WP6-Brochure-E4 brochure - ELA European Lift Association.

Split incentives
‣ The energy costs for a lift or escalator are paid by someone other than the person
who chooses the equipment.
‣ Do you think that the person who chooses the components would use more
energy‐efficient components if the final operator had more information about the
energy consumption of the installation
Bounded rationality
‣ The decision‐maker tends to select less energy‐efficient equipment due to a lack
of time.
‣ Investors select lifts based on their investment rather than on their life‐cycle costs.
Capital
‣ Investors lack capital to invest in energy‐efficient technology.
‣ In case of retrofits: investors lack capital to replace existing lifts or escalators in
favour of better technology that would be less expensive in the long run.
‣ Budgeting laws cause public investors to select less energy‐efficient technology.
Risks and uncertainty
‣ Changing energy prices may affect the economic profitability of investments in
energy‐efficient technology. This is a reason for the market not to invest in
energy‐efficient lifts and escalators.
‣ Energy efficiency competes against other functional specifications of the system,
such as safety and comfort.
‣ Energy‐efficient technology is seen as more vulnerable to disruptions of
operations.
‣ Energy‐efficient technology is perceived as increasing needs for repair and
maintenance.
‣ Energy‐efficient technology in escalators and lifts leads to significant new
requirements for the training of technical personnel for producers, service
companies or lift administrators.
‣ Investors in energy‐efficient technology were disappointed by broken promises
about the saving potential of new technology that did not meet expectations after
the equipment was put into operation.
Part C consisted of questions regarding differences between new installations and retrofits,
analysing this topic in more detail. Part D inquired about strategies and tools for market
transformation. And the final part, Part E, asked – from the participant’s point of view –
whether all relevant issues had been touched on.
The questionnaires for the survey administered by the project partners ISR‐UC and KAPE were
very similar to the guideline used for the interviews. An English version of the questionnaire
was translated into Portuguese and Polish and additional advice for survey participants about
the aim of the study etc. was inserted. Before sending the data back to ISI for analysis, the
answers inserted by the participants were translated into English by the project partners.
After conducting the interviews and a preliminary analysis of the data, results from the
interviews were discussed several times to validate the conclusions drawn. The first group
discussions took place at the fifth project meeting, in Freiburg, in September 2009, after about
half of the interviews had been conducted. After completion of the interview studies, the
92