ENERGY EFFICIENCY TRENDS VOL. 13 · 2016-06-17 · January 2016 . No portion of this document may...

ENERGY EFFICIENCY TRENDS VOL. 13

Essential insight for consumers and suppliers of non-domestic energy efficiency in the UK

January 2016


JANUARY 2016

© EEVS Insight Ltd. 2016. Developed in partnerhip with Bloomberg Finance L.P.2016.

No portion of this document may be reproduced, scanned into an electronic system, distributed, publicly displayed or used as the basis of derivative works without the prior written consent of the joint partners. For more information on terms of use, please contact [email protected]. Copyright and Disclaimer notice on the last page applies throughout. Page 1 of 31

SUPPORTED BY:

ENDORSED BY:


JANUARY 2016



CONTENTS

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION __________________________________ 5

SECTION 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ____________________________ 6

2.1. SUPPLIER TRENDS ........................................................................................ 6

2.2. CONSUMER TRENDS ..................................................................................... 7

SECTION 3. SUPPLIER TRENDS _______________________________ 8

3.1. THE ORDER BOOK ......................................................................................... 8

3.2. STAFF NUMBERS ........................................................................................... 9

3.3. SALE PRICES.................................................................................................. 9

3.4. INDUSTRY RISK ........................................................................................... 10

3.5. GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................... 11

SECTION 4. CONSUMER TRENDS ____________________________ 12

4.1. TECHNOLOGIES & MEASURES................................................................... 12

4.2. PROPERTY TYPES ....................................................................................... 13

4.3. PROJECT COSTS ......................................................................................... 14

4.4. PROJECT FINANCE ...................................................................................... 15

4.5. FINANCIAL PAYBACK ................................................................................... 15

4.6. MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION ......................................................... 16

4.7. CONSUMERS NOT UNDERTAKING ENERGY EFFICIENCY ....................... 16

SECTION 5. SPECIAL FEATURE: BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE ________ 18

5.1. CONSUMER ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................ 18

5.2. SUPPLIER ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................... 23

APPENDICES ____________________________________________________ 26

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY ________________________________ 26

APPENDIX B: SUPPLIER RESPONDENTS________________________ 27

APPENDIX C: CONSUMER RESPONDENTS ______________________ 28

ABOUT US ______________________________________________________ 29

CONTACT US ____________________________________________________ 30

________________________________________________________________ 31


JANUARY 2016



TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Market Monitor – tracking industry confidence, Q3 2012 – Q4 2015(e) ............ 6

Figure 2: Consumers commissioning efficiency projects, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015 ................ 7

Figure 3: Trends in orders from national customers, Q3 2012 – Q4 2015(e) ................... 8

Figure 4: Trends in orders from overseas customers, Q3 2012 – Q4 2015(e) ................. 8

Figure 5: Trends in the number of staff employed, Q3 2012 – Q4 2015(e) ...................... 9

Figure 6: Trends in sale prices achieved, Q3 2012 – Q4 2015(e) .................................... 9

Figure 7: Key issues of concern to energy efficiency suppliers, Q3 2015 ...................... 10

Figure 8: Trends in key issues of concern, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015 .................................... 10

Figure 9: Trends in industry views on energy efficiency policy, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015...... 11

Figure 10: Industry views of the wider economy’s management, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015 .... 11

Figure 11: Uptake of energy efficiency technologies, Q3 2015 v four-quarter average .... 12

Figure 12: Trends in top technologies for consumer uptake, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015 ............ 13

Figure 13: Breakdown of commissioned projects by property type, Q3 2015 ................... 13

Figure 14: Trends of commissioned projects by property type, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015 ........ 14

Figure 15: Trends in capital costs, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015 ................................................... 14

Figure 16: Trends in finance models, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015 ............................................... 15

Figure 17: Trends in expected payback periods, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015 ............................. 15

Figure 18: Trends in the use of good practice M&V, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015 ........................ 16

Figure 19: Consumer reasons for lack of efficiency uptake, Q3 2015 v four-quarter average .......................................................................................................... 17

Figure 20: Consumer uptake of behavioural change programmes over the last three years or reasons for lack of engagement (%) ................................................. 18

Figure 21: Consumer uptake of behavioural change programmes over the last three years by consumer type (number of respondents) .......................................... 19

Figure 22: Was the project part of a wider energy saving scheme? ................................. 19

Figure 23: Were savings guaranteed? ............................................................................. 19

Figure 24: Was some form of measurement undertaken? ............................................... 19

Figure 25: Use of measurement forms for attributing energy savings to schemes (%) ..... 20

Figure 26: Estimated financial saving – as % of annual energy spend ............................. 20

Figure 27: Actual financial savings – as % of annual energy spend ................................. 20

Figure 28: Use of engagement activities in behaviour change programmes (%) .............. 21

Figure 29: Use of behavioural levers in engagement programmes (%) ............................ 21

Figure 30: Method of programme delivery ....................................................................... 22

Figure 31: Duration of the programme ............................................................................. 22

Figure 32: Financial budget invested in the programme .................................................. 22

Figure 33: Programme funding method ........................................................................... 22

Figure 34: Supplier uptake of behavioural change programmes – split by type ............... 23

Figure 35: Was the engagement programme delivered as part of a wider energy-saving package? ............................................................................................ 23

Figure 36: Are energy or financial savings typically guaranteed? .................................... 23

Figure 37: Use of measurement forms for attributing energy savings to schemes (%) ..... 24

Figure 38: Use of engagement activities in behaviour change programmes (%) .............. 24

Figure 39: Use of behavioural levers in engagement programmes (%) ............................ 25

Figure 40: Typical estimated financial saving – as % of annual energy spend ................. 25


JANUARY 2016



Figure 41: Typical client investment in engagement programme ..................................... 25

Figure 42: Who completed the survey? Q3 2015 ............................................................. 26

Figure 43: Breakdown of respondents by supplier type, Q3 2015 .................................... 27

Figure 44: Supplier respondents’ organisation size (no. of employees), Q3 2015 ............ 27

Figure 45: Consumer respondents by sector, Q3 2015.................................................... 28

Figure 46: Consumer respondents’ organisation size (no. of employees), Q3 2015 ........ 28


JANUARY 2016



SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION

Welcome to the latest edition of UK Energy Efficiency Trends, the leading source of market

information and insight for the energy efficiency sector.

This edition takes the temperature of consumer and supplier market activity in the third quarter of

2015 (July-Sept), and it does feel something of a ‘tale of two sectors’ this time. On the supplier

side, despite the positive news of the COP21 agreement, the domestic policy landscape

continues to be a source of uncertainty and supplier angst. And with domestic order books

somewhat flat this quarter, this side of the industry reported something of a downbeat quarter; the

EEVS-Bloomberg Market Monitor dipping to an historic low point.

By contrast, consumer feedback has been more positive, with more than eight out of 10

consumers reporting that they commissioned new projects in Q3 2015 – a new high for the sector.

There was also growth in larger investment projects, and we are seeing increasingly broad-based

take up across the public and private sectors. There was also reported growth for the typically

lower-profile technologies – boiler controls seeing a welcome uptick that moved it into the top

three within the technologies list.

Perhaps the most significant insight from this quarter’s survey research relates to 'behaviour

change' initiatives. This edition includes a special feature on this low-cost and also little

understood energy saving opportunity. The research was conducted in partnership with Global

Action Plan (to which we need to give special thanks) and the findings and commentary start on

page 18. This sheds new, much needed light on this often overlooked aspect of energy

management, so we hope you find it particularly useful. Of course, if you have any questions,

please do get in touch.

Tom Rowlands-Rees

Bloomberg NEF

Ian Jeffries

EEVS Insight


JANUARY 2016



SECTION 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The EEVS/Bloomberg Energy Efficiency Trends Survey (Vol.13) was conducted

between 14 October and 14 December 2015 and completed by 67 UK-based

respondents (38 consumer organisations and 29 suppliers). Their answers

related to the situation in the third quarter of 2015.

2.1. SUPPLIER TRENDS

• The market monitor – which combines trends in supplier order books, staffing levels, sale

prices and government action – fell for the third consecutive quarter in Q3 2015 to just 23

points, but is expected to pick up in Q4.

• The decline was driven by a continued downward trend in national orders, a dip in the

number of staff employed, and a marginal drop in reported sale prices for Q3. Overseas

orders was the only supplier category with a rising confidence indicator in Q3.

• Customer demand remained the dominant category of concern for suppliers of energy

efficiency in Q3 (31%), followed by policy/subsidy uncertainty (21%) and regulation (14%).

National competition, previously a major concern, continued to fall in relevance – accounting

for just 10% in Q3.

• Confidence with regards to the government’s management of energy-efficiency policy

remained flat in Q3 after hitting an all-time low in Q2. Meanwhile confidence in the

management of the wider economy continued its decline as respondents reporting effective

management dropped from 41% in Q2 to 10% in Q3.

• The special feature on behaviour change revealed that nearly half of suppliers estimate

savings of between 5% and 10% for typical engagement programmes. None estimate

savings below 2% or above 20%. Energy meters are the most widely used method for

measuring savings of engagement programmes – with 62% adoption. (See section 5.2).

Figure 1: Market Monitor – tracking industry confidence, Q3 2012 – Q4 2015(e)

Source: EEVS, BNEF. Note: based on weighted confidence indicators from Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9.

Zero represents neutrality. 500/-500 indicate the maximum degrees of positive/negative sentiment possible.

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4(e)

2012 2013 2014 2015

Positive sentiment(max = 500 points)

Negative sentiment(min = -500 points)

Positive sentiment(max = 500 points)

Negative sentiment(min = -500 points)


JANUARY 2016



2.2. CONSUMER TRENDS

• In the third quarter, 82% of consumers reported commissioning energy efficiency projects, an

uptick on the long term trend (around 70%) – and a new high for the sector.

• Lighting-based technologies continued to outperform other energy saving technologies, with a

material uptick in lighting controls in Q3. Interestingly, perhaps reflecting seasonal demand,

boiler controls saw increased uptake, at 35% of respondents.

• Offices (19%), industrial and manufacturing (20%) and education (19%) represented leading

property-based categories in Q3 2015, with a wide range of other public and private sector

groupings also benefiting from energy-saving investments.

• The headline trend in capital cost retains its volatility. This quarter saw a strong volume of

smaller-scale projects (up to £50k) and large projects (over £500k), but the core middle range

projects (£50 to £500k) slumped and accounted for only one in five investments.

• Financing arrangements remain broadly stable, with in-house capital the foundation stone for

the vast majority of projects. An emergent trend during 2015 however has been the reported

use of combination funding (i.e. in house and external finance together) and it will be

interesting to see if this more balanced finance approach continues into 2016.

• Financial payback periods returned to the long-term trend of 3-4 years in the quarter, driven

by growth in longer five- to 10-year payback projects.

• Performance measurement remains weakly established. One-third of projects used accepted

procedures to determine savings and investment returns, but the large majority did not

measure savings performance or were unsure if measurement was undertaken.

• The special feature section on behaviour change revealed that 80% of consumer

respondents undertook at least one engagement programme in the last three years. Most

programmes were shown to have small budgets, to be delivered by in-house teams and to

include elements of measurement – with energy meters being the most widely cited method.

(See section 5.1).

Figure 2: Consumers commissioning efficiency projects, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF. Note: shows the proportion of respondents who have commissioned (or plan to

commission) projects in a given quarter.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2012 2013 2014 2015


JANUARY 2016



SECTION 3. SUPPLIER TRENDS This section of the report presents the survey findings for the supply-side of the industry

(organisations delivering a broad range of building-related energy efficiency technologies,

measures and services to the non-domestic market). The survey was completed by 29 UK-based

supplier organisations.

3.1. THE ORDER BOOK

Figure 3: Trends in orders from national customers, Q3 2012 – Q4 2015(e)

Source: EEVS, BNEF. Note: the confidence indicator is an input to the market monitor in Figure 1. Zero

represents neutrality. 500/-500 indicate the maximum degrees of positive/negative sentiment possible.

The confidence indicator based on trends in national orders continued its downward trend in Q3

2015. Whilst the bulk of respondents saw stable volumes over the quarter, those citing rising

orders dropped to an all-time low of 38%. Expectations for Q4, however, suggest a reversing of

this trend.

Figure 4: Trends in orders from overseas customers, Q3 2012 – Q4 2015(e)



The broad trend of stable overseas orders continued into Q3 with the bulk of respondents

reporting constant levels. However orders picked up for 28% of respondents – an increase on the

-300

-240

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

240

300

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2012 2013 2014 2015

Fall significantly

Fall slightly

Remain constant

Increase slightly

Increase significantly

Confidence Indicator(RH axis)

-300

-240

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

240

300

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2012 2013 2014 2015

Fall significantly

Fall slightly

Remain constant

Increase slightly




JANUARY 2016



18% in Q2 – nudging the confidence indicator upwards. As with national orders, suppliers are

optimistic about overseas orders for Q4.

3.2. STAFF NUMBERS

Figure 5: Trends in the number of staff employed, Q3 2012 – Q4 2015(e)



Trends in the number of staff employed took a dip in Q3 as fewer respondents reported increases

and more reported falls. However, the bulk of respondents continued to see stable staffing levels

and expectations for Q4 remained roughly unchanged.

3.3. SALE PRICES

Figure 6: Trends in sale prices achieved, Q3 2012 – Q4 2015(e)



The confidence indicator for sale prices dropped marginally in Q3 as more respondents reported

slight falls in prices achieved. Most continue to report stable prices and, based on expectations for

Q4, the confidence indicator should remain around zero for a third consecutive quarter.

-300

-240

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

240

300

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2012 2013 2014 2015

Fall significantly

Fall slightly

Remain constant

Increase slightly



-300

-240

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

240

300

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2012 2013 2014 2015

Fall significantly

Fall slightly

Remain constant

Increase slightly




JANUARY 2016



3.4. INDUSTRY RISK

Figure 7: Key issues of concern to energy efficiency suppliers, Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF. Note: each supplier respondent was asked to select their primary issue of concern.

Therefore results sum to 100%.

In Q3 2015, customer demand remained the dominant category of concern for suppliers of energy

efficiency. In Q2, subsidy/policy uncertainty and regulation both surpassed national competition,

which had held the second rank for the prior three quarters. In Q3, this remained the case with the

former accounting for 21% and the latter 14%. National competition continued to fall in relevance,

accounting for just 10% in Q3.

Figure 8: Trends in key issues of concern, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF. Note: each supplier respondent was asked to select their primary issue of concern,

therefore results sum to 100% in each period.

Customer demand

31%

Subsidy/policy uncertainty21%

Regulation14%

Competition -national 10%

Raising finance

7%

Staff costs4%

Business tax3%

Pressure to reduce costs

3%

Other7%

Customer demand

Subsidy/policy uncertainty

Regulation

Competition - national

Raising finance

Staff costs

Business tax

Pressure to reduce costs

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2012 2013 2014 2015

Other

Business tax

Staff costs

Raising finance

Competition - national

Regulation

Subsidy/policy uncertainty

Customer demand


JANUARY 2016



3.5. GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVENESS

Figure 9: Trends in industry views on energy efficiency policy, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015



Supplier confidence with regards to the government’s management of energy efficiency policy

remained flat in Q3 after hitting an all-time low in Q2. Whilst there was a doubling in respondents

reporting effective policy management (from 5% to 10%), those reporting ineffective management

reached an all-time high – accounting for 64%.

Figure 10: Industry views of the wider economy’s management, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF. Note: CI = confidence indicator. The dotted line represents the CI from Figure 9 which

is overlaid here for comparison with views on the wider economy. Zero represents neutrality. 500/-500 indicate

the maximum degrees of positive/negative sentiment possible.

Confidence in the management of the wider economy continued its decline in Q3 as respondents

reporting effective management dropped from 41% to 10%. Meanwhile, the proportion of

respondents with neutral views went from an all-time low in Q2 to an all-time high in Q3.

-300

-240

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

240

300

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2012 2013 2014 2015

Very ineffective

Ineffective

Neutral

Effective

Very effective


-300

-240

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

240

300

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2012 2013 2014 2015

Very ineffective

Ineffective

Neutral

Effective

Very effective


Energy Efficiency CI(RH axis)


JANUARY 2016



SECTION 4. CONSUMER TRENDS This part of the report presents feedback from energy and environmental professionals within

public and private sector organisations (‘consumers’), who are purchasing energy-efficiency

technologies and services in relation to the built environment. The latest quarter’s survey was

completed by 38 UK corporate consumers (of which 82% commissioned a project in the quarter).

4.1. TECHNOLOGIES & MEASURES

Figure 11: Uptake of energy efficiency technologies, Q3 2015 v four-quarter average

Source: EEVS, BNEF. Note: ranks technologies according to the proportion of consumers who commissioned

a project in each technology out of the overall number of consumers commissioning projects. PFC = power

factor correction.

Figure 11 ranks technologies in descending order based on the proportion of commissioned

projects that included that technology. Lighting continued to dominate the technologies list in Q3,

with lighting controls enjoying a material jump in uptake rates this quarter. Taken together, the

chart shows that lighting technologies were routinely deployed on more than 50% of all energy

saving projects. Perhaps reflecting the seasonal change, boiler control measures moved into

third place in the table. Conversely, motors and drives, HVAC and voltage optimisation saw the

biggest declines in the third quarter.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Heat Pumps - Ground Source

Heat Pumps - Water Source

Heat Exchangers

Heat Pump - Air Source

High Speed Hand Dryers

Radiant and Warm Air Heaters

Refrigeration - High Efficiency Unit

Refrigeration - Controls

Solar - Thermal

Energy Recovery

HVAC

Power Management - Voltage Optimisation, PFC

Building Fabric - Glazing, Insulation, Materials

Cooling and Air Conditioning

Compressed Air Equipment

Motors and Drives

Refrigeration - Optimisation

Optimisation - of set-points and controls

Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

Smart Metering

M&T / Performance Management Software

Boiler - High Efficiency Unit

Boiler - Optimisation

Building Energy Management System (BEMS)

Solar - Photovoltaic

Behaviour Change

Boiler - Controls

Lighting - Controls

Lighting - High Efficiency

Q3 2015

4Q average


JANUARY 2016



Figure 12: Trends in top technologies for consumer uptake, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF. Note: shows the proportion of respondents who commissioned a project in the

respective category out of the total number of respondents who commissioned a project.

Figure 12 shows purchase trends for the top three technologies, based on the most recent Q3

2015 research. Whilst high-efficiency lighting and lighting controls have occupied the top slots

over the long term, the addition of boiler controls (in place of BEMS) shows a material uptick for

that technology this quarter and a potential emergent trend within the market.

4.2. PROPERTY TYPES

Figure 13: Breakdown of commissioned projects by property type, Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF

Figures 13 and 14 show that whilst offices (19%), industrial and manufacturing (20%) and

education (19%) represent leading consumer categories and beneficiaries of energy efficiency

upgrades, there has also been widespread uptake across a wide range of organisation types – a

Lighting Controls

Boiler Controls

Lighting - High Efficiency

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2012 2013 2014 2015

Office19%

Public building10%

School6%

University13%

Manufacturing10%

Industrial10%

Leisure Centre / Sports

4%

Hospital8%

Laboratory8%

Residential4%

Data Centre, 2%

Restaurant and Bars, 4%

Warehousing and Distribution, 2%

Other2%

Office

Public building

School

Manufacturing


Hospital

Retail - Out of Town

Laboratory

Office

Public building

School & University

Manufacturing & Industrial

Retail


Hospital

Other


JANUARY 2016



trend that should be cause for optimism for industry suppliers as the market appears to be

increasingly broad-based.

Figure 14: Trends of commissioned projects by property type, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF

4.3. PROJECT COSTS

Figure 15: Trends in capital costs, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015

% projects in each band £ Thousands

Source: EEVS, BNEF. Note: the line shows the cost trend for energy efficiency projects over time based on

the estimated median.

Figure 15 has shown relatively high levels of volatility in the capital cost of energy efficiency

projects since 2012 and this trend has continued this quarter. Over the last three months the

sector reported a strong volume of smaller-scale projects (up to £50k) along with a good volume

of large projects (over £500k), but the core middle range band (projects from £50k to £500k) only

accounted for around one in five investments. The impact of this can be seen in the median

project cost line which has continued its decline, to the point that median cost per project is now

back down at 2012 levels.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2012 2013 2014 2015

Other

Retail

Hospital


Manufacturing & Industrial

School & University

Public building

Office

0

40

80

120

160

200

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2012 2013 2014 2015

Unknown

£500K+

£100-500K

£50-100K

£10-50K

<£10K

Zero

Median

(RH-axis)


JANUARY 2016



4.4. PROJECT FINANCE

Figure 16: Trends in finance models, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF. Note: the orange line shows the cost trend for energy efficiency projects over time

based on the estimated median.

Figure 16 shows that financing arrangements remained stable over the first nine months of 2015.

In-house capital is still the foundation stone for the vast majority of projects, although combination

funding (in-house and external finance together) emerged as an established solution for a

material proportion of projects during 2015. By contrast, projects delivered using externally

sourced finance alone remained few and far between.

4.5. FINANCIAL PAYBACK

Figure 17: Trends in expected payback periods, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015

% projects in each band Number of years

Source: EEVS, BNEF. Note: the line shows the expected payback trend for energy efficiency projects based

on the estimated median.

Figure 17 shows financial payback periods coming back into line with the long-term trend, namely

a 3-4 year median payback expectation. This is primarily due to the growth in longer, five- to 10-

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2012 2013 2014 2015

Other

Unknown

Supplier-arranged

Third party finance

Combination

In-house

0

2

4

6

8

10

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2012 2013 2014 2015

Unknown

10 + years

5-10 years

3-5 Years

1-3 years

<1 year

Median

(RH-axis)


JANUARY 2016



year payback projects, and came despite the uptick in very short (less than one year) payback

projects this quarter.

4.6. MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION

Figure 18: Trends in the use of good practice M&V, Q3 2012 – Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF. Note: M&V = measurement & verification

Figure 18 shows a continuation of the long-term trend in relation to performance measurement,

which remains only weakly established within the sector. Around one-third of projects use

accepted performance measurement procedures to determine investment returns, leaving a large

majority either not measuring performance at all, or unsure if any performance analysis was used.

4.7. CONSUMERS NOT UNDERTAKING ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Figure 19 below shows respondent feedback on reasons for not investing in energy efficiency. At

the top end of the chart, the third quarter saw a return of a longer-term trend for more ‘positive’

reasons explaining a lack of activity i.e. ‘future projects are planned’ and ‘energy efficiency has

already been undertaken’. Meanwhile many of the other options were not deemed relevant and

six of the possible barriers were not selected by any of our survey respondents. The chart

appears therefore to show that barriers to take-up of energy efficiency are limited – with ‘lack of

resource’, ‘lack of affordable finance’ and ‘senior management not bought in’ featuring as some of

the key reported reasons for non-deployment of energy-saving initiatives.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2012 2013 2014 2015

No

Unknown

Yes


JANUARY 2016



Figure 19: Consumer reasons for lack of efficiency uptake, Q3 2015 v four-quarter average

Source: EEVS, BNEF. Note: Respondents not commissioning projects may have cited multiple reasons. The

chart shows the proportion of respondents in each category out of overall respondents, not commissioning

projects. Results therefore do not sum to 100.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Uncertainty over the financial benefits / business case

Lack of trust in the industry

Buildings are landlord-owned, so little upside

Subsidy uncertainty

Wider macro-economic uncertainty

Negative impact on core operations

Higher priorities elsewhere

Lack of affordable finance

Lack of resource

Senior management not bought in

Preference for renewable energy (e.g. solar)

Future projects are planned

Energy efficiency has already been undertaken

Q3 2015 (negative impact)

4Q average

Q3 2015 (industry neutral)


JANUARY 2016



SECTION 5. SPECIAL FEATURE: BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE In carrying out the Trends survey we have consistently found 'behaviour change' to be one of

most popular energy efficiency interventions, yet little is known about these programmes. In this

special feature we have teamed up with Global Action Plan – the environmental engagement

charity – to help shed light on what constitutes a behaviour change programme and what the

programmes are achieving.

5.1. CONSUMER ENGAGEMENT

Of the 38 consumers that answered the survey, 35 answered the section on behavioural change.

Some 80% of these respondents said that they had undertaken at least one behavioural change

programme in the last three years.

Figure 20: Consumer uptake of behavioural change programmes over the last three years

or reasons for lack of engagement (%)

Source: EEVS, BNEF, GAP. Note: Respondent answers are based on the Q3 2015 survey and relate to

action over the prior three years.

Yes - multiple programmes

46%

Yes - at least one programme

34%

Focus is on other engagement programmes

5%

Currently no budget, finance or funding

available6%

Staff have little influence on energy consumption

3%

Plan to start one in the next 12 months, 3%

Unconvinced of the benefits, 3%

No20%

Global Action Plan Commentary

The EEVS-Bloomberg analysis of the special behaviour change feature created with Global

Action Plan shows that most behaviour change programmes have small budgets, are delivered

by an in-house team and include an element of measurement. The length of the projects varies

with similar numbers being under three months and over 12 months, and the activities

undertaken include a range of different methods for reaching building occupants.

Moving beyond statistics, this report helps the energy efficiency industry to maximise the

energy savings than can be realised through behaviour change and offers three takeaways:

Behaviour change consistently delivers tangible savings

Even short, minimal cost interventions are delivering results

Savings could be increased by using more behavioural levers

Note: for more information on the Global Action Plan, visit www.globalactionplan.org.uk

http://www.globalactionplan.org.uk/


JANUARY 2016



For those companies not engaging in behavioural change programmes, the two most cited

reasons were a focus on other engagement programmes relating to issues such as waste, water,

and transport, and that no budget, finance or funding was available at the time.

Figure 21: Consumer uptake of behavioural change programmes over the last three years

by consumer type (number of respondents)

Source: EEVS, BNEF, GAP.

The breakdown by consumer type shows that the public sector has been leading the way, through

local authorities and the NHS Trust, followed by universities and then manufacturing. However,

40% of respondents in the latter category also said that they had not engaged in any behavioural

change schemes to date. (Figure 21).

Figure 22: Was the project part of a

wider energy saving scheme?

Figure 23: Were savings

guaranteed?

Figure 24: Was some form of

measurement undertaken?

Source: EEVS, BNEF, GAP. Source: EEVS, BNEF, GAP. Source: EEVS, BNEF, GAP.

In 71% of the cases, the behavioural change programme formed part of a wider scheme (Figure

22). Savings were guaranteed for just 11% of these programmes, although 64% listed at least

one form of measurement for attributing energy savings to their programmes. (Figures 23 and

24). Energy meters were most widely cited as a form of measuring energy savings, followed by

regular site audits and surveys asking staff to report their action. (Figure 25).

0 2 4 6 8

Other

Charity/Not-for-profit

Transportation

Public sector – School/College

Property and Real Estate

Chemicals

Public Sector – Central Government Department

Engineering

Retail

Manufacturing

University

Public Sector – NHS Trust

Public Sector – Local or Regional Authority

Multiple programmes

One programme

None up until now

Yes71%

No25%

Don't know4%

Yes11%

No82%

Don't know7%

Yes64%

No29%

Don't know7%


JANUARY 2016



Figure 25: Use of measurement forms for attributing energy savings to schemes (%)


Figures 26 and 27 show the estimated financial saving of engagement projects before

commencement – as a percentage of the overall energy spend – and the actual measured

savings on completion. In most cases where projects were complete and savings measured,

respondents reported the same level of actual savings to those estimated. Only two respondents

saw lower levels, shifting from anticipated savings of 5-10% to realised savings of 2-5%. Of those

estimating savings greater than 10%, none said that savings were not measured, instead many of

these projects are pending completion.

Figure 26: Estimated financial saving – as % of annual

energy spend

Figure 27: Actual financial savings – as % of annual

energy spend

Source: EEVS, BNEF, GAP. Source: EEVS, BNEF, GAP.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other methods of identifying actual behaviour

Experimentation methods eg. randomised control trials

An IPMVP-based M&V process

Survey asking staff to report their action

Regular site audits to spot-check staff behaviour

Energy meters to show a change in energy use

36%

21%

14%

11%

4%

14%

up to 2%

2% to 5%

5% to 10%

10% to 20%

over 20%

Don't know

21%

18%

7%25%

29% up to 2%

2% to 5%

5% to 10%

10% to 20%

over 20%

Savings not measured

Project not yet complete


JANUARY 2016



Figure 28 shows the uptake of different methods for delivering behavioural change projects.

Online communications and face-to-face engagement of staff by the energy team were used by

more than 50% of respondents. Although a range of other methods were also cited and 75% used

more than one method for delivering their engagement programmes.

Figure 28: Use of engagement activities in behaviour change programmes (%)


The biggest behavioural lever for engagement programmes is the emphasis of financial and

environmental savings, adopted by 74% of respondents. This was followed by provision of new

knowledge – used by 57% – and then the emphasis of other benefits such as improved user

comfort. (Figure 29).

Figure 29: Use of behavioural levers in engagement programmes (%)


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Pilot ahead of a main campaign

Competitions

Formal energy training for staff

Volunteer energy / green champions

Hard copy communications

Senior leader messaging

Direct engagement of staff by energy team

Online communications

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Fostering social norms

Identifying/removing people's barriers to change

Rewards or incentives

Emphasising other benefits eg. improved comfort

Providing new knowledge

Emphasising financial and environmental savings


JANUARY 2016



Figure 30 shows that the vast majority of programmes were delivered internally, with just 21% of

respondents using external support and 4% using full external management. The duration of

projects varied among respondents with 29% delivering projects in less than three months. The

same proportion of respondents delivered projects that lasted more than a year, whilst a quarter

were delivered intermittently over a period of months (Figure 31).

Figure 30: Method of programme delivery Figure 31: Duration of the programme


Over a quarter of respondents (29%) were able to deliver engagement projects at no extra cost to

the company. Of those that allocated budgets to their programmes, 32% invested up to £10,000 –

accounting for the largest proportion of respondents. The bulk of engagement programmes were

delivered using in-house capital (64%). Only 7% made use of supplier or third-party finance and

none received third-party grants making programmes free-of-charge.

Figure 32: Financial budget invested in the programme Figure 33: Programme funding method


75%

21%

4%

Delivered internally

With external support

Full external management

29%

14%

3%29%

25%

Less than 3 months

3 to 6 months

6 to 12 months

Beyond 12 months

Intermittent activity (over months)

29%

32%

7%

14%

4%

14%

Zero

Up to £10,000

£10,000 to £50,000

£50,000 to £100,000

£100,000 +

Don't know

64%7%

18%

11%

In-house capital

Supplier/third-party finance

Free-of-charge third-party grant

Not applicable e.g. no funds required

Don't know


JANUARY 2016



5.2. SUPPLIER ENGAGEMENT

Of the 29 supplier organisations that completed the survey, 28 satisfactorily answered the

behavioural change section. Just under half of these said that they had undertaken a behavioural

change project in the last three years. These included consultancy service companies, lighting

suppliers, ESCOs, and HVAC suppliers.

Figure 34: Supplier uptake of behavioural change programmes – split by type


The vast majority of suppliers that undertook engagement programmes delivered them as part of

wider energy-saving packages (84%). Only 8% typically deliver standalone behaviour change

initiatives and roughly one third typically guarantee energy or financial savings.

Figure 35: Was the engagement programme delivered as

part of a wider energy-saving package?

Figure 36: Are energy or financial savings typically

guaranteed?


No54%

Consultancy29%

Lighting, 7%

ESCO, 7%

HVAC, 4%

Yes46%

Breakdown of supplier types

for those undertaking projects

Yes84%

No8%

Don't know8%

Yes31%

No69%


JANUARY 2016



As in the case of consumer respondents, suppliers also found energy meters the most common

measurement form for attributing savings to engagement schemes – with 62% adoption. Other

measurement forms typically included are varying methods of identifying how staff actually

behave (38%), regular site audits to spot-check behaviour (31%), surveys asking staff to report

their action (31%) and IPMVP-based measurement and verification processes (15%).

Figure 37: Use of measurement forms for attributing energy savings to schemes (%)


Figure 38 shows a broad use of engagement activities by suppliers. As in the case of consumers,

online communications topped the list with an 85% adoption rate. Volunteer energy or green

champions, formal energy training for staff, face-to-face engagement of staff by energy teams,

and senior leader messaging are used in 69% of programmes. Competitions are included 62% of

the time, pilot programmes and hard copy communications 38% of the time and other – ‘out of the

norm’ activities for the work place – are included in 23% of programmes.

Figure 38: Use of engagement activities in behaviour change programmes (%)


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Don't know

Experimentation methods eg. randomised control trials

Savings not typically measured

An IPMVP-based M&V process

Survey asking staff to report their action

Regular site audits to spot-check staff behaviour

Other methods of identifying actual behaviour

Energy meters to show a change in energy use

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Hard copy communications

Pilot ahead of a main campaign

Competitions

Senior leader messaging

Direct engagement of staff by energy team

Formal energy training for staff

Volunteer energy / green champions

Online communications


JANUARY 2016



Almost all suppliers of engagement programmes considered emphasising financial and

environmental savings to be the top lever for behavioural change programmes – with 92% saying

that this is typically included. This is consistent with consumer responses, as is the second most

widely used lever – providing knowledge – typically included by 77% of suppliers.

Figure 39: Use of behavioural levers in engagement programmes (%)


Of suppliers that engage in behaviour change programmes, nearly half estimate typical savings of

between 5% and 10%. None estimate savings below 2% or above 20%. The vast majority of

suppliers see typical client investment in engagement programmes of up to £50,000 (77%), with

just 15% saying that engagement programmes are typically delivered free of charge.

Figure 40: Typical estimated financial saving – as % of

annual energy spend

Figure 41: Typical client investment in engagement

programme


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Identifying/removing people's barriers to change

Emphasising other benefits eg. improved comfort

Rewards or incentives

Fostering social norms

Providing new knowledge

Emphasising financial and environmental savings

23%

46%

16%

15%

up to 2%

2% to 5%

5% to 10%

10% to 20%

over 20%

Don't know

15%

39%

38%

8%

Zero - free of charge

Up to £10,000

£10,000 to £50,000

£50,000 to £100,000

£100,000 +

Don't know


JANUARY 2016



APPENDICES Appendix A: Methodology

The EEVS/Bloomberg Energy Efficiency Trends Survey (Vol.13) was conducted between 14

October and 14 December 2015 and completed by 67 UK-based respondents (38 consumer

organisations and 29 suppliers).

This is the 13th in a series of reports showing industry trends in non-residential energy efficiency.

Initially the report covered a broad range of European countries, but since Volume 8, it has

presented UK-based results only, as these consistently accounted for the bulk of data received.

In focusing the report on a single country with better data coverage, we were able to present

cleaner, more robust results. This coincided with a revamp of the analysis including – among

other modifications – the introduction of a set of time series charts. This is the sixth iteration of the

revamped report.

Additional modifications in this iteration include the one-time special feature section on

behavioural change as well as the removal of the forward-looking expectations for the consumer

section.

Figure 42: Who completed the survey? Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF

Figure 42 shows the breakdown of respondents according to type. Prior surveys have typically

seen between 60% and 80% of responses coming from consumer organisations. In Q3, the split

was slightly more balanced as the proportion of consumer respondents slipped just below the

lower band previously observed.

Consumer57%

Supplier43%


JANUARY 2016



Appendix B: Supplier respondents

Figure 43: Breakdown of respondents by supplier type, Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF

Q3 saw broad representation from suppliers across eight different business types. However,

consultancy services continued to represent the largest share of respondents – accounting for

35% in Q3 2015. This was followed by lighting (21%), ESCOs (14%), and finance (10%).

Small and medium-sized organisations employing fewer than 250 staff continued to dominate

supplier responses – accounting for 93% in Q3 2015. The remaining 7% reflected large suppliers

with more than 1000 employees.

Consultancy services

35%

Lighting21%

ESCO14%

Finance10%

HVAC7%

BMS / controls

7%

Monitoring and targeting3%

ICT3%

Consultancy services

Lighting

ESCO

Finance

HVAC

BMS / controls

Monitoring and targeting

ICT

Figure 44: Supplier respondents’ organisation size (no. of employees), Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF

34%

31%

28%

7%

Less than 10

10-50

51-250

251-500

501-1000

More than 1000


JANUARY 2016



Appendix C: Consumer respondents

Figure 45: Consumer respondents by sector, Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF

Q3 2015 saw an equal split between public sector and private sector consumer respondents.

Those falling in the manufacturing category continued to account for the largest share (18%),

followed by local authorities and universities (both at 16%).

Figure 46 shows that the dominant response category continued to be large organisations of

more than 1,000 employees. In Q3, consumer organisations of this size accounted for 66%. On

the other end of the scale, 13% of responses came from small organisations with fewer than 50

employees.

University16%

Local or Regional Authority

16%

Health13%

School/College3%

Other3%

Retail & Wholesale5%

Property and Real Estate5%

Manufacturing18%

Chemicals5%

Construction & Engineering5%

Transportation3%

Other8%

Public Sector &Institutional

Commercial

Industrial

Other

Figure 46: Consumer respondents’ organisation size (no. of employees), Q3 2015

Source: EEVS, BNEF

13%

3%

5%

13%

66%

Less than 50

50 - 250

251-500

501-1000

More than 1000


JANUARY 2016



ABOUT US ______________________________________________________

About EEVS

EEVS is the UK’s leading provider of performance assurance, analysis and information services in relation

to energy efficiency. Our performance assurance services include working with clients to devise and

develop performance management systems and strategies; procurement policies and tender evaluations;

due diligence on performance contracts and guarantees; performance and financial risk analysis.

Alongside this, our established team of energy analysts provide high quality, independent Measurement and Verification (M&V)

services for all sizes and types of energy saving projects. Since 2011 we have evaluated the savings performance of over 400

schemes to the global good practice standard, IPMVP. Our trusted analysis helps suppliers to credibly prove their project’s or

technology’s saving performance, whilst providing customers with much-needed certainty around their investment’s return and value for

money.

EEVS wider market information and research services – in particular the Energy Efficiency Trends publications – aim to improve the

attractiveness, transparency and investability of the energy efficiency market through the provision of reliable market-level performance

and trend information. For further details about EEVS and our services, please visit www.eevs.co.uk

About Bloomberg New Energy Finance

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) is the definitive source of insight, data and news on the

transformation of the energy sector. BNEF has staff of more than 200, based in London, New York,

Beijing, Cape Town, Hong Kong, Singapore, Munich, New Delhi, San Francisco, São Paulo,

Sydney, Tokyo, Washington D.C., and Zurich.

BNEF Insight Services provide financial, economic and policy analysis in the following industries and markets: wind, solar,

bioenergy, geothermal, hydro & marine, gas, nuclear, carbon capture and storage, energy efficiency, digital energy, energy

storage, advanced transportation, carbon markets, REC markets, power markets and water. BNEF’s Industry Intelligence

Service provides access to the world’s most comprehensive database of assets, investments, companies and equipment in the

same sectors. The BNEF News Service is the leading global news service focusing on finance, policy and economics for the

same sectors. The group also undertakes custom research on behalf of clients and runs senior-level networking events,

including the annual BNEF Summit, the premier event on the future of the energy industry.

For more information please visit about.bnef.com

http://www.eevs.co.uk/

http://about.bnef.com/


JANUARY 2016



CONTACT US

Ian Jeffries

[email protected]

+44 (0) 33 0313 8488

EEVS Insight Ltd

26-27 Bedford Square

London

WC1B 3HP

Tom Rowlands-Rees

[email protected]

+44 (0) 20 3525 4144

Nicole Aspinall

[email protected]

+44 (0) 20 3525 4653

Bloomberg New Energy Finance

City Gate House,

39-45 Finsbury Square

London

EC2A 1PQ

© EEVS insight Ltd. 2016. Developed in partnership with Bloomberg New Energy Finance

(Bloomberg Finance L.P. 2016). No portion of this document may be reproduced, scanned into an

electronic system, distributed, publicly displayed or used as the basis of derivative works without

the prior written consent of the joint partners.

For more information on terms of use, please contact [email protected].

EEVS:

BNEF:

Copyright:

mailto:[email protected]





JANUARY 2016



Energy Efficiency Trends Vol. 13

January 2016

Date post:	06-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

ENERGY EFFICIENCY TRENDS VOL. 13 · 2016-06-17 · January 2016 . No portion of this document may...

Documents