ENERGY STATISTICS WORKING GROUP

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROSTAT Directorate E: Sectoral and regional statistics Unit E-5: Energy Luxembourg, 26 October 2012 ESTAT/E5/GB/cvb ENERGY STATISTICS WORKING GROUP JUNE 2012 MEETING ROOM AMPERE, BECH BUILDING KIRCHBERG, LUXEMBOURG CHAIRED BY: GITA BERGERE FINAL MINUTES* Doc. ESWG/2012/17 Document uploaded on CIRCABC on 26 October 2012:

2 PARTICIPANTS: EU Member States (all except CY), the acceding country Croatia, candidate countries (Iceland, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey), Norway, Switzerland and Kosovo. European Commission services: Eurostat, DG Energy, DG Climate Action. Observers: the International Energy Agency (IEA), Eurelectric, Eurogas, Energy Community Secretariat, Österreichs E- Wirtschaft and UBA Austria. The meeting was chaired by Mrs Gita Bergere, Head of Unit E.5 Energy. ITEM 1: ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS (DOC. ESWG/2012/01) The meeting of the Energy Statistics Working Group (ESWG) was opened by Mr Pedro Díaz Muñoz, Director of Eurostat Directorate E Sectoral and regional statistics, who presented a brief overview of the main priorities for Energy Statistics. In particular, he highlighted the ongoing work on energy balances, indicators of the single market competitiveness, energy dependence, impact on the environment and the Europe 2020 agenda. He also noted that, in the previous data collection exercise on annual energy statistics, timeliness had been improved by three months compared to past and the deadlines set by Regulation 1099/2008 had therefore been met. He also gave a brief general overview of the other subjects of the meeting agenda. He also mentioned that, in the past, the ESWG had reported in a non-systematic manner to the Business Statistics Directors Group (BSDG), at which the progress report on developments in energy statistics had been presented on June Eurostat had consulted the DIMESA (Directors Meetings on Environmental Statistics and Accounts), which resulted in that energy statistics would have to be reported to DIMESA as of the next meeting (20 th November 2012). However, non-systematic reporting to the BSDG will be continued on an ad-hoc basis. He also provided information on the organizational changes in Unit E.5 Energy, and introduced the new Head of Unit Mrs Gita Bergere. Participants expressed their thanks to Peter Tavoularidis (previous Head of Unit E.5 Energy) for all the work he had done in the past in the field of the energy statistics. Gita Bergere announced that there would be interpretation from and into EN, DE and ES. Following a decision of the ESSC meeting of 10/02/2011, future meetings would be held in EN, except in duly justified cases. She informed participants that all documents for the meeting had been uploaded on CIRCA before the meeting, and 70% of all documents had been made available more than two weeks before the meeting. In addition, all PowerPoint presentations given during the meeting would also be made available on CIRCA immediately after the meeting. She provided information on the current portal used for sharing information between Eurostat an Member States on Energy Statistics - CIRCA (Communication & Information Resource Centre Administrator) and the upcoming migration to CIRCABC (Communication and Information Resource Centre for Administrations, Businesses and Citizens) scheduled for the period between end August and September Two types of access rights will be defined for the new application CIRCABC: "public folders" and "restricted folders". Final documents, such as minutes of a working group meeting, would be made publicly available, whereas working documents like data processing issues would be for restricted use only. Access rights 2 Energy Statistics Working Group, June 2012

3 to the restricted folder would be managed by the Secretariat of Unit E.5. The Chair gave an assurance that ESWG would be kept informed of the migration to the new application for sharing documents. She also invited all participants to meet for an informal dinner in the evening of 27/06/2012. Gita Bergere presented the draft Agenda in detail. There were no comments from the participants to the draft agenda, which was therefore adopted. ITEM 2: ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 2011 (DOC. ESWG/2012/02) Gita Bergere noted that the draft minutes of the previous meeting had been sent to all those who had attended in September 2011, and all comments received had been incorporated. ESWG approved the minutes. For the future, the Chair announced that full minutes of meetings would be drafted in EN only, and proposed that the standard approach be used for full minutes. The draft full minutes would be sent to the Member States one month after the meeting (i.e. by end of August to take account of the summer holidays), which gave them one month to submit their comments. Eurostat would incorporate the comments received in the minutes and send the new version to the Member States. The new version would also be put on CIRCABC as the final minutes. There would still be an opportunity to comment on the minutes of the previous meeting at the following meeting. The Members of the Working Group agreed on the proposed approach with regard to the full minutes for future meetings. ITEM 3: COMITOLOGY ITEMS ITEM 3.1: REPORTS FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS OF ESSC AND BSDG (ORAL REPORT) Eurostat (Gita Bergere) provided information about the most recent meetings of ESSC (European Statistical System Committee) and BSDG. She further reflected on the discussion concerning the director's group under which energy statistics should belong by explaining the hierarchical structure: the working group level (task forces and ESSNETs), the director's level (BSDG, DIMESA, etc.) and the ESSC. As already announced by Mr. Pedro Díaz Muñoz, the energy statistics group is very likely to report to DIMESA as of their next meeting in November 2012.The decision on the composition of directors groups will be taken at the next ESSC meeting in autumn Two documents were provided for the latest BSDG meeting on June The evaluation of compliance with legal acts in energy statistics (monthly, annual and prices) was provided, and Ms Bergere reminded participants that the document had been sent to ESWG before the BSDG meeting for verification. The other document focussed on developments in energy statistics. Energy Statistics Working Group, June

4 ITEM 3.2: MODIFICATIONS IN ANNUAL QUESTIONNAIRES (DOC. ESWG/2012/03) Eurostat (Pekka Lösönen) highlighted the main changes to be made to the five joint Eurostat/IEA/UNECE questionnaires on energy quantities. It was mentioned that, in addition to the changes agreed with the Member States in the Energy Statistics Working Group on June 2011, there would also be minor, editorial-type changes. The overall time table with milestones for implementing these modifications was also presented. The questionnaires should be finalised and tested by the end of September 2012, after which they could be sent to the data providers. It was pointed out that the changes are linked to the on-going Comitology procedure to revise the Energy Statistics Regulation (ESR), and that the revised questionnaires would be applied in respect of the data for the reference year 2012 onwards. France asked about the testing of the questionnaires mentioned in the presentation. Eurostat replied that a) the questionnaires had been already been tested in terms of their function under Microsoft 2010 and b) the testing mentioned in the presentation is to be carried out before the questionnaires are sent to the data providers to ensure that all the macros for validation and other functionalities work properly. Luxembourg asked a question concerning the provision of historical time series for the new data inserted in the questionnaires. Eurostat replied that a) the questionnaires would include time series back to 1990, including for the new data, b) historical data are welcome where the Member States can provide them and c) the legal obligation to provide the new data will, in any event, not take effect until the reference year Conclusion The work to prepare the new annual questionnaires is proceeding in a timely manner. ITEM 3.3: AMENDMENT OF REGULATION (EC) NO 1099/2008 PROGRESS REPORT (DOC. ESWG/2012/04) Following on from the two previous presentations, Eurostat (Roeland Mertens) presented a tentative timetable regarding the processing of the updating of the ESR (Comitology procedure). Sweden was interested to know whether the comments by the MS have been acted upon; in particular, there was a concern regarding the countries of origin and of destination in the case of imports and exports of natural gas and its methodology in external trade. This trade is registered by consignment in Sweden, and therefore by country of ultimate origin or destination. Eurostat had ensured that comments were taken into consideration and adopted as far as possible. For the annual statistics, the accounting for ultimate destination and origin is fundamental for EU policies related to the import dependency and security of supply. The simplification currently proposed for monthly statistics, namely for imports and exports to be based on neighbouring countries only, was welcomed by many MS, as it put an end to an almost intractable problem for many. 4 Energy Statistics Working Group, June 2012

5 Conclusion Member States took note of the progress of the procedure and the foreseen timetable. ITEM 4: ENERGY STATISTICS IN HOUSEHOLDS ITEM 4.1: PROGRESS REPORT ON DATA COLLECTION (DOC. ESWG/2012/05) In the remaining time, Eurostat (Roeland Mertens) presented a brief overview of the state of the project, explaining the work done on this topic so far. Particular mention was made of the fact that the Task Force defined the needs and established an overview of the situation at national level (country review report format) and the Working Groups of 8/12/2008 and of 29/6/2009 when the country review reports were approved, as well as the recommended coverage. An overview was also presented of the success of the projects with Eurostat grants, in which 17 Member States had participated. The next steps, namely the development of methodology (drafting of manual and training) and the inclusion of such statistics in the Energy Statistics Regulation, were both covered in the next two presentations. ITEM 4.2: "MESH" A MANUAL FOR ENERGY STATISTICS IN HOUSEHOLDS (DOC. ESWG/2012/06) The MESH project was presented by Spain (Mr Jesús Pedro García Montes, project leader from IDEA). This initiative had been set up as an ESSNet project, enabling collaboration between several Member States (AT, ES, NL, SI, UK, with support also from DE and PL). He explained the objectives, the various actions already performed or in the pipeline as well as the timetable. He also mentioned that information on progress can be found at any time on the net ( He also explained why the project team needed updated information from Member States, and invited all participants to come forward with the necessary information. He also emphasized that further suggestions would continue to be very welcome. ITEM 4.3: ENERGY STATISTICS IN HOUSEHOLDS: UPDATING THE REGULATION (DOC. ESWG/2012/07) Eurostat (Roeland Mertens) recalled the main tasks performed so far in developing statistics on energy consumption in households, such as the drawing up of a list of preferred data, the development work in 17 Member States using Eurostat grants) and the methodological developments (manual and training) as the previous speaker had explained. Article 9 of the Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 states that [ ] the Commission (Eurostat), in collaboration with the Member States, shall [be ] gradually integrating the resulting elements in the statistics from 2012 (reference year) onwards. The time has therefore come to formalize a common scope. Since it is the task of the Commission to formulate a proposal for a common scope, a draft list of the most important data was drawn up and submitted to a panel of experts for an initial consultation as to its feasibility. The ensuing discussions led to a number of corrections being Energy Statistics Working Group, June

6 made, culminating in the following proposal which was put forward for discussion at the meeting for inclusion in the Energy Statistics Regulation: 1. Energy consumption in households by end use for main fuels: Space heating Space cooling Water heating Cooking Electricity only: other electrical appliances 2. Installation characteristics in households: % of lighting produced from high-efficiency light sources % of installations for equipment used in the first four categories above in the following age categories: 0-2, 3-5, 6-10, >10 years (note: this number may be reduced). In addition to the contents, the corresponding indicative time plan would be: Methodology: manual and training: end 2013 Legal proposal: consultations on the draft proposal at technical level: end 2012 Comitology: DIMESA and ESSC consultations, entry into force: end 2013 (estimated) DK pointed out that it was necessary to focus on user needs. He reminded the participants that there are households' data in the Odyssee project. He said the energy efficiency indicator requirements of Odyssee and the IEA should be used, and that the IEA were also working on methods. This effort should be coordinated. AT supported the proposal and thought that a data list would be very useful. DE thanked the task force for the good work they had done, and Spain in particular for its coordination effort. In Germany, the surveys had been carried out by a private company, which is contacted by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and this structure is particularly stable. As far as the proposed list is concerned, Germany wished to make the following comments: Cooling: this normally applies to electricity, and if there is only one meter it s the consumption of that meter cannot be considered separately from other electrical appliances. Heating, warm water and cooking can cause overlapping consumption, which should be addressed by estimations or modelling. This may considerably affect the data quality. Age of the installations: this has been tried in Germany before, but with disappointing results as it requires the availability of previous purchasing invoices. Requesting very detailed information leads to worse quality; perhaps the situation will improve in future with the use of smart meters. DE suggested holding a dedicated meeting later in the year which a representative from the Ministry of Economy would be willing to attend. The UK stressed the importance of specific definitions for the various electrical appliances in particular, as these are difficult to separate (example: is a microwave part of cooking?). Another issue was the degree of accuracy expected; the UK certainly could not deliver these 6 Energy Statistics Working Group, June 2012

7 data with the same accuracy as in the energy balance. Surveys for some of these data are likely to be very costly, and therefore the benefits generated needed to be clear. The age of the appliances was not available in the UK; a survey of suppliers was unlikely to provide a full picture. People might want to reflect on other ways to characterize efficiency in households (section 2). As far as a possible dedicated working group meeting in autumn was concerned, the UK said that it would be beneficial to share experiences from the 17 projects. Norway confirmed that the statistics on energy end-use are complicated and closely dependent on the method chosen. Indicators such as energy use per household or square metre of dwelling etc. were simpler to use. More detailed data would not be of the same quality as routine statistics. The first section would not create any problems for Spain, because good project information was available following the recent SECH. There were plans to repeat this exercise at 4 to 5 yearly intervals, and to adjust the intermediate intervals thereafter; as a result, Spain had no problems accepting the first section. The second section was far more complicated. The age of the equipment would require separate action. DG ENER (Balazs Jozsa) drew attention to the importance of data on space cooling and the rollout of smart meters. With prices at current levels, fuel and energy poverty had become a major political issue, with the current prices and with the household incomes declining as a result of the on-going crisis; this called for a uniform definition of some kind. Italy announced that it had just completed the pilot survey and was due to launch the final survey very soon. Italy confirmed that there were accuracy issues with detailed household data, but did not see any problems in sections 1 and 2 of the proposal. However, the financial implications were creating some uncertainty about the future of this work, and there were doubts about the second section, in particular with regard to lighting requirements. Slovenia asked about the periodicity of these data, and in particular about the surveys. Denmark suggested that there should be some leeway in the choice of the period, and suggested a form of labelling. Sweden reminded participants of the high costs and other problems, such as metering, definitions and methodology. Eurostat noted that the task force had initially defined the user needs, which generally exceeded what can reasonably be incorporated in a regulation; some of those responsible for the development of Odyssee were also part of that team, and there are plans for interaction between the various initiatives. Eurostat agreed with the aspects of limited quality and resources; the issue of periodicity was also linked to this. The legal principle of subsidiarity should be borne in mind: it was part of the remit of the MS to decide on the means by which they should achieve a given objective; Eurostat would not impose specific working methods as to how this should be done. In particular, although the proposal would become part of the annual statistics, this would not mean that surveys would become compulsory every year. Interpolations, the use of existing surveys and modelling might all help in bridging the gaps between surveys. As regards the limited accuracies expected, these data would not be integrated into the energy balances, and therefore there would be no need to compare degrees of accuracy. As far as the methodology needed for measuring fuel poverty was concerned, Eurostat referred to the MESH project which was currently on-going; work was due to be done in that area, as well as in other areas where methodological issues were in need of convergence. Energy Statistics Working Group, June

8 Romania reminded Eurostat about the Energy Efficiency Directive and its requirements; Member States would be judged on their results. Interpolations and modelling in between surveys may lead to data which can be misinterpreted. Romania therefore remained sceptical. The Netherlands pointed out that the functions of the current proposal for inclusion in the ESR and the current MESH project were very closely related. As Eurostat had pointed out, the intention was not to impose one particular method. The manual would have to serve as a guide to useful methods, so that the Member States would be working in a harmonised way. Sweden drew attention to the Code of Practice, with which the various alternative methods should conform. Conclusion Eurostat confirmed that the manual now being produced would be for the benefit of all, and therefore it would be important to monitor the work of the task force and to support it. Eurostat thanked the members of the task force for their continuing work, and Spain in particular, for making itself available to take on board the extra administrative task of coordinating the project. Eurostat would also pay more attention to building up close cooperation with other development work in this field. Eurostat would also keep in touch with DG ENER, in particular regarding the user needs that had to be covered. Eurostat was due to hold a workshop on 9 November 2012, in accordance with the preference of a number of Member States. Eurostat would further develop the original proposal of this scope and present a further version at the abovementioned workshop. As Germany had already suggested, it would therefore be appropriate that the national delegations participating in this workshop should also have a competent official available to debate the legal issues of widening the scope of ESR for households. ITEM 5: RENEWABLE STATISTICS ITEM 5.1: PROGRESS REPORT ON RENEWABLE STATISTICS (DOC. ESWG/2012/08) Eurostat (Marek Šturc) emphasized the difference between Agenda Items 5.2 and 5.3: whereas the presentation in section 5.3 was related to a Commission decision that would be legally binding on adoption, the presentation in section 5.2 related to methodological developments elsewhere. He informed participants about the progress/work on the impact assessment for accounting for electricity, hydrogen and methane from renewable sources towards the EU target of 10% renewable energy in transport. He also reported on the results of the most recent collection of data for the SHARES application namely the share of renewable energy source in gross energy consumption. He highlighted the main uncertainties: sustainable biofuels in transport and reporting of heat pumps. He stressed the importance of consistency of the data in the SHARES application and the progress reports submitted under Directive 2009/28/EC; it was also important that the national authorities should coordinate their submissions of data to Eurostat and DG Energy. 8 Energy Statistics Working Group, June 2012

9 Denmark called for better additional information in the SHARES tool in order to improve the consistency of progress reporting. Slovenia asked about the issue of possible revisions to the new approach (Eurostat to upload annual data from questionnaires). Slovenia also asked about the annual revision of ETA and its link to heat pump methodology. France confirmed that it had sent final data for SHARES on that date. France noted that it was likely to encounter problems in future due to a changeover to different software tools (open office systems). France reported a difficult situation concerning resources for regular surveys. Germany elaborated further on the issue of revisions raised by Slovenia and the different timing of IEA and Eurostat. Eurostat confirmed that SHARES application would be further developed in order to allow countries more flexibility, so that their specific situations could be reported. Eurostat confirmed that the latest version of annual questionnaires would be used in the SHARES application, referring to the Directive which should be made more coherent. Although Eurostat would calculate ETA every year, the Commission Decision on heat pumps would contain only a single value. Eurostat was aware of possible software issues with the SHARES application, and invited all countries to report if they thought that they were likely to encounter any problems. Conclusion Countries were invited to provide feedback in writing as to whether a meeting of the Renewable Energy Statistics Working Group needed to be convened during 2013, as well as suggested topics for this meeting if the countries reached a positive view (response by by end September 2012). Eurostat agreed that the SHARES application should be developed further and sent to the countries, together with already pre-completed data from the joint annual questionnaires. ITEM 5.2: METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY STATISTICS (DOC. ESWG/2012/17) Wolfgang Bittermann (Statistics Austria) gave a brief presentation on the Concerted Action on Renewable Energy Source and its recent work. He went on to focus on the key aspects of the methodology standards for wood fuel consumption by households. He then briefly presented the methodology for solar heat. He emphasized that both methodologies are publicly available on the respective websites. No comments/discussion on this topic. Conclusion Countries were invited to send their comments in writing (by ) on the feasibility of implementing the standards and methodologies presented by end of September Energy Statistics Working Group, June

10 ITEM 5.3: HEAT PUMP GUIDELINES (DOC. ESWG/2012/09) DG Energy (Oyvind Vessia) presented the background, timing and future steps with respect to adopting the heat pump guidelines. He drew attention to the previous work on this subject, in which the ESWG was already informed and had been consulted in previous years. He elaborated on the need to have the feasibility to implement any approach that was adopted. He also emphasized the importance of consistency between the progress reports delivered to DG Energy and data delivered in various questionnaires to Eurostat. Eurostat (Marek Šturc) informed participants that Eurostat would calculate and publish the "ETA" (the ratio between total gross production of electricity and the primary energy consumption for electricity production) and the average share of electricity from renewable energy sources in the Community. These figures were to be used by countries under the reporting obligations of Directive 2009/28/EC. Referring to the draft that had been circulated, Italy asked about the SPF and Q-usable for Heat Pumps and its variability in different climate conditions. Italy also asked about reversible heat pumps (provision of heating vs. cooling) and their inclusion in the statistics. France asked for the guidelines to be translated into French, as they were very technical, and a translation would make them easier to understand. France also asked about the inclusion of cooling for heat pumps. The Netherlands welcomed the draft guidelines and noted that they reflected the discussion of recent years. Furthermore, it was noted that issues of reversible heat pumps continued to be the major outstanding problem due to the uncertainty of their use (provision of heating vs. cooling) and especially due to their increasing share of the market. An additional factor was proposed for reversible heat pumps (with a default value of 5%). Italy provided further details on the issue of reversible heat pumps. It noted the issue of defrosting for heat pumps, and also pointed out possible additional issues around the methodology for reversible heat pumps. Germany made it clear that it does not have a problem with heat pumps. DG Energy responded to the issues raised. Concerning the SPF and its climate variability although SPF could be higher in warm climates, there were only limited data available allowing climate-specific factors to be set. Countries were asked to provide additional data where they existed. As far as reversible heat pumps are concerned: different adjustment for warm vs. cold climate would be needed, and a background study was used for laying down the principles for adjustment. ETA would be fixed and might be revised in future. DG Energy noted that cooling energy was excluded as far as heat pumps are concerned, according to the definitions in the Regulation. DG Energy reflected on the comment of the Netherlands and deemed it to be a valid point. DG Energy would look further into the issue; values proposed by Netherlands appeared to be very conservative. Furthermore, commenting on a reflection made by Italy, DG Energy noted that the guidelines were minimum standards and additional information would be needed in order to account for more detailed and specific situations. Conclusion Countries were asked to provide any comments on Heat Pump Guidelines in writing to Mr Oyvind Vessia (DG Energy) and Marek Šturc (Eurostat) by 11 July Energy Statistics Working Group, June 2012

11 ITEM 6: DATA COLLECTION AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES ITEM 6.1: ENERGY PRICE STATISTICS - UPDATE (DOC. ESWG/2012/10) Eurostat (John Görten) presented the work done during the previous 12 months in the area of energy price statistics. Gas prices had been disseminated in Euro per kwh; price data from Albania, Montenegro and FYROM had been added to the dataset, and the 2010 Purchase Power Parity (PPP) exercise had been completed. During the next 12 months, reporting authorities should ensure their compliance with the timeliness, the use of the correct questionnaires, and the use of the edamis data transmission system. The results of the 2010 PPP project would be distributed to the Members of the ESWG and the data providers, with a request for them to check the national data and update consumption figures if better national information were to become available for natural gas consumption. The Working Group on PPP would decide in November 2012 whether the energy price data would be a valid replacement for the current system. Norway proposed that average electricity prices for Average National Consumption should also be included. Eurostat thanked Norway for this proposal. Although the data were used to compare electricity prices between countries, the dissemination of average prices for average national consumption might provide additional valuable information. The UK mainly commented on the PPP project, and asked for clarifications about frequency, and whether gas data was corrected for temperature. The UK also queried the proposed methodology. Eurostat replied that the data for the PPP exercise would be collected only once a year, and that the data would not be corrected for any temperature differences. The methodology that had been chosen for the PPP exercise was based on data from existing data sets, and no additional burden would be put on MS (on the contrary, the burden would be less, as reporting of the PPP indicators was no longer necessary). France commented on the late submission of the price data, as the main data provider had been unable to report reliable price data within 4 months of the reference period. France also reported that it would soon start reporting the disaggregated electricity price data. DG Energy reported that retail market data were receiving a great deal of public attention. Prices were rising, and this increase was often linked to market liberalisation. Conclusion Eurostat would send the results of the 2010 PPP exercise to all participants of the ESWG and to the data provider of energy prices, asking them to check mainly the data on natural gas. Reporting authorities were encouraged to abide by the deadlines for reporting price data (2 months after the reference period) and to use the edamis transmission system. The use of the standardised questionnaires would be compulsory from the next survey onwards. Energy Statistics Working Group, June

12 ITEM 6.2: MONTHLY ENERGY STATISTICS - OVERVIEW (DOC. ESWG/2012/11 and the four Annexes thereto ESWG_2012_11_ANNEX I_COMPLIANCE_MONTHLY_BSDGJUN2012.XLS ESWG_2012_11_ANNEX II_MONTHLY_VERSUS_ANNUAL.XLS ESWG_2012_11_ANNEX III_EDAMIS_MONTHLY_2012.XLS ESWG_2012_11_ANNEX IV_NEW_MOS.ZIP) Eurostat (Antigone Gikas) reported on the implementation of the Energy Statistics Regulation for monthly statistics. She provided an evaluation of the current status of regulatory compliance for each individual monthly data collection in terms of timeliness, quality related aspects of coherence/accuracy outlined [including M-1 versus M-3, and M-3 versus annual data comparisons], and technical issues related to data transmission mode [edamis] and questionnaire formats addressed. Eurostat also reported on the progress made by the European Commission/IEA technical group with regard to streamlining the existing monthly oil statistics questionnaire, so as to also cover the oil stockholding reporting requirements of the new Oil Stocks Directive [Council Directive 2009/119/EC of 14 September 2009], as well as on other recent methodological developments. One of the most important of these was the conceptual change of imports/exports in [only] monthly reporting of natural gas. Lastly, Eurostat presented current publication aspects of monthly statistics implementing the general policy of the house for more electronic and Wiki-style dissemination. Slovenia referred to the inherent differences in the monthly and annual data collections, stressing that great care must be taken when comparing the two collections and drawing conclusions; for smaller countries/quantities, in particular, the lack of decimals for entering data into the questionnaires can cumulatively amount to big differences. Slovenia also emphasized that it would have been preferable to obtain the relevant documents earlier. The Netherlands commented on the apparent randomness of the timeliness for submissions in different months, suggesting that, the weekends might be a possible reason, especially in respect of the tight deadline of the JODI. Ireland highlighted the issue of confidentiality of monthly data [not submitted to Eurostat], which leads to discrepancies when monthly cumulated data are compared with annual [non confidential] data. Austria mentioned the case of one company importing fuels in the name of another company, and each of them considered that the other company would do the statistical reporting; such situations at monthly level cannot be corrected, and lead to discrepancies between annual and monthly data. Eurostat closed the discussion, underlining that it was exactly this type of feedback - as provided by the speakers on issues and discrepancies observed - would be expected from the Member States on a continuous basis, so as to explain the underlying reasons and the correct interpretation of the findings. Eurostat took note of the comment on "decimals" in the monthly questionnaires, as well as of the "weekends" as being one of the possible reasons for delays in submission. Eurostat explained that, according to Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European statistics, Member States are required to provide Eurostat with data that are covered by statistical confidentiality, indicating of course that they are confidential and therefore are not for publication. 12 Energy Statistics Working Group, June 2012

13 Conclusion Continuous feedback received from Member States enables the correct interpretation of the findings and the identification of the underlying systematic or random reasons to be interpreted correctly; this is the first step of a longer-term process to further improve the quality of monthly energy data. Reporting countries ensure the timely provision of all monthly datasets under the Energy Statistics Regulation, using the appropriate format and transmission mode: Monthly questionnaires are to be downloaded from the Energy Dedicated Section [ and submitted to Eurostat via the Single Entry Point [SEP] following the edamis implementing procedures. In particular, the NEW streamlined MOS questionnaire, with all the changes of methodological and other nature that it involves, would have to be used as of January 2013 [reference month] for the monthly oil & natural gas statistics reporting; the respective data flows in edamis are ENERGY_MOSOIL_M and ENERGY_MOSGAS_M. Eurostat was due to make the MS-excel format of the questionnaire available later this year [by the end of December 2012 at the very latest]. Finally, under the new Oil Stocks Directive 2009/119/EC: potential reporting on specific stocks related data would commence from the reference month of January 2013 [deadline one month after the reference month, i.e. end of February 2013] on the basis of the new MoSpeS questionnaire [or a similar web application] and having the Directorate General for Energy of the European Commission (DG Energy) as its entry point; reporting of data on emergency & commercial stocks would commence from the reference month of January 2013 [deadline 55 days after the reference month, i.e. end of March 2013]; this monthly reporting will be implemented on the basis of the NEW streamlined MOS questionnaire and having as its entry point the Single Entry Point [SEP] of Eurostat (aka edamis); DG Energy would have the political responsibility for compliance monitoring of the oil stockholding. ITEM 6.3: ANNUAL ENERGY STATISTICS - OVERVIEW (DOC. ESWG/2012/12) Eurostat (Marek Šturc) presented the state of compliance for the Energy Statistics Regulation as far as of punctuality and completeness are concerned. The presentation also addressed technical issues relating to the data transmission mode [edamis] and questionnaire formats. Eurostat once again stressed the importance of edamis, the use of which is mandatory for uploading data to Eurostat, and thanked those Member States that have already started using edamis. Timeliness in general was good; Eurostat thanked the countries for their timely submission of data during the previous exercise. Eurostat asked countries to ensure that no questionnaires were significantly late. Eurostat elaborated on the issues of timelines, quality and revisions and its interactions. While timeliness was an important aspect of monitoring of compliance with the ESR, countries were asked not to compromise on quality, consistent with meeting the deadlines. Energy Statistics Working Group, June

14 Norway announced that it would use edamis in the future. Norway also provided information on the reasons for the delay, which had occurred as a result of the compilation of energy balances (improved quality due to new information from surveys) the next data collection was due to be sent within the deadlines. Denmark was planning improvements in the use of edamis. Denmark was also clear that this was an "all or nothing" issue. When questionnaires were sent, they had to be consistent and of a high quality. Denmark has been aiming to send all five questionnaires at the same time and on time. Germany mentioned a problem with the electricity data in Table 1 and Table 6. It also noted that the revisions were due to the work of IEA, as they worked on different schedule. The UK acknowledged that they have not been using edamis particularly effectively. However, as this was due to some confusion concerning the method of submission in the past, the situation was expected to improve in future. The UK further explained the differences between monthly and annual in terms of their purpose France urged caution when comparing monthly data and annual data. France explained that that the delays which had occurred in past were due to a structural problem within the organization, rather than a problem with data; these issues were exacerbated by the human resources issue. Eurostat understood the specific national issues and expressed the hope that the situation would improve in the future. Eurostat further elaborated on the timeliness-quality-revisions nexus, and encouraged countries to improve compliance and facilitate data processing as much as possible by finding the best trade-off between timeliness, quality and revisions. Eurostat explained that, as the deadlines for dissemination were laid down in the Regulation, users might plan to use - and actually have been using - the data published according to deadlines for policy purposes. Revisions after the deadline should therefore be kept to a minimum, where possible. However, if Eurostat received revisions, these would be processed and uploaded into the database. Eurostat emphasized that these important energy data for European policies had to be made available well in advance of the Spring Council meeting. Conclusion Eurostat thanked participants for respecting deadlines and improved data submissions during the previous data collection. Eurostat emphasized that it had to meet its dissemination deadline (by 31 January), which could only be done if successful collaboration with countries was in place and questionnaires from countries arrived on time. ITEM 7: ESR QUALITY REPORTS FIRST ANALYSIS (DOC. ESWG/2012/13) Eurostat (Michael Goll) started by reminding the ESWG that delivering the quality reports is an obligation deriving from the ESR. Decisions taken in the ESWG meeting in 2010 were also given as background information. The basis for Eurostat's analysis was that at least detailed information should be provided regarding the data collections used for the traditional annual energy statistics (questionnaires for solids, liquids, gas and electricity). 14 Energy Statistics Working Group, June 2012

15 Eurostat reported that a small number of Member States had sent nothing at all, while some Member States had submitted very comprehensive information. Member States who had sent partial reports had already announced that there were some more reports to come. However, some of the reports received cannot be accepted for various reasons (incomplete, too general etc.). Eurostat also emphasized that these reports were very helpful in improving the understanding of the situation in the different Member States. As far as further action was concerned, Eurostat asked Member States to send any still outstanding reports by the end of September, and announced that it would contact Member States individually in an effort to complete the reports in close cooperation with them. Once the reports were completed, they would be returned to the respective Member State for final checking and approval. The reports would then be made available on CIRCA in a password protected section. On the basis of these reports Eurostat would prepare a summary EU-report covering all MS. This report was scheduled to be presented at the next meeting of the ESWG. Once this report had been agreed, it was to be published on Eurostat's web-site. Finally, it was mentioned that, on completion of the current exercise, the next objective could be collecting the necessary quality information on monthly energy statistics' collections, focussing on M-3 questionnaires. General feedback on the exercise was positive. Many delegates said that they welcomed the exercise and were looking forward to also studying the reports prepared by their colleagues. A number of MS emphasized that they were keen to learn from each other. Some Member States (DK, AT, SI, RO and UK) expressed their view that the 'light approach' was not sufficient and that the template should be extended to cover remaining details on quality aspects. Some Member States explained that they had already published more complete quality information, and DE, AT, SI and UK had already agreed the publication of their reports by Eurostat. Germany noted that a report on solid fuels was due in August, and Finland promised to send the report(s) by end September. The United Kingdom suggested giving links to Member State websites where information on quality could be found and that good examples/best practice examples should be circulated amongst the Member States. Sweden took the view that ensuring statistical quality was a national task, but the fact that many different authorities were involved in energy statistics in Sweden made this very cumbersome. Eurostat defended the 'light approach', noting that there are considerable differences in the level of the reports received, and that the objective was to receive a minimum of information from all Member States before going into more detail. The United Kingdom s proposal to give links to Member States' websites where more information on quality aspects could be found had already been implemented in the current template (Heading 7.2 Quality documentation). In response to the request to make available 'good practice examples', Eurostat replied that good practice first had to be defined and agreed between the countries. Energy Statistics Working Group, June

16 Finally, Eurostat reminded Member States that the structure of the template had to be followed, at least for the reports. It was therefore explained that the UN-quality report, for example, would not replace the requested quality report(s) under the ESR. Conclusion The chair asked Member States to submit any outstanding reports by the end of September at the latest, and announced that a discussion would be held at the next meeting which would cover the evaluation of the template, lessons learned after the first exercise and a possible date for the next exercise. ITEM 8: DEVELOPMENT OF A METHODOLOGY FOR EARLY CO 2 EMISSION ESTIMATES (DOC. ESWG/2012/14) B. Gugele from Umweltbundesamt Austria (UBA) updated the ESWG's Members on the latest results of this project. Two main aspects were presented: Testing of two methods by applying it to the years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, and Testing of correction methods to remove bigger deviations visible for 7 MS. As regards the method to be chosen, the trend change method showed clear advantages compared to the reference approach. When using the trend change approach, deviations between the inventory data supplied to UNFCCC and cumulated monthly data were within +/- 5 % for most Member States. However, seven Member States posted bigger deviations. Data from these Member States were presented in detail. Several methods to correct these deviations were tested, but the conclusion was that this did not lead to any particular improvements, and therefore neither any of the tested correction methods, nor any gap filling procedures, should be applied. DG CLIMA (Velina Pendolovska) emphasized its fundamental interest in this project, given that CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion account for around 80% of total GHG emissions in the EU. They hoped that this method would lead to estimates of CO 2 emissions much earlier than at present. Currently, the official greenhouse gas inventory data are available only at 16 months after the end of the reference year, and the available "approximated" inventory estimates at 10 months. This, of course, implies a rather long wait, while timeliness is always important for policy-making. With this method, they could obtain some data as early as 4 months after the reference year, which helps to have early warning and to discern early trends in Member States and the EU. DG CLIMA also said that they hoped that there would be fewer deviations between inventory data sent to UNFCCC and Eurostat annual energy data in the future, in line with the Energy Statistics Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008, Article 6(2). In reply to the repeated calls from several MS for more clarity on the uses of energy statistics, DG CLIMA also gave examples of direct uses of energy data in climate-related policymaking, such as (but not limited to) for evaluating progress under the Climate and Energy Package as part of the Europe 2020 Strategy, for compiling the "carbon leakage" list under the Emissions Trading System Directive, for additional modelling and policy analysis. 16 Energy Statistics Working Group, June 2012

17 Conclusion Eurostat repeated that it had no intention of publishing data on the Member State's level. Member States were informed this project was due to continue for another 30 months, which would broaden the basis for evaluating the method. This project also underlined the importance of monthly energy data, especially as regards their timeliness and their quality in terms of comparability and consistency with annual energy statistics. ITEM 9: FUTURE OF ENERGY STATISTICS (DOC. ESWG/2012/15) Eurostat (Pekka Lösönen) gave a presentation which was divided into two parts: the first part briefly described the annual work programme 2012/2013, while the second part dealt with the challenges beyond 2013 and possible solutions to them. The first part to a large extent simply consisted of a list the items which had been presented in more detail earlier in the day in other presentations. After the presentation, Eurostat (Antigone Gikas) provided supplementary information, explaining that the activity of compiling and publishing Heating degree days would be continued during the year, although it did not appear in the Annual Work Programme. The second part of the presentation dealt with a long list of items on current and/or future challenges for energy statistics. It was emphasised that the purpose of the presentation was not to propose including the mentioned items in the energy statistics system, but to highlight the scale of the challenges and to propose a way forward to overcome them. It was also made clear that, against a background of dwindling resources, it is necessary to focus more on actual user needs and to prioritise them. In this context, the participants were invited to provide Eurostat with their opinion on the establishment of a task force with a mandate to prepare a proposal for a new set of annual and monthly questionnaires on quantities to optimise the data collection in order to respond to the most important user needs. The IEA welcomed the idea of discussing the future of energy statistics and outlined the steps which had been already taken to streamline the data collection, such as the joint questionnaires and the International Recommendations of Energy Statistics in the framework of UN Oslo Group. According to the IEA, there should be a common platform for submitting questionnaires, but at the same time it concurred that Eurostat had legal restrictions in this respect. The IEA also recognized the need to reduce the reporting burden for the countries and organisations, and to share the work with Eurostat for example by treating annual questionnaires in a similar way to the work within the JODI framework. However, the IEA would prefer a more global forum for this brainstorming discussion, which would involve all of the relevant international organisations that collect energy statistics and also the IPCC. DG Energy agreed that now was the time to look forward to the future of energy statistics, to estimate the data needs which would become current in some four years' time. DG Energy wanted a) more frequent data collection on retail prices of natural gas and electricity (these more frequent surveys could be a simplified version of the half yearly data collections), b) structural data on taxes and production & transmission costs, but appreciated the problems of the resources and stressed that it was important to try to avoid adding to the burden on the Member States. From DG Energy's point of view this could be achieved, for example, by reducing the number of consumption bands in the current data collection for prices. DG Energy Statistics Working Group, June