The Truth About Energy Efficiency Mission - NMEEE (was: Silicon Wafer manufacturing...)

[Manu Sharma]

Hi Piyush,

I'm making a new thread out of your comments related with Energy Efficiency from the other discussion about wafer manufacturing in India. My replies below yours. 

You wrote:

 

I totally understand when you say that more money should be spent on Energy Efficiency and I believe the government is working on a plan for that as well by getting in schemes like PAT. I think once that kicks in, there will be a lot of buzz in that sector as well.

No, I disagree with you. The government is not working on any plan to implement serious energy efficiency. The so called plans are only for namesake meant to deflect international pressure regarding emission reductions and fooling the public that they're working on EE. Unfortunately they are succeeding.  

If you analyse the PAT scheme closely you will realise what a joke it is. Nobody does that kind of analysis in India. They take the govt. word on face value. The fact is, govt. on its own will never hurt industry to rein in emissions because that will impact economic growth which is sacred to them. So the buzz around PAT will remain a lot of buzz, big money will change hands but nothing substantial will come out of it.  

If this interests you, I can elaborate on this.

Thanks,

Manu

______________

Manu Sharma

Climate Revolution Initiative

http://climaterevolution.net

[soumyabrata rahut]

In the recent past I had been looking at different energy efficiency delivery structures existing in different countries and comparing those structures with India.

I found that there exists deep lacunae in the efficiency delivery structure. This is one of the main reasons why efficiency schemes are not as successful as they should be.

The some of the problems identified were 

Lack of numerical and time bound targets. 

Lack of proper monitoring methodology for savings achieved, and using this in the feedback loop for correction of policies.

Doing regular and periodical vision documents with participation of all the concerned ministries and getting the final vision document endorsed by the highest level ie: PMO or Cabinet.

lastly I wanted to say that I agree with everything that Manu says except that energy efficiency is not just for saving the climate in fact climate savings are secondary according to me. The primary benefit of energy efficiency is actually reduction of energy consumption and thereby a reduction in costs. Given that electricity is in a shortage in India it is shocking that the government cannot implement regulations that will not only save electricity but make manufacturing amongst other things more economic as an activity over the long term.

2011/11/24 Manu Sharma <orang...@gmail.com>

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
You can now post Ads on Green-India
 
Lear more: http://goo.gl/f2uaj
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to Green-India
to discuss India's Energy Future and Sustainable Living.
 
Green-India
http://green-india.in
 
Rules & Disclaimer (Important)
http://goo.gl/Te9d2
 
To unsubscribe, send email to
green-india...@googlegroups.com

[Manu Sharma]

soumyabrata rahut wrote:

 

energy efficiency is not just for saving the climate in fact climate savings are secondary according to me. The primary benefit of energy efficiency is actually reduction of energy consumption and thereby a reduction in costs.

Sure, there are multiple benefits of energy efficiency. From the perspective of industry, of course, cost benefits count the most. From policy perspective, both reduction in consumption and emissions are important. 

This discussion is in the context of energy efficiency mission (NMEEE) which is part of National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and my primary interest is in climate mitigation (and it also happens to be the purpose this group was formed) so my comments are from emission reduction perspective.

Thanks.

Manu

________________

Manu Sharma

Climate Revolution Initiative

http://climaterevolution.net/

[parthi...@gmail.com]

Does any of the members have any updates on RAPDRP projects?
Where in the government is spending billions of $ to monitor and in term improve the distribution systems?
Regards,
Parthiv

Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

---

From: soumyabrata rahut <soumyabr...@gmail.com>

Sender: green...@googlegroups.com

Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:25:54 +0530

To: <green...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: green...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Green-India] The Truth About Energy Efficiency Mission - NMEEE (was: Silicon Wafer manufacturing...)

[Manu Sharma]

Parthis S Mehta wrote:

Does any of the members have any updates on RAPDRP projects? Where in the government is spending billions of $ to monitor and in term improve the distribution systems?

Good point, Parthiv. I looked into this sometime back and it appears to be a complete failure. CEA now has even stopped updating the annual T&D loss figures in its reports. 

T&D loss is a massive hole in the bucket that needs to be plugged before we talk about putting GW of expensive grid tied solar energy into it. 

Thanks,

Manu

[soumyabrata rahut]

Dear Manu 

Again you are spot on about the NMEEE being part of the NAPCC. In this regards I had a point to make which I am getting more and more concerned about. This is basically the notion of rebound effect due to energy efficiency. Most efficiency measure seem to reduce end use energy consumption but this might actually lead to increased absolute consumption of the resource (Energy in this case). Typical example is making cars more efficient does not mean mean that there is a reduction in petrol use as anticipated because it could as well mean that drivers drive more. In terms of policy do you think this needs to be addressed and if so what kind of policies do you think should be employed.

2011/11/24 <parthi...@gmail.com>

[Manu Sharma]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:47 AM, soumyabrata rahut <soumyabr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am getting more and more concerned about [...] the notion of rebound effect due to energy efficiency. [...]  In terms of policy do you think this needs to be addressed

No I don't think rebound effect (or Jevons Paradox) needs to be addressed at policy level because the notion doesn't really have sound economic basis. 

See the following excellent posts on this from Joe Romm's Climate Progress blog:

• Debunking the Jevons Paradox: Nobody goes there anymore, its too crowded; 
• How bad ideas break through into public discourse: The (large) rebound effect and its refutation; 
• Efficiency lives — the rebound effect, not so much; and, 
• Rebound effect: The Breakthrough Institute’s attack on clean energy backfires

Thanks

Manu

[Jkumar kumar]

I have disagreement with your views Mr.Manu.

M/s BEE has moved a lot in implementing PAT and the it will be a real mechanism - mostly first one of its kind in the world. It is not a name sake movement but being implemented with full support from industries. Various initial issues in the mechanism were addressed beautifully and most of major industries have clear plans to improve energy efficiency. I have been closely observing each and every activities related to PAT and actively involving from industry side.

regards

Jayakumar.R

[soumyabrata rahut]

Dear Manu

I did follow the breakthrough inst vs NRDC debate on rebound and i do see valid points from both of the organisations.

However my concerns are drawn more from report that was recently released, this was prepared by the European Union to address rebound effects in policies in the European Union.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/rebound_effect_report.pdf

This as well as Sorrels review of literature for the UK energy research centre

which both seem to state that the problem is not that it does not exists but more on how to quantify it so that it might be possible to provide true economic cost to efficiency measures. sorrell 2007 UKERC 2007 and Sorrell 2010

http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-searchresults.php?words=rebound+effect&search=Go

There are the main reasons why i do not think that rebound effects can be discounted.

also even though difficult to measure CGE models can be used to compute rebound effects.

warm regards

soumyabrata

2011/11/24 Manu Sharma <orang...@gmail.com>

--

[Manu Sharma]

Jkumar kumar <jkkeral...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

I have been closely observing each and every activities related to PAT and actively involving from industry side.

Hi Jkumar,

Then you must also know to what extent are the PAT targets additional?

Here is a definition of additionality: 

Extent to which a new input (action or item) adds to the existing inputs (instead of replacing any of them) and results in a greater aggregate.

I look forward to your response. 

Thanks,

Manu

[Manu Sharma]

Dear Soumyabrata,

Several other experts in the links I cited -- including this one by Dr. Jim Barrett, formerly senior economist on the Congressional Joint Economic Committee and now Chief Economist at the Clean Economy Development Center -- argue that the rebound effect is not significant. So yes, one can attempt to quantify it but I'm not sure if it will be a very meaningful exercise.

At Climate Revolution, amongst the key climate mitigation approaches we recommend is a revenue-neutral carbon tax which increases gradually over a period. One of the multiple benefits of that approach is that it addresses rebound effect to some extent as it ensures price of fossil fuel powered energy keeps increasing with time. 

The premise is that when one knows a resource will be premium in future, one will consume less of it even if greater efficiency allows us to have it in greater quantity.

So policy can tackle it indirectly but I don't think any direct intervention is needed.

Thanks,

Manu

[soumyabrata rahut]

Dear Manu 

I dont know if this is the right thread as it started off with the BEE NMEEE discussion however as this is turning out to be very informative to me I will throw in another idea.

Even though I do agree to a carbon tax (pigovian tax) as a general principle I would like to point out that a non stratified carbon taxation will lead to the economically disadvantaged paying for mitigation as well as those that are economically advantaged. Given that energy forms a larger share of expenditure of those that are economically disadvantaged (NSSO data) this might mean that the inequality energy or otherwise in the system will increase.

as an example: putting a carbon tax on coal fired thermal power plants will mean an increase in the price of electricity across the board. This increase while miniscule for a certain economic class could have massive impacts for those economically disadvantaged. 

maybe some consumption based taxation ? (telescopic electricity tariff) though the mechanism of implementation outside of electricity could be very hard to set up as consumption would not be at one point or metered.

do let me know if I am straying far too outside the thread topic.

Regards

2011/11/24 Manu Sharma <orang...@gmail.com>

[Manu Sharma]

Soumyabrata Rahut <soumyabr...@gmail.com> wrote:

do let me know if I am straying far too outside the thread topic.

No problem. I've created a new thread. 

To continue the discussion on PAT scheme, if anyone else has information on the extent of additionality of PAT targets (either on the whole or industry-wise), as I have sought from JKumar here, please share. 

Thanks,

Manu

[gireesh nair]

Thought of contributing to the discussions on rebound effect. I believe that rebound effect through energy efficiency should be a concern at policy level especially if its primary objective is climate change mitigation. Though the concept was introduced by Jevons (Jevons was discussing on backfire) rebound effect was bought to the scientific discussion mainly by the research of Brookes in 1980s. Since then there are several publications on this aspect in peer reviewed international journals. Still the discussion about it is ongoing in scientific literature. As per my understanding there is a wide consensus among scientific community about the presence of rebound effect at macro level only the extent of its effect is debatable.

The effect of rebound effect could vary from products/industry/ nations. For example, as per studies in OECD countries the average direct rebound effect through
household space heating could be about 10-30%. Similarly, other researchers point out that the effect of rebound effect could be higher among low income group households in developed countries and also in developing countries. If I remember correctly there was a publication about a case study regarding rural lighting in West Bengal which showed a high rebound effect. Though energy efficiency measure may cause rebound effect it does not mean that energy efficiency should not be promoted as a strategy to mitigate climate change. In fact as per IEA, energy efficiency is an important strategy to reduce GHG emissions in the next 3-4 decades. But I believe if the primary objectives of energy efficiency measures are climate change mitigation then the policy makers especially in developing countries need consider the potential affect of rebound effect. This is because promoting energy efficiency in some products may lead to rebound effect much higher than another product (for example a matured product). I agree with Manu that energy efficiency measures need to be supplemented with proper energy pricing, to have a higher emission reduction from energy efficiency measures. As suggested by Manu gradual increase in energy price (through revenue neutral carbon taxes) could give signal to end-users (especially in India where elasticity of demand is high compared to developed countries) that the prices are going to increase in future could lead to adoption of energy efficiency measures.

Regards

Gireesh Nair

[Manu Sharma]

Dear Gireesh,

Thank you so much for your response. It's heartening to see a lively and insightful discussion here in which several members pitch in with their thoughts. 

I think I agree with most points you raised. If I can summarise, I argued that rebound effect is not significant and therefore no direct need for policy intervention although policy _can_ limit the effect. 

You're saying that the extent of rebound effect is not known and at the same time energy efficiency is a potent tool for climate mitigation. You agree that policy can limit the effect and argue that intervention is needed. 

Thanks,

Manu

[soumyabrata rahut]

A few figures on rebound effect

fuel efficiency - 30 to 80%

energy intensive industry - 20 to 60%

household goods - 10 to 30%

in dairy and meat industries more than 100% has been observed (backfire)

having taken these figure it becomes really interesting to then actually look at policy to try and see what has been done to curtail these impacts ? because this basically means that policy has to limit consumption.

I raise this issue primarily because yes as a country we seem to be pushing for energy efficiency in households as well as industry more than 60% of these gains could be lost due to rebound. However we neither measure nor have policies to counteract it.

I have not yet seen policies that address rebound and a deeper look into this issue is clearly needed. I do not think it is small. 50% of savings lost is quite a bit. specially in an inequitous resource constrained world.

warm regards

soumyabrata

[Manu Sharma]

Please also cite the source/s for these figures. On the other point, we absolutely have to limit consumption apart from investing in aggressive energy efficiency measures. Current growth trajectory is not sustainable. 

Thanks.

Manu

[gireesh nair]

Thank you Manu. I would like to summarize that in Indian context if we are promoting energy efficiency measures solely as a measure for climate change mitigation (energy efficiency has other benefits like it increases the competitiveness of local industry and also may lead to improved quality of life) then the policy makers need to be aware about possible rebound effect at macro level from specific policies so that its effect could be minimized. Regards   Gireesh --- On Thu, 11/24/11, Manu Sharma <orang...@gmail.com> wrote:

[N.RAVI Shankar]

TRUTH ABOUT PAT :::::::BITTER TRUTH :::::NMEEE

Dear Sirs

I am reposting one mail received from one of my close friend who involved on this

and he does not wish his name here :

ANONYMOUS ::


 I am very much involved in PAT work. I say there as well here that it is a futile exercise.
A very very simple issue has been unnecessarily complicated.

Why issue is simple :

The aim is energy conservation. BEE has produced thousands of certified energy auditors.

They should have accredited some / many of them. They could have recognized some good energy audit companies.

Then these  accredited energy auditors  or companies  should have started energy audit of DC's about  3 to 4 years  back.  Implementation  was already mandatory.

There was already a provision of appeal against energy auditor's suggestions. All this work should have been started by 2006 or 2007, by which time,
thousands had passed examination. By know sufficient results should have come.

How it has been complicated ? :

As per act, DC's were supposed to give energy consumption data from 2002 or 2003. Still, most of them are not giving.

They readily give to us, when we go for audit but have not probably given to BEE.

Then crores of rupees are/ will be spent on verifying this data. God knows when, actual implementation will take place?.

I only know that my reports on audit of some buildings have neither been read by SDA's nor by BEE and definitely not by building owners.

Every stake holder has spent enough time, energy and money on it.

Good part of BEE:

Their web site is definitely very good. When we started energy audit in 1999, we had to import reading material from UK.
Now there is no dearth of knowledge bank on BEE web site.

==============================

======

THIS ONE IS FROM OUR ESTEEMED MEMBER PROF : AJAY

I think we can give some inputs.

Under PAT data collection is in progress and based on last five years data PAT targets will be decided. This has many loopholes which because of professional commitments MR. Aggarwal can not reveal, but we can guess from our experiences of energy auditing and reporting. Some of these are:

1. To evade excise duty of sales tax many industries hide actual production. In this case specific energy consumption is higher. Tax duty evaders will be the big benificiaries if PAT is applicable.

2. Meter tampering and power thefts even though reduced to large extent in energy intensive industries, still distorts the data.

3. Power consumption in many industries is climate dependent. For e.g. for textile industry one has to maintain temperature and humidity to get good quality yarn. In hot and dry climate like ours lot of energy is spent in humidification while the same is very low in coastal region.

4. Product range the industry produces may be dynamic. For textile industry size and twists (count) of yarn are different and it consumes different specific energy. One industry produces wide range of counts and it can vary widely from year to year. There are few guidelines for energy consumptions and multipliers are available for count conversions, but those do not reflect ground realities. 

5. There are different benchmarks for different category of industries. In textile industries there are old mills, modern mills and ultra modern mills with different benchmarks. In practice the mills go modernisation and they become combination of some old, some modern and some ultramodern machines and accessories. Fixing one benchmark for such combinations is not practicable.

6. Some units are energy efficient while some are not. It depends on management approach and culture of the organisation. If some manufacturer is working very efficiently then it is difficult for him to further reduce specific consumption and get PAT benefit, in fact that manufacturer is likely to be penalised. PAT benefit will be available to inefficient manufacturers, which is not justified. 

Fixing higher specific consumption targets and then allowing the units to get PAT benefit is one area very corrupt practices are possible. It is like growing wealth of politicians, every election they declare assets but do not answer what was the source of income to justify rise in assets. Benefit like PAT should be given only for justified savings, one should be answerable on the measures taken to achieve savings claimed under PAT and not merely the production and energy consumption data. This data can be manipulated. 

Simplest thing is to ask every industry to go through extensive energy audits, locate areas of savings and implement those projects. Instead of PAT govt. should put easy financing options for implementing energy conservation projects. 

In case of carbon trading many companies made big money by doing nothing, especially the refrigerator and air conditioner manufacturers, they  were any way switching on to non CFC refrigerants, they lobbied and earned huge carbon credits with no change in technology. 

PAT is very likely to benefit tax evaders and inefficient manufacturers rather than helping energy efficient manufacturers.

BEE has asked for the data from energy intensive industries for last 5 years and it seems that they will use this data only for fixing the PAT targets. This is dangerous and can harm energy efficient units. In simple words, if a 'X' student gets 60% marks and "Y" student gets 90% marks, BEE will be asking "X" student to improve to 63% and Y student to 94.5%. As a layman everybody knows it is possible with some efforts and hard work for student "X" to improve may be to 75 or 80%, but student "Y" who is already working his heart out to gain 90%, asking him to further improve to 94.5% is too much. Very likely that the poor performer will earn PAT benefit showing marked improvement over his old performance and excellent performer will be penalised for not showing improvement.

In my opinion PAT is a hopeless idea in the present form.

Regards,

Prof. Ajay Chandak.

=================================================

THIS ONE FROM FROM A WELL KNOWN PERSON  AND HE IS NOT MEMBER IN GREEN INDIA

I agree with Prof.Ajay. The efficient units are most unlikely to be benefited from the PAT mechanism and may end up paying the present inefficient ones. No such mechanism will stand the legal scrutiny.It is sure to fail when it comes to legal disputes.
Actually,next to Bachat lamp Yojana, PAT is the next big scam meant to spend the allocated funds.BEE spent huge amount in organising the sector specific workshops, and through EESL initiated base line studies of DCs to favour few consultants with full knowledge that all these exercises have no meaning as the very foundation on which PAT was supposed to be laid is missing. That is the legal frame work. DCs may agree to get the Free energy audit done and submit the energy consumption figures but beyond that BEE or SDAs can do nothing.
For example:As per the notification issued in newspapers on 4th March,2011,all the DCs were supposed to have furnished the energy consumption data by 15th March'11 and the State Designated Agencies were supposed to initiate penal actions against those units which fail to comply with the notification. What action can be taken by the SDAs without a proper penal system in place? How the defaulters will be penalized? By chance,if the units voluntarily take up the energy saving projects and somehow all exceed the PAT target; then who will buy the Certificates? Will BEE guarantee purchase of Certificates? What will be the validity of those certificates? Who will decide the target?
PAT is just an idea to create vacancies in BEE and to favour some consultants with assignments.Nothing more than that can be expected from it.
If the EC Act was implemented in letter and in spirit and if the Accredited energy auditors/ Designated energy managers were in place, no PAT or the whole NMEEE was required, I had given this opinion at the time of drafting of NMEEE more than 2 years ago.

=======================================

RAVI SHANKAR.N

CHENNAI

WebRep

Overall rating

 

[Manu Sharma]

Dear Ravi,

Thanks a lot for the compilation of issues with Perform Achieve and Trade (PAT) scheme of Bureau of Energy Efficiency below. 

For the benefit of other members, I should explain that the following messages are from members of a group of certified energy efficiency auditors who obviously have studied PAT in great detail and have identified several loopholes and flaws in the working of the scheme.  

I haven't even mentioned my main grouse with PAT yet. I'm short of time today and will put the following inputs in a more organised manner when I have more time. 

Ravi, meanwhile if there are other issues with PAT highlighted in that group, please do share. Thanks again!

Thanks,

Manu 

--

[N. Ravi Shankar]

Dear Manu ,

Thank you

PAT for BUILDINGS ............( ESCO ROUTE )

I am attaching herewith pdf file of report prepared  for BEE on the subject

matter by a Delhi based consultancy firm during November 2008 for your comments.

PURPOSE & SCOPE

The Purpose of this Project is to –
· To create a database of ECBC compliant building and the buildings falling within
certain initiative like Green Building Council, TERI-GRIHA rating in India
· To create a database of government buildings having a connected load of more
than 500KW.
· To create a database of 10 commercial buildings in each of the climatic zones as
defined by National Building Code.
· Suggest measures to set up an institutional mechanism to collect and collate data
relating to new commercial buildings
· Document the initiative undertaken by the state government to benchmark
energy consumption in commercial building.

How much they have paid as part of contract we don't know

More over the report never  served any useful purpose except awarding more

contracts to ESCO consultants for the buidings identified through this report

and thus for BEE did nothing for conservation / improving efficiency

even after lapse of 4 years.

RAVISHANKAR.N

CHENNAI

[Sanjay Arora]

Manu
Sorry for the delayed post in this thread, which has been over a long
time ago, but I had not checked lists for some time.

Where & when are T&D losses published, if not in the annual reports? Its
a major concern that, as you rightly said, should be addressed prior to
pumping in expensive solar energy. Smells of a coverup prior to a
scandal breakout!! Anyone used RTI for seeking why T&D losses stopped
appearing in annual reports?

With best regards.
Sanjay.

[Manu Sharma]

Sanjay Arora wrote:

 Sorry for the delayed post in this thread, which has been over a long time ago, but I had not checked lists for some time.

No problem. Any thread, no matter how old, can be reopened at any time (except when I specifically mention in a given thread that it's closed, which is rare).

 

Where & when are T&D losses published, if not in the annual reports? Its a major concern that, as you rightly said, should be addressed prior to pumping in expensive solar energy. Smells of a coverup prior to a scandal breakout!!

Indeed. I have no idea whether the data is public at all. It's possibly embarrassing for CEA to admit to such large losses after so many thousands of crores have been spent. The scale and cost of loss is so huge that it's another scam in the making. 

Thanks,

Manu

________________

Manu Sharma

Climate Revolution Initiative

http://climaterevolution.net/