Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 6 – uploaded by PEDRO PAULO DA SILVA FILHO

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 6. Average Investment per Project - COPEL, Cycle 2003/04

Figure 6 Average Investment per Project - COPEL, Cycle 2003/04

Related Figures (21)

Table 1. Allocation of Wire-Charge Revenue to Different Activities (1998-2007) (percent)
Table 1. Allocation of Wire-Charge Revenue to Different Activities (1998-2007) (percent)
22. Table 3 compares two periods: (a) the four annual cycles from 2000/01 through 2004/05; and (b) the cycles for 2005/06 and 2006/07. It shows the impact of Resolution 176/2005 on the allocation of planned investment resources, such as the elimination of investments in public lighting and the huge increase in the share of resources for residential projects.
22. Table 3 compares two periods: (a) the four annual cycles from 2000/01 through 2004/05; and (b) the cycles for 2005/06 and 2006/07. It shows the impact of Resolution 176/2005 on the allocation of planned investment resources, such as the elimination of investments in public lighting and the huge increase in the share of resources for residential projects.
* Estimates for the 2006/07 annual cycle are partial, due to incomplete data. 23. Great caution is needed when considering these results, however. In addition to the lack of systematic evaluation of EE projects, many final EEP reports contain incomplete data. As Table 2 shows, for example, at the time of writing it was still not possible to assemble coherent estimates of the total investments actually made and their impacts since the 2002/03 annual cycle. This is one reason for the focus on a sample of utilities — Eletropaulo, CEMIG, COPEL, Bandeirante, Light, and CPFL — in the more detailed analysis.
* Estimates for the 2006/07 annual cycle are partial, due to incomplete data. 23. Great caution is needed when considering these results, however. In addition to the lack of systematic evaluation of EE projects, many final EEP reports contain incomplete data. As Table 2 shows, for example, at the time of writing it was still not possible to assemble coherent estimates of the total investments actually made and their impacts since the 2002/03 annual cycle. This is one reason for the focus on a sample of utilities — Eletropaulo, CEMIG, COPEL, Bandeirante, Light, and CPFL — in the more detailed analysis.
Figure 1. Resources for EE projects (1000 R$) by Utility, in Decreasing Order of Utility Size (2005/2006 annual cycle)
Figure 1. Resources for EE projects (1000 R$) by Utility, in Decreasing Order of Utility Size (2005/2006 annual cycle)
Figure 2. Accumulated Share of Total Resources for Energy Efficiency by Utility. in Decreasing Order of Program Size (2005/06 annual cycle) 29. Figure 3 depicts the allocation of resources by utility and by type of project in two EEP annual cycles where complete data were available. As can been seen, there has been a high concentration of investments in lighting. Public Lighting (PL — in the figure the abbreviation is IP from the Portuguese), is by far the biggest end-use. Other lighting is the second largest, though not by a large margin.
Figure 2. Accumulated Share of Total Resources for Energy Efficiency by Utility. in Decreasing Order of Program Size (2005/06 annual cycle) 29. Figure 3 depicts the allocation of resources by utility and by type of project in two EEP annual cycles where complete data were available. As can been seen, there has been a high concentration of investments in lighting. Public Lighting (PL — in the figure the abbreviation is IP from the Portuguese), is by far the biggest end-use. Other lighting is the second largest, though not by a large margin.
Figure 3. Investments by End Use and Project Type Note: Values refer to utility programs during the 2003/04 cycle. Since data from the Bandeirantes utility were not available for the 2003/04 cycle, the data used in this report are from 2004/05.
Figure 3. Investments by End Use and Project Type Note: Values refer to utility programs during the 2003/04 cycle. Since data from the Bandeirantes utility were not available for the 2003/04 cycle, the data used in this report are from 2004/05.
Figure 4. Shares of Investment in the Public and Private Sectors 32. Eletropaulo’s investments during the 2003/04 annual cycle were focused on two end uses — lighting and air conditioning. A detailed analysis of the lighting projects shows that the great majority of such projects are based on substitution of 40W fluorescent lamps by 32W lamps; replacement of low-efficiency ballasts by more efficient and modern ones, and inefficient lamps by more efficient ones; substitution of incandescent lamps by compact and fluorescent bulbs; and sectioning circuits and automatic sensor controls.
Figure 4. Shares of Investment in the Public and Private Sectors 32. Eletropaulo’s investments during the 2003/04 annual cycle were focused on two end uses — lighting and air conditioning. A detailed analysis of the lighting projects shows that the great majority of such projects are based on substitution of 40W fluorescent lamps by 32W lamps; replacement of low-efficiency ballasts by more efficient and modern ones, and inefficient lamps by more efficient ones; substitution of incandescent lamps by compact and fluorescent bulbs; and sectioning circuits and automatic sensor controls.
Figure 5. Average Value of Projects by End Use or Type Note: Based on data from 2003/04 cycle (Eletropaulo, CEMIG & COPEL) and 2004/05 (Bandeirante).
Figure 5. Average Value of Projects by End Use or Type Note: Based on data from 2003/04 cycle (Eletropaulo, CEMIG & COPEL) and 2004/05 (Bandeirante).
Figure 7. Number of Projects Considered, by Value of the Cost-Benefit Ratio 39. Although the available data are insufficient to portray with precision the universe of projects that have been implemented, it appears that projects in the end-use segment of electric motors presented a higher return on investment (lower CBR) compared to other end- use segments (figures 8 and 9). A detailed analysis of successful projects shows that they were not limited to the substitution of obsolete equipment by more efficient motors, but also encompassed the restructuring of processes and rationalization of the use of the equipment. 38. An interesting result of the review is that the cost-benefit ratios (CBRs) of projects that have been implemented are often lower than the values projected in the project proposal, as shown in Figure 7. In the majority of cases, this may be due to conservative estimates during the diagnostic phase. This underscores the need for greater efforts in the measurement and verification (M&V) stages of the project, especially over longer periods of time, which would allow for more precise data on conserved energy and reduced energy demand, including the longevity of the gains.
Figure 7. Number of Projects Considered, by Value of the Cost-Benefit Ratio 39. Although the available data are insufficient to portray with precision the universe of projects that have been implemented, it appears that projects in the end-use segment of electric motors presented a higher return on investment (lower CBR) compared to other end- use segments (figures 8 and 9). A detailed analysis of successful projects shows that they were not limited to the substitution of obsolete equipment by more efficient motors, but also encompassed the restructuring of processes and rationalization of the use of the equipment. 38. An interesting result of the review is that the cost-benefit ratios (CBRs) of projects that have been implemented are often lower than the values projected in the project proposal, as shown in Figure 7. In the majority of cases, this may be due to conservative estimates during the diagnostic phase. This underscores the need for greater efforts in the measurement and verification (M&V) stages of the project, especially over longer periods of time, which would allow for more precise data on conserved energy and reduced energy demand, including the longevity of the gains.
Figure 8 Average Projected Values for Cost-Benefit Ratio, by End Use and Utility
Figure 8 Average Projected Values for Cost-Benefit Ratio, by End Use and Utility
Figure 9. Average Achieved Values for Cost-Benefit Ratio, by End Use and Utility A0. Several successful projects increased the process efficiency, which allowed for considerable improvement not only in energy savings, but also in the quality of the final product. Examples include water and sanitation projects and central-pivot irrigation systems. These types of projects offer greater benefits to society than those dealing merely with equipment substitution. The gains in productivity tend to be larger and longer lasting, and can establish new standards of efficiency for the sector.
Figure 9. Average Achieved Values for Cost-Benefit Ratio, by End Use and Utility A0. Several successful projects increased the process efficiency, which allowed for considerable improvement not only in energy savings, but also in the quality of the final product. Examples include water and sanitation projects and central-pivot irrigation systems. These types of projects offer greater benefits to society than those dealing merely with equipment substitution. The gains in productivity tend to be larger and longer lasting, and can establish new standards of efficiency for the sector.
Figure 10. Correlation between Investments and Energy Savings — Lighting
Figure 10. Correlation between Investments and Energy Savings — Lighting
Figure 11. Correlation between Investments and Energy Savings — Electric Motors Figure 12. Correlation between Investments and Energy Savings — Public Lighting
Figure 11. Correlation between Investments and Energy Savings — Electric Motors Figure 12. Correlation between Investments and Energy Savings — Public Lighting
Figure 13. Correlation between Investments and Energy Savings — All End Uses 43. The maximum permitted CBR is 0.80 (see paragraph 81). This limit naturally conditions the relationship between investments and energy savings. Nevertheless, the high correlation observed, in particular for public lighting projects and lighting in general, suggests that projects in these areas tend to have similar characteristics and results profiles.
Figure 13. Correlation between Investments and Energy Savings — All End Uses 43. The maximum permitted CBR is 0.80 (see paragraph 81). This limit naturally conditions the relationship between investments and energy savings. Nevertheless, the high correlation observed, in particular for public lighting projects and lighting in general, suggests that projects in these areas tend to have similar characteristics and results profiles.
Source: SPE/ANEEL. the projected values.
Source: SPE/ANEEL. the projected values.
106. Information on low-income residential projects during the 2005/2006 and 2006/200° annual cycles are shown in Table 6.
106. Information on low-income residential projects during the 2005/2006 and 2006/200° annual cycles are shown in Table 6.
2. Comparison with the cost of expanding supply 150. It is important to conduct an economic evaluation of projects for which it is possible to make quantitative measurements of kWh saved and kW of avoided peak demand. Currently the energy savings calculations are carried out according to procedures established by ANEEL, using standard formulas for deriving the CBR.
2. Comparison with the cost of expanding supply 150. It is important to conduct an economic evaluation of projects for which it is possible to make quantitative measurements of kWh saved and kW of avoided peak demand. Currently the energy savings calculations are carried out according to procedures established by ANEEL, using standard formulas for deriving the CBR.
Table 8. Comparison between the CBR and the Cost of Energy Savings (R$/MWh) and of Avoided Peak Demand (R$/kW) in Projects, 2003/04
Table 8. Comparison between the CBR and the Cost of Energy Savings (R$/MWh) and of Avoided Peak Demand (R$/kW) in Projects, 2003/04
Table 9. Evaluation from the Perspective of Scope of Impacts on the Community (Who Benefits) 161. It is therefore recommended that the projects should also be evaluated in terms of social benefits. These kinds of criteria are difficult to quantify, but an evaluation is possible in relative terms, taking into account the context of the projects implemented by the utility. It is recommended that the direct beneficiaries of the investments made in the EE programs be highlighted. Table 9 below illustrates the proposed evaluation. ANEEL could signal a preference for utilities to select projects with greater social impacts.
Table 9. Evaluation from the Perspective of Scope of Impacts on the Community (Who Benefits) 161. It is therefore recommended that the projects should also be evaluated in terms of social benefits. These kinds of criteria are difficult to quantify, but an evaluation is possible in relative terms, taking into account the context of the projects implemented by the utility. It is recommended that the direct beneficiaries of the investments made in the EE programs be highlighted. Table 9 below illustrates the proposed evaluation. ANEEL could signal a preference for utilities to select projects with greater social impacts.
4. Sustainability of project impacts
4. Sustainability of project impacts
Related topics:
EngineeringEconomics
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved