A review of barriers to and driving forces for improved energy efficiency in Swedish industry : Recommendations for successful in-house energy management

(1)

A review of barriers to and driving forces for

improved energy efficiency in Swedish industry:

Recommendations for successful in-house energy

management

Maria Johansson and Patrik Thollander

The self-archived postprint version of this journal article is available at Linköping

University Institutional Repository (DiVA):

http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-142128

N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original publication.

Johansson, M., Thollander, P., (2018), A review of barriers to and driving forces for improved energy efficiency in Swedish industry: Recommendations for successful in-house energy management,

Renewable & sustainable energy reviews, 82(Part 1), 618-628.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.052

Original publication available at:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.052

Copyright: Elsevier

(2)

A review of barriers to and driving forces for improved energy efficiency in

Swedish industry– Recommendations for successful in-house energy

management

Maria T. Johansson and Patrik Thollander

Division of Energy Systems, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden

Corresponding e-mail: maria.johansson@liu.se

Abstract

From an environmental point of view, reduced use of energy remains a cornerstone in global greenhouse gas mitigation. However, without full internalization of external costs, greenhouse gas mitigation as such may not be highly prioritized among business leaders. Rather, it is the magnitude of production costs and ultimately the size of market revenue that articulates success or failure for business leaders. Nevertheless, reduced energy use or improved energy efficiency can have a vast impact on profitability even for companies with low energy costs, as the reduced energy costs directly lead to increased profits. In this paper, a review of ten years of empirical research in the field of industrial energy management in Swedish industry is presented. Based on the review, the paper proposes success factors for efficient energy management, factors which could help guide individual energy managers as well as policy makers in order to close the energy efficiency and management gaps. The paper also presents an overview of important industrial energy management tools, which would facilitate in-house energy management in industry.

Keywords: energy management, energy efficiency, energy management tools, barriers, driving

(3)

1 Introduction

Reduced energy use and improved energy efficiency are important actions towards a low-carbon economy. Approximately 80 % of total global primary energy supply emanates from fossil fuels, and industry accounts for 33 % of total final use of fossil fuels [1]. Improved energy efficiency in industry is vital not only from an environmental point of view, but also from a company point of view, since increased energy prices and costs for emitting greenhouse gases affect a company’s competitiveness on the market. Even for companies with low energy costs, reduced energy use or improved energy efficiency can have a vast impact on profitability, as reduced energy costs directly lead to increased profits. However, companies often fail to implement energy efficiency measures despite a positive rate of return. This is referred to as the energy efficiency gap [2-4]. Why companies reject

implementing profitable measures for improved energy efficiency has been the subject of research since the 1970s. In general, research on barriers and driving forces study investment decisions of profitable technological energy efficiency measures. However, Backlund et al. [2] proposed to also include managerial measures, when discussing potentially profitable energy efficiency measures. Adding the energy management gap (managerial measures) to the energy efficiency gap (technical measures) results in an extended energy efficiency gap [2]. Industrial energy management practices are the key to reducing both the energy efficiency and energy management gaps. However, research on improved industrial energy efficiency in industry primarily focuses on technological and system improvements, while energy management and organisational issues, such as new procedures and improved operation strategies, have so far only been scantily covered in the academic literature [5]. While there is a vast potential for improved energy efficiency in technology, the full energy efficiency potential, as stated by Backlund et al. [2], is found in combining technology with management. The research on barriers and driving forces for improved industrial energy efficiency is a valuable source of information in trying to find common causes and solutions to close or reduce the energy efficiency gap. Even if it is not possible to generalise from individual case studies, analysing empirical findings from several case studies could reveal general patterns and help to identify success factors for efficient energy management in industry. The success factors would serve as a general guideline to achieve efficient management of industrial energy systems. Sweden has a unique tradition in working with industrial energy management practices. It is therefore of interest to compile and analyse findings from consecutive research on energy management practices in Swedish industry. Previous research has concluded that there is great potential for energy efficiency improvement (see e.g. [6-8]) and that a majority of industrial firms do not practice successful energy management (see e.g. [8-10]). Therefore, this paper reviews more than ten years of empirical research in the field of barriers to and driving forces for improved energy efficiency in Swedish industry. Unlike previous research conducted on barriers, drivers and energy management, this paper takes a longitudinal approach, meaning that it covers all studies in the area, conducted in one specific region (Sweden), over a period of several years. Based on the reviewed studies, the paper will propose success factors for efficient energy management that could guide individual energy managers as well as policy makers in their work to close or heavily reduce the energy efficiency and management gaps. The paper will also present an overview of important in-house energy management tools. Energy managers in industry can use these tools to facilitate their work with improving the company’s energy performance.

(4)

2 Methodology

The review in this paper includes empirical studies of barriers to and driving forces for improved energy efficiency in Swedish industry conducted between 2004 and 2016. To our knowledge, these are the only scientifically published empirical studies on such barriers and driving forces in Swedish industry. The first scientific study on barriers to improved energy efficiency studied eight Swedish non-energy intensive industrial companies [11]. Since then, consecutive research has been carried out including a large number of industrial companies:

• Eight Swedish non-energy intensive manufacturing companies [11] • 27 Swedish foundries [12]

• 40 Swedish pulp and paper mills [13] • 47 Swedish industrial SMEs [14] • 21 Swedish industrial companies [15]

• 65 European foundries (including 20 Swedish foundries) [16, 17] • 23 Swedish iron and steel mills [8]

• 11 Swedish iron and steel mills [18]

• 105 Swedish industrial companies that participated in the Swedish Energy Audit Programme [19]

The scientific studies on barriers to and driving forces for industrial energy efficiency, conducted in Sweden, have resulted in a total of about 300 interview and questionnaire responses. In general, these research studies were conducted using a case study approach, with semi-structured interviews and/or questionnaires. The questions in the questionnaires addressed to what extent the

respondents agreed that the factors presented impeded (or promoted) energy efficiency

improvements at their company. They were asked to rank the factors from ‘do not agree at all’ to ‘totally agree’ on a 5-point Likert scale.

The success factors for efficient in-house energy management were identified using an inductive approach initiated in the very first study [11] and based on the empirical findings in the reviewed research studies. Barriers and driving forces identified in the research studies were analysed to reveal patterns, which together with results from the in-depth interviews (conducted in the reviewed studies) motivated the formulation of the success factors. The development of the success factors has been a continuous process during the years 2004-2013. During the in-depth interviews in study [15], the energy managers reviewed and commented on the developed success factors and their affirmative response can be seen as a validation of the factors. Succeeding studies (included in our review) further confirmed the formulated success factors.

The major model for understanding improved energy efficiency and energy management in industry is that information is diffused into a company executive and, if an affirmative decision is taken, transformed into an implementation. This input-output model was used when analysing the various tools for energy management in relation to different barrier categories.

(5)

3 Barriers to and driving forces for improved energy efficiency in Swedish

industry

There are four principal means of achieving reduced energy costs on the demand side: (1) energy-efficient technologies; (2) load management; (3) change of energy carrier; and (4) energy-energy-efficient behaviour (energy conservation) [20]. Barriers to the adoption of cost-effective energy-efficiency measures in industry can be categorized into economic (which could further be divided into market failure and non-market failure), behavioural and organisational factors [21, 22]. Cagno et al. [23] extended this categorisation and divided barriers into technology-related; organisational;

information; economic; behavioural; market; competence; awareness; and government/politics1_.

There have been several attempts to categorize driving forces for improved energy efficiency. For example, Thollander and Ottosson [13] divided driving forces into market related, current and potential policy instruments, and organisational and behavioural factors. Thollander et al. [17] categorized driving forces into financial, informational, organisational and external. In a recent study [26], the authors classified driving forces according to the type of action the driving force represents, i.e. regulatory, economic, informative and vocational training. In order to harmonize the

presentation of research undertaken on both barriers to and driving forces for energy efficiency, this paper categorizes barriers according to the taxonomy developed by [23] and driving forces according to the taxonomy proposed by [17].

In the following section, a review of the field of barriers to and driving forces for energy efficiency in Swedish industry is outlined. Table A1 in Appendix presents barriers to improved energy efficiency, identified in different industry sectors in Sweden. As can be seen in Table A1, the behavioural barrier ‘Other priorities for capital investments’, the organisational barrier ‘Lack of time or other priorities’, and the economic barriers ‘Technical risk such as risk of production disruption’ and ‘Lack of access to capital’ were considered very important in most of the studies. In addition to the empirical studies presented in Table A1, there is research which has investigated barriers to improved energy

efficiency without ranking the barriers. One study showed that barriers to improved energy efficiency in the Swedish iron and steel industry were ‘Lack of time’, ‘Lack of personnel’, ‘Information not clear by the technology supplier’, ‘Risk of production disruption’, ‘Other priorities for capital investments’, ‘Lack of people with higher education in the energy field’, and ‘Lack of awareness of the potential of engaging employees’ [18].

In order to improve energy efficiency, it is crucial to reveal and understand factors inhibiting this process, but also factors promoting improvements. Johansson [18] asked energy managers in the Swedish iron and steel industry to mention factors that they had experienced as driving forces for improved energy efficiency at their companies. Without order of precedence, the driving forces mentioned were ‘Cooperation within the corporate group’, ‘Networking with other energy

managers’, ‘Well-prepared pre-studies’, Cost reduction from lowered energy use’, ‘People with real ambition’, ‘Senior management prioritises energy issues’, ‘ ‘The energy manager has knowledge and experience of production processes’, ‘Awareness of employees’, and ‘Compliance with regulatory issues’. Table A2 in Appendix summarizes driving forces for improved energy efficiency found in Swedish industry. As can be seen in Table A2, ‘People with real ambition’ (behavioural), and

(6)

‘Long-term energy strategy’ (organisational) were considered very important driving forces in a majority of the Swedish studies.

4 Tools for industrial energy management practices

In order to facilitate the company’s work with energy management, different tools are available. By implementing and using these energy management tools, some of the barriers to improving

industrial energy efficiency could be overcome. However, it is important to emphasize that the tools alone do not provide success as such, but energy management is primarily a leadership issue [20]. The review of driving forces for improved energy efficiency presented in Table A2 (Appendix)

revealed that several of the top-ranked driving forces for energy efficiency improvements in industry are related to in-house industrial management, e.g. ‘Long-term energy strategy’, ‘Commitment from top manager’ and ‘People with real ambition’. Therefore, the tools for industrial energy management presented in this paper are primarily delimited to site-specific tools, which can be used by energy managers at industrial companies. On the other hand, for a good overview of recommendations that might help national policy makers in the EU member states further develop their national

implementation of Article 8 see Hirzel et al. [27]. In Table 1, a number of tools for effective in-house energy management practices are outlined. As the focus of this paper is on Swedish industrial companies, the presented tools are selected based on a Swedish context. The table should by no means be seen as exhaustive, but rather is intended to provide an overview of different tools on the market.

Table 1. Tools for successful in-house energy management. The tools are selected based on a Swedish context.

Type of tool Name Could reduce barrier

category Reference Energy management standard ISO 50001 Organisational, competence National standardization bodies

Energy audit standards EN 16247; ISO 50002 Information, competence

National standardization bodies

Energy audit software Nordenaudit Information [28, 29] Energy monitoring systems Many actors on the

market

Information

Pinch analysis tools ProPi®; EINSTEIN Information [30, 31] Industrial energy system

optimization

reMIND, MARKAL, TIMES, etc.

(7)

Manufacturing simulation Various software available

Information [35, 36]

Exergy analysis Information [37, 38]

Investment calculation tools

Many actors on the market

Information

Energy services Various type of contracts offered by national ESCOs Organisational, information, economic, competence [8, 13, 17, 39-41]

Lean Integrating energy

efficiency in Lean

Organisational, behavioural

[42]

Energy efficiency network management systems

LEEN, etc. Organisational, competence

[43, 44]

Database of real energy efficiency measures

IAC, DEFRAM Information [45-47]

The tools presented in Table 1 can help industrial companies and energy auditors overcome barriers and increase implementation of energy efficiency measures. In general, the barriers that the tools can help overcome can be categorised as information barriers. The only tool in Table 1 directly related to behavioural barriers is Lean management. However, the energy management standard, energy efficiency network management systems, energy services, and energy monitoring systems could enable behavioural changes. A short description of each tool in Table 1 is presented below. An energy management system is a method or a tool to structurally work with improving energy efficiency in-house at a company. The history of energy management systems began with the Danish energy management standard. When Sweden developed its long-term voluntary agreement

program, PFE (Program for Improving Energy Efficiency in Energy Intensive Industries), the Danish standard was heavily revised in order to suit energy-intensive manufacturing industry. Later, when the European standard EN 16000 was developed, it was based on the Swedish standard, and when ISO 50001 was released in June 2011 [48], it was in turn heavily based on the European standard. The energy management system standard is designed according to the Plan-Do-Check- Act (PDCA) cycle [49] which is a method for management of continuous improvement of processes and products. ISO 50001 could be applied to organisations of any size and the standard is compatible with other management systems such as ISO 14001 (Environmental management system) and ISO 9001 (Quality management system). It is noteworthy that the energy management system is a tool and calls for sound management or leadership qualities to be adopted successfully [50].

The basis for continuous improvement of industrial energy efficiency is to perform recurrent energy audits. An energy audit should consist of a systematic investigation and analysis of the company’s energy use, with the aim to identify energy efficiency potential and suggest measures for

(8)

improvement. The international energy audit standard ISO 50002 was released in June 2014 [48]. ISO 50002 specifies the procedures for carrying out an energy audit and deliverables for the audit. The standard is applicable to all kinds of establishments and organisations and provides a guide for how to use the standard. In addition to the international energy audit standard, there are national standards such as the European energy audit standard EN 16247 [51] and the Australian energy audit standard AS/NZS 3598 [52]. EN 16247 and AS/NZS 3598 present specific energy audit requirements for buildings, industrial processes and transportation.

To facilitate the analysis of the energy audit, energy audit software could be a useful tool. The software can compile energy measurements and provide a good overview of the company’s energy use. Nordenaudit is an example of energy audit software and is the first Swedish structured energy audit software for industry [28]. Nordenaudit was developed by scientists at Linköping University and provides the user with a simple protocol for creation of an energy balance.

In order to conduct energy audits, evaluate energy performance and follow up energy efficiency activities, energy end-use must be measured. The most effective means is to have continuous sub-metering of energy end-use. Moreover, sub-sub-metering enables allocation of energy to the specific equipment, process, production line or department where it is used. This information can be used to make departments or workers accountable for energy costs. There are several energy monitoring systems on the market, available from numerous suppliers, even though most are based on energy monitoring of buildings.

To investigate the potential of different energy efficiency measures and to build a solid foundation for investment decisions, information about the company’s energy system is vital. It is important to see the company as one system and not analyse each single process separately. There are tools that can be used to analyse energy flows in industrial energy systems, e.g. Pinch analysis, energy system optimization, manufacturing simulation and exergy analysis. Pinch analysis is the most commonly used process integration method [53]. Pinch analysis was first developed by Linnhoff and Flower [54] and the method is used to maximize internal heat recovery in and between processes. A description of the methodology can be found in Kemp [55]. Examples of Pinch analysis tools are the ProPi® software which was developed at Chalmers Industriteknik [30] and the EINSTEIN software tool which was developed in a collaboration of more than 20 European institutes and companies [31].

Industrial energy system optimization is a tool to identify the most cost-effective energy system, to evaluate new technologies and priorities for R&D, to evaluate the effects of regulations, taxes and subsidies, to estimate the value of energy cooperation, etc. There are several software packages for modelling industrial energy systems and some examples are reMIND (Method for analysis of INDustrial energy systems) [32] which was developed at the division of Energy Systems, Linköping University; MARKAL [33], which was developed by the Energy Technology Systems Analysis Programme (ETSAP) of the International Energy Agency; and TIMES, which is the successor of MARKAL.

Manufacturing simulation tools are traditionally used to simulate an actual or planned production in order to find bottlenecks and to analyse new production planning, etc. However, manufacturing simulation tools could also be used when analysing measures to improve industrial energy end-use. To the authors’ awareness, the first novel attempt in applying manufacturing simulation to improved

(9)

industrial energy end-use was a dissertation by Solding [36]. There are several simulation tools on the market and some examples are AnyLogic, Enterprise Dynamics and Simul8 [35]

Exergy is the amount of energy that can produce work and can be seen as the energy quality in relation to the surroundings [37, 38, 56]. Different energy forms have different energy quality (or different amounts of exergy). Energy is always conserved, while exergy is destroyed in all real processes due to irreversibility. Exergy analysis is a useful tool that can be used to analyse exergy efficiency. The utilisation of different energy carriers at the industrial facility and the effectiveness in terms of exergy consumption are analysed. The aim is to use energy carriers with just the right amount of exergy for the purpose. One example of improved exergy efficiency is to use excess heat from industrial processes to heat buildings instead of using electrical heating systems. However, the method is usually more straightforward for the unit process level than for the system level.

Before any investment decision, an investment calculation should be performed. It has been shown that a driving force for a positive investment decision is a well-prepared pre-study [18] and correct investment calculations are a central part of this. Investment calculation tools can be used for calculating internal rate of return, the accounting rate of return, the net present value and other types of discounted cash flows. Closely related to investment decisions, the inclusion of Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) such as reduced labour costs, reduced maintenance costs, improved product quality and improved work safety [57] should be considered in energy efficiency investments as this would reflect the real consequences of the investment. [58]. Including NEBs in energy efficiency investment calculations has been shown to considerably improve cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency

investments, which in turn could help overcome barriers to implementing energy efficiency measures [58, 59].

Companies with lack of competence or personnel resources to perform energy audits and to evaluate and implement energy efficiency measures can benefit from utilising energy services offered by energy service companies (ESCOs). Bertoldi et al. [60] define energy services as follows: ‘Energy services include a variety of activities, such as energy analysis and audits, energy management, project design and implementation, maintenance and operation, monitoring and evaluation of savings, property management, and energy and equipment supply.’ Kindström et al. [41] use the same definition in their study of driving forces for and barriers to providing energy services in

Sweden. In Sweden, there are several ESCOs and according to Swedish regulations (SFS 2014:266 and SFS 2014:347), the person performing energy audits at large enterprises must be certified by

someone who is accredited according to EU regulation EG 765/2008.

Companies can improve energy efficiency by minimising discards, holding time, transport distances between succeeding production processes, etc. Lean2_{is a philosophy which strives to maximize}

customer value while at the same time minimizing waste, i.e., creating more value for customers with fewer resources [61]. Integrating energy efficiency in Lean is a way of minimizing waste, as energy is a resource used in the production process. Johansson et al. [42] point out the importance of minimizing the waste in an organisation’s whole value stream. They identify eight types of waste, which besides being important for maximizing customer value, are relevant in terms of industrial

2_{The term Lean was first used by a research team at MIT's International Motor Vehicle Program to describe} Toyota's business during the late 1980s.

(10)

energy efficiency. These are: overproduction, unnecessary operations, transportation, discards, waiting, unnecessary movement, storage, and unused skills.

It has been shown that a driving force for improved energy efficiency is networking between companies, where energy issues are in focus [8, 13, 15]. Koewener [43] describes an Energy Efficiency Network (EEN) as a constellation of 10-15 companies who share their experiences in energy efficiency activities in moderated meetings. Initially, profitable energy efficiency measures are identified at each company and targets for improved energy efficiency and CO2 emission reductions

are jointly set. Energy performance is then monitored and evaluated annually. During the meetings, participating companies exchange experiences and new energy efficiency measures are presented by experts. In order to facilitate management of EEN, network management systems have been

developed; an example is the Learning Energy Efficiency Network (LEEN). LEEN consists of a manual with contract templates, checklists, technical manuals and presentation of energy efficient solutions, about 25 software-based techno-economic calculation tools, etc. EEN can be seen as a way to conduct energy management with or without a standardized energy management system, where the EEN coordinator partly takes the role as in-sourced energy manager.

Research has shown that investments in energy efficient technology can be hindered by ‘Poor information quality regarding energy efficiency opportunities’ (see Table A1 in Appendix) [11-16, 19]. Therefore, a database containing measures for improved energy efficiency and the corresponding energy-saving potential and investment costs would provide a valuable information source and increase the implementation of proposed energy efficiency measures in industry. Energy audit programs offer an opportunity to collect and compile information from several companies with regard to energy performance and proposed measures for improved energy efficiency. Companies can use the information in such a database to evaluate their own energy audit reports. Estimated investment costs for energy efficiency improvements presented in their energy audit report could be compared and validated to similar measures found in the database. Furthermore, making the database available to energy service companies (ESCOs) could improve their competence and result in higher-quality energy audits. A database of more than 17,000 assessments and 131,000

recommendations of energy efficiency measures at small and medium-sized manufacturers in the US are provided by the Industrial Assessment Centers [45]. The database is available online and is free to use. The database can be downloaded, but can also be searched by:

• Assessments: industry type, size, year, energy costs, products • Recommendations: type, savings, cost, implemented

• Industry type: SIC (Standard Industrial Classification), NAICS (North American Industry Classification System)

The various tools for successful in-house energy management could preferably be combined and used concurrently. Grip et al. [37] conclude that exergy analysis advantageously can be used together with pinch analysis. After determining minimum heating and cooling demands with pinch analysis, exergy analysis could be used to identify inefficiencies and thereafter pinch analysis could be used to design an efficient heat exchanger network. Energy management systems would not be successfully applied without a thoroughly conducted energy audit and the energy audit procedure would benefit from using energy audit software and energy monitoring systems. Moreover, ESCOs offer their customers energy services such as energy audits. It has also been shown that optimization of

(11)

industrial energy systems could successfully be combined with both pinch analysis [62] and simulation [63].

Figure 1 provides a system overview on how energy management could be effectively addressed if tools like energy audits, pinch analysis and optimization are used to continuously analyse the company’s energy system.

Figure 1. Improved energy efficiency in a company is the result of effective energy management. Different tools, such as energy audits and optimization, could facilitate the work with continuous improvements.

5 Recommendations for successful in-house energy management

The analysis of the reviewed research studies showed that two of the identified driving forces have been ranked highly by a majority of the Swedish companies studied (see Table A2 in Appendix). These driving forces (‘People with real-ambition’ and the existence of a ‘Long-term energy strategy’) are both related to in-house industrial energy management and are categorised as organisational factors. Moreover, the analysis revealed that the organisational barrier ‘Lack of time and other priorities‘, the economic barrier ‘Lack of access to capital’ and the behavioural barrier ‘Other priorities for capital investments’ were ranked highly by a majority of the studied companies. As described in the method section, departing from the analysis of the reviewed studies, ten general success factors for in-house energy management were formulated. These factors are [20]:

1. Full top-management support of the in-house energy management activities 2. The existence of a long-term energy strategy, preferably with quantified goals 3. A two-step energy plan: one covering one-year, and one covering multi-year periods 4. A clear energy manager position, but not necessarily a full-time position

5. Real energy cost allocation based on sub-metering, not just energy costs allocated per square meter or number of employees

6. Clear KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) which enable follow-up of results

7. Energy controllers at floor-level position, i.e., one person per shift responsible for energy efficient operation

(12)

8. Continuous energy efficiency education for employees

9. Visualization of energy efficiency progress at company level as well as at division level 10. Energy competition between divisions within the same company, encouraging improved

energy efficiency

It is notable is that the companies that were found to be successful in terms of improved energy efficiency in the reviewed studies all had these elements in common.

6 Concluding discussion

The full energy efficiency potential could be found when combining implementation of

energy-efficient technology with successful energy management practices. Years of research show that employees with real ambition to improve energy efficiency are a very important driving force when emphasizing and implementing measures for improvements. This person does not have to be the energy manager, but could be an employee at any position in the company. Therefore, it is recommended that the company acknowledge and value these people's commitment. They could, e.g. be appointed to the position of energy controller at floor level, responsible for energy-efficient operation. Another driving force that stands out as valued very highly in our research is the existence of a long-term energy strategy at the company. Consequently, companies with the ambition to practice successful energy management should establish long-term energy strategies, preferably with quantifiable targets.

The energy management standard is a valuable tool, which is used to structure companies’ work with continuous energy improvements. However, the standard does not include the demand for long-term energy strategies. Government does not have the authority to place such a demand on a company. Therefore, voluntary agreements could be a useful policy measure, as a complement to regulations. The voluntary agreement could e.g. be specified with a requirement that participating companies have to establish long-term energy strategies. The Swedish PFE was a voluntary

agreement in which the participating companies promised to introduce a standardized energy management system; carry out an energy review and implement energy efficiency measures with a payback period of less than three years; and introduce procedures for purchasing energy-efficient equipment and procedures for project planning and renovation. During the first five-year program period the participating companies had improved their electricity efficiency by 1.45 TWh/year [64, 65] and in total, after another five year program period, the companies had improved their electricity efficiency by 3.0 TWh/year [66]. This is an example of how energy management in a voluntary

agreement could improve energy efficiency.

The paper outlines ten factors for successful in-house energy management practices: 1. Top-management support

2. Long-term energy strategy 3. A two-step energy plan 4. An energy manager position 5. Correct energy cost allocation

6. Clear KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) 7. Energy controllers among floor-level staff 8. Education for employees

(13)

9. Visualization 10. Energy competition

The ten success factors for in-house energy management practices formulated in this paper emphasize the importance of adding the dimension of management to the technology dimension. However, the ten success factors should not be seen as a replacement for the energy management standard (ISO 50001). Rather, the standard should be seen as a method or tool to achieve the outlined factors for success.

Unfortunately, companies often focus solely on energy-efficient technology implementation, while the importance of human behaviour is downgraded or even neglected. By educating employees and making them aware of energy use at the company, their behaviour could be more energy efficient. This was the case at a Swedish steel plant where reduced energy use was recorded after the energy manager had visited the production area and talked to people on the floor about energy [18]. Moreover, using the factors for successful energy management developed and presented in this paper, the success or failure of an in-house energy management program can be evaluated using process evaluation. The success factors could be seen as indicators, which allows for a multi-dimensional evaluation of energy management. Apart from the UK Carbon Trust's Energy

Management Matrix [67], such substantiated evaluation factors have to the author's awareness not been presented before.

Although the reviewed research was conducted in a Swedish context, the success factors and energy management tools would have potential to be generalised to other countries as well.

Acknowledgements

The authors want to acknowledge financial support from WECC 2015. The authors would also like to thank the colleagues who co-authored some of the papers on which this review is built.

References

[1] IEA. Key World Energy Statistics. The International Energy Agency. 2014.

[2] Backlund S, Thollander P, Palm J, Ottosson M. Extending the energy efficiency gap. Energy Policy. 2012;51:392-6.

[3] Jaffe AB, Stavins RN. The energy-efficiency gap What does it mean? Energy Policy. 1994;22:804-10.

[4] Martin R, Muûls M, de Preux LB, Wagner UJ. Anatomy of a paradox: Management practices, organizational structure and energy efficiency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2012;63:208-23.

[5] Schulze M, Nehler H, Ottosson M, Thollander P. Energy management in industry - A systematic review of previous findings and an integrative conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;112:3692-708.

[6] Knoop K, Lechtenböhmer S. The potential for energy efficiency in the EU Member States – A comparison of studies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017;68, Part 2:1097-105. [7] Fleiter T, Fehrenbach D, Worrell E, Eichhammer W. Energy efficiency in the German pulp and paper industry – A model-based assessment of saving potentials. Energy. 2012;40:84-99.

(14)

[8] Brunke JC, Johansson M, Thollander P. Empirical investigation of barriers and drivers to the adoption of energy conservation measures, energy management practices and energy services in the Swedish iron and steel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014;84:509-25.

[9] Sa A, Thollander P, Cagno E. Assessing the driving factors for energy management program adoption. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017;74:538-47.

[10] Thollander P, Ottosson M. Energy management practices in Swedish energy-intensive industries. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2010;18:1125-33.

[11] Rohdin P, Thollander P. Barriers to and driving forces for energy efficiency in the non-energy intensive manufacturing industry in Sweden. Energy. 2006;31:1500-8.

[12] Rohdin P, Thollander P, Solding P. Barriers to and drivers for energy efficiency in the Swedish foundry industry. Energy Policy. 2007;35:672-7.

[13] Thollander P, Ottosson M. An energy efficient Swedish pulp and paper industry - Exploring barriers to and driving forces for cost-effective energy efficiency investments. Energy Efficiency. 2008;1:21-34.

[14] Thollander P, Danestig M, Rohdin P. Energy policies for increased industrial energy efficiency: Evaluation of a local energy programme for manufacturing SMEs. Energy Policy. 2007;35:5774-83. [15] Trygg L, Thollander P, Backlund S, Olsson L. Uthålliga energisystem i praktiken: implementering av energieffektivitet inom industrier [In Swedish]. 2011.

[16] Trianni A, Cagno E, Thollander P, Backlund S. Barriers to industrial energy efficiency in foundries: a European comparison. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2013;40:161-76.

[17] Thollander P, Backlund S, Trianni A, Cagno E. Beyond barriers – A case study on driving forces for improved energy efficiency in the foundry industries in Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. Applied Energy. 2013;111:636-43.

[18] Johansson MT. Improved energy efficiency within the Swedish steel industry—the importance of energy management and networking. Energy Efficiency. 2015;8:713-44.

[19] Backlund S. Efficient improvement of energy efficiency in small and medium-sized Swedish firms. Linköping Studies in Science and Technology. Dissertation No. 1634: Linköping University; 2014. [20] Thollander P, Palm J. Improving Energy Efficiency in Industrial Energy Systems: An

Interdisciplinary Perspective on Barriers, Energy Audits, Energy Management, Policies, and Programs. London, U.K: Springer. 2013.

[21] Sorrell S, Schleich, J., Scott, S., O’Malley, E., Trace, F., Boede, E., Ostertag, K., Radgen, P. Reducing barriers to energy efficiency in public and private organizations. SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research). 2000.

[22] Palm J, Thollander P. An interdisciplinary perspective on industrial energy efficiency. Applied Energy. 2010;87:3255-61.

[23] Cagno E, Worrell E, Trianni A, Pugliese G. A novel approach for barriers to industrial energy efficiency. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2013;19:290-308.

[24] Hirst E, Brown M. Closing the efficiency gap: barriers to the efficient use of energy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 1990;3:267-81.

[25] Sorrell S, O'Malley E, Schleich J, Scott S. The economics of energy efficiency: Barriers to cost-effective investment: Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass: Elgar. 2004.

[26] Trianni A, Cagno E, Marchesani F, Spallina G. Classification of drivers for industrial energy efficiency and their effect on the barriers affecting the investment decision-making process. Energy Efficiency. 2017;10:199-215.

[27] Hirzel S, Nabitz L, Wohlfarth K, Rohde C, Behling I, Clarke D et al. A Study on Energy Efficiency in Enterprises: Energy Audits and Energy Management Systems: Report on the fulfilment of obligations upon large enterprises, the encouragement of small- and medium-sized companies and on good-practice. 2016.

[28] Nordic Energy Audit AB. Nordic Energy Audit. 2013.

[29] Thollander P, Rohdin P, Karlsson M, Rosenqvist J, Söderström. M. A standardized energy audit tool for improved energy efficiency in industrial SMEs. Proceedings of the ECEEE Industry Summer Study, 11-14 September, 20122012.

(15)

[30] Chalmers Industriteknik. 2016.

[31] Intelligent Energy Europe. Einstein Software Tool. 2016.

[32] Karlsson M. The MIND method: A decision support for optimization of industrial energy systems - Principles and case studies. Applied Energy. 2011;88:577-89.

[33] IEA Energy Technology Network. Energy Technology Systems Analysis Programme: MARKAL. 2011.

[34] Krzemień J. Application of Markal Model Generator in Optimizing Energy Systems. Journal of Sustainable Mining. 2013;12:35-9.

[35] SIMPLAN. It has to be the right software. 2016.

[36] Solding P. Increased Energy Efficiency in Manufacturing Systems Using Discrete Event Simulation: Applied Studies on the Swedish Foundry Industry [PhD Dissertation]: De Montfort University, Leicester. 2008.

[37] Grip CE, Elfgren E, Söderström M, Thollander P. Possibilities and problems in using exergy expressions in process integration. Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Congress 2011 (WREC 2011), 9-13 May. Linköping: Linköping: Electronic Press. 2011.

[38] Grip C-E, Thollander P, Söderström M. Stakeholder study on Barriers to exergy analysis. The International Conference on Applied Energy ICAE 2012, Jul 5-8, 2012, Suzhou, China. 2012. [39] Apeaning RW, Thollander P. Barriers to and driving forces for industrial energy efficiency improvements in African industries – a case study of Ghana's largest industrial area. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2013;53:204-13.

[40] Christoffersen LB, Larsen A, Togeby M. Empirical analysis of energy management in Danish industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2006;14:516-26.

[41] Kindström D, Ottosson M, Thollander P. Driving forces for and barriers to providing energy services—a study of local and regional energy companies in Sweden. Energy Efficiency. 2016:1-19. [42] Johansson P-E, Thollander P, Moshfegh B. Towards increased energy efficiency in industry - a manager’s perspective. Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Congress 2011, Linköping. 2011.

[43] Koewener D, Mielicke, U., Jochem, E.,. Energy efficiency networks for companies - concept, achievements and prospects. Proceedings of ECEEE 2011 Summer Study, Energy efficiency first, The foundation of a low-carbon society. 2011: 725-733.

[44] Paramonova S, Ivner J, Thollander P. Outsourcing Industrial Energy Management - Industrial Energy Efficiency Networks Provided As an Energy Service. In: Deering A, editor. Outsourcing: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; 2014: 71-98. Download at:

www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=53026&osCsid=c7e30ff61a1eb42e b3317a2532206f59.

[45] IAC. Energy and Cost Saving Assessments for Small and Medium-sized US Manufacturers - Database. 2016.

[46] Linköping University. DEFRAM - A database for facilitating better energy efficiency assessments and improvments. Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science and Department of Energy Systems. 2013.

[47] Blomqvist E, Thollander P. An integrated dataset of energy efficiency measures published as linked open data. Energy Efficiency. 2015;8:1125-47.

[48] ISO. International Organization for Standardization. 2016.

[49] Deming WE. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press. 2000.

[50] Thollander P, Palm J. Industrial energy management decision making for improved energy efficiency-strategic system perspectives and situated action in combination. Energies. 2015;8:5694-703.

[51] Swedish Standards Institute. SS-EN 16247-1:2012. 2012. [52] Energy Efficiency Council. AS/NZS 3598:2014. 2014.

[53] Klemeš JJ, Kravanja Z. Forty Years of Heat Integration: Pinch Analysis (PA) and Mathematical Programming (MP). Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering. 2013;2:461-74.

(16)

[54] Linnhoff B, Flower JR. Synthesis of Heat Exchanger Networks - 1. Systematic Generation of Energy Optimal Networks. AIChE Journal. 1978;24:633-42.

[55] Kemp IC. Pinch Analysis and Process Integration - a user guide on process integration for the efficient use of energy (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. 2007.

[56] Moran MJ, Shapiro HN. Fundamentals of engineering thermodynamics (6th ed.). Hoboken, N.J. : Wiley. 2010. SI version; 2010.

[57] Rasmussen J. Energy-efficiency investments and the concepts of non-energy benefits and investment behaviour. Proceedings ECEEE Industrial Summer Study - Retool for a Competitive and Sustainable Industry. 2014: 733-44.

[58] Nehler T, Rasmussen J. How do firms consider non-energy benefits? Empirical findings on energy-efficiency investments in Swedish industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;113:472-82. [59] Nehler T, Thollander, P., Ottosson, M., Dahlgren, M. Including non-energy benefits in investment calculations in industry - empirical findings from Sweden. Proceedings of ECEEE Industry Summer Study, Arnhem, 2-5 June 2014.

[60] Bertoldi P, Rezessy S, Vine E. Energy service companies in European countries: Current status and a strategy to foster their development. Energy Policy. 2006;34:1818-32.

[61] Womack JP, Jones DT. Lean thinking : banish waste and create wealth in your corporation: London : Free Press Business. 2003.

[62] Bengtsson C, Karlsson M, Berntsson T, Söderström M. Co-ordination of pinch technology and the MIND method - Applied to a Swedish board mill. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2002;22:133-44. [63] Mardan N, Klahr R, Karlsson M. Industrial decision making for energy efficiency - combining optimisation and simulation. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems (ECOS). 2011: 1442-52. [64] Stenqvist C, Nilsson LJ. Energy efficiency in energy-intensive industries-an evaluation of the Swedish voluntary agreement PFE. Energy Efficiency. 2012;5:225-41.

[65] Swedish Energy Agency. Programme for Improving Energy Efficiency: Experiences and results after five years with PFE. 2011.

[66] Swedish Energy Agency. Program för energieffektivisering i energiintensiv industri (PFE) [in Swedish]. 2017.

(17)

Appendix

Table A1. Barriers to improved energy efficiency in Swedish industry identified in empirical studies. The barriers are categorised as (T) technology related, (O) organisational, (I) information, (E)

economic, (B) behavioural, (M) market, (C) competence, (A) awareness, and (G) government/politics. Industry sector Barriers and their ranking according

to perceived importance Number of companies in the case study (and year of collection of empirical data) Method Reference Non-energy intensive manufacturing industry 1. Cost of production disruption/hassle/inconvenience (E)

2. Lack of time or other priorities (O)

3. Cost of obtaining information on the energy use of purchased equipment (E)

4. Technical risk such as risk of production disruption (E) 5. Other priorities for capital

investments (B)

6. Technology is inappropriate at this site (T)

7. Lack of staff awareness (A) 8. Lack of technical skills (C) 9. Lack of access to capital (E) 10. Poor information quality

regarding energy efficiency opportunities (I)

11. Possible poor performance of energy efficiency opportunities (E)

12. Cost of identifying opportunities, analysing cost-effectiveness and tendering (E) 8 (2004) Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews [11] Foundry industry

1. Lack of access to capital (E) 2. Technical risk such as risk of

production disruption (E)

(18)

3. Lack of budget funding (E) 4. Difficulty of obtaining

information on the energy use of purchased equipment (I)

5. Other priorities for capital investments (B)

6. Possible poor performance of equipment (E)

7. Lack of sub-metering (O) 8. Poor information quality

9. Cost of identifying opportunities, analysing cost-effectiveness and tendering (E)

10. Low priority given to energy management (O)

12. Lack of technical skills (C) 13. Technology is inappropriate at

this site (T)

14. Energy objectives not integrated into operating, maintenance or purchasing procedures (O) 15. Slim organization (O) 16. Long decision chain (O) 17. Lack of staff awareness (A) 18. Uncertainty regarding the

company’s future (M) 19. Cost of production

disruption/hassle/inconvenience (E)

20. Department/workers not accountable for energy costs (O) 21. Energy manager lacks influence

(O)

22. Conflicts of interest within the company (O)

23. Cost of staff replacement, retirement, retraining (E) Pulp and paper

industry

1. Technical risk such as risk of production disruption (E)

(19)

2. Cost of production

5. Lack of access to capital (E) 6. Slim organisation (O)

8. Lack of budget funding (E) 9. Other priorities for capital

investments (B)

10. Lack of staff awareness (A) 11. Long decision chain (O)

13. Lack of technical skills (C) 14. Energy manager lacks influence

(O)

15. Lack of sub-metering (O) 16. Low priority given to energy

management (by company board) (O)

17. Poor information quality regarding energy efficiency opportunities (I)

18. Energy objectives not integrated into operating, maintenance or purchasing procedures (O) 19. Difficulty of obtaining

20. Cost of staff replacement, retirement, retraining (E) 21. Uncertainty regarding the

company’s future (M)

22. Conflicts of interest within the mill/company (O)

23. Department/workers not accountable for energy costs (O)

(20)

Manufacturing SMEs

3. Lack of access to capital (E) 4. Cost of production

5. Lack of budget funding (E) 6. Lack of sub-metering (O) 7. Difficulty of obtaining

8. Lack of technical skills (C) 9. Low priority given to energy

management (O)

10. Lack of staff awareness (A) 11. Technical risk such as risk of

production disruption (E) 12. Slim organization (O)

13. Energy objectives not integrated into operating, maintenance or purchasing procedures (O) 14. Long decision chain (O) 15. Poor information quality

19. Uncertainty regarding the company’s future (M)

20. Conflicts of interest within the company (O) 47 (2006) Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews [14] Industrial companies

3. Long decision chain (O)

21 (2009) Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews

(21)

4. Energy objectives not integrated into operating, maintenance or purchasing procedures (O) 5. Technical risk such as risk of

production disruption (E) 6. Lack of sub-metering (O) 7. Slim organization (O) 8. Lack of budget funding (E) 9. Lack of staff awareness (A) 10. Cost of identifying opportunities,

analysing cost-effectiveness and tendering (E)

11. Lack of access to capital (E) 12. Cost of production

13. Lack of technical skills (C) 14. Uncertainty regarding the

company’s future (M)

17. Conflicts of interest within the company (O)

18. Difficulty of obtaining

20. Department/workers not accountable for energy costs (O) 21. Technology is inappropriate at

this site (T)

22. Energy manager lacks influence (O)

23. Cost of staff replacement, retirement, retraining (E) Foundry

industry

1. Lack of budget funding (E) 2. Other priorities for capital

investments (B)

2. Lack of access to capital (E)

20 (2012) Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews

(22)

3. Lack of technical skills (C) 4. Department or workers not

accountable for energy costs (O) 5. Cost of production

5. Slim organisation (O) 6. Technical risk such as risk of

production disruption (E) 7. Energy objectives not integrated

into operation, maintenance or purchasing procedures (O) 8. Low priority given to energy

management (O)

8. Difficulties in obtaining

information about the energy use of purchased equipment (I) 9. Cost of identifying opportunities,

analysing cost effectiveness and tendering (E)

10. Lack of staff awareness (A) 10. Poor information quality

11. Conflict of interest within the company (O)

13. Uncertainty regarding the company’s future (M) 13. Lack of sub-metering (O) 14. Technology is inappropriate at

site (T)

15. Cost of staff replacement. Retirement, retraining (E) 16. Long decision chains (O) Iron and steel

industry

1. Technical risk such as risk of production disruption (E) 2. Access to capital (E)

23 (2012) Questionnaire and

(23)

semi-3. Other priorities for capital investments (B)

5. No available cost-effective technical measures (T)

6. Uncertainty about future energy prices (M)

7. Limited authority of energy manager (O)

8. Insufficient top management support (B)

10. Lack of technical skills (C) 11. Lack of staff awareness or

motivation (A)

12. Uncertainty regarding hidden costs ((E)

13. Lack of information about allocation of energy costs (e.g. sub-metering) (O)

14. Difficulty to cooperate inter-divisionally (O)

15. No options for improved energy management (T) structured interviews Industrial companies (participated in the Swedish Energy Audit Programme)

2. Access to capital (E) 3. Slim organization (O) 4. Lack of technical skills (C)

5. Costs of identifying and analysing opportunities (E)

6. Lack of staff awareness (A) 7. Difficulties in obtaining

information about the energy use of purchased equipment (I) 8. Lack of budget funding (E) 9. Energy objectives not integrated

into operation, maintenance or purchasing procedures (O) 10. Other priorities for capital

investments (B)

(24)

11. Technical risk such as risk of production disruption (E) 12. Poor information quality

13. Cost of production

15. Costs for recruitment and training of staff (E)

18. Uncertainty regarding the company’s future (M)

Table A2. Driving forces for improved energy efficiency in Swedish industry identified in empirical studies. The driving forces are categorised as (O) organisational, (I) informational, (F) financial, and (E) external

Industry sector Driving forces and their ranking according to perceived importance

Number of companies in the case study (and year of collection of empirical data) Method Reference Non-energy intensive manufacturing industry

1. People with real ambition (O) 2. Long-term energy

strategy (O)

3. Knowledge about the facility and its energy efficiency

opportunities (I) 4. Environmental

company profile (O) 5. Access to capital (F) 8 (2004) Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews [11]

(25)

Foundry industry 1. Long-term energy strategy (O) 2. People with real

ambition (O) 3. Environmental

company profile (O) 4. Environmental management systems (O) 5. International competition (E) 6. Third-party financing (F) 27 (2005) Questionnaire [12]

Pulp and paper industry

1. Cost reduction resulting from lower energy use (F) 2. People with real

ambition (O) 3. Long-term energy strategy (O) 4. Threat of rising energy prices (F) 5. Electricity Certificate Systems (F) 6. Long-term

agreements with tax exemption (PFE) (I,F) 7. International

competition (E) 8. Environmental

management system (O)

9. Network within the company (O) 10. EU ETS (F) 11. Environmental

company profile (O) 12. Network within the

sector (E)

13. Investment subsidies for energy efficiency technologies (F) 14. Energy efficiency

requirements due to

(26)

the Swedish

Environmental Code (E)

15. Offering detailed support from energy experts when implementing energy efficiency investments (I) 16. Improved working conditions (O) 17. Information and

support through the Swedish forest industries (I)

18. Annual environmental report to the Swedish county administrative board including an energy plan (E) 19. Publicly financed energy audits by energy consultant, sector organization etc. (F) 20. Pressure from different environmental NGOs (E)

21. Beneficial loans for energy efficiency investments (F) 22. Third-party financing

(F)

23. ESCOs responsible for operation and maintenance of buildings (E) Manufacturing SMEs 1. Long-term energy strategy (O) 2. People with real

ambition (O) 3. Environmental company profile 47 (2006) Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews [14]

(27)

and/or energy management system (O) 4. International competition (E) Industrial companies 1. Cost reduction resulting from lower energy use (F) 2. People with real

ambition (O) 3. Threat of rising

energy prices (F) 4. Full support from top

management (O) 5. Investment subsidies

for energy efficiency technologies (F) 6. Long-term energy

strategy (O) 7. Long-term

agreements with tax exemption (PFE) (I,F) 8. The municipality has

strategy for sustainability (E) 9. Demand from owner

(E)

10. Environmental and energy management systems (O)

11. Beneficial loans for energy efficiency investments (F) 12. Swedish Energy Audit

Programme (F) 13. Environmental

company profile (O) 14. Offering detailed

support from energy experts when

implementing energy efficiency investments (I)

(28)

15. General energy advice via journal/brochure (I) 16. Energy tax (F) 17. Subsidized energy audits by energy consultant from sector organization (F) 18. Network within the

company (O) 19. Demand from

customers (E)

20. General energy advice at seminars (I)

21. Network within the sector (E)

22. Information and support through the sector organization (I) 23. Publicly financed energy audits by energy consultant (F) 24. International competition (E) 25. Improved working conditions (O) 26. Pressure from different environmental NGOs (E) 27. Carbon tax (F) 28. The municipality’s

energy plan (E) 29. Public sector as good

example (I) 30. Municipal energy

advisory services (I) 31. NOx tax (F) 32. Sulphur tax (F) 33. Energy efficiency requirements due to the Swedish Environmental Code (E)

(29)

34. Third party financing (F)

35. Annual environmental report to the Swedish county administrative board including an energy plan (E) 36. EU ETS (F)

37. Electricity Certificate Systems (F)

38. ESCOs responsible for operation and

maintenance of buildings (E) Iron and steel

industry

1. Cost reduction resulting from lower energy use (F) 2. Commitment from

top manager (O) 3. Long-term energy

strategy (O) 4. People with real

ambition (O) 5. Threat of rising energy prices (F) 6. Regulations (e.g. Swedish Environmental Code) (E) 7. Long-term

agreements with tax exemption (PFE) (I,F) 8. Support from the

sector organisation (I) 9. Demand from owner

(E) 10. EU ETS (F)

11. Taxes (e.g. energy, CO2) (F)

12. Support from energy experts (I) 13. Electricity Certificate System (F) 23 (2012) Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews [8]

(30)

14. International competition (E) 15. Third-party financing

(F)

16. Local authority energy consultancy (I)

17. Investment subsidies for energy efficiency technologies (F) 18. Beneficial loans for

energy efficiency investments (F) 19. Pressure from

customers and NGOs (E)

20. Network within the sector (E)

21. Energy audit subsidy (F)