Navigant Research Blog

Rough Water Ahead for Europe’s Energy Efficiency Efforts

— June 17, 2014

Despite the heightened focus on energy security following events in Ukraine, recent election results, which showed a rise in anti-European Union (EU) voting, promise a challenging period ahead for energy efficiency advocates.

According to the European Alliance for Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EuroACE), the month of June, for Europe, brings Energy Dependence Day – the day the EU effectively runs out of indigenous energy and must rely on foreign imports.  With 54% of final energy consumption in 2011 imported, June 18 marked the day Europe used up domestic resources and turned to imports to fulfil its energy demands.  As imports increase, Energy Dependence Day tends to arrive earlier in the year (this year, it’s expected to happen in the second half of June).  In 1995, when Europe only imported 43% of its final energy, Energy Dependence Day came 38 days later, on July 26.

Researchers at Oxfam have suggested that even if the EU fulfils its multiple climate and energy targets, Europe’s energy bill could still surge from €400 billion in 2013 to €500 billion ($543 billion-$679 billion) by 2030 on account of price increases.  Energy demand alone is expected to increase 27% by 2030.  Should Europe fail to meet the agreed targets, it’s difficult to predict how much higher the bill could escalate.

Securing Europe

Energy efficiency surely has a major role to play in any strategy addressing the continent’s mounting import bill.  According to ECOFYS, improving energy efficiency by 40%, together with an energy mix boasting 45% renewables, could save €396 per person annually.  In May, EuroACE campaigned for such a figure as part of a binding target on energy efficiency.

Yet, in the latest European Energy Security Strategy, hastily published in response to the situation in Ukraine, energy efficiency is largely neglected.  Instead, attention centers on securing alternative gas sources in the form of domestic shale reserves or liquefied natural gas (LNG) from overseas.

A Fragmented Landscape

While Russia flexes its muscles on Europe’s gas supply, the political will for collective action in Europe has been severely undermined by last month’s European Parliament elections.  Opposition to EU green policy has been fast to seize the recent election results as evidence of resistance.  On June 2, Energy UK cited the results as vindication for a shift away from the existing “emotion driven and expensive agenda.”

So, how likely is it that a previously elusive binding target on energy efficiency can be legislated under one of the most anti-EU European Parliaments yet? It’s certainly difficult to remain optimistic, despite the urgency political events have generated.  As I discussed in my previous blog, the recent compilation of National Energy Efficiency Action Plans has largely been deemed insufficient by critics, suggesting a lack of engagement among member states.

Yet, buildings account for 40% of Europe’s final energy consumption.  A binding target addressing Europe’s building stock and its energy-saving potential would be one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing Europe’s energy dependence – surely something everyone in the EU would like to see.  But action speaks louder than words.  So far, words far exceed action on energy efficiency in Europe.


Building the Business Case for Commercial Microgrids

— January 15, 2014

The majority of microgrids that have come online to date – whether grid-connected or off-grid – have been pilot projects or research and development (R&D) experiments.  Now the industry is moving into the next phase of project development, focusing on how to develop projects on fully commercial terms.  It appears that the main technology components have made significant headway, and the keys to future growth now rest with greater creativity in both the public policy and business model arenas.  One pathway that could address the latter is through power purchase agreements (PPAs).

The increasing frequency of severe weather is prompting utilities in the United States and around the world to reconsider their historic opposition to customer-owned microgrids that can disconnect from the larger grid and island, allowing critical mission functions to stay up and running.  Yet, utilities continue to worry about how a proliferation of customer-owned microgrids might complicate their job and whether regulators would instead allow utilities to build, own, or control these microgrids in some sort of coordinated, enterprisewide fashion.

Quantifying Reliability

The modularity of microgrids means this: calculating a return on investment (ROI) is virtually impossible.  Vendors claim paybacks ranging from 2 to 5 years, depending upon the amount of new hardware being deployed and the availability of ancillary service revenue streams.  Realizing greater utilization of existing generators through the networking and sharing of resources enabled by a microgrid leads one to the logical conclusion that microgrids will ultimately lower the cost per kilowatt-hour.  Third-party financing can make an even better value proposition.  Selling demand response (DR) services back to utilities provides yet another boost to the bottom line.

The primary metric that remains a mystery is the value of reliability. Quantifying the benefits of reliability is both art and science.  At this point in time, there are no widely recognized financial metrics to monetize the value of energy security and reliability, the key distinguishing feature of a microgrid network.  Analysis conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in 2012 looked at a military base – Fort Belvoir – and found the value of electrical energy security (VEES) at that site ranged from $2.2 million to $3.9 million annually.  The range reflected the mission of the respective loads within the base and recent performance metrics of each utility.  Since each microgrid is a customized solution, it is also difficult to generalize about any VEES cost advantages such networks can offer compared to a host distribution utility (whose cost of service also varies per geography and utility market structure).

Open is Better

Putting aside for the moment the lack of consensus on monetizing the energy security of a microgrid, what about financing? Can PPAs do for microgrids what it did for solar PV? Companies such as Green Energy Corporation and Leidos are betting on it.

In order for the PPA business model to work, the network controls must be based on a streamlined and open architecture. Given that microgrids are much more complex than a simple solar PV system, companies willing to enter into long-term PPAs must be smart about risk and choose suppliers wisely, favoring simple, elegant controls that do not require ongoing customized engineering every time a new resource is integrated into the microgrid.

Navigant Research is betting on the PPA to help move microgrids into the mainstream in North America, as a new market forecast demonstrates (see chart below.)

Annual Total Microgrid Vendor Revenue by Region, Base Scenario, World Markets: 2013-2020


(Source: Navigant Research)


U.S. Military Not Retreating on Clean Energy

— May 9, 2012

While many government officials nervously await the outcome of the November elections and speculate as to its implications for the cleantech sector, one federal department is likely to be relatively unaffected regardless of the outcome: Defense.

According to panelists at the recent “Mission Critical: Clean Energy and the U.S. Military“ event in Denver, the military’s growing commitment to reducing its use of fossil fuel, for both national security and economic reasons, will not waver regardless of who’s in charge in the White House or the Congress.

Senator Mark Udall of Colorado rattled off a series of statistics that underline the reasons for the military’s emphasis on becoming as green as the army’s uniforms:

  • The military is 25 percent of government’s energy burden
  • The Pentagon is biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the world, burning 300,000 barrels of oil per day at a cost of more than $30 million in fuel per day
  • A $1 increase in the price of oil increases DoD’s energy cost by $100 million per year
  • 1 out of every 50 convoys in a combat zone results in a casualty, and the Army has accrued more than 3300 fatalities in convoys since 2001
  • Convoy and security costs $100 per gallon for combat zones

Udall emphasized that the military is implementing many fuel-reducing technologies because of the high human price paid in getting fuel to the front lines. “Saving energy saves lives,” he said, adding that adopting clean energy technologies is “one of the most patriotic things we can do.”

Despite any changes that might occur in the leadership in the executive or legislative branches, the military will continue to be an early adopter of clean technologies that enable it to become more energy independent. These includes making military bases self-sufficient (and less vulnerable to attack) by creating microgrids, and purchasing a large number of hybrid and electric vehicles for its non-combat fleet.

While investors may be endangering the cleantech industry by exiting or staying out of the market, the military remains committed to deploying solar and wind. The military will generate 25 percent of its energy from renewables by 2025, according to Mark Mahoney, director of the Army Regional Environmental and Energy Office.  Mahoney said one benefit to renewable adoption is that a platoon can reduce the load it carries by 700 pounds simply by replacing portable generators with solar chargers.

Fort Carson, Colorado, recently achieved the challenging trifecta of becoming a “net zero” facility for energy, water and waste. Fort Carson became the second such army facility, joining Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas.  The military’s unrelenting commitment to clean energy is consistent with its overarching mantra of preparedness.  According to Mahoney, we can’t “afford to wait until the next international energy crisis … or national tragedy forces us to act.”


U.S. Now an Oil Exporter

— December 2, 2011

I did a double take when I saw this headline on the homepage of The Wall Street Journal: “U.S. Nears Milestone: Net Fuel Exporter.”

“U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring,” the newspaper reported, putting the nation on track to be a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011 for the first time in 62 years.”

Really? Here are a few highlights from the WSJ’s story:

  • A combination of booming demand from emerging markets and faltering domestic activity means the U.S. is exporting more fuel than it imports, upending the historical norm.
  • As an overall exporter of fuels made from crude, the U.S. now has greater influence in the global energy market.
  • The U.S. will not lose its “net exporter” tag anytime soon.

While many of us weren’t paying much attention, people at energy companies saw a challenge and found new ways to meet it, leveraging new technologies for more efficient drilling amid a shifting global energy market.

This means the energy picture may not be so gloomy after all. Clearly, this does not mean we should ignore other fuel sources, including renewables. And it hardly helps solve the looming challenge of global climate change. But it does offer hope that solving long-term energy challenges, such as national energy security, may not be as difficult as once envisioned. That’s a good thing.


Blog Articles

Most Recent

By Date


Clean Transportation, Electric Vehicles, Energy Storage, Policy & Regulation, Renewable Energy, Smart Energy Practice, Smart Energy Program, Smart Grid Practice, Smart Transportation Practice, Utility Innovations

By Author

{"userID":"","pageName":"Energy Security","path":"\/tag\/energy-security","date":"8\/23\/2014"}