Rhônalpénergie-Environnement

HOST 

Name of the Hosting Project Partner:
Contact person(s) for Study Visit (Name, e-mail):

SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE TOOL/MEASURE 

Name of the Measure :

Rhônalpénergie-Environnement

Comprehensive renovations with EPC+ by the regional public operator OSER

Type : (Autonomous  or Part of an integrated action plan?)
Topic addressed:

  • Integrated energy;
  • Transport mobility
  • Land use planning;
Managing Organisation (if not project partner, please provide name of the organization and website):

La Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes

Contacts:
SPL d’Efficacité Energétique
Philippe TRUCHY Director
+33 4 76 22 55 34, contacts.spl@spl-oser.fr
Website: www.spl-oser.fr

Rhônalpénergie Environnement
Laurent CHANUSSOT
+33 4 78 37 29 14, Laurent.chanussot@raee.org
Website EPC : http://www.cpeauvergnerhonealpes.org

Geographic Coverage (Country/Region): La Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
Starting Date and Expected Ending of the tool or measure:
Beneficiaries / Target Group: La Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes

Regional Energy and Environment Agency of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (8 000 000 inhabitants, 4 300 municipalities…)

Rationale (starting point, challenge, objectives, initiator(s) and stakeholders involved):

Focus areas:

– Energy Efficiency

– Renewable Energies

– Protection of Environment

– Sustainable Development

Key objectives: Promote, inform and support local policies and projects led by public and local authorities.

Financing (costs? regional/national/European public or private resources?):
Implementation Modality / Methodology:

1. Founding of a Public operator for public building energy refurbishment:

-Founded in 2012 with 11 shareholders: Regional Council + 9 Municipalities + 1 energy service operator

-5 new municipalities in 2015 + 5 new in 2016

-Half of the municipalities have less than 20 000 inhabitants, the smalest is under 5 000 inhabitants

Objectives:

•       Comprehensive renovation of public buildings:

⇒ < 96 kWh/m² (BBC Low consumption label)

⇒ energy consumption and CO2 reduction: factor 2 to factor 4

* Energy savings guarantee: EPC

* Third party financing

•       Local construction chain enterprises mobilization

Internal organization of the implementation of the measure / Administrative Work-Flow:

They have an In-house model:

• Shareholders are only public authorities

• Membership fee : 1 €/inhabitant

• SPL staff : 2 projects managers, a lawyer and a specialist of financial aspects.

• Services only for the members (as their own services):

  • Assistance services for building deep renovation strategy
  • Management of the projects as building owner representatives (delegation of the responsibilities)
  • Third party financing : contract, 20 years ; Initial investment part : 10%; Annual fee = investment + O&M
Performance Indicators (if applicable):

  • Financial and technical goals have been reached on the first 8 projects
  • Costs are very different between the projects depending of non energy investments and type of actions (insulation, boilers…) but well negotiated
  • Easier access to funding and subsidies (ex: ELENA program with EIB) through the society
  • Energy savings represent in average 30 % of the annual cost (fees+O&M) within 20 years (investment not only energetic, low energy price)
  •  A minimum size of project is needed to justify the SPL work(800 000/1 million €)
Outputs:

Work done : 8 projects

o 3 schools : Bourg en Bresse

o 5 secondary schools: Regional Council

Work in progress : 9 projects

o City hall: Cran Gévrier

o Mediia library: Montmélian

o 2 secondary schools: Givors and Saint Priest en Jarez

o School: Grigny

o Big School and sport hall: Annecy

o School and sport hall: Bourg en Bresse

Many feasibility studies

 

Impact:

– Common public operator: Experience and efficiency increase with each project and is accessible for each municipality (organization, tools…)

– In house = Real collaboration with the internal municipal services (added skills and complementarity)

– It’s not possible to work only on energy renovation because the needs are much wider (regulation, modernization…)

– Involvement of local firms:

* tenders are always the same and the projects quite small,

* SME’s gathering is promoted (information meetings, Chamber of commerce and Cluster assistance…)

Strong features of the tool/measure:

 

Weak features and criticalities of the tool/measure:

It seems that the initiative is not economically sustainable.

From the starting, did you apply any change in design and implementation? Any corrective action?

 

What are the lessons learned for your region? For other regions? What would be conditions for potential transfer?

 

What are the next steps/follow up actions? (if applicable):

 

Additional comments:           

http://www.cpeauvergnerhonealpes.org/fr/contrats-de-performance-energetique-en-auvergne-rhone-alpes.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name of the Measure:

“Tronicpower” system for public lighting energy efficiency and energy saving

Type: (autonomous or part of an integrated action plan?)
Topic addressed:

·        Integrated energy

Managing Organisation (if not project partner, please provide name of the organization and website):

Municipality of Altidona

Geographic Coverage (Country/Region):

Local – Municipality of Altidona (Marche, Italy)

Starting Date and Expected Ending of the tool or measure:

 

Beneficiaries / Target Group:

–       Local Authority (Municipality of Altidona)

Rationale (starting point, challenge, objectives, initiator/s and stakeholders involved):

The project implemented a preliminary analysis of daily energy consumption, by reading the counters, and the consequent removal of the existing power supplies. On the selected public lighting a “tronicpower” electronic power supply was then installed, together with a high energy efficiency metal halide lamp.

Financing:
Implementation Modality / Methodology:
Internal organization of the implementation of the measure / Administrative Work-Flow:
Performance Indicators  (if applicable):
Outputs:

Energy saving: approx. 250,000 kW / h annually

Impact:

In addition to energy savings, an important benefit of the project was given by the financial saving that allowed compensating the investment.

Strong features of the tool/measure:

Ability to identify funding for the implementation of the intervention.

 

Weak features and criticalities of the tool/measure:

­   Lack of economic and human resources for project evaluation and management.

From the starting, did you apply any change in design and implementation? Any corrective action?

What are the lessons learned for your region? For other regions? What would be conditions for potential transfer?
What are the next steps/follow up actions? (if applicable):
Additional comments:

More information is available by contact:

Ufficio Tecnico Comune di Altidona – ing. Stefano Postacchini, tel. +39 0734 936353, e-mail: tecnico@altidona.net

 

 

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This