We can understand why: the idea is attractive because it is part of several current trends: energy sharing, local generation of energy, the search for better profitability of PV installations …

But isn’t this bubbling activity the visible face of a less attractive iceberg?

First of all, the fragmentation of the energy infrastructure does not work in favor of the economic balance of these operations. The scale effects obtained on a metropolitan or regional level are not accessible with a group of 5 to 10 consumers. The cost of an invoice is much higher and an acceptable level of maintenance of the installations is out of budget …

This leads to the search for a break-even point and the pressure on regulators to increase the size of operations. Initially designed to be limited to a building (as for the German Mieterstrom model), they can be extended, depending on the country, to contiguous pieces of land, to a low-voltage cluster or to consumers located within an area of a given size.

The day-to-day management of a collective self-consumption operation is not trivial and requires a minimum of legal, financial and technical knowledge. This involves ensuring invoicing and collection of invoices on behalf of the consumer group but also managing unpaid debts, (frequent) disputes with or between members, management of production equipment failures, associated battles with repairers and insurance companies etc …

Volunteering quickly reaches its limits when problems multiply and become more complex. And delegated management has a significant cost which, on small operations, negates the possible economic benefit of local generation.

These operations call into question network pricing. A large part of the grid costs are linked to the power subscribed by the group of consumers and to the sizing of the resulting grid. Limiting the application of the grid fees to the only energy withdrawn from the network underestimates the insurance value of this network in the event of failure of local generation facilities. But charging a grid fee on energy produced on a roof and consumed locally does not make sense.

Network pricing must therefore evolve to take these evolutions into account, with, why not, the choice left to the consumer group of the level of insurance desired from the network. This reasoning is not new: the optimized sizing of back-up gensets to supply only essential uses in the event of an outage follows the same logic.

Beyond the operational issues, collective self-consumption upsets the players’ game.

In terms of supply, collective self-consumption schemes aim to increase local production of energy, an energy that escapes suppliers whose strategy is to sell fluid in the conventional way. They push certain suppliers to become an energy partner of their customer, by providing them with the type of energy they want, produced where and how they want, with associated services and possible financing.

In terms of network management, some models are very conservative (France, “praxis modells” in Switzerland) and do not change anything for DSOs. Others are akin to a form of network liberalization (RCP in Switzerland, Germany) and make DSOs all the more afraid because the regulations do not allow them to apply to manage these micro-networks.

As always, when we observe the defensive strategies of some actors, such as that of certain DSOs, the messages become radicalized and the alternative providers promise a sometimes very exaggerated reality.

Today, collective self-consumption operations make it possible to increase the commitment and involvement of consumers or producers in the energy transition. As such, they have a pioneering or militant dimension. Several years will still be needed before achieving a regulatory and economic balance that meets the hopes raised by these operations. It is up to regulators to decide how many!

Subscribe to receive every quarter all articles of the blog: [sibwp_form id=2]

So why this almost generalized presence?

SF6 has two exceptional properties: first, it is an incomparable insulating medium that has drastically reduced the size of electrical equipment, allowing two live conductors to be brought together at short distances without risk of short circuits. Then, it is an environment that makes it easier and faster to extinguish electric arcs in the event of a short circuit, further protecting medium and high voltage electrical networks and the people in the vicinity.

There is therefore no question of giving up such performances.

Yet we have “locked” in this equipment the equivalent of about 2 months of global CO2 emissions. As long as the gas remains inside the equipment, it is only a risk.

But some equipment, in which SF6 is under pressure, leaks regularly. These leaks are all the more important as the equipment is old and the maintenance is not very rigorous. Over the next 30 years, these leaks will represent a little less than a month of global CO2 emissions.

But other leaks can occur during equipment maintenance operations, during transport and installation of this equipment or during recycling. It is probably these latter operations, which will be more frequent in the future, that the risk is greatest. Over the next 30 years, all of the leaks will represent around one and a half months of global CO2 emissions.

Alternative solutions to SF6, which are essential, are being studied but no decision can be taken to date to force the substitution of this gas.

Some manufacturers have chosen to develop new fluorinated gases whose global warming power is much lower than that of SF6. But these gases remain fluorinated gases whose impact on health has not yet been sufficiently documented. They may, however, improve the situation for equipment in High Voltage transmission networks.

Others, Siemens and Schneider Electric, have opted for “natural” solutions with no impact on the environment, using vacuum as the breaking medium and air as an insulator. These solutions will soon be available in all equipment dedicated to the distribution of electricity.

This little-known subject shows that the energy transition necessary to reduce CO2 emissions is not limited to the development of renewable energies.

Hopefully, in the coming months, the regulations will take advantage of solutions put on the market to accelerate the reduction of the use of SF6 in electrical equipment.

After the first week, I had discovered the extraordinary pleasure of driving a car powered by electric motors (The gasoline engine is used mainly in the Mitsubishi Outlander to recharge the batteries).

Since then, my perception of the plug-in hybrid has changed.

First, let’s set the scene: my reference route is 12 kilometers long with a drop of 1000 meters that I travel downhill as soon as I leave my home, uphill as soon as I return.

On flat ground, at a temperature of 25°C, the electric autonomy of my vehicle is approximately 50 kilometers. Very positive point: with the speed limits currently in force, an urban journey hardly affects this range, unlike the case of a thermal vehicle. This autonomy covers many daily needs. And the idea of ​​the thermal supplement to cover long distances is attractive!

On the other hand, still at 25 ° C, the range of my vehicle is just 12 kilometers in my reference climb: I say “just” because if I take a route with a regular slope, it will be the case. If, on the other hand, the route includes a steeper (25%) section of 300 meters, the range drops to 10 kilometers!

Let’s take the experience further! if, at the end of the 12 kilometers of ascent, I turn around, I recharge on the descent between 20% and 25% of my battery, sometimes less. It’s not much. The total range will be strongly impacted and will be 36 kilometers at the most. Let’s be honest, this impact is quite close to that observed with a petrol engine.

If, on the other hand, I continue the climb beyond 12 kilometers, my battery being empty, my fuel consumption is that of a V12 at full throttle, the acceleration of the car comparable to those of a Trabant and its noise is similar to that of a jet plane: it makes you rather want to stop!

In winter, with freezing temperatures, range can be further reduced.

So economically, my reference round trip cost me € 2.52 with a heat engine.

At 25 ° C, the same reference trip costs me € 2.22 in electricity, but the cost explodes as soon as my range decreases and I finish the trip with the heat engine. This winter, the cost of the trip has sometimes exceeded 4 €.

The real economic penalty comes from the consumption of the petrol engine, when climbing, with empty battery. With a 20 kWh battery instead of 13 kWh, my perception would be changed.

In a mountainous area, cold in winter, the economic disinterest of a hybrid vehicle with a too limited battery is obvious.

So on the highway, is there a way to catch up? The previous model with petrol engine consumed approximately 7 liters/100 km, at 130 km/h. The plug-in hybrid consumes slightly more.

If you make a majority of kilometers in motorway journeys, you will therefore find little advantage.

At the time of purchase, I felt like I was working for the planet. As far as I’m concerned, today, apart from the short summer trips when I don’t use the petrol engine, I feel like I’m working against the planet every time I take my car. Pity !

So, if you live in Montpellier, Spain or Italy, if you only occasionally venture on steep terrain, if more than half of your journeys are short, your plug-in hybrid will be a vehicle you will not be able to do without! But do you need such a big vehicle in these cases?

But if you live north of the 45th parallel, in a mountainous country, you make a lot of motorway trips, you want to reduce your CO2 emissions, then the dilemma is entire: the plug-in hybrid is definitely not, today, the solution. You will need either an all-electric vehicle with sufficient range (500 km nominal) or a hybrid with a battery of at least 20 kWh.

At a time when it is essential to attract as many drivers as possible to electric mobility, disappointing experiences are really unwelcome!

It seems to me that the COVID episode and especially the experience of lock-down allowed some leaders to look at the world and its issues in contrast between what they had experienced before and what they observed and felt during this period. 

There is therefore no reason that the potential energy strategies have evolved but the way of looking at them and assessing them has certainly been turned upside down.

Two main parameters shape these strategies:

– The desire for a greener energy mix: this axis represents what is perceived as the opposition between ecology and economy. Either we consider the economic aspects to be paramount, or we stand up for the environment. I am convinced it is virtuous to combine the two aspects rather than oppose them.

– The vision of a more or less decentralized energy world: this axis refers not only to beliefs in matters of technology but also to fears linked to the potential reorganizations of the energy world associated to it.

Regarding the energy mix, two points of view are in opposition:

– The attraction for an energy mix that does not disrupt habits, mental schemes, management methods or jobs, because any change, before being a likely opportunity, is a certain cost. Combined cycle gas plants, biomass plants, hydroelectricity (run-of-river and storage) and, probably tomorrow, hydrogen are technologies corresponding to these targets. Until recently, this was the option of economic wisdom. The COVID crisis now leads to the perspective of an unprecedented crisis; many see this option as a return to the (economic) fundamentals necessary to overcome the crisis.

– The desire for a rapidly green energy mix, requiring many changes, induced by often intermittent technologies, such as solar and wind power, but also including heat recovery, biogas, marine energies, etc. Another part of the population and leaders saw the COVID crisis as both a sign of a need for change and an opportunity to accelerate that change. By highlighting our fragility and a certain vulnerability, COVID is pushing for more “natural” options, more respectful of the environment and populations.

In terms of decentralization, three visions emerge:

– The preference for a centralized energy world, perhaps offering an ecological penalty in the short and medium term but not requiring an overhaul of the distribution networks and the management methods of energy systems and seeking to benefit from the advantages of globalization. This option, like that of a traditional mix, reassures us by anchoring us in a known world, maybe not efficient enough and adapted to the challenges of the moment.

– The desire to oppose centralized historical structures by promoting and developing decentralized sources. In addition to a necessary adaptation of the distribution of energy, this trend is disrupting the structure of energy players by giving a more predominant role to local authorities and cities. In a post-COVID context, this option corresponds as much to a reaction against the traditional globalized world as to a search for a limited exposure to risks in a more local environment.

- The development of energy systems combining a global approach with centralized sources and the development of interconnections between countries and the increasing use of distributed local sources. This vision aims for the complementarity of centralized and decentralized structures and not for the opposition between them.

The alternative aspect of the second strategy has not been proven because large corporations, in favor of globalization, have nevertheless made this choice, attempting to open the door to a globalization paying more attention to the development of local initiatives.

The first option, on the other hand, is often, but not always, associated with economic ways of thinking driven by insularity and protectionism. Having large power plants, large dams are a symbol of power, attests to the greatness of a country that can win on its own, does not need any alliances (interconnection), or even suffers from having to manage compromises with allies.

Thus, 6 major strategies (in reality 5) emerge, at the intersection of these two dimensions. Each actor, government of a country, company, city chooses its strategy. In large countries, two players may follow different paths and the energy development of a country is not exclusively determined by a national policy: the choices made by economic players and public opinion play a key role. Understanding countries’ energy trajectories is therefore not as obvious and COVID, while it does not necessarily have a direct consequence on national energy policies, can have a heavy impact on public opinion and economic actors.

Energy conservatism combines the choices of maintaining a traditional energy mix and of relying on a still centralized vision of energy systems. Many countries, not just those ruled by populist governments, risk being tempted to move closer to this option. The fear of a post-COVID crisis may justify the search for easy “savings”. It is more about saving efforts to think and to act than about saving money. This option is also easier to sell to public opinions that are rarely educated in energy matters, but it can go against an ecological wave which is gradually developing in European countries.

This option may also tempt cities keen to focus on economic and social issues without dispersing themselves or companies refocusing their energies and resources on their core business.

The opening in appearance differs from the previous strategy by seeking a global-local balance within energy systems.

There is almost a contradiction between keeping a traditional mix and opening up energy systems to a more local dimension. This option, taken at the level of a city, a region, a company, more rarely at the level of a country, can reflect a very superficial will to act and fool voters or customers for a time. If this approach brings some short-term benefits, I fear it will be harshly punished later.

Nonetheless, some policy makers caught in the paradox between a fairly traditional personal view and the aspiration for change from their electors or clients might take this route.

The squaring of the circle is in reality not an option because keeping a traditional energy mix is not consistent with the desire to oppose centralized energy systems

Focus on nuclear and hydrogen for those who want to green the energy mix while keeping the attributes and benefits of centralized systems.

The protection of the environment and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are essential requirements, including for decision-makers anxious not to change everything and in particular not to abandon the benefits of centralized structures and associated know-how.

Defenders of nuclear power find in this strategy a way to value their technology, which is eminently centralized, and they pay attention to reduce tactically the environmental impact of energy to CO2 emissions.

While the choice of nuclear primarily concerns states and public opinions, cities and businesses may see hydrogen as a future source of energy combining known benefits with environmental imperatives. The post-COVID period is likely to accelerate investigations and developments in this area.

Energy activism aims to break with the existing systems, both in terms of the mix and the structure of energy systems.

By pushing for a greener mix and for the decentralization of energy systems, business or political leaders will mark their distance from the world of yesterday, in their eyes, the one that led to the emergence of COVID.

Some companies will be able to take advantage of such a positioning or benefit from it through increased employee engagement. For others, often among the smallest, this option will only reflect the personal commitment of their leader.

This strategy will also be that of the leaders of local authorities, anxious to transfer from central powers, greater control over energy, necessary for them to reform mobility in their city or region and boost the economy.

The “Green Deal” aims both for a greener energy mix and the search for a balance between the global and local dimensions of energy systems.

From my point of view, this strategy, however desirable and virtuous, will not often be acclaimed: it is difficult and slow to implement, it requires a lot of explanation and education of public opinion (an exercise that Latin countries, for instance, are not used to), it is based on a systemic approach that is rarely mastered. Moreover, in the post-COVID period, it is a kind of compromise that does not respond to the will for radical action shared by many.

COVID will most certainly result in radicalizing options and positions. Between the promoters of a return to fundamentals and the followers of an acceleration of the race towards a new world, the gap is likely to increase between two opposing poles which will nevertheless have to be made to coexist. From the success of mediations, collaborations, sharing between these two poles, the European energy world of the 21st century will emerge.

Subscribe to receive every quarter all articles of the blog: [sibwp_form id=2]

The supplier established as the link between producers and consumers, responsible for the marketing of energy. 

In this case, the energy supplier is focused on the transaction between producers and consumers, whether there is an energy market as an intermediary or not. His business is not very dependent on the specificities of energy and can easily draw on the experiences of other sectors that have experienced the liberalization of their market. 

He can market the fluids independently, but he can also provide its customers with bundle offerings of electricity and gas to help them to rationalize purchases and suppliers and save money. 

This type of supplier mainly differentiates himself by price, more recently by offering green energy. He is strongly “challenged” by comparators available today on the internet and by brokers who offer their clients to help them access the best prices amid increasingly complex and less readable offers than before.

He is also partially threatened by the PPA (Power Purchase Agreement), contracts which allow a large consumer to buy energy at negotiated prices over fairly long periods of time directly from the producer, without the intermediary of the supplier. This threat is confirmed with the development of aggregated PPAs by new intermediaries who represent a set of small or medium consumers in the establishment of a PPA with a producer.

This type of supplier is constantly under price pressure, operates with fairly small margins and usually investigates all the simple strategies allowing it to reduce this pressure:

– Integration of production

– Supply of green energy

– Extension of the client’s commitment period when signing his contract

The supplier established as a partner of the consumer to provide and develop the optimal solution

This type of supplier focuses on the services and on the (technical and economic) integration of its customer into a larger energy system. His business is rooted in the specificities of the energy world on which he largely depends. He therefore builds his job on the sidelines of the references offered by the telecom world or by the banking world.

The cross-functionalities between fluids and uses is at the heart of its activity because it is a source of productivity and value for its customer. It is necessarily committed to exploiting flexibilities, developing storage and sharing initiatives as well as various energy efficiency plans.

His business is more complex to develop and calls for more specialized skills. His strategy is as much economic as political. Its implementation requires more cooperation. The benefits provided to its customers come from optimizations and savings to which they give access with less concessions on its margins than the supplier of the previous type.

Very often this supplier offers its customers the energy which they consume but which they do not produce, which makes it difficult to offer it at the lowest cost or to put it in competition.

This somewhat Manichean view of suppliers does not describe hybrid models, yet existing. There is no one model better than the other: each has its own advantages and disadvantages; each is aimed at different categories of customers, both professionals and individuals and each has its own success factors.

Will we one day dare to combine the advantages of the two models by creating an aggregator of offerings, combining the fluids offered by a type 1 supplier with services sourced from external service providers or developed in-house to better control their quality? this would make it possible to be efficient and gain awareness to act on all the components of the consumer’s bill and to respond to all the customers?

Subscribe to receive every quarter all articles of the blog: [sibwp_form id=2]

With a great deal of communication and public subsidies, these districts have multiplied in most European countries.

Can we today consider this development as virtuous for energy, cities and citizens?

Not all ecodistricts players share the same approach:

– For some, an ecodistrict is a portion of a city: it de facto inherits the city’s objectives, for example, in terms of energy efficiency. It is often considered as a test perimeter, as for the development of renewable energy sources.

– For others, an ecodistrict is the extension of the concept of building to a perimeter comprising several buildings.

Seeing an ecodistrict as part of a city is a usual urban planning process; it aims to (r) establish a “mindset”, a district’s identity in relation to its location, its vocation and the people who frequent it. Seeing an ecodistrict as a fully-fledged entity, as a test perimeter has led to defining energy systems for their only perimeter: sometimes nonsense!

Seeing an ecodistrict as the extension of a building unfortunately also reinforces the vision of considering it as an isolated entity.

Finally, some ecodistricts have been imagined by sorcerer’s apprentices, without the necessary consultations. Ecodistricts should be places for croos-functionalities, between activities, between urban systems (energy, transport, social services): their design must therefore follow the same model and requires more consultation and involvement from the start of many specialists.

Not all ecodistricts have been subject to a posteriori performance monitoring, particularly on energy issues, but most of the evaluations to which I have had access show disappointing, even very disappointing results.

The political decision-makers, promoters of their development and often funders do not have the expected return. Designers never really meet districts’ “users” and operators.

Let us be inspired by a building: the promoter and the builder are in charge of delivering it to future occupants, the facility manager or the syndicate of co-owners then manage it.

Could we not, by analogy, design ecodistricts by including all of the parties concerned from the outset by giving urban planners a stronger role of coordination and transverse animation?

Could we not impose global reasoning on the level of cities whose ecodistricts are a variation? We would thus have the possibility of adapting each system, energy in particular, to the perimeter to ensure optimal functioning.

Then, to ensure consistency and monitoring of the actions of all the users and operators of an ecodistrict, wouldn’t a district operator manager committed on results be a source of progress? Would it not allow political decision-makers, public funders, developers, to believe in the capacity of an ecodistrict to achieve the objectives assigned to it? Could it not also be the basis and instigator of the coveted district spirit?

These three areas of work are obviously virtuous: they will surely allow a much better “efficiency” of approaches in ecodistricts. Their possible scope goes far beyond the energy field. It is a question of developing within the framework of the ecodistricts a viable economic model, an efficient and recognized organizational model and a societal model avoiding the inhabitants to develop, as I have often seen, the regret of having believed in a better quality of life in an ecodistrict.

Subscribe to receive every quarter all articles of the blog: [sibwp_form id=2]

Both refer to the concepts of trust and benefit:

– Trust is the essential ingredient of a collaborative approach. Engaging in such an approach means giving to receive (and not vice versa, an approach that rarely pays off) and therefore trusting others and in the benefits that such an approach will bring. These foundations are frequently found in energy communities. Similarly, some collective self-consumption operations, supposed to be built on this model, went through serious difficulties as soon as the trust between participants disappeared.

– Commitment to results is a way to build or restore trust. By guaranteeing expected benefits, it can secure an investment. By showing the commitment of a service provider on a level of performance, he can give credibility to an action proposal deemed too ambitious. By guaranteeing a gain, it can reassure an energy player and allow him to overcome a first disappointment. In all cases, guaranteed results are a source of commitment, favorable to the energy transition.

But, at first glance, guaranteed results are not collaborative; on the contrary, it puts two actors face to face, one in the waiting position, the other in the obligation to deliver.

However, experience has shown that, in the context of guaranteed results, such as an energy performance contract, the development of a collaborative relationship between the parties is a source of much better results. In many cases, the complexity of energy systems and their behavior or operation cannot be predicted without risk by any player, however competent. Collaboration between parties opens the door to many possibilities for managing these risks, for the benefit of all. A contract with a commitment to results is a guarantee, a framework, a security as can be a net for trapeze artists.

It is very often observed that a contract with guaranteed results, designed strictly, is the result of distant actors, geographically or humanly, or little engaged.

Such contracts make it possible to establish trust between parties favorable to the development of a collaborative relationship.

The complexity of the emerging energy world, due to a very strong systemic dimension, requires the development of an increasingly collaborative approach between actors. Instead of opposing it, contracts with a commitment to results can be the prerequisite … if the actors wish!

Subscribe to receive every quarter all articles of the blog: [sibwp_form id=2]

In 2015, at COP 21, several voices were raised to highlight the cost of the proposed transition and its impact on world GDP, almost 4.5%. Even if it is currently experienced and assessed for a single quarter, the Coronavirus crisis has a greater impact on Western economies. We do not have a choice, we suffer from it but there is no doubt that we will find the means to overcome the situation.

Regarding the energy transition, many decision-makers and many large consumers are hesitant to act and to commit because of a lack of visibility and of an excess of uncertainty. But are we not in the most uncertain situation today? It has been more than two months since the management of the pandemic has been dictated day by day by what has been discovered or understood in the previous two weeks about it. We have no choice, we suffer from it, but there is no doubt that we will again find the means to overcome the situation.

Our resilience, which is important, as we have often shown, is fully expressed in emergency situations. We are valued by our ability to act successfully as firefighters.

The fight against global warming and, to a lesser degree, the energy transition impose on us a different mode of action. The risks run by the planet are not of the same order; they are infinitely more important, but they are not immediate. They force us to anticipate, to decide without immediate constraint. The Coronavirus crisis shows, I thank him, that we are capable of facing a situation similar to that which we should impose ourselves to effectively fight against climate change.

This struggle would also have the advantage of offering the world new sources of development and, probably, the opportunity to give a new momentum to our aging models.

By what it has allowed us to see and experience, will this Coronavirus crisis give us what we need to engage more in the transitions, not just energy transition: courage!

Subscribe to receive every quarter all articles of the blog: [sibwp_form id=2]

This positioning may be influenced by the consumer’s political orientations or by a national cultural context, but his own intentions are the main roots.

I see 4 levels of intentions, corresponding to a more or less important commitment in energy transitions.

Capture subsidies

In all countries, governments and legislators provide grants to influence purchasing habits, investments and sometimes life-style behaviors. Energy transitions are no exception: subsidies for energy savings and specific actions contributing to it, subsidies for solar panels, subsidies for cogenerators, etc.

Some consumers see these subsidies as a short-term economic opportunity: their heating system needs to be replaced; why not choose a subsidized boiler? Whatever technology is used, its advantage is to cost less.

The suppliers of energy, energy equipment or energy services to these customers adapt their sales arguments and highlight the capacity offered by their offering to capture subsidies. The interest of their customers no longer being the value and the quality of their offer, some even tend to neglect them. They become sellers of subsidies…

In addition, when a country subsidizes a technology, cogeneration for example, many players mobilize and promote this technology, sometimes blindly, to the detriment of the search for the solution best suited to each client.

Reduce the energy bill

The level of commitment associated with this intention is greater because, for many consumers, reducing the energy bill has a wider impact, particularly from an environmental standpoint.

However, when the intention is to reduce the bill, the expected savings and the (supposed) ease of achieving them are the main criteria for decision and … motivation of the consumer.

He is therefore looking for opportunities: he is waiting for a list of products and services from which he will be able to draw and find the most profitable avenues. He will choose to install a photovoltaic panel, equip himself with an electric car or an energy monitoring system.

Suppliers targeting these customers need a basket of solutions and actions that are independent of each other. Customers choose, without guarantee of loyalty, loyalty or continuity in their choice of supplier.

Rely on an additional source of progress

Consumers with this intention clearly understand that there is no opposition between environmental protection (one of the main challenges of energy transitions) and profitability.

They believe or have been able to verify that energy offers a new angle from which to observe their activity, allowing the discovery of many previously untapped productivity tracks. It is, for example, by analyzing the energy consumption profiles of their machines that manufacturers make additional productivity.

They therefore do not only need a basket of solutions but, sometimes, additional support or skills helping them to grab these new opportunities for progress. At this stage, a first level of sustainable collaboration can be established around an approach of continuous progress.

Suppliers need, at this stage, a better knowledge of their customers’ business and a close proximity to them: the issue of competence is a real difficulty for the smallest suppliers, that of proximity is for the biggest.

Engage your company in the energy transition

These consumers are no longer taking advantage of or following energy transitions but personifying them; for questions of the values ​​of their manager but also for economic questions.

Embodying a transition is a long-term commitment: the solutions sought must also take place over time; they feed a continuum of coherent and complementary actions. For these consumers, it is a question of redirecting energy choices, optimizing economic performance and the environmental footprint linked to energy, and developing their profession for this.

Their suppliers are therefore carriers, through their offer, of this consistency, animated, through their customer relationship, of the spirit of necessary partnership and guarantors, through their mode of action, of a medium and long intention term.

Are there suppliers responding to all customers?

The task is tough because, beyond having an offering adapted to each of them, it is important to present them to meet each of the intentions. Reaching multiple targets with the same web page, the same brochure, the same sales pitch is a headache.

Beyond this marketing issue, suppliers of energy, energy equipment or energy services are themselves locked into their own intentions: unable to respond to consumers more engaged than them, scaring consumers less engaged.

Would the big marketing challenge be to make consumers’ intentions coincide with those of suppliers in terms of energy transitions?

Subscribe to receive every quarter all articles of the blog: [sibwp_form id=2]

“You must now take public transport! “

So, as far as I’m concerned, I have to organize my day according to them and not vice versa, as their frequency is for me very limited.

“So take your car, use a park and ride facility and take the tram!” “

In my case, the park and ride facility is so small that it is always full and parking around it is now impossible due to the actions of residents who are now in great difficulty to park in their neighborhood.

“So if you cannot do otherwise, take your car, as long as it is an electric one, and park in town”

The electric car, I have it!

However, getting around town is becoming more and more difficult because the traffic lanes are more and more dedicated to bicycles and public transport. Finding a place also becomes very complicated and very expensive: these two reasons have led me for two years to stop shopping in my nearest city. Given the number of historic businesses that have closed in the past two years, I must not be the only one.

But I just experienced better: parking downtown is now limited to 2 hours. Recently, I arrived ten minutes late: I had a fine. I am therefore ordered to control to the minute, the duration of a professional meeting.

Well, I will no longer have a professional activity in this city.

I now understand those I hear around me, in this city, rebelling against environmental protection measures: it saddens me because, in terms of both mobility and energy savings, we have a urgent need to convince and embark the population on the changes to come. It bothers me all the more that these same people now associate environmental protection with undue hardship.

And ironically, these elected officials who seem to want to kill their city, discourage the inhabitants of the suburbs and damage the image of the ecology, they are from the Green Party!

Ah! I forgot ! The city in question is Grenoble and it is said to be a Smart City.

For me, a Smart City must integrate residents and visitors, not exclude them. Urban planning, mobility and energy are now closely linked and must be designed and developed in a coherent manner.

Subscribe to receive every quarter all articles of the blog: [sibwp_form id=2]