The paper presented at ECEEE industrial summer study 2012 illustrates the basics of the Italian white certificates scheme and its capability to promote energy efficiency in the cement industry

1. 6-058-12 Dario Di Santo
White Certificates for the industrial sector
Dario Di Santo
FIRE – Italian Federation for the Rational Use of Energy
Via Anguillarese 301
00123 Roma IT
Email: disanto@fire-italia.org
Daniele Forni
FIRE – Italian Federation for the Rational Use of Energy
Via Anguillarese 301
00123 Roma IT
Email: forni@fire-italia.org
Enrico Biele
FIRE – Italian Federation for the Rational Use of Energy
Via Anguillarese 301
00123 Roma IT
Email: biele@fire-italia.org
Abstract
The Italian white certificates (WhC) scheme is one of the most complete examples of a baseline and trade incentive
scheme, created with the aim of promoting energy efficiency (EE) measures on final energy uses. The mechanism
obliges energy network distributors (electricity and natural gas) to reach yearly energy saving targets certified by the
presentation of a corresponding number of WhC (each equal to 1 toe). The distributors can reach their targets either
by acting directly on their final consumers or by buying WhC from ESCOs or companies that have an appointed
energy manager, as provided by law 10/1991.
After almost seven years and major problems in complying with the 2010 targets for lack of certificates on the
market, the Italian electricity and gas authority (AEEG) changed the rules for presenting projects and introduced a
set of multiplying coefficients to take into account the technical lifetime of EE measures. This change will have a
particularly pronounced effect on the industrial sector, both because of the enhanced value of the incentive (often
three times higher than before) and the progressive recognition of the energy monitoring plans method for saving
evaluation.
The paper will present the new rules, focusing on their economic effect, and some examples of how EE measures in
the industrial sector can be promoted through the scheme. In particular, the method for evaluating the energy
savings will be described, in order to explain both the flexibility of the monitoring plan approach and its drawbacks.
The effects on ESCO development will also be discussed. The Italian experience has additional significance
inasmuch as WhC schemes have a central role in the new EE directive proposal.
The paper is based on the activities concerning WhC carried on by the authors, such as research and studies,
surveys, cooperation with policy makers, implementation of standard evaluation files for different measures,
information and dissemination, and support to energy manager and ESCOs.
Contents
This paper begins by explaining how the Italian White Certificate scheme works, its basis and market dynamics,
with emphasis on the recent important modifications introduced by AEEG. It then focuses on the potential to apply
monitoring plans to the cement industry, to show that the WhC system could perform well in the industrial sector,
notwithstanding the modest results achieved by monitoring plans, to date, internationally.
Recently, monitoring plans in industry are even becoming the principal mechanism to obtain WhC in Italy,
particularly in the industrial sector. This is building capacity in the consultant companies that usually present WhC
proposals, some of which are becoming ESCOs and making an enhanced contribution to EE promotion in industry.
1 of 14

2. Even if many issues remains in the Italian WhC scheme, it has achieved a certain maturity and if well managed, the
mechanism could become more effective and interesting after the planned regulatory changes the Ministry of
Economic Development is due to introduce in 2012.
The analysis of the Italian WhC is principally based on three surveys recently implemented by FIRE1 among energy
managers and ESCOs [1][2][3][20], on studies realized by FIRE in recent years [e.g. 4], and on information, views,
experiences, and issues communicated by policy makers, institutional officials, FIRE’s members, and energy
managers at FIRE’s workshops, conferences, and training courses [e.g. 5].
The Italian White Certificate Scheme
Introduction
Energy efficiency is recognized as a priority for its energy, environmental, and economic benefits. It is also well
known – 1 – that many EE measures are characterized by positive NPV, high IRR and short PBT2, which means that
the capital cost of investment is recovered in a suitable amount of time and that, in many cases, an EE investment
has a higher financial return than many bonds or other investments.
Figure 1. McKinsey GHG3 abatement cost curve
Nevertheless, EE potential is not deployed as desired or, in policy terms, as required by the European 2020 targets.
Many reasons could be found to justify the poor performance at European level described by the Commission’s
Energy efficiency action plan 2011, and many studies have been written on the topic in the recent years. The main
barriers are not economic, but cultural (see for example [25]). They include knowledge of EE opportunities,
qualification of EE operators, behaviours and attitudes of building occupants and workers, and complexity of EE
solutions. The complexity depends on the wide variety of EE solutions – with respect to size, involved sector,
position in the learning curve, etc. – and on the connection between the performance and the use of buildings and
industrial processes, location, and local climate. This creates an intrinsic difficulty in defining appropriate incentive
schemes and in financing EE investments.
1
FIRE, the Italian Federation for the Rational Use of Energy, is a no-profit association established in 1987 that manages the
Italian energy manager network on behalf of the Ministry for the Economic Development and promotes energy efficiency
2
NPV (Net Present Value), IRR (Internal Rate of Return), and PBT (Pay Back Time) are well known economic indicators to
evaluate investments.
3
GHG, Green House Gas
2 of 14

3. Among the support schemes for EE, WhC is one of the most discussed. It has already been implemented in many
European countries. Some focused on particular sectors/actions, whereas others, like Italy and France, kept the
scheme open to most EE solutions and sectors. Figure 2 summarizes the differences. One question we may ask is
whether WhC can be considered an effective tool for promoting EE measures in the industrial sector. According to
the European Commission, Directorate General Joint Research Centre, the dominant sector in the five countries
indicated in Figure 2 has been the buildings, primarily residential. It seems that WhC does not effectively support
EE in industry in any of the countries, with the UK opting explicitly for a focus on the residential sector.
UK (CERT and CESP) Italy France Denmark Flanders region (Belgium)
2002-2005 (EEC-1)
2005-2008 (EEC-2) 2006-2009 (first period) 2006-2009 (first period)
Obligation period 2005-2012 2003 –
2008-2012 (CERT) 2011-2013 (second period) 2010-2012 (second period)
2009-2012 (CESP)
2.95 PJ annual (first year Approx. 580 GWh (2009 target)
293 MtCO2 lifetime savings in savings) until 2009 3.5% of the amount of electricity
345 TWh lifetime discounted
2012 (CERT) Cumulative savings of at least As of 2010: 6.1 PJ/y (first year supplied the year before to
Target size (ongoing phase) (over the period January 2011-
19.25 MtCO2 lifetime savings 22.4 Mtoe in 2012 savings weighted with household and non-residential
Dec. 2013)
in 2012 (CESP) prioritisation factors reflecting clients (2.5% in case of less than
action lifespan) 2,500 clients).
Residential and non energy
Energy end-use sectors covered Residential All All excl. ETS All except transport
intensive industry and service
40% priority group and 15%
super priority group. 25%
insulation measures (CERT) 25 TWh cumac max achievable The actions must always consist
Restrictions in achieving the Until 2008 50% on own energy
Low income areas; max 4% by by information, formation and None specific of financial contribution and an
target source
loft insulations; max 4% by innovation programmes awareness-raising element
cavity wall insulations; max 1%
by energy advice
Standard values (19 measures) Standard values (about 240
Standard values for approx. 200
Measurement and verification Engineering approach (5 measures)
Standard values measures Case-by-case approval by VEA
options measures) Case-by-case approval for other
Specific engineering calculation
Metered baseline method measures
Dominant measurement and
Deemed savings only Deemed savings Deemed savings Specific engineering calculations NA
verification choice
Ex-ante (adjusted first year
Accreditation of savings Ex-ante Ex-ante (majority) Ex-ante Ex-ante approval
savings only)
Size of certificate NA 1 toe 1 kWh cumac NA NA
The entire phase of the scheme 3 compliance periods NA (only adjusted first year
Validity of certificate NA (compliance in 2012) NA
(2005-2012) (compliance in 2009 and 2013) savings count)
20 toe/year, 40 toe/year and 60
toe/year for savings evaluated 1 GWh cumac
Certification threshold size NA respectively by deemed, (projects can be pooled to reach NA NA
engineering and metered baseline the threshold)
methods
Spot market
Trading* mechanisms Trading among suppliers OTC only No trading No trading
OTC (dominant)
Banking of excess savings Banking till 2012
Banking till 2012
between phases Banking three compliance As of 2010 borrowing if under
Banking, borrowing Borrowing for 1 year if under Banking of excess savings
(EEC-1 to EEC-2, EEC-2 to periods compliance below 35% (45% in
compliance below 40%
CERT) 2010)
Figure 2. Summary of WhC schemes in Europe. Source: European Commission Directorate General JRC
So the question arises if this is due to the measurement and verification (M&V) rules of the different WhC
mechanisms, to lack of policy maker attention to the industrial sector, or to some intrinsic limit of such schemes. We
believe the problem is M&V: EE in industry is even more complex than EE in general and so it is difficult to define
easy applicable M&V protocols and deemed savings methods.
The recent Italian experience is showing a rapid growth of WhC in industry, which started before the introduction of
the new savings multipliers in the last November, and gives some useful information on the possible ways to
promote EE in this sector through WhC.
The scheme’s basics
The Italian WhC scheme (also known as TEE, acronym of the Italian legislative definition “titoli di efficienza
energetica”, meaning “energy efficiency certificates”) created by the D.M. 20 July 2004, whose purpose is to
promote measures to improve energy efficiency among end-users, is approaching its third phase4 starting in 2013.
4
The second phase was initiated by D.M. 21 December 2007 and set the targets from 2008 to 2012. D.Lgs. 30 May 2008 No.
115 and D.Lgs. 28 February 2011 No. 28 introduced then some important news, but the implementing decree is still to come. To
help understanding the Italian legislative terminology, D.M. is the abbreviation for ministerial decree, a legislative second rank
act that is issued in accord to a law or a legislative decree (D.Lgs.). The white certificate scheme was in fact provided for in the
electricity and gas markets liberalization laws.
3 of 14

4. The system is based on the obligation, imposed on electricity and natural gas DSOs5 with more than 50,000
customers, to meet specific targets, expressed as primary energy savings and increasing over the years as shown in
Figure 3, aimed at increasing end-use energy efficiency. These savings can be achieved through energy efficiency
actions among end-users and are assessed using tons of oil equivalent (toe) as measurement unit6.
Italian"WhC"targets"and"results"
(data"updated"to"May"31"2012)"
%8.000%% 80%%
%6.000%% 60%%
%4.000%% 40%%
Figure 1. Yearly DSOs' targets and issued certificates
ktoe"
%"
%2.000%% 20%%
%!%%%% 0%%
2005% 2006% 2007% 2008% 2009% 2010% 2011% 2012%
!2.000%% !20%%
Source:%FIRE%based%on%AEEG%and%GME%data%
!4.000%% !40%%
Primary%energy%saving%targets%(ktoe)% Issued%WhC%from%June%1st%to%May%31st%(ktoe)%
Excess%%or%missing%WhC%(ktoe)% (issuedWhC!targetWhC)/targetWhC%(%)%
Figure 3. Italian WhC yearly targets, issued certificates, and trend
WhC flows
ENEA
cash flows
relations between
WhC project parties
evaluation
1st step obtaining WhC
asks for WhC project implementation
AEEG Voluntary player agreement
Authorises WhC
emission End-user
GME Tranfers WhC
Energy savings
2nd step: target complaiance
Direct contracting (OTC)
WhC
obliteration
AEEG Distributor WhC trading
Voluntary company
GME
market
Figure 4. Italian WhC scheme with voluntary player as project proponent
Figure 4 shows how the scheme works. A DSO or a voluntary subject – a DSO with less than 50,000 users, a
company controlled or controlling a DSO, an energy service company (ESC)7, or a company or institution that have
5
DSO: distribution system operator. We use the acronym to indicate all the operator in the field of electricity and gas
distribution, a natural monopoly in liberalized markets.
6
With the Italian production mix, one toe is about 1,200 m3 of gas or 5,350 kWh of electricity. That means that a 0.187
toe/MWhe and 0.086 toe/MWht coefficients are used.
7
In order to participate in the white certificate scheme it is not necessary to be an ESCO, as defined in the 2006/32/EC directive,
but it is sufficient for the company purpose to deal with the implementation of energy efficiency measures. This is the reason
4 of 14

5. appointed an energy manager in accordance with article 19 of law 10/918 – may apply for WhC by presenting an
energy efficiency project. If the project satisfies the rules set by AEEG (the Italian Electricity and Gas Authority)
and is approved by ENEA (the Italian Energy Agency) – whose task is to check that the project is technically and
administratively sound -, the owner receives from GME (Gestore dei Mercati Energetici9) a number of WhC
corresponding to the recognized saving (one White Certificate equals to one toe of savings) on its account.
Every party with WhC on its account can then trade the certificates either on the real time GME market10, which
usually is held once a week, or over the counter (OTC) through bilateral contracts registered on the GME’s
platform. Operators that cannot present WhC projects may join the market as traders. The scope of WhC trading is
to allow obliged DSOs to obtain a WhC amount sufficient to reach their targets. The certificates should be presented
to AEEG by May 31st of the year that follows the obligation. In the case of an insufficient number of certificates
there are two possibilities:
• if the number of WhC is at least equal to 60% the DSO’s target, the DSO is not subjected to penalties, but the
following year it must add the WhC it lacks to its target;
• if the number of WhC does not reach 60% of the target, the distributor is fined, and must, nevertheless, add the
WhC it lacks to its target for the following year.
It is worth noticing, since it is important in the scheme's framework, that AEEG has not set the value of the penalty.
That means it will be calculated on the basis of the extent of the default and of the involved DSO's behaviour in
complying with the request to correct it. Therefore, the market lacks this typical price upper bound.
The end-user can benefit from part of the economic value of the WhC or, less frequently, from a discount on the
capital cost of the solution or on the energy service annual fee, where applicable. It can be an active party only if it
is an organization that has appointed an energy manager, as provided by law 10/1991.
Almost every project involving an improved efficiency in the final consumption of energy are eligible under the
scheme, from boilers to lighting systems, from solar thermal to cogeneration, from electric motors to industrial
process projects. The exceptions are projects aimed at increasing efficiency in electricity generation and solutions
that are not listed in dedicated tables provided by the ministerial decrees that set up the scheme11. Each of the
eligible projects is expected to issue a certain number of certificates, depending on the installed or replaced units, or
on measured parameters (e.g. electricity and heat
Integrated savings VS yearly savings produced by a district heating plant), usually for a
300
period of five years (eight years for building envelope
250 related projects).
200 With the EEN 9/2011 delibera12, AEEG changed the
basics of savings recognition, introducing a multiplier
toe
150
( “tau”) that integrates energy savings by taking into
100
account the technical life of the action, discounting
50 them with a coefficient to consider wear and other
0
causes of performance reduction over the years. So,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 for example, if an EE measure saves 100 toe/year and
year has an expected life of 15 years, the basic multiplier
Yearly saving Integral discounted saving will be 15/5=3 (five is the number of years in which
WhC are obtained), which becomes 2.65 once
Figure 4. Effect of multipliers on energy savings discounted, and the integrated savings will be 265
toe/year (see Figure 5). In this example the EE measure will get in its “WhC life” 265x5=1,325 toe VS 100x5=500
toe/year of the previous rules. The coefficients vary with the considered solution, ranging from 1 to 4.58. Figure 6
and Table 1 show a summary for industrial deemed savings files.
why we use ESC as acronym instead of ESCo. Before it can present a project an ESC shall demonstrate that it has complied with
this requirement by obtaining an accreditation (“accreditamento”) with AEEG.
8
Industrial companies that have a primary energy consumption of at least 10,000 toe and the other type of companies or
authorities other 1,000 toe have to appoint an energy manager by law. Their network is managed by FIRE.
9
GME manages the Italian Power Exchange and the Emission Trading, Green Certificates and WhC markets.
10
It is possible to participate in “viewer mode” to the sessions by following the directions given at the following link:
http://www.mercatoelettrico.org/En/Mercati/AccessoTEE.aspx.
11
The Italian version of the D.M. 20 July 2004 is downloadable from the following link:
http://www.autorita.energia.it/it/ee/def.htm.
12
The main AEEG’s decisions are called “delibera” and are classified by a number and an acronym that indicates the involved
field of action. EEN stands for decision related to WhC.
5 of 14

6. One of the main issues with WhC is the calculation of energy savings, since in many cases it is not feasible or
practical to use meters13. For some actions, the savings are determined on the basis of special “files” defined by
AEEG. In this case (deemed savings – with no on-field measurement – and engineering estimates – with on-field
measurement) it is easy to evaluate the savings on the basis of the installed units or the produced kWh (e.g. solar
heating, windows replacement, CHP and district heating). For example, every square meter of glazed solar thermal
panels installed in Rome substituting an electric boiler corresponds to 0.154 toe14 that becomes 0.408 toe/year once
integrated and discounted, since the tau multiplier is 2.65 in this case. For deemed savings, a preliminary survey is
made by ENEA – previously by AEEG with the support of ENEA, RSE (Energy System Research center) or other
subjects – in order to evaluate the standardized savings to be recognized by these files. If during the survey it is not
possible to achieve a standardized method15, the engineering estimates approach is proposed. It implies that savings
are calculated on the basis of an algorithm based on at least one measurement. For example in the case of centralized
heating and cooling systems, the savings are calculated with respect to the amount of fuel consumption, the
electricity consumption, and the useful heat supplied to the user. The deemed saving approach has the advantage of
requiring no meters and of making the WhC available from the implementation of the EE measure. The engineering
estimates approach requires some measurements, delaying the emission of the first WhC usually by one year16. Both
approaches make it easy to present projects.
Industrial deemed savings files
Saving (10 -3 Units needed to
File Unit per toe
Technology Unit toe/unit/year) reach 20 toe Tau
number
min max min max max min
9 VSD electric engines for industrial pumping systems
1 turn industry 1 kW 12 42 24 83 314 91 2,65
2 turns industry 1 kW 6 20 49 166 153 45 2,65
3 turns industry 1 kW 3 11 95 319 80 24 2,65
seasonal industry 1 kW 11 38 27 90 284 84 2,65
11 high efficiency electric engines
1 turn industry 1 kW 37 294 3 27 2.220 283 2,65
2 turns industry 1 kW 19 149 7 53 1.126 142 2,65
3 turns industry 1 kW 10 77 13 102 581 74 2,65
seasonal industry 1 kW 35 270 4 29 2.040 262 2,65
Figure 5. Industrial deemed savings files summary.
In other cases, when a simplified file is not available, the proponent must get a prior approval for the procedure of
measurement and evaluation of the savings (PPPM) he intends to use. These are calculated on the basis of measured
quantities (the so-called “metodo a consuntivo”, or energy monitoring plan). In fact, the proponent must do a market
survey to estimate the baseline of the solution with respect to market standards and the related “additional” savings,
and propose a methodology to calculate the savings based on appropriate metering. Major projects – such as many
industrial projects, building renovation, and waste heat recovery – are presented utilizing this procedure.
EE Measure tau
IND-T Industrial processes: generation or heat recovery for cooling, drying, burning, melting 3.36
IND-GEN Industrial processes: electricity generation from renewable sources, heat recovery, or
3.36
cogeneration
IND-E Industrial processes: efficient drive systems (motors, etc.), automation and power factor
2.65
measures
IND-FF Industrial processes: interventions other than the above, for the energy optimization of
production processes and plant layout designed to achieve a lasting energy consumption reduction 3.36
normalized by quantity and quality of production
Table 1. Reference values for the tau coefficient for monitoring plans in industry
Independently from the chosen M&V method, an important issue is that only additional savings are considered for
WhC. Additional savings are evaluated with respect to a standard market baseline, depending on the solution and/or
sector under consideration, that represents the average energy performance of the typical action. This is the proper
approach, in order to give the incentive only to the savings resulting from the scheme – and not to the ones that
would be obtained in any case because of technological improvement, mandatory standards, or market
developments –, thus theoretically ensuring that the incentive is both cost-effective and able to promote an increase
in energy efficiency17. Unfortunately, the identification of the baseline is often complex, due to the lack of reliable
13
Either because it would be too expensive or because it would be difficult or impossible to isolate the effects of the energy
efficiency solution (e.g., for buildings thermal insulation).
14
This number will change in case of different location (the table distinguishes five solar zones), of gas boiler or district heating
integration, or of evacuated tube collectors. See “List of deemed savings file” chapter in [20].
15
For example, because there is no agreement among the stakeholders (technology manufacturers, energy providers, DSOs,
consumers, associations, etc), or because the savings vary a lot depending on some variable.
16
That is the time required to “measure” the savings.
17
For the actual effect of additional savings and its lack of capability to limit the free riders effect in Italy, see for example [20].
6 of 14

7. market data, and this represents a constraint to the definition of simplified M&V methods and the implementation of
energy monitoring plans. The net result is the small number of available deemed savings and engineering estimates
files: presently there are 24 files, of which 18 deemed savings18. With regard to monitoring plans, the effect is both
to make difficult for proponents to implement proposals with respect to simplified M&V protocols, and to require a
significant effort for ENEA to evaluate such proposals, which usually are not approved as presented, but require
some additional refinements, leading to a longer approval time and to higher costs for the WhC mechanism.
In Table 2 the results from 2005 to 2011 are shown. Almost 45% of the approved PPPMs require at least a revision
from the proponent before they can be accepted and the savings counted. This is usually due to insufficient or
incorrect information provided with respect to project description, proposed algorithm, M&V meters, baseline and
additional savings evaluation, etc. It is worth noticing the importance of information campaigns. More than half of
all proposal have been presented in the last two years, and 2011 accounts for approximately one third of the total
number. Presentation of energy monitoring plans started to increase when FIRE and ENEA undertook a series of
activities (conferences, workshops, training courses, guidelines, FAQs) to illustrate, in detail, how to present such
proposals with many practical examples19. Before then, the complexity of the process put off potential proponents to
the WhC scheme, notwithstanding that the incentive flowing from the white certificates for industrial EE measures
was already significant before the introduction of the tau multiplier.
Approved Rejected Other
at 1st at 2nd at 3rd at 4th at 5th at 1st at 2nd at 3rd Under Total
2005-2011 Suspended Retired
attempt attempt attempt attempt attempt attempt attempt attempt approval
PPPMs No. 399 270 41 3 1 86 12 4 9 31 117 973
PPPMs % 41% 28% 4% 0% 0% 9% 1% 0% 1% 3% 12% 100%
74% 10% 16%
Table 2. Results of PPPM’s approval procedure, showing frequent revisions. Source: ENEA [21].
A relevant exception to basic M&V rules is cogeneration, that since the D.M. 5 September 2011 follows a different
path with dedicated rules. The algorithm is calculated without considering the additional savings20, the assessment
authority is the GSE (Gestore dei Servizi Energetici, the state-owned company which promotes and supports
renewable energy sources in Italy), and the WhC can be retired at the previous year DSO’s reimbursement tariff, or
sold to the market.
The scheme provides a minimum threshold for presenting projects, which varies from 20 to 60 toe, depending on the
type of M&V method (see Table 3). This is mitigated both by the fact that integral savings are considered (i.e.
applying the tau multiplier) and that projects implemented among different users can be combined to achieve the
required threshold, provided that they use the same M&V system. With these new limits, from two to eight times
lower than the previous ones, the threshold should not be an issue even for small projects.
toe
Threshold
(with tau)
Deemed savings 20
Engineering estimates 40
Monitoring plan 60
Table 3. Minimum required thresholds to present a project
Possibility to sum different Non homogeneous
actions in a project to reach Homogenous savings evaluation methods savings evaluation
the minimum threshold methods
Engineering
One client Deemed savings Monitoring plan Monitoring Plan
estimates
Engineering
Many clients Deemed savings Monitoring plan Not permitted
estimates
Table 4. Possibility to sum up different actions to reach the thresholds of Table 3
Finally there are now five types of WhC:
• Type I: electricity savings;
18
D.Lgs. 28/2011 asked ENEA to provide at least 15 new simplified M&V files by September 2011. ENEA respected the
deadline and eventually added two additional files. These 17 new files should be issued by the Ministry of Economic
Development in 2012.
19
This delay in the campaign launch was due to the fact that ENEA has become responsible for the evaluation of the proposal in
2006 and has not been awarded economic resources to carry on information activities in the beginning.
20
Savings are correlated directly to the PES index defined in 2004/8/EC directive on cogeneration and varies with respect to the
installed power.
7 of 14

8. • Type II: natural gas savings;
• Type III: savings of other fuels (LPG, diesel oil, etc.) for other purposes than transportation;
• Type IV: savings of other fuels (LPG, diesel oil, etc.) for transportation with simplified M&V methods;
• Type V: savings of other fuels (LPG, diesel oil, etc.) for transportation with energy monitoring plans.
This classification exists because end users pay a tariff component on electricity and natural gas distribution to
allow obliged DSOs to recover costs “not covered in other ways”21. This component gives way to a reimbursement
for obliged DSOs that is currently worth 86.98 Euro/toe (it ranged between 88.92 and 100.00 Euro per toe from
2005 to 2011) and is assigned to DSOs upon the presentation of type I, II, III, and IV certificates to the AEEG22.
Demand, supply and WhC pricing
The scheme therefore works on the basis of a demand, represented by the obligation imposed on DSOs (e.g. 5.3
millions toe in 2011), and a supply, represented by the certificates held by parties who have presented and got
approved energy efficiency projects. Figure 7 summarizes the trend.
WhC&price&trend&
120"
110"
100"
90"
WhC's&price&(Euro)&
80"
70"
60"
50"
40"
30"
20"
10"
Source:"FIRE"evaluaIon"based"on"AEEG"and"GME"data"
0"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
06
06
06
06
07
07
07
07
07
08
08
08
08
08
09
09
09
09
09
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/20
/03
/05
/07
/10
/01
/03
/06
/08
/11
/01
/04
/06
/09
/11
/02
/04
/07
/09
/12
/03
/05
/07
/10
/01
/03
/05
/08
/11
/02
/04
07
16
25
24
16
27
05
28
06
29
08
17
09
18
17
28
01
22
01
02
11
20
19
11
22
31
30
15
07
17
Market&session&data&
"May"31st"session"" "DSO's"reimbursement"" "Type"III"" "Type"II"" "Type"I""
Figure 6. WhC’s price trend
Since there is a demand/supply driven market, periods of oversupply, as in 2008, when the price tends to remain
relatively low can be followed by periods when the price goes up because of a shortage of certificates. The
certificates are bankable until 2012 and can therefore be withheld by the owner to be sold at a time considered more
favourable. Due to the difficulty in reaching the 2010 and 2011 targets (see Figure 3), WhC prices have continued
to increase steadily until recently, when the first effects of the tau coefficient begun to feed more WhC to the
market. As anticipated in note 22, type IV and V still have not entered the market, because of their lack of
reimbursement for DSOs.
The trend of WhC presentation, as Figure 3 shows, is that yearly targets remain far from being achieved. It has been
a success to meet the 70% threshold for the 2011 target. Of course this has been possible due to the tau coefficient
that anticipates future savings increasing WhC on the market, thus needing an increase in targets to achieve the same
yearly savings to comply with European savings targets (2006/32/EC directive and the new directive on EE).
21
This definition, provided by D.M. 20 July 2004 and meaning that the DSOs reimbursement shall take into account the earnings
related to energy efficiency investments, is not easy to translate into numbers. Since DSOs are mainly passive parties, because
they usually do not implement projects, it is possible to say that the DSOs reimbursement shall be substantially similar to the
WhC market price. DSOs actually claim a reimbursement higher than the market price, in order to cover the expenses related to
their units dealing with WhC and the reduced energy earnings from distribution.
22
Type V certificates do not give access to reimbursement, thus making them not worth to exchange on the market. Up to now,
in fact, type IV certificates do not exist, since the simplified M&V file are yet to be issued from the Ministry of Economic
Development.
8 of 14

9. WhC in the cement sector
In order to show how WhC work in Italy for the industrial sector, a summary of a guideline for the cement industry
that FIRE has implemented for ENEA is given23.
Italy is among the largest cement producers in Europe; with a total production of 36.3 million tons of cement it was
in 2009 the main producer, despite the significant decline in recent years (-15.6% in 2008). The production facilities
are located throughout the country and currently total 88 manufacturing units, of which 58 are full-cycle and 30 are
grinding factories. There are 80 active rotary kilns, all based on the dry or semi-dry technology that enables the
achievement of greater energy efficiency.
Since the production of cement and its main component, the clinker, is an activity that requires a high energy
consumption per unit of final product, in recent decades significant changes have been made throughout the
production process. This has resulted in a drastic reduction of energy consumption (thermal and electrical) per unit
of cement produced, as well as an increase in productivity, properties, and performance of the clinker.
Guidelines on BAT for the manufacture of cement are shown in BRef24 produced as part of 2008/01/CE Directive
for Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). The document [22], which mainly deals with issues related
to emissions, also shows the state of the art technology with regard to energy consumption. The guidelines focus
only on energy considerations and the best available techniques (BAT) that are deemed appropriate for the Italian
Page 26
sector as a whole.
CEMBUREAU BAT Reference Document
Chapter 3
Figure 7. Cement manufacturing process (dry process) [22]
In constructing a new plant (or in case of a substantial renovation), the BAT for the production of cement clinker is
a dry process kiln with preheater and multistage precalciner. The value of the thermal budget associated with the
BAT is about 3,300 MJ/t of clinker.
Despite remarkable advances in technology, in terms of energy efficiency, there are still margins for improvement.
The BAT considered in the BRef indicate a value of 3,000 MJ/t of clinker for thermal energy and 90 kWh/t of
cement for electricity. The savings that would result from the transformation of the entire cement factories park is
about 300 MJ/t of clinker. Given the annual national production of 36.3 million tons of cement, a clinker/cement
ratio of 0.75, and assuming an approximate percentage of plants renovation of 50%, the global saving will be around
23
The final guideline has not been published yet. It will be available on the website www.efficienzaenergetica.enea.it.
24
The BRefs – brief reference documents – contain the description of the most used production processes and indication of the
best available techniques to reduce GHG emissions and energy consumption for the main industrial sectors. The documents are
available at the link http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/.
9 of 14

10. 100 ktoe/year. For the consumption of electrical energy, considered over the entire production line, the possible
reduction from the baseline is about 25 kWh/t of cement. Considering again a penetration rate of 50% the global
saving will be around 85 ktoe/year.
Monitoring plans
In order to prepare a monitoring plan the following points must be addressed:
• process description;
• description of the EE solution;
• identification of the baseline, and thus of additional savings;
• definition of the algorithm to calculate the energy savings;
• description of the M&V system.
Usually the third and fourth points are the most difficult to address, for different reasons.
The baseline for additional savings
The baseline shall be evaluated by for one of two possible situations: installation of a new facility or revamping of
an existing system.
For new plants (or a complete renovation of an existing plant) the reference is the market average, i.e. the typical
solution proposed in that period of time for the same intervention. As mentioned above, currently it is the dry
process with multiple stage preheater and precalciner.
Reference values Thermal energy Electricity
BRef 3,000 – 4,000 MJ/t clinker 90 - 150 kWh/t cement
Italian current
3,860 MJ/t clinker 114 kWh/t cement
practice
Breakdown by production steps
38 kWh/t cement
Grinding of raw
84 MJ/t clinker 35 kWh/t raw material
materials
(raw material/clinker = 1.52; humidity 5%)
25 kWh/t cement
Clinker burning
3,768 MJ /t clinker 33 kWh/t clinker
(clinker/cement = 0,77)
Cement grinding 43 kWh/t cement
Other consumption
(fans, fuel preheating, 8 MJ /t clinker 8 kWh/t cement
etc.)
Table 5. Reference values for the calculation of the baseline.
For the renovation of an existing plants, provided an hardware intervention is implemented and not only an
improvement of the plant management or of the regulation of the energy devices, the baseline reference is the higher
between the specific consumption of the ex-ante plant and the specific consumption of the current practice in the
same industrial sector. Table 5 reports the reference values to be compared with the ex-ante system in order to
define the baseline.
The savings to be considered within the WhC scheme are the difference between the baseline energy use and the ex-
post energy use.
For projects that do not cover an entire production line, but just some phases of the cycle, some references from the
literature can be helpful [24]. For example, comparing them with the account data of industrial cement industry, it is
possible to estimate that clinker burning accounts for a 22% share of the total electricity consumption in cement
production, whereas the higher consumption is related to cement grinding, with 38% of electricity consumption.
Starting from these percentages, it is possible to calculate the value of the specific consumption of electricity in the
various phases of the production process.
10 of 14

11. The algorithm to calculate the energy savings
The algorithm is not an issue technically, but it is important that it is chosen taking into account the necessity to
normalize the savings with the industrial production – the clinker in this case – and to ensure that the effect of the
EE intervention is correctly isolated from other energy consumption. Most problems that arise in this connection are
due to an insufficient number of meters or to their incorrect positioning. But there are may also be errors in the
definition of the savings formula.
The variables to be measured are:
• Amount of fuel used in the oven;
• Lower calorific value of fuel (LHV);
• Amount of clinker produced (tonnes);
• Annual consumption of electricity.
Thermal energy savings:
Rt = (CSTB - Cstpost) x B [toe/year]
where:
CSTB = specific heat consumption baseline [toe/t clinker]
Cstpost = Et/B = specific heat consumption ex-post [toe/t clinker]
Et = annual consumption of thermal energy = amount of fuel used x LHV [toe]
B = tons of clinker produced [t clinker/year]
Electricity savings:
Re = (CSEB - Csepost) x B x c [toe/year]
where:
CSEB = specific electricity consumption baseline [kWh/t clinker]
Ee = annual consumption of electricity [kWh]
Csepost Ee/B = specific consumption of electricity [kWh/t clinker]
B = tons of clinker produced [t clinker/year]
c = 0.187 x 10-3 [toe/kWh]
The last coefficient has been determined by AEEG as the primary energy conversion factor for electricity. It
corresponds to a 46% efficiency of the centralized power generation park.
Issues related to M&V
Since in the cement industry fuel and clinker consumption present high values – on the order of hundreds of
thousands of tons per year – an accurate measurement may be difficult. To address this issue, one possibility is to
refer to the measurement uncertainties listed in Annex VII of the Decision 2007/589/EC related to the emission
trading scheme (directive 2003/87/EC)25.
The use of alternative fuels is still limited, so its effects on the final result is still not very significant, but
considering the Italian interest in refuse derived fuel (RDF) from industrial and municipal waste, the implications of
its use should be analysed, both with respect to WhC and ETS. Two of these implications are already evident today:
the difficulty in measuring flow and heating value, and the increase in the auxiliary services consumption and in
excess air, which should lead to a different baseline for RDF fired plants.
Typical savings recorded from approved PPPMs
Below is a summary of the types of projects recorded, with an indication of what can be achieved (of course they are
only indicative and may differ significantly due to the particular EE measure and the starting baseline).
25
The Guidelines, for example, give an uncertainty of measurement of the amount of clinker produced by 2.5%.
11 of 14

12. The good number of applications demonstrates that even if monitoring plans are complex, they can successfully be
used, especially when the available savings are good enough to justify the effort. In Italy, there is a minimum
threshold to present a single EE measure of 60 toe, that at present WhC prices corresponds to 6,000 €/year for five
years. This figure must be compared with the real savings in the energy bill, that are in the order of 10,000 €/year26,
and demonstrate the important weight of WhC in promoting EE measures in industry. So the minimum threshold is
already a sum that allows ESC and companies to present a PPPM, since it covers both the cost of preparing the
proposal – limited to the first year – and the administrative costs – due after the acceptance of the PPPM to
communicate the measurements, obtaining the WhC and selling them on the market –, leaving space for additional
earnings. To reach that threshold savings in the order of 100 MWh of electricity or of 200,000 m3 of natural gas per
year are needed, an easy result for medium and large industrial companies.
Moreover, Table 6 shows that it is not difficult to present projects capable to get tens of thousands of euros per year,
considering the typical production per factory. That means WhC can make a significant contribution to EE
investments in this industry. The same result can be obtained in all the energy intensive sectors and in many high
energy consumption companies.
EE measure No. Savings
-3
Furnace renovation 5 (2÷13) x 10 toe/t clinker
-3
Furnace substitution 4 (4÷13) x 10 toe/t clinker
Heat recovery 3 (0.11÷1) x 10-3 toe/t clinker
-3
RDF recovery 7 (2÷4) x 10 toe/t clinker
Cement mill modify 2 (0.5÷3) x 10-3 toe/t cement
-3
Cement mill substitution 3 (2÷4) x 10 toe/t cement
Fan advanced regulation 3 (0.05÷0.4) x 10-3 toe/t clinker
-3
Advanced management systems 3 (0.2÷0.4) x 10 toe/t clinker
Raw materials mill substitution 2 (0.7÷2) x 10-3 toe/t clinker
Table 6. Recorded savings from approved PPPMs.
Conclusions
It is yet to be demonstrated WhC ensure the best cost/benefit performance (see for example [20]), but nevertheless
they have the advantage of covering nearly the entire spectrum of EE interventions without the need for policy
makers to know EE measures capital costs in details. Any support scheme for EE confronts the same issue of
developing a valid M&V system in order to ensure that the maximum savings are obtained at the minimum cost for
the system. Of course M&V represents the most important issue to address.
Deemed saving and engineering estimates methods have the obvious advantage of being very simple to use. They
also reduce the cost of controls and assessment for the involved authorities (ENEA in Italy). On the other hand,
especially if only additional savings are taken into account and if a rigorous savings evaluation method is
considered, it is difficult to define a large number of deemed savings files, unless a very reliable and extensive
statistical data on market prices and technical solutions is available27. This is even more difficult in the industrial
sector: in Italy only two deemed savings files and one engineering estimates file have been issued, apart from
cogeneration.
Monitoring plans are evidently more difficult to manage, since they both require the proponent to make a significant
proposal and require a substantial effort to evaluate the proposal by the assessment body28. Another relevant
shortcoming is that the required effort is rarely compatible with those small and medium actions that are typical for
SMEs29. Since SMEs are the backbone of European, and especially Italian, economies, this is a major drawback. To
26
One toe costs approximately 400-600 euro in the industrial sector and Table 1 shows that there is typically a tau of 3.36, thus
the threshold of 60 integral toe corresponds to more or less 20 yearly toe of real savings.
27
To define a deemed saving file the following are needed: a market analysis to define the baseline and the potential, a technical
analysis to identify the EE solution performance and typical savings, which need to be replicable among different users and
vendor’s solution with a limited variance, and a regulation analysis to keep into account all the relevant technical standards and
the applicable legislative measures. Often the required effort leads either to an insufficient data collection, or to good results on
that front, but with scarce energy saving values per unit that make the issuing of a file useless because of poor economic
performance.
28
It is difficult to standardise how to write the proposal. For the same EE measure different proponents will create very different
documents with respect to the style, the length, the attached information, and even the algorithm and the baseline evaluation.
29
Small and medium enterprises.
See: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/sme-definition/index_en.htm.
12 of 14

13. ensure that they can avail themselves of WhC, simplified M&V schemes should be developed, even at the cost of
giving up to some engineering exactness.
With large EE interventions, like the ones considered in the cement industry, monitoring plans are working well.
Industrial companies have come to understand the opportunity that WhC represent and are trying to join in. This is
good news for a system lacking a large number of WhC to attain its 2012 targets. More importantly, it means that
EE is finally being promoted by the mechanism. Monitoring plans have in fact already overtaken deemed savings
and engineering estimates in Italy in the last months in terms of issued certificates. This presents another interesting
added value for EE: the complexity of the plans obliges the proponents, in particular ESCs, to fully understand and
study the presented EE actions30. This is improving their knowledge of the industrial sectors in which they operate,
with positive effects on their potential to promote and replicate similar actions. Some of the ESCs have indeed
become full ESCOs this way, fulfilling one of the original aims of the WhC scheme in Italy.
A final important aspect: the real trigger to success of the scheme and of the involvement of industry is information
and training. It is fundamental to devote sufficient economic and personnel resources to these activities. The
advantages for the system in general are enormous compared with the cost of implementing these actions.
Useful links and references
Links of institutions and associations related to white certificates in Italy
AEEG, Italian electricity and gas authority, www.autorita.energia.it
GME, Italian energy market operator, www.mercatoelettrico.org
ENEA, Italian Agency for new technologies, energy and environment, www.enea.it
RSE, Energy System Research center, www.rse-web.it
MSE, Ministry of Economic Development, www.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it
Federutility, Federation of DSOs, www.federutility.it
Agesi, www.agesi.it, and Assoesco, www.assoesco.org, ESCos associations
FIRE, Italian Federation for the Rational Use of Energy, www.fire-italia.org
References
[1] “Le ESCO in Italia”, a FIRE survey on ESCOs in Italy, 2008,
www.fire-italia.it/indagini/2008-12_indagine_ESCO_report.pdf
[2] “Indagine di monitoraggio della partecipazione al meccanismo dei TEE”, a FIRE survey on WhC in Italy, 2009,
www.fire-italia.it/indagini/TEE/TEE_1.asp
[3] “Indagine sul gradimento dei TEE tra gli energy manager”, a FIRE survey in cooperation with ENEL on the
energy managers participation in WhC in Italy, 2011, www.fire-italia.it/indagini/TEE_ENEL/TEE_ENEL.asp
[4] “Osservazioni sul meccanismo dei certificati bianchi e spunti per l’aggiornamento”, D. Di Santo, RdS, 2010,
http://old.enea.it/attivita_ricerca/energia/sistema_elettrico/Elettrotecnologie/6%20Osservazioni%20meccanismo
%20CB_10.09.2010.pdf
[5] FIRE conference and workshop proceedings dedicated to white certificates (www.fire-italia.it/convegni.asp):
a. FIRE conference – Milano – 22-23 March 2012 – “Certificati bianchi: titoli di efficienza a portata di
mano”
b. FIRE workshop – Rimini – 10 November 2011 – “Le nuove regole per i certificati bianchi”
c. FIRE workshop – Rimini – 4 November 2010 – “Certificati bianchi: risultati e proposte di
miglioramento”
d. Key Energy 2009 workshop – Rimini – 29 October 2009 – “Certificati bianchi: la partita si fa seria”
e. FIRE workshop – Roma – 22 April 2008 – “Il nuovo sistema di incentivazione dell'efficienza
energetica”
30
It is worth noticing that since ESCs are often consultants that come into action after the EE measure has been implemented, it
is not obvious they have a solid know-how on the matter.
13 of 14

14. f. Older workshops not listed here but available on the indicated web page
[6] AEEG’s annual reports about white certificates, www.autorita.energia.it/it/pubblicazioni_ee.htm
[7] GME’s monthly newsletters, www.mercatoelettrico.org/It/Tools/newsletter.aspx
[8] Concerted Action for the implementation of the 2006/32/EC directive, core theme number 3, information
gathered through FIRE’s participation in working groups
[9] Energy Efficiency Plan 2011 - Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
COM(2011) 109/4
[10] “European Workshop on Experiences and Policies on Energy Saving Obligations and White Certificates”
proceedings, 27-28 January 2011, http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/events/WhC_Workshop.htm
[11] “Tradable certificates for energy savings (white certificates) - theory and practice”, P. Bertoldi, S. Rezessy,
2006, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability
[12] “Polices for increasing energy efficiency: Thirty years of experience in OECD countries”, H. Gellera, P.
Harringtonb, A. H. Rosenfeldc, S. Tanishimad, F. Unanderd, Energy Policy 34 (2006) 556–573
[13] “What can we learn from tradable green certificate markets for trading white certificates?”, R. Haas, N.
Sagbauer, G. Resch, ECEEE 2009 Summer Study - Act! Innovate! Deliver! Reducing energy demand
sustainably
[14] “Energy company obligations to save energy in Italy, the UK and France: what have we learnt?”, N. Eyre, M.
Pavan, L. Bodineau, ECEEE 2009 Summer Study - Act! Innovate! Deliver! Reducing energy demand
sustainably
[15] IEA documentation and proceedings available through the web sites:
www.ieadsm.org/ViewTask.aspx?ID=17&Task=14, www.ieadsm.org/Content.aspx?ID=7#ancMilan
[16] Energie Plus, Maitriser l’energie durablement, Revue de l’Association technique energie environnement,
biweekly newsletter and bimonthly insight, all numbers from 2007 to 2011
[17] Ademe & Vous, Ademe international monthly magazine, all numbers from 2007 to 2011
[18] “Impact of the financial crisis on carbon economics – Version 2.1 of the global greenhouse gas abatement cost
curve”, McKinsey & Company 2010
[19] “Energy saving obligations and tradable white certificates: comparative analysis of experiences in the
European Union”, N. Labanca, European Commission, Directorate General JRC, proceedings from the
conference “Certificati bianchi: titoli di efficienza energetica a portata di mano”, www.fire-
italia.it/convegni/Confereza_TEE_2012/Labanca_JRC.pdf
[20] “The White Certificate scheme: the Italian experience and proposals for improvement”, D. Di Santo, D. Forni,
V. Venturini, E. Biele, ECEEE 2011 Summer Study - Energy efficiency first: The foundation of a low-carbon
society
[21] “Come sfruttare le opportunità: i progetti a consuntivo”, N. Di Franco, ENEA, proceedings from the
conference “Certificati bianchi: titoli di efficienza energetica a portata di mano”, www.fire-
italia.it/convegni/Confereza_TEE_2012/DiFranco_ENEA.pdf
[22] “Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide
Manufacturing Industries”, European Commission, May 2010
[23] “Rapporto annuale”, AITEC, 2007-2010
[24] “Energy Efficiency Improvement Utilising High Technology”, World Energy Council, Reports & Case
Studies, 1995
[25] “Soluzioni regolatorie per le barriere non-economiche alla diffusione dell’efficienza energetica in Italia
nell’uso dell’elettricità”, D. Di Santo, G. Tomassetti, V. Venturini, a FIRE’s study for ENEL, 2011, www.fire-
italia.it/indagini/ENEL_barriere/2011-07%20Barriere_non_economiche_ENEL_ES.pdf
14 of 14