audits were not sufficiently detailed with regard to measurement data for buildings before renovation. Therefore, it was not possible to verify the actual benefits of projects [28]. Similar problems were noticed in the monitoring report on the implementation of the residential building modernisation programme [29]. Moreover, no baseline assessment of energy performance before project implementation was required. Energy audits had only been performed for two out of eight audited projects before the projects started and the remaining six were energy audited after the start of the refurbishment works.

PROJECTS PRODUCED PHYSICAL OUTPUTS, BUT AT A HIGH COST IN RELATION TO THE ENERGY POTENTIALLY SAVED

45. All audited projects produced their physical outputs (e.g. windows and doors replaced, walls and roof insulated) to an appropriate standard and in the planned quantity. All the audited projects produced benefits such as building maintenance and increased comfort (e.g. reduction of noise, water/wind infiltrations) or better observance of current legal requirements in terms of safety (e.g. exit doors).

46. For 18 out of 24 audited projects the managing authorities could not state how far the projects had achieved their objectives in terms of energy savings, because the energy savings had not been reliably measured. In the operational programmes audited in Italy and Lithuania, the resulting energy saving was only estimated by the managing authority or beneficiary. Only in the Czech Republic were the measurements carried out by qualified energy auditors. The definitive results of the projects in the Czech Republic and Lithuania should be evaluated three years after project completion. However, at the time of the audit, the monitoring system was not yet operational.

47. According to the energy auditors’ preliminary reports, all but one of the audited projects in the Czech Republic achieved their objectives of energy consumption reduction [30] with the actual energy savings even exceeding those planned. However, all audited projects were costly investments with payback periods exceeding the lifetime of the individual components or buildings. The payback period for the audited projects varied from 27 to 148 years, with an average of 52 years.

48. In Basilicata (Italy), it was not possible to assess the benefits of the audited projects in a reliable way. No energy audits had been carried out and no energy consumption data were collected before and after the projects. Saving 1 GJ was planned to cost 252 euro on average in the six audited projects. For five out of six projects, the beneficiaries provided the auditors with some energy consumption data which indicated that the projects might result in an average payback period of approximately 50 years.

49. Under the Energy IOP (Italy), only one project had been finalised by the end of 2011 [31]. In the project application, the benefits were estimated at 1 million euro/year, which would have resulted in a simple payback period of 10 years. It is estimated that, after completion, the project will only generate energy savings of around 500000 euro/year (the beneficiary had made a calculation error in the project application), which gives a simple payback period of 19 years.

50. In Lithuania (Promotion of Cohesion OP), actual investment costs in the audited projects were between 56 and 488 euro per m2 of heated area, i.e. several times higher than the 31,85 euro per m2 forecast in the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan for 2006–10. Five of the eight audited projects claimed to have achieved their planned energy savings, but these were not reliably measured [32]. In three cases the results had not been measured yet [33]. For the audited projects, the planned simple payback period varied from 8 to 156 years, with an average of 58 years (see Annex II for the results of all audited projects).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

51. The right conditions in programming and financing had not been set to enable cost-effective energy efficiency investments using the Cohesion Policy funds, because:

(a) The operational programmes audited had not benefited from proper needs assessments to identify the specific sectors where energy savings could be achieved and the options for achieving those savings in a cost-effective manner, thereby justifying the chosen measures and their cost. The national authorities did not ensure that they were integrated into the National Energy Efficiency Action Plans (see paragraphs 12 to 17).

(b) cost-effectiveness concept, or the best relationship between resources employed and results achieved, was not a determining factor when Member States allocated funding to energy efficiency measures and concrete projects. Neither was this concept part of the Commission’s assessment prior to approval of the operational programmes (see paragraphs 18 to 22, 23 to 28);

(c) performance indicators for energy efficiency measures were not appropriate for the monitoring of the programmes. The Commission’s monitoring guidelines did not lay down indicators concerning energy efficiency. Therefore, the results of the energy efficiency measures reported by the individual managing authorities are not comparable across the EU and cannot be aggregated (see paragraphs 29 to 35).

52. The audited energy efficiency projects in public buildings were not cost-effective.

(a) although all the audited projects produced the planned physical output, such as replaced windows and doors or insulated walls and roofs, the cost in relation to the potential energy savings was high. A more important consideration than energy efficiency was the need for refurbishment of public buildings. While the projects audited aimed at saving energy and improving comfort, they did not generate a good ratio between energy savings and the corresponding investment cost. The average planned payback period for the investments was around 50 years, which is far too long considering the lifetime of the refurbished components and even of the buildings themselves (see paragraphs 18 to 22, 23 to 28, 36 to 40, 45 to 50);

(b) energy audits were either not mandatory (Italy, Lithuania) or, where they were required (Czech Republic), the investment options recommended in the energy audits were far too costly. In 18 out of 24 audited projects actual energy savings could not be verified since they had not been reliably measured (see paragraphs 41 to 44).

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Commission should take the necessary initiatives, including making further proposals on the regulations in order to make the Cohesion Policy funding for energy efficiency measures in the next programming period subject to:

(1) The establishment of a proper needs assessment at a programme level. Such needs assessment should assess energy consumption by end-use in all sectors, identify the economy’s energy savings potential and establish objectives and adequate methods for evaluating the success of the energy plan. It should identify cost-effective solutions in each sector.

(2) Regular monitoring and the use of comparable performance indicators. Each operational programme dealing with energy efficiency projects should be regularly monitored in terms of the development of the cost per unit of energy saved and the payback period planned and achieved by the operational programme. Also, data collected should be of acceptable quality in terms of relevance, comparability and reliability. Data on energy savings generated by the Cohesion Policy funds supported measures should be collected by the national authorities and aggregated by the Commission. The contribution of the Cohesion Policy funds to the target of saving 20 % of EU primary energy consumption by 2020 should be identified.

(3) The use of transparent project selection criteria and standard investment costs per unit of energy to be saved (using a unified measurement unit and methodology). The Commission should set a maximum acceptable simple payback period on the basis of the usual depreciation periods for the energy efficiency investments. This could be supported by the introduction of cost-optimal levels of reference buildings in the Member States complying with Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings. Energy audits should be used as the primary selection requirement for energy efficiency projects where the reference cost-optimal levels for buildings have not been yet laid down at the national level.

This Report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Harald NOACK, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 14 November 2012.

For the Court of Auditors

+++++ TIFF +++++

Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira

President

[1] COM(2006) 545 final of 19 October 2006 — Action Plan on Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Presidency Conclusions of the European Council of 8/ 9 March 2007, doc. 7224/1/07 REV 1. This objective translates into a saving of 368 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) of primary energy (gross inland consumption minus non-energy uses) by 2020 compared to projected consumption in that year of 1842 Mtoe, implying a consumption level of 1474 Mtoe. This objective was reconfirmed by the June 2010 European Council ( 17/6/2010 No: EUCO 13/10) and is taken up by the new Energy Efficiency Directive.

[4] SEC(2011) 277 final of 8 March 2011.

[5] Residential, commercial and public buildings are responsible for nearly 40 % of energy consumption and they have the largest energy savings potential. Publicly owned or occupied buildings represent about 12 % by area of the EU building stock and the Energy Efficiency Plan stresses the importance of energy efficiency measures in the public sector (Source: COM(2006) 545 final). It should be noted that in this sector, as opposed for example to the transport sector, the technological solutions needed for a low-carbon society are already available.

[6] COM(2010) 639 final of 10 November 2010 — Energy 2020 — A strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure energy.

[7] The 7th Framework Programme for Research (FP7), Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) and Energy Efficiency Financing Facility (EEFF).

[8] European Commission (2009) Ex post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2000–06 Co-financed by the ERDF (Objectives 1 and 2) — Work Package 5B: Environment and Climate Change, p. 43.

[9] According to the Commission’s proposal, in more developed and transition regions, at least 80 % of ERDF resources must be focused on energy efficiency and renewables, research and innovation, and SME competitiveness, of which at least 20 % must be spent on energy efficiency and renewables; in less developed regions at least 50 % of ERDF resources must be focused on these three areas, of which at least 6 % must be spent on energy efficiency and renewables. (Source: COM(2011) 614 final of 6 October 2011, p. 4).

[10] Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2010, p. 25).

[11] Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 13) and Article 317 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 47).

[12] EU legislative summary on management and control systems for assistance granted under the Cohesion Policy funds can be found on: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/regional_policy/management/g24241_en.htm

[13] Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.

[14] OP Environment (Czech Republic), Interregional OP Energy (Italy) and OP for Promotion of Cohesion (Lithuania).

[15] OP Basilicata (Italy).

[16] OECD/IEA (2008) Energy Efficiency Policy Recommendations, Paris.

[17] SEC(2009) 889 final of 23 June 2009 — Synthesis of the complete assessment of all 27 National Energy Efficiency Action Plans as required by Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services, p. 47.

[18] Article 27(1) and Article 27(2) of the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1).

[19] SEC(2011) 277 final.

[20] Article 5 of Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on energy end-use efficiency and energy services and repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC (OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p. 64).

[21] Flemish Energy Efficiency Action Plan (2007) and Action Plan for Renewed Energy Conservation (2005), Denmark (www.ec.europa.eu/energy).

[22] For comparison, the annual Czech State Programme for Support of Energy Savings and Use of RES, now Programme EFEKT has operated since 1991. The simple payback period for the investments varied between five years (industry), seven years (tertiary sector) and 21 years (households) with the average cost of 1 GJ saved of 74 euro in the 2005–07period.

[9999] After the reallocation of funds.

[23] Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 provides that specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed objectives shall be set for all sectors of activity covered by the EU budget. Achievement of those objectives must be monitored by performance indicators.

[24] Court of Auditors Opinion No 7/2011 (OJ 47, 17.2.2012, p. 1).

[25] Commission working document No 2 The New Programming Period 2007-13, Indicative Guidelines on Evaluation Methods: Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators, August 2006.

[26] Commission working document on Outcome indicators and targets, Towards a new system of monitoring and evaluation in EU Cohesion Policy, June 2011, not published.

[27] SEC(2009) 889 final, p. 36 and 59.

[28] This is not required under the methodology for energy audits and audits of energy resources and cold water use in public buildings approved by the Minister of Economy order No 4-184 of 29 April 2008.

[29] Monitoring of the Programme for Refurbishment of Multi-apartment Residential Buildings. Public Institution "Kompetencijų centras", ordered by HUDA, 2009.

[30] Project Kladno.

[31] Project Cardarelli Hospital, Naples.

[32] Projects Palanga, Gargzdai, Garliava, Alytus, and Vilnius University Clinics.

[33] Projects Klaipeda, Kaunas oncology and Vilnius Mykolas Marcinkevicius.

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX I

COHESION POLICY FUNDS ALLOCATION TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY 2000–13 AND SELECTED PROJECTS 2007–11

Note: Rate of selection above 100 % means funds were reallocated from other priorities or measures within the same or from another operational programme.

Source: DG Regional Policy database SF 2000–06, SFC2007, 2011 Annual Implementation Report for selected projects.

Member State | Allocated amount 2000–06 (euro) | Allocated amount 2007–13 (euro) | Total funds allocation in the Member State 2000–13 (euro) | Total funds allocation in the Member State/total funds allocation (%) | Selected projects 2007–11 (euro) | Selected projects 2007-11 (%) |

Czech Republic [1] | 9225386 | 942214473 | 951439859 | 17,7 | 342658632 | 36,4 |

Italy | 35298133 | 838592232 | 873890365 | 16,2 | 417305116 | 49,8 |

Poland [1] | 11410880 | 499012133 | 510423013 | 9,5 | 389379855 | 78,0 |

Lithuania [1] | 31815678 | 370508149 | 402323827 | 7,5 | 439300937 | 118,6 |

Germany | 11969823 | 373182646 | 385152469 | 7,1 | 307047003 | 82,3 |

Hungary [1] | 7181475 | 328531227 | 335712702 | 6,2 | 163856263 | 49,9 |

France | 25596690 | 291167688 | 316764378 | 5,9 | 177008914 | 60,8 |

Bulgaria [2] | 0 | 258104621 | 258104621 | 4,8 | 74144427 | 28,7 |

Romania [2] | 0 | 253241727 | 253241727 | 4,7 | 60131969 | 23,7 |

United Kingdom | 23362973 | 150657204 | 173420177 | 3,2 | 167360699 | 111,1 |

Spain | 39941325 | 110048101 | 146803260 | 2,7 | 33326165 | 30,3 |

EU cross-border cooperation | 4029659 | 119642025 | 123671684 | 2,3 | 164027992 | 137,1 |

Greece | 42623511 | 71170000 | 113793511 | 2,1 | 492363482 | 691,8 |

Slovenia [1] | 0 | 105700000 | 105700000 | 2,0 | 73707906 | 69,7 |

Latvia [1] | 21048774 | 60220000 | 81268774 | 1,5 | 106078878 | 176,2 |

Slovakia [1] | 1334466 | 78584184 | 79918650 | 1,5 | 64760737 | 82,4 |

Portugal | 0 | 74200883 | 74200883 | 1,4 | 49599067 | 66,8 |

Ireland | 22864270 | 19000000 | 41864270 | 0,8 | 22346186 | 117,6 |

Netherlands | 793076 | 34250000 | 35043076 | 0,7 | 19917049 | 58,2 |

Estonia [1] | 2568584 | 28760241 | 31328825 | 0,6 | 27844967 | 96,8 |

Finland | 190740 | 24243917 | 24434657 | 0,5 | 6926847 | 28,6 |

Belgium | 5271426 | 18976147 | 24247573 | 0,5 | 9375338 | 51,0 |

Malta [1] | 0 | 12550000 | 12550000 | 0,2 | 3096758 | 24,7 |

Sweden | 0 | 9173788 | 9173788 | 0,2 | 1057737 | 11,5 |

Austria | 2864306 | 6156013 | 9020319 | 0,1 | 17383781 | 282,4 |

EU interregional cooperation | 6891928 | 0 | 6891928 | 0,1 | 0 | 0 |

Luxembourg | 0 | 504873 | 504873 | 0,01 | 1744838 | 345,6 |

Cyprus [1] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

Denmark | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

Total | 306283104 | 5078392272 | 5384675376 | 100 % | 3632051543 | 71,5 |

[1] Allocations from 2004.

[2] Allocations from 2007.

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX II

PAYBACK PERIOD AND ENERGY SAVINGS ACHIEVED BY PROJECTS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC, ITALY AND LITHUANIA

Source: Energy audits and projects’ actual outputs, calculation by auditors based on data from EAs, evaluation period between 25 and 50 years.

Project | Purpose | Status on energy savings after one year | Payback period planned (in years) | Payback period actual/ estimated (in years) |

Uherské Hradiště | Wall, roof insulation, window replacement in a cultural house and a school | Achieved | 42 | 35 |

Karviná | Wall, roof insulation, window replacement in a high school | Achieved | 93 | 78 |

Frýdek-Místek | Wall, roof insulation, window replacement in a high school | Achieved | 40 | 30 |

Sokolov | Wall, roof insulation, window replacement in two primary schools, one kindergarten and a leisure centre | Achieved | 86 | 81 |

Sokolov II | Wall, roof insulation, window replacements in three primary schools | Achieved | 30 | 26 |

Volyně | Complex project of wall, roof insulation, window replacement, replacement of coal powerplant in a joint high and upper vocational school, and dormitories | Achieved | 148 (46) [1] | 146 (26) [1] |

Kladno | Wall, roof insulation, window replacement in eight kindergartens | Not achieved | 27 | 32 |

Plzeň | Wall, roof insulation, window replacement in one primary school and one high school | Achieved | 55 | 48 |

Melfi | Window replacement in a secondary school | NA | 20 | NA |

Matera | Window replacement in the headquarters of the Province of Matera | Not reliably measured | 42 | 104 |

Grassano | Window replacement in the primary school | Not reliably measured | 28 | 56 |

Sant’Arcangelo | Window replacement in the main Sant’Arcangelo Commune building | Not reliably measured | 37 | 17 |

ENEA-Rotondella | Window replacement in the canteen building of the ENEA centre of Trisaia | Not reliably measured | 21 | 10 |

Policoro | Window replacement in the primary school of Policoro | Not reliably measured | 33 | 53 |

Napoli | Supply-side measures aiming at increasing the efficiency in production and distribution, such as the modernisation of the thermal power plant and replacement of technical devices, pipes and supply systems for hot and cold water and air used mainly in the main hospital building | Not reliably measured | 10 | 19 |

Palanga | Palanga Vladas Jurgutis Secondary school renovation | Not reliably measured | 40 | 21 |

Gargždai | Viliaus Gaigalaitis elderly people care home renovation | Not reliably measured | 49 | 36 |

Klaipėda | Klaipėda Tourism School renovation | NA | 156 | NA |

Garliava | Increase in the efficiency of energy consumption in Kaunas County Hospital in Garliava | Not reliably measured | 57 | 31 |

Kaunas | Renovation of the Kaunas Medical University’ the Oncology Centre | NA | 8 | NA |

Vilnius | Partial renovation of Mykolas Marcinkevičius Hospital and engineering systems, improving their energy characteristics | Not reliably measured | 63 | 21 |

Alytus | Increase in EE of Alytus Vocational Training Centre | Not reliably measured | 26 | 23 |

Vilnius | Roof insulation and renovation of heating and ventilation systems of Vilnius University Hospital Santariškių Clinic Operative Unit | NA | 66 | NA |

Average | | | 51 | |

[1] The energy auditor used price of brown coal (85,45 CZK/GJ) burnt originally in the reconstructed boiler station; for comparison, the auditor used average energy price of 279 CZK/GJ paid by the school for all energy inputs.

--------------------------------------------------