La reciente aprobación de la Ley 24/2013, del Sector Eléctrico pone de manifiesto cómo el borrador de Real Decreto sobre auto-consumo no ha pasado de ser un globo sonda contra el auto-consumo.
Si comparamos las fechas de ambos documentos, vemos que la propuesta del Real Decreto firmada por Alberto Nadal es del 18 de julio y, sin embargo, la de la Ley aprobada es 26 de diciembre del mismo año.
¿Cómo es posible que un RD de desarrollo se anticipe a la Ley que lo debe enmarcar? ¿El equipo que redactaba el RD no tenía que ver con el que concebía la Ley? ¿Los redactores forman parte de distintos gobiernos?
La CNE ya alertaba en septiembre sobre lo extraño del procedimiento. Su preceptivo informe es bien claro al respecto.
Se trata de un escenario no creíble. Más bien forma parte de un juego para medir las reacciones ante medidas restrictivas para el auto-consumo. Medidas restrictivas que priorizan la necesidad recaudatoria sobre los beneficios de todo orden que se derivan del auto-consumo.
Weather balloon just after release in Elko, Nevada by Famartin. Used under CC BY-SA 4.0. No changes were made.
As everybody knows, the China ESCO market has huge potential. China is the world’s biggest energy consumer and its energy efficiency technology in residential, commercial, and industrial installations is highly inefficient.
A 2013 Master´s Thesis by Ding Ma, Aalto University School of Economics, offers a detailed vision of the Chinese energy services companies. When it describes the barriers and drivers of China’s ESCO market the immediate conclusion is that ESCO model barriers are universal.
China ESCO market issues
Ding Ma identifies as problems: the lack of financial solutions, expertise, clear technical standards, and trust. The Chinese legal framework doesn´t help.
Seen from the Spanish point of view, here we have to remember what the European ESCOs Market Report 2013 formulates as legal and political barriers inside the EU:
“Erratic and incalculable legislation can block ESCO markets”
“The lack of official and/or generally accepted ESCO definition and/or certification scheme and/or standards hinders the ESCO market”
On the other hand, the same authors P.Bertoldi, B. Boza-Kiss, S. Panev, and N. Labanca with T. Serrenho and C. Cahill in the ESCO Market Report For Non European Countries 2013 have a positive vision of the Chinese Government attitude front the energy efficiency issues. With respect to the China ESCO market obstacles, they literally say:
“Two major barriers to ESCO market development in China are represented by the low energy prices and by a low level of market integrity (Pengcheng et al., 2011). Low energy prices, partly due to energy subsidies applied by the government to foster the economic development of the country, discourage companies and energy end-users in general, to invest in energy efficiency, whereas the low level of market integrity can be partly associated with a situation of scarce awareness among the energy end-users about the ESCO concept. This situation is determined both by a lack in the provision of information to energy end-users and by a lack of skills and technical competencies often registered within companies acting as ESCOs.
The latter aspect has probably to be considered as the most important obstacle to the provision of proper information, as competency and expertise on the supply side are the first pre-requisite to make people aware of the ESCO business and related opportunities. Barriers related to lack of information and technical competence combine then with the absence of standardized procedures for energy audits and measurement and verification (M&V) of energy savings in China. All together, these obstacles create a situation of mistrust in ESCO business among potential clients. This situation is then worsened by a lack of laws and regulations guaranteeing the application of the clauses included in EPCs in case expected energy performances are not achieved by projects implemented by ESCOs”.
We found the key points of the ESCO business model in a research report that the British «Department of Energy and Climate Change», DECC, commissioned to Carbon Trust and SPA Future Thinking.
«Exploring the design of policies to increase the efficiency of electricity use within the industrial and commercial sectors”, dated in November 2012, had to build an evidence base on a system of incentives to stimulate efficiency solutions in the ESCO business environment.
That happens because the Department of Energy and Climate Change pushes the project Electricity Demand Reduction, EDR. This project aims to ensure the effectiveness of efficiency measures and that potential energy and cost savings are actually realized.
Two key points in the ESCO Business Model
Modelo ESCO publicado en ESCOs, Myth and Reality: Negotiation misunderstandings when outsourcing energy efficiency
The researchers interviewed end-users and ESCOs. Opinions revealed that there´s no unanimity about the best payback period, but, on the other hand, there´s consensus about two key points in this business model:
Trust in ESCO model. Literally:
End users: ‘No upfront cost’ offer is ‘too good to be true’
ESCOs : “The biggest barrier for ESCOs is selling and getting the concept accepted”
Efficiency project size. A single large project is easier to finance than a lot of small projects.
“If [the banks are] going to lend you something, they want to lend you £1m shall we say rather than £10,000.”
The ESCO business model has a particular characteristic. At the risk of one of the contracting parties, benefits for both parties are obtained. Despite this peculiar feature, some barriers in the ESCO business model break a faster development.
In July 2011, the Environmental Defense Fund, EDF for short, published a report titled Show Me The Money, Energy Efficiency Financing Barriers and Opportunitiesort that goes thru barriers in the ESCO business model.
We want to share with you the summary I made for myself.
The financial dimension of barriers in the ESCO Business model.
Sawley level crossing with the barriers down by David Lally. Used under CC BY-SA 2.0. No changes were made.
Universal Barriers to MUSH , Commercial and Industrial sectors.
High upfront capital cost.
Uncertainty of savings and perceptions of risk. A matter of confidence and reliability
Budgets do not prioritize energy efficiency: Maximizing energy efficiency is not generally part of the core mission statement of an institution.
Lack of secondary markets.
Municipalities, Universities, Schools, and Hospitals (MUSH) Barriers
Policies that fail to incentivize investments.
Limited capacity and staff resources to pursue energy efficiency.
Commercial Property and Industrial Facility Barriers
High development costs. Protection from risk requires higher overall development costs that in MUSH sector.
Long payback periods vs. corporate focus on short-term profits.
Mortgage lender limitations on external financing of equipment and systems because are considered part of the assets securing the original mortgage.
Limited external financing products available.
Landlord and tenant split incentives problem. The landlord has to pay the buildings´ efficiency upgrading. The tenant is responsible for paying the energy bill.
Operational interruption.
It makes obvious that the enlargement of the real ESCO market has to do with the development of new contracting models tailor-made around the needs of each customer. New contracts have to offer specific solutions to specific financial and risk perception problems.
CEOs and energy experts collect 200 ideas. America drives clean energy.
The Center for the New Energy Economy (CNEE) at Colorado State University has released a report. The report title is «Powering Forward: Presidential and Executive Agency Actions to Drive Clean Energy in America». 100 CEOs and energy experts developed it last year. Report`s aim is to help President Obama to Curb Climate Change with a Clean Energy Economy. America drives clean energy with this initiative.
LAS VEGAS (Aug. 30, 2011) Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Ray Mabus delivers the keynote address at the National Clean Energy Summit 4.0 in Las Vegas (U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Sam Shavers)
Some of these ideas are:
Update regulations related to clean energy technologies. Today’s regulations complicate wind energy and rooftop solar systems at American’s homes. Today’s new energy technologies are 10 years ahead of utilities. Utilities are 10 years ahead of regulations,
Empower state leadership.
Create new opportunities for clean energy investments by the private sector.
Issue even more aggressive goals for the government’s use of third-party financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements in federal operations. This financing tool allows the government to have guaranteed savings on its energy bills at no cost to taxpayers.
Resume reporting the number of green jobs in the economy.
Encourage early adoption of new energy efficiency and renewable energy measures.
Explain how reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil-fuel power plants.
Issue rulings and interpretations of the tax code to increase incentives for private investors to capitalize clean energy technologies.
Require that oil and gas companies use bestpractices on federal lands on natural gas production.
The CNEE initiative was inspired by President Obama at the White House. Last March, he met with 14 corporate and private sector leaders. They reached out to experts and leaders across the country.
This report outlines recommendations that would enable the federal government to lead America on a path to doubling energy productivity while dramatically increasing innovation across the country.”
Initiative was good, now if Obama acts, then America drives clean energy.
