Replication workshop of solutions tested in Smart Cities

Smarter Together & Sharing Cities

4-5 December 2017, Brussels

This workshop was organised by the Smarter Together and Sharing Cities projects to focus on the replication potential of the pilot projects in the lighthouse cities within their own cities as well as in other European cities.

The workshop tackled the enablers, key problems and solutions concerning the overall replication process. A specific focus was set on citizen involvement, mobility islands and refurbishment of public, individual and (mainly) multifamily private buildings.

The key findings from this workshop will feed into the development of the replication framework (D8.1) of the Smarter Together project, to be developed by Energy Cities during February 2018.

Participants:

Smarter Together projectEnergy Cities (organiser): Francisco Gonçalves, Kinga Kovacs, Stéphane DupasMunich: Hana Riemer, Korinna Thielen, Verena StoppelLyon: Etienne Vignali, Pam Venin, Bruno Gaiddon Vienna: Stephan Hartmann, Julia Girardi-Hoog, Petra SchöfmannUniversity of St Gallen: Charlotte LekkasAIT: Gernot Lenz, Hans-Martin Neumann, Wolfgang PonweiserDIN: Stefanie MüllerProject manager: Philippe Fournand (Wavestone)

Sharing Cities projectEUROCITIES (organiser): Bernadett Koteles-Degrendele, Gabriel Jacqmin, Mathilde ChinellatoMilano: Caterina Benvenuto, Cecilia Hugony

In the second day, two visiting municipalities participated, interested in the findings and lessons learned by the LHC and in the potential replication of some of the pilot actions:

- the City of Heerlen-NL (Hans van der Logt) – interested in the citizen engagement process - the City of Antwerp-BE (Lina Nurali) – interested in the refurbishment of the private

houses

Introduction

Lighthouse projects bring opportunities and challenges for cities, which are different from their traditional projects and require often a ‘holistic’ view, reorganisation and even a need for acquiring new competences and skills. Cities are facing complex problems, to which innovative and co-created solutions, are not compatible with heavy and slow organizational speed at the local and regional institutions.

Sharing of challenges and solutions about processes and lessons learnt can be useful amongst the lighthouse cities and also for externals, cities who ambition a replication of smart city solutions.

The objective of the workshop was thus to discuss common and different issues that lighthouse cities are facing in their replication strategies, lessons already learned or emergence of new governance networks are, among others, aspects that need to be taken into account for the wide spreading of smart cities outside the demonstration areas, at local, metropolitan or even regional level.

Summary:

The present challenges that cities face (climate change, energy, mobility, housing, excess of data flow, lack of citizen participation, etc) cannot be fought individually as they can be intrinsically related. Energy efficiency and renewable energy production are linked with climate change mitigation. Mobility efficiency and less carbon intensive means of displacement are connected with

energy consumption and production, housing quality or neighbourhood life quality. Increasing technology use, results in an increase of energy consumption, data flow or different societal ways of interacting. Technology can give cities valuable information, when specifically combined towards its needs, to respond to climate change impacts. Public institutions (from local to national) have traditionally heavy organizational structures, with impacts on the information flow, governance, relation with the citizen, procurement, etc. Innovation is bringing solutions to respond to problems like housing conditions, less carbon intensive mobility, citizen participation or decentralized renewable energy systems integration at urban level. However, at the same time, innovation needs real life experimental environments and business models to scale-up. Lighthouse cities from Smarter Together and Sharing Cities are showing that traditional governance models are not responding to these new ecosystems. Partnerships, networks of organizations within cities and networks of cities are playing an increasing role in dealing with multi-layer challenges.

This workshop showed that cities can have similar problems, but with local/regional variances, which give particular importance for the sharing of knowledge and experiences, which can strengthen the development of tailored-made solutions, which have a higher chance of correctly respond to the problems faced. More than the deployment of a specific and closed technology, cities need to respond to a problem, to improve the quality of life and environment.

Rather than technological issues, this workshop showed that organizational, governance or communication dimensions can truly hinder the solving of multi-variable problems. Partnerships, networks or geographically or time limited organizations, among other solutions, can face current challenges in a more agile and efficient way. Lighthouse Cities shared and learned from this 2 days discussion, which was extended to other 2 cities not familiar with the Smart Cities and Communities vocabulary.

What is smart? The first exercise was to try to find synonyms to the word smart! Due to some misunderstandings, different meanings and personal tastes, the participants were asked to find different words for smart.

accessible connected

integrated easy

innovative cooperative

holistic happy

The following pages summarize and highlight the major findings of the workshop. The tables below show and describe the enablers, key problems and solutions that were identified by the participants.

ENABLERS

CLUSTERS ENABLERSOrganisational, structural and governance aspects

Relying on existing strategies and infrastructureLeadership and ownership:

- Municipal owned companies/Urban renewal offices (100% owned by the city) or urban agencies/core groups existing in different areas and focusing on different topics including social or economic

The political will/ will of decision makers (high level) is part of the guarantee that the process will work – it is easier when it works top down. Good relation between political representatives is also important (Good information flow between elected officials)/ Good coordination between departments

- Local heroes willing to do itThe EU project is an enabler as without it the decision level wouldn’t have committed.Existing strategy and vision, especially on the urban development - Common goals, targets and visionAllies / friendly departments within the municipality / mentors (breaking the silos)/taskforces/Building the right crowdTransversal cooperation within the local authorityAcceptance and SatisfactionBuy-in from technical department and to “sell” the solution to the higher levelInspiration – somewhere else – sometimes it is important to visit examples from other countries/regions/citiesPublications – see that others deal with similar problemsRight to fail as it is a pioneer project/a lab/a demonstrationAssess which measures are generally more accepted than others

Legal aspects Right to fail as it is a pioneer project/a lab/a demonstrationRight to experimentEvolution of regulations at local but also national level (ex. renewables, retrofitting)Evolution of the regulation/governance – pilot project –anticipation

Economic aspects

European funds (as seed money)National funds (e.g. national funding for refurbishment, used in Vienna)Attractive areaIn the case of Lyon, the territory is very attractive; it is a place of innovation, where one can take risks. The area in Lyon is already attractive; it is the place to be as the pilot area is in the city centre. The demand in this area is high, it is a positive market.Financial benefit – for department that implements project

Clear business models and financing schemesCommunication, co-creation and engagement aspects

Image - the positive effect of being awarded by the EU Commission means that you are among the best cities – it is not only a matter of money, but a matter of image!Raise awareness among the people in the city on the importance of refurbishment. They need to be aware of the benefits, not only economic, but focus on the quality of life (thermal comfort) Find buy-ins (technical and political)Good communication – storytelling skills/ Quick-story – to know the right questionThe integration of tenants and renters were important, as there is strong legislation on this topic. If the building is renovated the company is allowed to increase the rent with a small amount of money. When the company comes with a top down approach mentioning that they will do refurbishment the tenants will be against it. However, when they are involving the tenants in a participatory way, asking what improvement this would bring, they would discuss and agree easier. More cooperative focus.Engagement of local stakeholdersPeople being proud of what they do, start with success factors.Transparency / information/ communication“Showing off” successful pilot/demonstration which should be made visible Fact sheets on quick wins: Sharing a quick-in – showing quick-ins on the top level (gives credibility). Don’t communicate a quick-win as a big victory (it’s dangerous)/Be positive and say good things/Piloting can open new doors, tooCommunicate more in the media on the positive aspectsOrganise site visits (touch + feel)Co-creation processes and understanding the needs and opposition to changeDefining the right problem

Other Sharing best practices between cities – access existing knowledgeHow easy the technology is? How available it is?

KEY PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES

CLUSTERS KEY PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGESOrganisational, structural and governance aspects

Internal governance with no transparencyMissing internal processes and how do you get from piloting to standard.Informal governance structure – blocking the decision and implementation Inexistent integrated strategiesOn a process level, this is a pilot project and there is no standard procedure/solution yet – related to procurement for innovationExperiment status (allowing accepting some conditions)!Timeframe: “not in the right time” (administrations are slow!)Silos in the organisation and no strategy - This can cause lack of motivation in the departments – people are not allowed to work outside their department. Lack of confidence within the organization and between different departmentsMunicipalities are not flexible (not a risk culture)Complicated processesBad examples from the past

Legal aspects Legal and policy framework for data protection and privacy are missing.Changing national legal framework and new standards.National framework impeding local willingnessThere is no minimum standard from the national level.National regulatory framework (e.g. in FR the minimum standard for building retrofit is to paint the façade, so the regulation is too weak). Confusing legal standards and regulation (GDPR) – different levels

- Big energy companies are not willing to share the data with the public authorities, even though in some cases they are city owned (e.g. adding additional sensors by the municipality to obtain the same data).

- No clear legal framework to allow operators/municipal owned companies to share data.

In the refurbishment process (private housing), the decision-making is complicated as one needs a high percentage (75% and even 100%) of homeowners to agree.Difficulty to replicate pilots - legal constraints.

Economic aspects

Low energy price.Risk taking (transition from pilot/lighthouse to daily life/usual projects), making it economically viable.No interesting financing schemes from banks.Investment banks need certification allowing ???them to invest and energy saving projects do not allow them to invest, do not comply with the standard.Business models are not useful. Better is to address a cost/benefit analysis.???Procurement procedures: difficult to procure innovation (lack of standards); procurement is made to purchase solutions (goods/services), not to solve problems.

Communication, co-creation and engagement aspects

Lack of trust between the municipality and the municipal owned companies.Mistrust between different departments within the same municipalityLack of ownership by the citizens, passive citizens - high expectations of citizens towards city

Lack of concrete results to share and showLack of definition of smart city

Other No baseline data for mobility issues nor for energy consumptions and patterns;Communication is difficult on energy efficiency issues: How to make the invisible visible?IndicatorsTechnical standards – changing too fast compared to slow administrative processes.Lack of urgency, motivation, citizen push as current situation is already quite comfortable (e.g. Munich) as the city is demographically growing and attracting investors. Lack of motivated people /people are not flexible/no resources/no time/not interestedLong time frameStructural change needed.Resistance to change Change is perceived as a big barrierFear to fail

SOLUTIONS:

CLUSTERS SOLUTIONSOrganisational, structural and governance aspects

Set up a dedicated company or task force/core groupSet up a small company like SPL (Lyon) to develop a specific territory and tackle different aspects on one territory. This company is highly skilled and decisions can be taken in short time. However, the problem is to replicate this outside of the pilot area. In the case of Lyon there are 10 000 employees in the municipal organisation and the decision making process is complicated. Municipalities have the right to set up companies for specific purposes, so the SPL has 25 employees and the mayor is the president of the company, having thus a direct link. However, this makes sometimes the dialogue with the civil servants complicated as they are seen as a problem and not as a solution (rivalry). 2 such companies are existing in Lyon. These companies have the right to experiment and might have derogations from the regulation. (e.g. you need to build 2 car parks / apartment, but in an experiment area /urban labs this regulation is not compulsory). The benefits of such small and flexible organization are: many decisions can be taken for the project running for a limited period of time (short-term) and geographical area. Nonetheless, it can create mistrust in the municipality or metropole, once other people are doing tasks which they would be able to perform

In Aspen and HafenCity Hamburg the solutions found are similar. It is also mentioned that in Munich the urban renewal offices were more independent 30 years ago, but now they are losing their special status, becoming too administrative.

Core group (Munich): Multidisciplinary group without steering capacity, composed by different departments of the municipality and other organizations. It is opener and more innovative than it used to be in the past as it is open to external parties to the municipality. In the past, it was just internal. The city staff represented are heads of division. Benefits: composed by people who wish to work, transparent and address different topics. Negative: Lack of steering power. With time, heads of division are assigning people with less power to the group and losing interest. Setting up a replication platform locally, involving the key stakeholders who are potential replicators – create exchange of experience among the different persons having similar roles in different districts, also involving public and private actors; but also have decision making power and have access to the political level. Form a core group that is transparent and multi-domain and also open to other external actors and have more steering power/capacity in the group, could be a next step.

Having the existing company from the pilot area operating in other districts in the same city: The new company having the know-how and the experience from the pilot district could operate also on the development and refurbishment of other areas in the city (like UBA Hamburg).

Replicators should be involved in the implementation phaseIn the SCC projects, monitoring and replication are part from the beginning

Open calls for innovation and new ideas: - citizen oriented (crowdfunding platform for instance)- city employees oriented

Economic development department (Lyon): For very big and complex organizations, fostering transversal departments, which does not depend on a specific project, for discussing crosscutting topics can trigger trust between different departments. Each vertical department has an innovation person, which meet every 2 months. Discuss cross-sectoral topics (solid waste, mobility, etc)Set up LABs – to try things beyond regulation.

Legal aspects Related to the data platforms – one solution is the data gatekeeper (“sort of “data concierge”) managing the access to data and set standards and processes, a basic standardised procedure. This is also a solution to the lack of national legal framework (Munich and replicated to Vienna). Other idea is the development of a foundation or advisory board: a multi-level participation platform, which assesses the access to data. Reflects the power of civil society to deal with information.

The lawmakers are not so fast and have different languages than technicians and politicians, sometimes legal frameworks are inexistent and law makers need to be involved in the project from the beginning, even in the piloting phase, they should be called to the discussion and regular meetings (like in Milano).

Set up labs to try things beyond regulationIn FR the state allows to go beyond the national regulatory framework to experiment (e.g. cascade funding – an EU legal obstacle).Updating the prototype and once this is done and it works, the replication should take place in all neighbourhoods. Apply norms from other EU countries: When in a country there is no standard, it is possible to apply norms from other EU countries (a specific topic is to connect the PV systems to the grid, which is a German norm/standard and is used in FR as there is no similar standard in FR). This helped to develop PV systems in FR in general (not only in Lyon). Lobby for stronger standards based on the experiment level.

Economic aspects

Use of crowdfunding – especially as a marketing instrument and to commit citizens (eg renewable energy systems’ parks)Setting up a municipal crowdfunding platformVoucher systemReduced property tax for people who carry out refurbishment works Tax credit for refurbishment, instead of only tax reduction: In Italy people can even resell their tax benefit (to a company for instance)

Bring other indicators to the equation: monitoring of results focused on the use of different indicators in order not to show only the financial benefits (on which decision-making is mainly based), but also show costs that could be avoided in the future and social, health benefits; e.g. being ready to invest in solutions that do not necessarily save money, but they could avoid costs in the future - not visible, but indirect financial benefits (e.g. in the field of sustainable mobility and public transport, people save money as they do not use their individual cars). These are indirect support/funding that on the longer term reduce the costs and the environmental impact.Develop solutions and indicators to make investments visible in a different way as currently the criteria is only profit, return on investment. Take into consideration social and environmental benefits as well as avoided future costs instead of only profit.

Cash advance by financial institution – a tool that is popular in Lyon as a financial institution gives money for the first year of the project and will allow the organisations to start the work without waiting for subsidies.

A national fund in Germany (KfW) giving funding according to the standards. It covers up to 15% of the overall budget. The beneficiary has to assure 20% as guarantee.

Change current business models in the sense that they should not be only based on profit but also on avoiding future costs and on other indicators: social, health etc.

Allow cascade funding to reach a certain impactCommunication, co-creation and

Local renewal offices as communication hubs in the districts In Munich, these are working for a 5 years’ concession and any kind of company can apply. They are

engagement aspects

doing a lot of communication and information works acting as a participation and consulting office.

Quality of communication- Listening/bottom up- Continuity- Involvement- Avoid dealing only with “list of complaints”

Going beyond communication, towards participatory processes by listening to the people, discussing and getting to the source of the problems, which is the solution also for the acceptance of the different projects. More bottom-up communication and co-creation with local authorities listening more to people’s needs. They should not only listen to peoples complaints, but be proactive on the solutions proposed and co-create with them, truly understanding their needsChange of the mindsets is necessary via the ownership from the beginning by involving everyone concerned.

Continuity of communication: Communicate periodically the state of the project so that the results can be adapted regularly to the needs and realities in the field, rather than just deliver a final product that is not corresponding to the current needs (Managing expectations).

More resources invested in communication/participation to accompany on the long term and increase the quality and move towards more participatory processes since the very beginning of the project.

Make the decision making process more transparent (this solution might not necessarily be in line with political will)

Identify reliable stakeholders that would be more trusted by citizens and would act as ambassadors (e.g. pioneers becoming ambassadors/pilot families trained and training other families). Identify trusted contact partners and involve them in the process / build trust

Positive testimonies and feedback from pilots: e.g. Invite residents from refurbished buildings to the other owner meetings in buildings that are to be refurbished to make testimonies of their experience and positive feedback

Create an informal environment and create convivialitye.g. In Milano intervention of a team with different representatives to speak to the people in an informal environment (bring food etc); Setting up working groups with citizens

Other Develop other types of indicators/variables (not only related to energy savings, which in some cases are related with long payback periods)e.g. in the field of building retrofit, other indicators should be introduced than energy savings, showing very long term payback periods (25 years). So the economic aspect of investment is not attractive in this case. Other variables such

as health issues, comfort, and quality of life should be introduced.

Making the invisible visible- Financial aspects- Comfort/lifestyle- Testimony/feedback

Remarks - Bring the findings from the workshop back to the WP 1 and make use of the wiki;- The smart cities lighthouse projects – how are they networking via the different platforms?

There are so many platforms that the cities are getting lost – call for a role revision of the SCIS – smart city information system project

- Communication platform –what does emerge, what events are organised? Clear holistic communication is needed on this.

- Task force on business models – focused on the measures implemented in the different projects (discussing a lot on joint procurement and how that is possible) would be interesting for the cities within Smarter Together

- EIP cluster on business models (will be led by Bernadett on behalf of Eurocities)- There will be also a task force on data (probably chaired by the city of Rotterdam)- Coordinate organisation of webinars among the different exchange/networking platforms and

the different smart cities projects (wish for a webinar on car-sharing for communities)- Clarify what is expected from the lighthouse cities for the event of the follower cities on the

26th of January in Brussels- A suggestion: create a sort of “tinder” for the projects bringing technicians together on very

specific fields allowing them to exchange. It is sometimes more useful to connect with cities working on the same or similar project and exactly with the relevant persons (e.g. Stephan from Vienna was connected to Roberto from Milano and discussed about car sharing in condominiums)

- Make sure that all projects know about the events well in advance to allow people to participate (at least 1,5 months in advance)

Other comments

It would be interesting to organise a workshop on internal structural changes with elected representatives of cities and high-level administration decision-makers in order to create conditions for a change in internal governance and an internal dialogue on sustainability / smart cities issues.

Exclusive for ST: How to link replication in cities (in their own WPs) with the WP8 work (more international)?

There should be an internal roadmap for replication within the project.

!

Specific enablers, challenges and solutions were discussed in the fields of:

BUILDING RETROFIT: PRIVATE HOUSING – CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

Participants: Lina Nurali (Antwerp), Cecilia Hugony (Milano), Etienne Vignali (Lyon), Petra Shöfmann (Vienna), Hanna Riemer (Munich), Kinga Kovacs and Francisco Gonçalves (Energy Cities)

The experience of LyonRelated to the refurbishment topic, a free consultancy was set up to explain and convince the need to the owners. The main challenge is to trigger such a condominium to invest in the refurbishment. SPL is working also with the social housing operators and contributing to the refurbishment of office buildings.In Confluence, they are integrating another dimension: the dynamic data collection to assess the actual performance of the buildings once the works are done. The data produced by the meters are integrated into the city platform. SPL is conducting the renovation in the office houses, but not in the social housing, as it only supports the owners (traditional procurement is used, not EPC). Social housing topics are dealt by a dedicated operator.In France, there is a two-step procedure before doing the refurbishment works: the feasibility study &consultation and detailed study by the engineers and architects, which is always supported by the owners. However, Lyon Metropole and municipality pays 100% of the feasibility studies. In Confluence, half of the consultation study is paid by SPL and half by the owners.

Building retrofit – private housing

Citizen engagement – how citizens are

participating in the SC projects and overall

strategy

e-Mobility services (mobility islands)

In SPL one of the condition is to reach a certain energy performance which is included in the guidelines which were designed with the evaluation experts in order to get the proper data that is useful. Smart meters are installed in the common spaces and some smart meters are also there to provide the data on the electric consumption coming from ventilation and lighting. And sensors are installed to measure internal temperature to assess the thermal comfort parameters.

The experience of Munich The energy feasibility studies are funded 100% by the municipality as part of the energy strategy of Munich but it is focused only on specific areas in Munich.They are using subsidies from the national, regional and municipal resources. It is up to 30% of investment costs and including Smarter Together, 45% of the investment costs can be funded.In this area, the collaboration is with house owner associations. They started dialogue with 5, but 4 were not interested anymore. One association should start the process on the 14 th of December and one of the associations already started the refurbishment without the subsidy as they couldn’t wait, so they reduced a bit the standard. They still benefitted from the free consultancy support prior to investment.District heating exists in the area and economic calculations are done to see if it is feasible to get these buildings to the grid. But they are not really successful to get refurbished buildings to the grid, but new ones. The battery is provided from the Stadtwerke to accumulate energy from photovoltaic.In Munich a smart meter will be installed as a central connection to the grid and the smart meter can read the most inefficient electric appliances in the house.

The experience of ViennaIn Vienna, there are 3 buildings concerned by refurbishment, all on social housing. In the district some of the buildings are connected to the DHC (district heating and cooling) and others are not. In the Smarter Together pilot, there is the first solar power system that will feed into the DHC. One of the challenges is the integration of the surplus heat from the data centre in the DHC. The site that was found for this is the buildings occupied by the Technical University of Vienna, however, the owner is the state. The problem is the duration of the contract, as long term is needed but the TUW is only allowed to do it for the 3 years, but negotiation is ongoing with the state to make it more than 4 years.In the Viennese DHC, the main source is waste incineration and a lot of gas CHP. There is practically no coal and no geothermal. There are also sun peak load boilers and biomass CHP.

The experience of AntwerpAntwerp is involved in the Interreg North-West Europe funded, Triple A project. Within this project, in Antwerp they will focus on “bel-étage” buildings – single-family buildings (1 parking floor + 2 floors).10 neighbourhoods were selected, based on a set of criteria and with not so much retrofit ongoing. Buildings were built between 50s-70s and most of the residents are elderly. There are financial incentives available (e.g. 15,000 EUR at 2% of energy loan coming from the Flemish government for 8 to 10 years and a zero interest loan could be given to low income households for PV installation, heat pumps, solar, double glazing). Even with all these financial instrument the renovation rate is lower than 1% in Antwerp. The municipality is focusing on the low hustle method and homeowners can come to be coached and financial and technical advice is given to them as a one stop shop. They also put them in touch with the constructors, as one of the barriers to refurbishment is that sometimes citizens do not know the practical issues on what kind of insulation materials to use etc. The municipality also sets the focus

on collective renovation with for instance groups of 10 neighbours. The benefits are increasing enthusiasm and increasing social pressure. The Flemish government started with neighbourhood subsidies giving funding for the experts (architects, engineers) while the municipality covers all the costs for the coaching. The Flemish government provides 400 EUR/house, so it is 4,000 EUR for a group of 10 neighbours. A subsidy will be given of maximum 50% of the total refurbishment costs (max 9,000 EUR) and then homeowners can have a loan for 5,000 EUR.In Antwerp, 75% of the citizens are homeowners (very low percentage of renting and social housing) and most of them are elderly.The Flemish government had an open call for which anyone who has technical expertise on renovation can apply and now there is a list open for everyone and in each department there are organisations that are able to work in this project. The municipality only needs to contacts these organisations who get the 400 EUR and the municipality gives the rest.In Picardie (FR) they do the same, but unfortunately the renovation percentage did not increase that much as a consequence.The most difficult in Antwerp is to gather the 10 neighbours and have them doing this project together. This process started in May within the start of the Interreg project. The municipality developed a pop up centre to advise and inform people and puts it up in different neighbourhoods. The communication will be focused on the better comfort and value of the house rather than the CO2 reduction and energy savings. They also developed an envelope with a pop up house to use another communication means and try to attract the home owners. The municipality will use the smart meter reader to see if the energy consumption is lower. In Belgium, however, the problem with meters communication is that that device is sometimes in an unreachable location to the wifi router.

The experience of MilanoMilano is part of the Sharing Cities project and they are focusing on 4,000 m2 with deep renovation in public buildings with a complete retrofit of the building envelope, ventilation with heat recovery, water heat pump, PV panels. They will also test a new external cladding for insulation without glue. The cost is 800 EUR/m2.Concerning the refurbishment of private buildings, the leader of the action is a private company working on private residential buildings. They are collaborating with the municipality on the refurbishment strategy, working in round tables with banks, associations, companies to open one-stop shops. The problem with these one-stop shops was that they closed after 6 months as the municipality gave only information with financial resources. So, based on these lessons learned, in the Sharing Cities project, another approach was proposed. The one stop-shop is still there, but they offer energy audits, info on the EE measures, legal aspects, the incentives, all the financial aspects on how to find the best loan etc.They wanted to focus on a real engagement strategy working with Legambiente and Politecnico Milano and they made a co-design strategy on the energy retrofit. The goal was to retrofit 200 000 m2. The municipality published a call for interest for the citizens to apply for refurbishment offering a free of charge energy audit as well as the detailed design, feasibility study, participation to the co-design process. A monitoring system for the consumption was also offered. Then people could apply for the second part of the project to implement the works and 15% up to 40% of the intervention was paid. After the call for interest 55 buildings were nominated (only 10% of the owners needed to agree, as everything was free of charge at this stage), meaning that a quick feasibility study was done in these

buildings. Then they went to the owners’ assembly to present the results and the assembly needed to approve (more than 50% needed to agree at this stage). All kinds of social situations were present, but the low-income people were those who applied the most.After the nomination, an audit was done for 20 buildings.The co-design process of the EE refurbishment started and all residents of the selected buildings were invited to participate. This consisted in 6 meetings in total. A personal letter was received by each homeowner in the buildings.In the 1st one, participants were divided in groups and each group discussed on what they would like to see in their respective buildings: “my ideal building”. In this meeting residents from all buildings were mixed. There were 3 sessions and they were divided in 3 groups. Out of the 20, 2 buildings never participated. 6 buildings were involved in every group. The people who participated (tenants and owners could attend) were called energy champions. The idea was to both raise awareness and to have a participative approach. They didn’t want to separate EE from the normal problems of the buildings (e.g no place for garbage, for pushchairs etc). Between the 1st to the 2nd meeting the engineers were doing the energy audit in each apartment. 60 - 80% of flats allowed the experts to visit the apartments after the first co-design workshop, which allowed building some trust. After the 1st meeting with quite a general focus, the second and third meetings were focused on the refurbishment. Participants were seated in tables and they had a big poster with the energy performance of each building. In the 3rd meeting the energy champions were asked to talk to the other home owners and explain and convince them (they were more trusted than the public authorities or private companies).After each meeting a debriefing session was done with the Legambiente, the private company and the municipality to discuss what worked and what didn’t.In the 2nd meeting - In the first part they showed some results to all the participants and in the second part of the meeting a game was organised to do 2 energy scenarios for the buildings focused on deep renovation: one the building general assembly would approve and one that the participant himself/herself could approve. They were working with the energy experts presenting some cards to explain the different solutions with a colour code and all scenarios needed all the colours (insulation, heat supply and integration of RES). Therefore, the participants needed to ask information about the card and the expert got the opportunity to answer the question. No indication of the cost was given, but value/renting was given to be able to compare the costs, but without numbers! Actually, they were not talking about numbers until the end of the project. The 3rd meeting focused on the presentation of the scenarios and analysis. They were displayed on big posters, but also here the specific costs were shown (6,000 EUR to 15,000 EUR per apartment; it is approx. 100 to 200 EUR per square meter including already the subsidy and the maintenance costs: elevators, water pipes). Both scenarios were calculated with prices from the region.So, 40 scenarios were calculated!In Italy, there is an incentive consisting in a tax reduction for 10 years, but people were not really considering it. Therefore, the municipality negotiated with the bank to have a common loan for the owners’ assembly and not each individual household in the building. The loan covers all the costs (3.5% of interest rate). They negotiated with 4 banks and only 1 decided to accept. The tax reduction represents 75%. The loan was taken by the association for 5 to 7 years and they are bearing the risk.The tax reduction can even be sold to another entity who needs it, be it a private person, a company, a utility (only not a financial institution).

The process in Milano was replicated with a new multi-apartment building and the implementation phase of the co-design process was reduced to 2 months as all the experience was gained before and so the process was much quicker.This process shouldn’t be managed by a private company, but by the municipality as a trustworthy organisation. Of course, together with private partners, helping to build the market.For more information on the experience of Milano, please see the presentation of Cecilia attached.

Enablers

- In FR, one of the enablers consists in the fact that every 10 years the municipality asks residents to repaint the façade. As a group of owners, residents can receive subsidies if they were doing insulation whereas they cannot if they only clean the façade.

- One stop-shops (but it depends on how they are set up and implemented) – the first in Milano failed (one must bring other factor into the game – not only energy savings)

- Energy audit for free is good when people are engaged further, otherwise the renovation rate does not go up.

- Trust- Include only the most interested people who are quick to provide data and thus show that

they are interested, and so provide energy audit for free to these persons only allowing to save time.

- Refurbishment initiative supported by a very engaged private company whereas often it is only public organizations (eg SPL)

- Provide simplified information- Consultancy for free, cheap- Subsidies for the works- Loan, cash advance, tax deduction- No hustle methods- Networking with stakeholders on the territory informally- Engagement and co-design, train the future energy champions to discuss with the other

residents

- Focusing on a specific area, not on the whole city. People are interested to be part in the refurbishment of an overall area

- Allow for overall improvement of the comfort and communicate on these aspects, not only on the energy performance of the building. In Vienna for instance, additional work was carried out that improved the daily life and which made smaller additional costs but people were happy and this improved the acceptance of the refurbishment works (e.g. new washing machines in the collective parts etc)

- Discuss the refurbishment of the buildings by linking it to the whole area/district. E.g., in Antwerp the municipality is also discussing the public areas nearby (what do residents want: more parks, more playgrounds, replace car parking with bike parking etc)

- Collective renovation of single-family houses – increasing social pressure and enthusiasm - Raise trust

Key problems

- Information, engagement of people, decision making process- Financial instruments are available, but people are not aware of it or do not access it- Technical constraints (RES integration, type of works for energy renovation)- Monitoring and data collection, assessing the actual performance- Find the appropriate material with sufficient quality and appropriate for the guarantee- Time consuming process

Solutions

- Performance and data collection – one solution is to include technical guidelines and engage to send data to the city platform for several years. There will be an app installed in Picardie with EMS and can measure the inside temperature, but cannot measure the humidity and the consumption of the household appliances.

- City access to data versus the visualisation tool by the inhabitants.

CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT – CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

Participants: Hans van der Logt (Heerlen), Korinna Thielen (Munich), Caterina Benvenuto (Legambiente, Milan) Pamela Vennin (Lyon), Julia Girardi-Hoog (Vienna), Stephane Dupas (Energy Cities) and Gabriel Jacqmin (EUROCITIES)

The experience of MilanoIn Milano, Legambiente (an environmental NGO) works with a team, so not only people from the municipality as it is crucial to have a team with different actors that activate a dialogue with different targets of citizens. It is also good to have private companies from the sector, as they bring a new perspective. The role of Legambiente is to make sure that citizens are always informed of the development of the project. Usually, citizens don’t trust institutions, private companies and the fact that the NGO is involved, gives them some confidence to get engaged. If the NGO is telling something, it makes more effect than if a company is saying it (which would just try to sell its products/services).

The experience of ViennaIn Vienna, there are planning offices, contracted by the city. Therefore, it is not the city itself that is involved in engaging with citizens. It makes vanish the political parties proposing the refurbishment, people don’t focus on what political party is proposing. Although, it doesn’t make more people come to the workshops.A gamification process is implemented in Vienna to get citizens to walk within the “Beat the street” project, with sensors in the street and people have to get close to them, with a competition between schools. People would never come to workshops, but would do a lot for credit points in the game. The pitch was to make your school win. In the end there were also families participating. It contributes to awareness about walking (and the promotion of walking habits for children to go to school). The project was done in cooperation with the mobility agency. Munich will also do it, and it will be replicated in other parts of the city in Vienna. Budget: 100 000€ (paid an agency). Sponsored

by diabetes foundation and the mobility department. The first edition was paid by Coca Cola foundation. There was a common interest from different departments in this project: mobility agency, health department etc. How to do the same for energy efficiency, which is not a “sexy” topic? It’s not sexy, it’s not on people’s mind. People don’t know at all how much money they spend on energy. When people install solar panels, people tend to use more and in the end it doesn’t make any difference in their consumption.

The experience of MunichIn Munich, in terms of energy efficiency issues, people have an analysis in their house with suggestions on what they could do to reduce their consumption. It is a household per household work and is paid by the national government. For now, it’s only for one specific part of Munich: Neuaubing. Looking at the consulting process, to make it adopted by private consultants, energy management partners etc. Within Smarter Together, smart meters have to be implemented in 100 households, but this does not seem that easy and it is currently not sure the aim will be reached.

The experience of LyonIn Lyon, a living lab was set up with 5 employees to test database solutions: Tuba. This structure was originally supported by the city but it is now financially sustainable, with companies that are interested to find solutions for the city. The lab is used to partner with local entities so they have a dedicated place to exchange and work together. In Lyon there is “Mesinfos” exploring self-data and allowing people to share their data under their own control; an app will be developed. The main partner in the project is a health insurer. It will be about sharing data, but allow people to remain master of their data.

The experience of HeerlenIn Heerlen it is always difficult to have more people involved, one has to be present, meet the people personally and try persuading people to have a scan of their dwelling. The energy experts are asking specific questions to people and try to help them reduce their consumption, but very difficult to have experts on the street who could reply. Heerlen had a project with an energy team (composed of jobless people whom were trained) focusing on easy energy saving practices (replacing bulbs, refrigerator etc.). In 3 years, they visited 7,000 people. They visited people for advice and also replaced light bulbs (when needed). The municipality also tried to give to the citizens directly some energy boxes (the boxes included useful objects like light bulbs), but they were found on the market place, showing that low income households are not interested, which is a paradox. Some people were ashamed to be seen with a box.Money is still a problem, everything the city proposes is for free but how to get money out of it? It should not be a project, but it should be a process for years.

Enablers- The snowball effect: talking to someone who will then talk about it to some peers, to others.

These persons need to be identified as having good connexions in the neighbourhood, within a certain community and benefit of trust (e.g. in Vienna the project was involving Turkish mothers).

- Focusing on schools can help to raise awareness among children, and therefore their parents. Children are very receptive, and can make their parents change their habits. Engage the people in an active and creative way.

Key problems- It is very difficult to find interested citizens to be involved in the development of a strategy. - Most of the time the sustainable way is the most complicated, so why should citizens make

their life more complicated?- Sharing data is not always accepted.

Solutions- New technical solutions exist. For instance, in the Netherlands there is a tablet, giving a lot of

information to people about their flat and the energy consumption, the temperature etc. It can have an effect, as people see the tablet every day.

- Connect people’s phone to their energy measures in their homes. Having the app would make them being part of a community.

- We have to make sustainable solutions more convenient and logic to use by the citizens. - Concerning multi-apartment buildings retrofitting, the key is giving a complete overview of

what is at stake for the whole building, meeting on regular basis. There must be informal discussion, identify champions (people really involved) that will talk to other people (about technical, economical aspects etc). People need to feel safe to ask all questions they want to.

- Propose something controversial / touch something people are afraid to lose (a fear to lose comfort), so there is a reaction. This has proved to be a good way to get people involved and propose something different, however it cannot be used all the time.

- Have a team with different actors that activate dialogue with different targets of citizens.- Planning offices set up involving the citizens (not managed by the municipality).- Gamification processes.

Information of the projects that were evoked:

- “Beat the street” in Vienna (Julia)- Sharing Cities Co-design process in Milan (Caterina)- Mark E, Energy branding (Korinna, Florian Schmidt)- BMC (building monitoring check) a check process (Korinna)- Energy neighbourhood (in Bordeaux, Gabriel)- Waste recycling competition in Milan: winner (Caterina) - Mes-infos (powered by Fing, Pamela)- Living streets, alternatively use public space, Kinga- Stuttgart, school advisors, train the school concierge (Korinna, Hans-Wolf Zirwicz)- Tuba, new living lab implemented by the city for innovation and testing services (Pamela)- Heerlen lightbulb changing project (Hans)- Energy box in Heerlen for low income (Hans)- Twin cities competition “Family for climate” (Stephane) - Grätssel Eltern (?), Turkish mums that talk in peer groups (Julia)- Smarter Together Vienna – Video clips, instead of flyers- Brightland campus, incubator for sharing ideas Hans)- Treno verde (green train), each stop schools are involved to discuss with a lot of actors

(Caterina)

If would like to find more information, contact the person in brackets.

E-MOBILITY SERVICES (MOBILITY ISLANDS) – CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

Participants:

EUROCITIES: Bernadett Koteles-Degrendele and Mathilde Chinellato

Munich: Verena Stoppel

Vienna: Stephan Hartmann

AIT: Gernot Lenz

DIN: Stefanie Müller

Project manager: Philippe Fournand (Wavestone)

The experience of Vienna

In Vienna, the mobility hubs/ mobility stations with their complex stakeholders’ structure are of under implementation. Having good business models, interesting solutions when working together with private sector was mentioned as key.

Condominium e-carsharing is also being tested in Simmering area.

The experience of Munich

In Munich, as one of the key elements has been mentioned the sound planning in implementing mobility measures. It is important to have a political buy in and realistic business plan.

The experience of Sharing Cities

In Sharing Cities the experience of Milan is relevant as they have activated the market to go beyond expectations, they have bike sharing services offered by private companies on the top of what has been planned. This shows a very good link with the local ecosystem. The co-design practices with citizens and different stakeholders are also very efficient. Working together with private investors, can be even from the automobile industry e.g. Nissan, BMW are also bringing new dynamics, offers for electric car- sharing deployment and services. In Milan also condominium (house block of apartments sharing electric car and EV charging the garage).

The Royal Borough of Greenwich experience has shown that working together on procurement specifications with Imperial College can be very beneficial when it comes to access to data by the city, contracting third parties.

In Portugal, there is a very supportive national legislation to implement EV charging which has boosted take-up.

The experience of Lyon

In Lyon, one of the dilemma is whether they should and how implement electric buses. The market does not provide a good enough quality of those buses (not resistant to extreme weather circumstances).

The other issue mentioned was by Lyon as a more general note, the fact that renewable energy sources are not available and the EU electricity market is not ideal yet for a broader take up of e-vehicles.

Mobility

Talking about new mobility services and e-cars

Enablers:

Thinking about the role of the city, knowing the ecosystem: cities need to steer the process, create a good framework to be able to benefit from the existing competition of companies in the city (e.g. bike sharing operators, car clubs) and also identify which companies are ‘ ready to move’ and offer technology, products they need. This is especially true when it comes to set conditions for operating services, giving licences rather than manage the whole operation by themselves as they used to.

Good collaboration on data, clear rules and business models: This is in particularly true when it comes to contracting third party for delivering services and getting the data for the city to improve decision- making (e.g. for better mobility strategy to ensure having a right of

the city to reuse the data of a service provider of car sharing or bike sharing company). Concrete example: Vienna is thinking that the city looks for good practices for licencing for bike operators such as bike sharing free-floating scheme have to share the data with the municipality.

Public space to enable sharing schemes: the strategic use of public space is important. Cities need also to think of marketing, choose from broad range of products e.g. experience

that the BMW car sharing was more popular than another due to the brand image. If there is a profitable business plan and strong case then it is easier to proceed to have the

measure implemented or have political buy-in. If there is a renewable energy sources certification for the services then it is easier to

manage the implementation. The strong interest and if a solution is ‘trendy’ ( e.g. electric bike, electric buses or electric

car then it is also easier to have a good take-up or replication. Co-creation with citizens and stakeholders, presenting different alternative plans to them

can be also helpful. (e.g. example of Milan when explaining the use of income received from congestion charge and how that will be reused for improving transport options in the city).

Strategic plan on mobility for the city: if the city has a general vision and strategy that can be useful.

Sound project management: Before implementing smart city solutions, it is good to ensure sufficient time, resources to be allocated to the tasks. It is important to try to make it ‘simple and easy’.

Obstacles:

Negative impact of ‘fancy’: It is good to have something ‘trendy’ but if can also lead to wrong decisions not well calculated risks or overspending e.g. electric buses.

Differences in the national context can make replication complicated e.g. roles of different entities – city, regional, national government.

Too long decision-making: not clear processes, organisational or legal issues. These procedures take too long time unlike the advance in technology and innovation.

Infrastructure and operators are to be separate entities: it is not always easy to manage new roles and separation.

Profitability is an issue and rare to have good business models or those are not shared. Lack of use cases on use of data: issues include customer interfaces, competition over data Economy of scale is needed to start these experiments/business model. Poor marketing Low quality, high cost products on the market increasing the risk for the cities Solutions need to fit into the strategic plans (if it’s not clearly end in the strategic plan, there

aren’t any resources dedicated) The long term planning is sometimes a too rigid tool Level of complexity simple solutions are the ones that ultimately are used the most

Solutions:

Sound project management: Calculate with enough time, plan since the beginning to integrate the IT aspects, because they require time, integrate all stakeholders in one single app; list since the beginning the things you’re going to need for the procurement.

Ensure political buy in

Good partnerships, check if any of the external stakeholders, companies plan to do what you are about to implement, and look if there aren’t mobility solutions there already and do create a partnership with the existing ones

Capture issues, use cases and share Meet other cities, especially in your own county or the ones with a similar ambitions, ‘ join

forces’ e.g. procurement In Vienna, they have one single application interface for all mobility (including taxis, Uber,

etc) and the data you can take form there, is very powerful. In Munich, there’s now an open data platform. Using the data to improve quality of life in

your city You need time, you need political backing, long analysis on where to put the mobility

stations. Addressing legal issues at national level (and sometimes at EU level) Co-create mobility solutions with the stakeholders in the ecosystem and understand the role

of the city in the process Open calls for ideas (ex: recommendations on smart lamp posts and other mobility

measures)

Others:

There is a need for more sharing of cases amongst the cities

1) on the condominium car sharing ;

2) mobility hubs/ digital islands/ mobility points and what cities have learnt so far by implementing them;

3) co-creation practice- what has failed and what worked ;

4) zero energy gym story (Vienna) ;

5) monitoring and evaluation and how actions in the lighthouse projects contributed to reaching impact.