It requires suppliers of electricity, gas, fuel and heat to finance energy efficiency efforts in all sectors, based on their sales volumes. The CEE produced can be exchanged at the current average price of 7.4 euros per MWh avoided, on an over-the-counter market. CEE objectives to be produced are set by period. For the fifth period, from 2022 to 2025, because of the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis that followed, the volume of CEE to be produced was increased from 2600 to 3100 terawatt hours cumac (TWhc), an exotic unit specific to CEE . However, those obliged and their delegates are far from the account. “To achieve the current objective, we must now double the collection of CEE”warns Nicolas Goldberg, energy expert from Colombus Consulting.
In 2022 and 2023, respectively 6 and 4 billion euros of energy efficiency work have been financed in France, including 67% for the energy renovation of residential buildings, 10% in tertiary buildings and 16% in the ‘industry. To achieve the objective of Europe’s “Fit for 55” package of reducing final energy consumption in France by 30% compared to 2012, the government would like to almost double, or even triple, for season 6 (2026-2030). the objectives of season 5 (775 TWhc/year). It put out for consultation three scenarios aimed at producing between 1250 TWhc and 2500 TWhc of CEE per year.
Objectives “out of reach”, concludes a report from the Colombus Consulting firm commissioned by the associations representing energy companies (Afieg, Anode, Fédene, UFE and Ufip). The economically achievable CEE deposits are not sufficient without extending the system to energy savings in transport or agriculture, in particular. “The deposits considered economically accessible reveal a range of contribution of the system which could go from 51 to 88% of the national objective”, estimates the General Inspectorate of Finance (IGF), which also published a report on the EEC last July. For everyone, a profound reform of the system is necessary.
A mechanism that accumulates defects
The mechanism in fact first suffers from “chronic instability” with no less than 280 texts adopted concerning it since 2018, to add precarious EWCs, the financing of related “programs” without direct effect on consumption and mechanisms of “enhancement” of CEE via nudge operations to push for the adoption of one technology rather than another. Not to mention the legislative attempts to reduce fraud and the windfall effects that these operations entail, without ever completely succeeding, the controls remaining insufficient. In addition, the energy savings gains, calculated on the basis of standard sheets, remain theoretical and, according to the Court of Auditors, overestimated by around 30% at least for 2022 and 2023.
Finally, the cost of this program is passed on in full by energy companies on consumers’ bills. It costs 154 euros per year per household. With the scenarios proposed for season 6, this charge would rise to 450 euros per year and up to 912 euros per year for an EEC price which would rise, due to scarcity, to 11 euros per MWhc, Columbus calculated. For the Court of Auditors, this mechanism is equivalent to a tax on energy consumption which does not say its name. The IGF comes to the same conclusion, observing that it “ultimately weighs mainly on households, particularly motorists” and appears to be “anti-redistributive” in its financing arrangements. Only 70% of the sums are in fact returned to the beneficiaries, since part of the contributions is collected by the State for VAT, allocated to programs for the benefit of associations and third-party operators, or captured by intermediaries. of the system for their management costs and their margins.
Objectives unsuitable for existing deposits
Also be careful not to set CEE objectives that are too high and unattainable, which would ultimately pose a risk of not achieving the 30% reduction in energy consumption targeted for 2030, warns the Colombus report. Especially since the fact that a CEE deposit is available does not automatically trigger work, which is often initiated thanks to other mechanisms, such as MaPrim’Renov.
Aware that parliamentarians are not going to vote to abolish the EWCs in the near future, the Court of Auditors is calling for at least a profound reform. It asks that the objectives by period be submitted to Parliament and included in the multi-annual energy program. She also wants the financing of programs by the CEE and bonuses to be eliminated, and calls for the establishment of a structured anti-fraud plan. Finally, it pushes for a revision of the calculation of the savings obtained in the sheets, with a view to basing them on observed results, and the calculation and publication of the real savings made.
Despite its severity, the Court of Auditors’ report was considered “lucid” by EWC stakeholders, who nevertheless all reject the idea of removing it altogether. In response, the Directorate General for Energy and Climate (DGEC), which manages the system, announced a CEE program to evaluate the CEEs! For its part, the Ecological Transition Agency (Ademe) has decided to carry out a new evaluation of the system after that of 2019. It will be carried out by Colombus Consulting. Refuting the need to review everything, the Professional Group for Energy Certificates (GPCEE) for its part published a study on new CEE deposits by 2030 and 2050, as also recommended by the Colombus report. Sheets related to the electrification of vehicles and industry could thus be created. But calculating real savings is not going to be simple.
Transforming EECs into carbon credits, a bad idea
In its report recommending the elimination of the EWC mechanism, without really believing in it, the Court of Auditors reflected on what could replace it, putting forward the idea of a budgetary fund supplied by energy companies, of targeting the system on precarious households or in the professional sector (industry, agriculture, social landlords, communities) or the transformation of the system into carbon certificates. Knowing that taking into account avoided carbon emissions has already been possible since 2021 and a vote by Parliament. By reducing final energy consumption, the system already makes it possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Except that, writes the Court of Auditors, Europe wants an ad hoc response to the question of energy efficiency. It would therefore be necessary to create a new mechanism. Above all, other tools directly deal with the decarbonization of activities, notably the climate energy contribution, the famous carbon tax, and the European carbon quota systems extended in 2027 to the transport and buildings sectors.
Source: www.usinenouvelle.com
