Deliverable 10 Factor4 - European Commission · 2014-08-11 · The Factor 4 main hypothesis ... Deliverable 10 6 Crdd La Calade and SUDEN – Cenergia – Ricerca & Progetto – APDL

Factor 4 project –IEEA Agreement n° EIE/05/076/S12.419636 – Deliverable 10 – June 2008

1

Programme of actions towards Factor 4 in existing social housings in Europe

Deliverable 10

Elements for sustainable strategies for social housing energy retrofitting towards a factor 4

at neighbourhood to national scales

and for building stocks June 2008

www.suden.org

Authors:

Philippe Outrequin [email protected] Crdd La Calade, F

Catherine Charlot-Valdieu [email protected] SUDEN, F

Roberto Fabbri and Sergio Rossi [email protected] ABITA, I

Sergio Bottiglioni [email protected] Ricerca & Progetto, I

Ole Balslev-Olesen [email protected] Cenergia, DK

Jana Suler [email protected] APDL, Ro

Reinhard Jank [email protected] Volkswohnung, D

Project partly funded by the

EUROPEAN COMMISSION – Intelligent Energy Executive Agency

Grant agreement EIE/05/076/S12.419636

European project Factor 4 on energy retrofitting of social housings towards a factor 4 – Deliverable 10

2

Crdd La Calade and SUDEN – Cenergia – Ricerca & Progetto – APDL - April 2008

Summary

Reminder upon the Factor 4 project ...................................................................................... 4 The Factor 4 objectives ..............................................................................................................4

Reminder upon the Factor 4 partners .........................................................................................4

The coordinator ......................................................................................................................4

The partners............................................................................................................................4

The Factor 4 main hypothesis ....................................................................................................5

The first Factor 4 results.............................................................................................................6

1. A building typology as regarding the Factor 4 objectives and demolition scenarii .......6

2. The basic knowledge upon the building stock ...................................................................6

Reminder upon the first available deliverables ..........................................................................6

Introduction : The aim of this deliverable ............................................................................. 9

Part 1-Sustainable energy strategies for social housing at various scales - Elements of

sustainable strategies illustrated by examples worked out in France ............................... 11

Reminder upon the optimisation of a retrofitting programme at the building scale....... 11

Chapter I. Elements for a building stock or a neighbourhood strategy............................ 12 I.1. Energy consumption and greenhouse effect gas emission for each buildings family before

any retrofitting works ...............................................................................................................12

I.2. Comparison of the data given by the SEC model with the available real data and

validation of the SEC model ....................................................................................................15

I.3 Life Cycle Energy Cost analysis, comparison between retrofitting programmes (scenarii)

and working out of an optimised retrofitting programme ........................................................16

I.3.1. Life Cycle Energy Cost (LCEC) analysis of all the buildings....................................16

I.3.2. The differences between these scenarii or why they have been worked out or chosen

..............................................................................................................................................17

I.3.3. Energy analysis results................................................................................................18

I.3.4. The results of the Life Cycle Energy Cost analysis ....................................................21

I.4. Analysis conclusion and Suggestion of actions .................................................................30

Chapter II. Elements for a national strategy for social housing........................................ 31 II.1. Could an optimised strategy be defined so as to reach the factor 4 in a long term? ........31

The Life Cycle Energy Cost analysis with the SEC model..................................................31

II.2. Must we always try to reach a factor 4 when retrofitting ? ..............................................35

II.3. Conclusion........................................................................................................................39

II.3.1. The economic analysis and more particularly the Life Cycle Cost analysis is

necessary for an optimal investment (and a fortiori for an optimal public funding use) .....39

II.3.2. Technology choice.....................................................................................................39

II.3.3. Household electricity consumption ...........................................................................40

II.3.4. The importance of strategies for retrofitting both at a territorial scale and at a

building stock level ..............................................................................................................40

Chapter III. European synthesis........................................................................................... 40 III.1. Denmark ..........................................................................................................................40

III.2. France ..............................................................................................................................41

III.3. Germany ..........................................................................................................................41


3


III.4. Italy..................................................................................................................................47

III.5. Romania ..........................................................................................................................47

III.6. Other European countries................................................................................................48

Part 2 - National financing schemes and incentives for sustainable energy retrofitting

programmes towards a factor 4for for sustainable energy strategies for social housing49

National financing schemes and opportunities for social owners illustrated by examples in

Italy.......................................................................................................................................... 50

I. Description of existing national financing schemes ......................................................... 50 1.1. The White Certificate System ...........................................................................................50

1.1.1. Description of the scheme ..........................................................................................50

1.1.2. Opportunities for the SH providers ............................................................................54

1.2.The Financing Low 2007 ...................................................................................................55

1.2.1. Description of the scheme ..........................................................................................55


3. The feed-in tariff for photovoltaic plants .............................................................................58

3.1. Description of the scheme .............................................................................................58


4. Possibility of use of multiple founding opportunities ..........................................................61

II. Evaluation of the available incentive schemes potential through a study case ........... 63 2.1. The Financing Low 2007 ..................................................................................................63

2.2. The New Conto Energia for photovoltaic systems............................................................64

2.3.The White Certificates System...........................................................................................64

III. Conclusions for Italy ....................................................................................................... 65

IV Other European countries................................................................................................ 66 IV.1. France..............................................................................................................................66

IV.2. Romania ..........................................................................................................................66

Conclusion on LCEC and on necessary incentives for sustainable energy retrofitting

strategies in social housing .................................................................................................... 68 C.1. LCEC: an indisputable complement for the EPDB towards sustainability ......................68

C.2. LCEC: a decision aid tool for Strategies ..........................................................................68

C.3. A decision aid tool for the choice of technologies ..........................................................68

C.4. LCEC: a tool for reducing household energy consumption and energy precariousness ..69

C.5. LCEC: a decision aid tool for social owners but also for local authorities and financial

actors (banks) ...........................................................................................................................69


4


REMINDER UPON THE FACTOR 4 PROJECT

THE FACTOR 4 OBJECTIVES

The Factor 4 project follows the Sustainable Development World Strategy and the Kyoto protocol and is focussed on social housing retrofitting (and especially on buildings which will still be in use in

2030-2050) for improving the energy efficiency of social housing buildings and the use of renewable

energy, in order to participate to the reduction of greenhouse gas emission (GEG) by a factor 4 before

2050. The Factor 4 partners aim at being real actors in the European strategy as regarding GEG.

Its objective is to help social owners to optimise their retrofitting programmes for their whole building

stocks and to set up strategies towards energy efficiency and the factor 4.

The Factor 4 partners think that a life cycle cost (LCC) approach can help to reach this objective and so it

aims at:

- working out a decision aid tool, the Factor 4 model, for optimising energy retrofitting programmes inside a sustainable development approach (including a socioeconomic optimum)

- easy to be used by social owners themselves, both for each building retrofitting and for a long term assets’ management of their whole building stock,

- facilitating the choice among energy efficient technologies (through the analysis of various

scenarii)

- improving the dialogue with all the social owners partners (and especially financial

partners and tenants),

- useful for setting up territorial social housing strategies towards a factor 4 (at the

neighbourhood, city, regional or national scales),

- which can also reduce energy precariousness, especially in the private sector.

- recommendations for all the actors concerned and especially for territorial strategies, illustrated

by a barriers analysis and demonstration actions.

REMINDER UPON THE FACTOR 4 PARTNERS

The coordinator

SUDEN, a non profit association registered in France but a European network for the promotion of

sustainable urban development through a closed partnership between researchers and practitioners and

the setting up of sustainable development approaches (www.suden.org).

The partners

(Nota : Social owners and their associations are underlined in the list below)

The Factor 4 partners

Union Sociale pour l’Habitat (France) Habitat et Territoire Conseil (France)1

Crdd La Calade (France) Cenergia (Denmark)

Ricerca e Progetto (Italy) Volkswohnung (Germany)

Moulins Habitat (France) KAB (Denmark)

Soc Coop ABITA ARL (Italy)

Association of the Local Development Promotors (APDL) (Roumania)

1 HTC n’est pas un bailleur social mais un bureau d’étude partenaire habituel ou traditionnel de l’USH.


5


Associated partners in National working groups

In order to validate the models with as many case studies as necessary, we managed in France and Italy

national working groups gathering other social owners who joined the Factor 4 project as associated

partners and signed the Consortium agreement.

In France these partners are:

The members of the French national Factor 4 Group

Groupe CMH OPAC 38

EFIDIS, groupe SNI OPIHLM d’Arcueil – Gentilly

La Maison du CIL, Groupe UNILOGI OSICA, Groupe SNI

La Maison Girondine SAGECO, groupe SNI

In Italy

Cooperatives (associated to ANCAB) of the Lombardian Region have been involved by providing case

studies and by giving information about retrofitting actions planned.

Another cooperative (also associated to ANCAB) has been involved for setting up best process or

policies in energy retrofitting using a life cycle cost analysis.

Cooperatives involved in the Factor 4 case studies

Coop. DEGRADI Coop. NIGUARDA – ANCAB

Coop. LA BENEFICA – ANCAB

Best process or policies in energy retrofitting using a life cycle cost analysis

Cooperativa edificatrice Murri per l’abitazione

THE FACTOR 4 MAIN HYPOTHESIS

The Factor 4 project is focussing on solutions for optimizing retrofitting programmes of social housing

towards a factor 4.

Reaching the factor 4 or reducing greenhouse effect gas emissions by a factor 4 means their division by

4: CO2 emissions after retrofitting works must be 4 times lower than before works. The first question is

upon how reaching these consumption levels for a factor 4 reduction of CO2 emissions, with which

technical and economical solutions.

The idea was to use a life cycle energy cost (LCEC) analysis. This LCEC analysis is an economic and

financial complement of the usual technical analysis and it enables to integrate the EPBD in a sustainable

development approach.

Reminder on the Life Cycle Cost approach (Source: ISO 158686 and ISO 14040 and Final report of

the Task Group 4 upon Life Cycle Costs in Construction, November 2005)

The Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is the total cost of a building or its parts throughout its life, including the

costs of planning design, acquisition, operations, maintenance and disposal, less any residual value.

The Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is thus the technique which enables comparative cost assessments to be

made over a specified period of time, taking into account all relevant economic factors both in terms of

initial capital costs and future operational costs.


6


THE FIRST FACTOR 4 RESULTS

1. A building typology as regarding the Factor 4 objectives and demolition scenarii

First we worked out a building typology (dealing with techniques as well as with uses)2 which enabled

us to identify representative building case studies in each country and especially as regarding those

which will still be in use in 2040. This typology is not the same in all the countries in order to take into

account all the various contexts. 3

2. The basic knowledge upon the building stock

An estimation of energy consumption and of the GEG emissions due to social housing in each country.

The energy analysis has been done with the Factor 4 model4 which was worked out by the Factor 4

research partners. This life cycle cost model is including externalities and allows the partners to identify

potential energy saving and the potential reduction of GEG emissions for some case studies in each

country.5

The most important result or the key tool of the Factor 4 project is the Factor 4 model for social owners

of at least 3 countries (the ASCOT model for Denmark, the SEC model for France and the BREA model

for Italy), easy to use and directly usable by social owners themselves for their buildings and their buildings stocks. This tool should be helpful for the management strategy of their whole building stock,

taking into account energy, the pay back return of their investments, the charges for tenants and the

energetic risks (the increase of energy prices).

The Factor 4 model is a life cycle energy costing (LCEC) model including externalities (such as

greenhouse gas emissions) and giving money values to these externalities6.

It can be used at the building scale or for setting out strategies at a territorial scale (national, local,

neighbourhood) or at a building stock scale.

At the building scale the Factor 4 model completes the technical diagnosis with socio economical

data. This Factor 4 model is also an economic tool to be used with the Energy Performance Building diagnosis and labelling (which is only “technical”, as regarding energy savings or GEG

emissions, according to the European Directive). So as the model deals together with the 3 pillars of

sustainable development (and not only with one pillar and the impacts on the other ones), the Factor 4

approach is a sustainable development approach.

The Factor 4 model allows to work out various scenarii, and so it helps to get an idea of what would be

the best strategy for some specific buildings or for the building stock.

In regeneration projects at the neighbourhood scale such as in URBACT or in national programmes

(ANRU in France, NRU in UK, Contratti di Quartieri in Italy…), the Factor 4 model can be also a

decision aid tool for selecting the buildings to be demolished or to be hardly (or softly) renovated. This decision aid tool will be usable by social owners themselves but also by their financial partners or

by local authorities as regarding buildings from various social owners.

REMINDER UPON THE FIRST AVAILABLE DELIVERABLES

The deliverables available on the web site are the following ones:

- Deliverable 3 : Typological analysis and energy diagnosis for the “2050 buildings”, Jean-Alain

Meunier (HTC) for France, Ole Balslev-Olesen (Cenergia) for Denmark, Reinhard Jank (Volkswohnung)

for Germany, Jana Suler and Irina Botez (APDL) for Romania, with contribution from Philippe

2 Cf. deliverable 3

3 Cf. deliverable 4

4 Cf. deliverable 5 and deliverable 8 in national language 5 Cf. deliverable 7

6 See the various definitions of a life cycle cost analysis in the appendix


7


Outrequin (La Calade) and Julien Ciron (HTC) for France, Sergio Bottiglioni (Ricerca & Progetto) and

Francesca Conti (ANCAb) for Italy, November 2006

- Deliverable 4: The typology of buildings which will still be in use in 2050, the estimation of greenhouse effect gas (GEG) emissions from the social housing building stock and the selection of criteria for choosing the cases studies, Philippe Outrequin (La Calade) for France, Ole Jansen

(Cenergia) for Denmark, Roberto Fabbri (Abita) and Sergio Bottiglioni (Ricera & Progetto) for Italy,

Reinhard Jank (Vollswohnung) for Germany and Jana Suler with Violeta Balica (APDL) for Romania,

March 2007

in French : (part about France): Typologie des bâtiments qui seront encore en usage en 2050 en

France, estimation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre du parc social et critères de sélection des études de cas, Philippe Outrequin (La Calade) and Catherine Charlot-Valdieu (SUDEN), Dec.2006

- Deliverable 5: A life cycle energy costing model for optimising retrofitting programmes of existing social housing towards a factor 4, Ole Balslev-Olesen (Cenergia, DK), Sergio Bottiglioni (Ricerca &

Progetto, I), Philippe Outrequin (La Calade, F), Catherine Charlot-Valdieu (SUDEN, F) and Reinhard

Jank (Volkswohnung, D), August 2007 (and December 2007 for the German part).

- Deliverable 6: Energy Efficient Technologies in Europe, Sergio Bottiglioni (Ricerca & Progetto, I),

Philippe Outrequin (La Calade, F), Ole Balsev-Olesen (Cenergia, DK), Jean-Alain Meunier (HTC, F),

Catherine Charlot-Valdieu (SUDEN, F), Reinhard jank (Volkswohnung, D) and Jana Suler (APDL,Ro),

July 2007

- Deliverable 7: Potential energy savings for some representative buildings by using only the ecological objective of a LCEC analysis,

Deliverable 7. Part 1 The Danish case studies by Ole Balsev-Olesen (Cenergia), August 2007

Deliverable 7. Part 2 The French case studies by Philippe Outrequin (La Calade) and Catherine

Charlot-Valdieu (SUDEN), May 2007

Deliverable 7. Part 3 The Italian case studies by Sergio Rossi (ANCAb) and Sergio Bottiglioni

(Ricerca & Progetto), October 2007

Deliverable 7. Part 4 The German case studies, by Reinhard Jank (Volskwohnung), still expected.

and deliverables only in national languages:

- Deliverable 8 upon the Factor 4 models :

in French: Le modèle SEC (Sustainable Energy Cost) d’analyse en coût global partagé : un outil d’aide à la décision pour la réhabilitation énergétique des bâtiments de logements sociaux , Philippe

Outrequin (La Calade), May 2007

in Italian : Programmi di calcolo delle prestazioni energetiche dell’edifici, il modello BREA (Building Retrofitting Efficiency Assessment Valutazione di interventi di efficienza energetic), Sergio

Bottiglioni and Alain Mingozzi, Ricerca & Progetto, I, December 2007

in Romanian: Un model CECV pentru optimizarea programelor de reabilitare a locuintelor sociale existente catre atingerea obiectivului factor 4, Philippe Outrequin (La Calade) tradus de Jana Suler

(APDL), Decembrie 2008

in English: The German VROM model establishing a tailor made “voWo Retrofit Optimisation Model”,

Reinhard Jank, December 2007

- Deliverable 9 upon the case studies in each country:

in Danish : The Danish case studies, Ole Balsev-Olesen (Cenergia), September 2007

in French: L’optimisation des programmes de réhabilitation grâce à une analyse en coût global

énergétique avec le modèle SEC (Sustainable Energy Cost), Philippe Outrequin (La Calade) and

Catherine Charlot-Valdieu (SUDEN), June 2007


8


in Italian : 0ttimizzazione dei programmi di riqualificazione energetica attraverso il modello BREA

(Building Retrofitting Efficiency Assessment Valutazione di interventi di efficienza energetica), Roberto

Fabbri, Sergio Rossi and Rossana Zaccaria (ABITA) and Sergio Bottiglioni (Ricerca & Progetto,

October 2007

in Romanian: Studii de caz Romania.

Acesta descrie ceea ce se numeste « best practices » in proiectele de reabilitare energetica din Romania, Jana Suler (APDL) in colaborare cu Catherine Charlot-Valdieu (SUDEN), December 2007

In German: still expected.


9


INTRODUCTION : THE AIM OF THIS DELIVERABLE

The previous deliverable 7 dealt with the life cycle energy cost analysis of buildings at the building scale.

In this report, we deal with the social owner building stock as well as with the territorial approach.

In the first part, according to the cases studies managed in the 3 countries, we give examples at

various scales.

For example for France, first we show which results it is possible to reach with the Factor 4 model

within a neighbourhood scale approach with the case study of Moulins Habitat (France): all the

buildings concerned by a neighbourhood regeneration programme (within a contract with the national

agency ANRU) have been analysed with the French SEC model in order to work out an optimised retrofitting programme for the whole neighbourhood on the one hand with an optimised retrofitting programme for each building on the other hand. As most of the buildings of Moulins Habitat are

concerned, this example can be used also for the long term management of a building stock including a

sustainable energy management or issue.

With the French examples, we give elements of a national strategy. After a typological analysis of the

overall national building stock and the identification of representative case studies, various scenarii have

been elaborated in order to give elements for a national strategy. These elements have been then

compared to the national draft programme of USH.

Then in the second part of the deliverable, we deal with regulation and incentives for social housing, focussing on the Italian example and with a short synthesis on each national situation.


10


PART 1

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY STRATEGIES FOR SOCIAL HOUSING

AT VARIOUS SCALES


11


ELEMENTS OF SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES ILLUSTRATED BY

EXAMPLES WORKED OUT IN FRANCE

REMINDER UPON THE OPTIMISATION OF A RETROFITTING

PROGRAMME AT THE BUILDING SCALE

We have already shown in previous deliverables the results of the optimisation of a retrofitting

programme for a building (as shown in the schema below)7

Evolution of the project profitability, of the investment amount and of the CO2 factor for 3 scenarii

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

Investissement

Gain global

Facteur CO2

facteur CO2Investissement en k€ par

logement et Gain global

en € / m² - an

Options techniques

Source La Calade pour Factor 4

Scénario

A

Scénario

B

Scénario

C

Optimum

économique

In this schema the scenario A (with the techniques 1 to 6) is the business as usual one. The scenario B

(with the techniques 1 to 10) was elaborated for reaching 80 kWh/m2 as following the conclusions of the

“Grenelle de l’Environnement” and the scenario C was elaborated following examples of building

retrofitting programmes with public subsidies.

We can see that the economic optimum is near the scenario B and not at all with the scenario C which is

not profitable (even if supported by public subsidies)…

This analysis has shown that it is not always profitable to try to reach the factor 4 and that an

economic optimisation has to be worked out as well as the usual technical one as regarding energy and CO2 emissions.

So a life cycle costing approach has to be worked out with the usual DPE in order to go towards sustainability for social housing retrofitting.

We now show the results of such an optimisation with the SEC model for a building stock at the

neighbourhood scale8.

7 Cf. deliverable 7 for example


12


CHAPTER I. ELEMENTS FOR A BUILDING STOCK OR A

NEIGHBOURHOOD STRATEGY

The analysis of buildings has been done in the deliverable 7 in English and 9 in national language.

After this analysis of 32 case studies dealing with 170 buildings and more than 5 500 dwellings and

representative of more than 1 500 dwellings, we can say that:

The profitability of building retrofitting programmes increases with the energy savings expected and with

the CO2 factor. These 2 criteria must be taken into account by social owners and by their consultants as

well as by public administration for the attribution of any financial support (if the criteria is only the

« over cost », there are 2 main bad impacts: an increase of prices – and of industrials benefits – and a

wrong idea about the real interest of the project.

Furthermore these analyses enable us to confirm that the Factor 4 (or SEC) model is a good decision aid

tool on the one hand and an important one on the other hand and that SEC answers to the needs of social

owners and of their partners.

So in this deliverable we are focussing on territorial approaches: at the neighbourhood scale and at the

national one.

This deliverable presents the synthesis of the analysis worked out by La Calade on a great part of the

building stock of Moulins Habitat, the French social owner involved in Factor 4.

La Calade analysed the typology of the 63 buildings concerned by the neighbourhood regeneration

project supported by the National Urban Renewal Agency (ANRU) and selected 5 main buildings

families which were analysed with the SEC model before the retrofitting works in order to work out

these strategic elements.

I.1. ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT GAS EMISSION

FOR EACH BUILDINGS FAMILY BEFORE ANY RETROFITTING WORKS

The analysis done for each representative building of the 63 buildings (cf. deliverable 9)9 can be

completed by a synthesis for the whole building stock concerned by the ANRU10 regeneration project

(with the PRU acronym in French for Project of Urban Regeneration).

First, using the first typology of the buildings, they have been gathered in 5 big groups or families.

This synthesis can be illustrated by the following graphs comparing energy consumption and greenhouse

effect gas emission by building family.

8 Cf. deliverable 9 in French

9 In the deliverable 7, three cases studies per country are presented with a scenario towards the Factor 4 as

regarding only energy savings and GEG emissions towards the first class of the EPBD labels

In the deliverable 9, all the buildings are analysed before any retrofitting work and the EPBD labels are given 10

Agence Nationale de la Rénovation Urbaine, National Agency for Urban Renewal


13


Energy consumption for the various building families before retrofitting works

Consommation en énergie primaire (chauffage et ECS) en kWh/m2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

MH/Yzeure MH/Nomazy MH/Thonier MH/Champins MH/Champmilan

Source La Calade for Moulins Habitat and Factor 4

Greenhouse effect gas emission for the various building families before retrofitting works

Emission de CO2 en kg CO2/m2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Source Crdd La Calade for Factor 4


14


If we set an objective of reaching a building energy label “C” (corresponding to 150 kWh/m2 for energy

and 20 kg of CO2 for GEG emission according to the French energy performance scale), we can

represent on the following graph the limits between “C” and “D” labels with two axes, the energy

performance for a “C” label being thus comprised in the area in the left-bottom corner (and the

following graphs help to check the validity of the model).

Energy labelling (performance) assessment (energy consumption and GEG emissions) for the various representative buildings concerned by the neighbourhood regeneration project of

Moulins Habitat before retrofitting works

Consommation d'énergie et émission de CO2 - PRU

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400


How to read the graph

We can see that before retrofitting works all buildings are without exception in the right-top corner, that

is to say with the label “D” or worse.

This type of graph will also enable us to represent the energy analysis of the various retrofitting scenarii

or programmes, and to compare them with the selected retrofitting programme (cf. the following pages).


15


I.2. COMPARISON OF THE DATA GIVEN BY THE SEC MODEL WITH

THE AVAILABLE REAL DATA AND VALIDATION OF THE SEC MODEL

The table below lists for each building family the energy consumption in kWh/m2 for heating (H) and for

sanitary hot water (SHW), and compares the (theoretical) data calculated by the SEC model with the real

data.

Comparison of real data with data calculated/estimated by the SEC model

H + SHW (primary energy)

H (kWh/m2) SHW Building Families

kWh/m2 kg CO2/m2 theoretical

real data

theoretical real data

MH/Yzeure 231 49 169 39 39

MH/Nomazy 291 69 190 195 39 39

MH/Thonier 259 61 174 174 30 30

MH/Champins 323 77 215 219 40 38

MH/Champmilan 242 57 154 153 38 38


Comparison of heating data calculated by the SEC model with real data for each buildings family, so as to check the validity of the SEC model

Chauffage - "Théorique" et "Réel"

0

50

100

150

200

250


Série1

Série2


Such a comparison has been done for all the French cases studies (170 buildings, cf. deliverable 9) and

not only for the buildings of Moulins Habitat as shown on this schema. The data calculated with the SEC

model are very close to the real data, so the SEC model can be considered as validated.


16


Comparison of sanitary hot water data calculated by the SEC model with real data for each buildings

family, so as to check the validity of the SEC model

ECS - "théorique" et "réel" en kWh/m2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Série1

Série2


These results could also have been set out for each case study (as done for the other French cases studies

in the deliverable 9), but for Moulins Habitat it was not possible because the real data are only available

by district heating sub-station, and thus by buildings family (as shown on this schema).

These results show that the estimations made with the SEC model are very close to real data and that the

SEC model is thus reliable.

I.3 LIFE CYCLE ENERGY COST ANALYSIS, COMPARISON BETWEEN

RETROFITTING PROGRAMMES (SCENARII) AND WORKING OUT OF AN

OPTIMISED RETROFITTING PROGRAMME

I.3.1. Life Cycle Energy Cost (LCEC) analysis of all the buildings

The SEC model does not enable only to make an energy analysis of each representative building, but also

to analyse a retrofitting programme for one building (as shown in the deliverables 7 or 9) and for a

building family.

Moreover it enables to improve a retrofitting programme by successive iteration and so it helps decision makers (social owners and their financial partners) to define or choose the best possible

(optimised) retrofitting programme.

So as to simulate this iterative process towards an optimisation (as regarding at least 3 optima of the SEC

model: energy consumption, greenhouse effect gas emission, a socio-economic optimum), 3 scenarii

have been worked out (including an optimised one), analysed and compared by La Calade.

These scenarii don’t take into account grants. If there is some public funding available, it has to be

integrated in the analysis as it could greatly change the results.


17


These scenarii are:

1. a first scenario corresponding to the technical urgencies listed at the end of the thermal

diagnosis : double glazing, roof and floor insulation11. The necessary investment for this scenario

is of 9.8 Millions of Euro allocated

2. a voluntary and ambitious scenario on technical issues (corresponding as such to the good

practice financed by public authorities, as those described in the deliverable 9) : mechanically

controlled ventilation with hygrometry regulation, performing joinery and low-emissive double

glazing, external insulation of walls, roof and ground floor insulation, solar water heating (cf. the

tables at the end of this chapter). This scenario needs an investment up to 22.6 Millions of Euro

allocated.

3. an optimised scenario thanks to the SEC model with the requirement of having the lowest

possible energy life cycle costing. This third scenario corresponds to an investment of 11.9

Millions of Euro allocated, quite close to the 1st scenario cost.

The investment costs by building family for the three scenarii (in k€)

Buildings families Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Thonier BCD 586 1 208 702

Thonier AEFG 658 1 356 787

Champins HIK 1 001 1 662 826

Champins AB 170 361 303

Champins FG 227 481 351

Nomazy KGJ 900 1 865 1 115

Nomazy BDF 1 194 2 877 1 720

Nomazy EIH 1 175 2 434 1 455

Champmilan A 1 559 3 214 1 001

Champmilan R 1 267 3 158 941

Yzeure 1 117 3 979 2 676

Average investment cost 9 854 22 596 11 877


The exhaustive table are located at the end of this chapter on Moulins.

I.3.2. The differences between these scenarii or why they have been worked out or chosen

These scenarii have been worked out without taking into account potential grants and with the goal of optimising the energy results when keeping low the expenses, particularly with the scenarii 1 and 3.

The 2nd scenario corresponds to what is often called « good practice » (these good practice being

essentially “technical” (as regarding energy savings or GEG savings only), the life cycle costing and

even less the shared life cycle costing are up to now never used in France).

Scenarii can be worked out with various objectives. A factor 4 scenario (id est a scenario or a building

retrofitting programme which enables to reach the factor 4) has been worked for some representative

buildings in the deliverable 7 (this deliverable, only available in English, sets out a synthesis of the

results in each country: Denmark, France and Italy).

The differences between the scenarii can be illustrated by the graphs of the next page. On the y-axis, we

have represented energy savings in kWh/m2 and on the x-axis, the investment costs in €/m2.

In the minimalist scenario (scenario 1 below on the left), the investment costs are quite similar (between

60 or 70 and 80 €/ m2) and energy savings are most often at the same level, whereas in the optimised

11

Let us be reminded that the budget allocated to the buildings retrofitting in the neighbourhood regeneration of

Moulins Habitat (ANRU programme or contract) (4 Millions of Euro) does not enable to make the necessary works

represented by the 1st scenario.


18


scenario, the investments are very different depending on the buildings type (between 80 and 120 €/m2)

and energy savings are much greater on the one hand and very different depending on the building type

(which is quite logical as it reflects the investment cost difference) on the other hand.

Comparison between the scenario 1 and the optimised scenario 3

Investissement et économie d'énergie - scénario 1

R2 = 0,5505

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Investissement et économie d'énergie - scénario 3

R2 = 0,8832

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

40 60 80 100 120 140 160


The energy savings optima differ greatly from a building to another.

If a factor 4 strategy has to be implemented, it has to be on a whole building stock and not building-by-

building. Some projects could be far-reaching in term of reduction of greenhouse effect gas (GEG)

emissions, and others less so.

This conclusion express also the fact that, to set compulsory energy consumption and GEG emission, the same threshold for all the buildings is not rational at all from an economic point of view.

This means also that an important assessment work of the social building stock is necessary so as to

hierarchy the retrofitting works and then so as to assess the overall level of reduction of GEG emission

that could be reached.

I.3.3. Energy analysis results

The table below represents the simulation of the results from the 3 scenarii about energy consumption in

kWh/m2 (apart electricity consumption) and for greenhouse effect gas emissions in kg CO2/m

2, for each

representative building family as well as for the whole retrofitting programme (PRU programme), id est

for all the buildings types together, by comparing the results of the analysis before and after the

retrofitting works.

The scenario 3 is a sustainable development scenario because it takes into account the 3 optima.


19


Assessment of energy performances with the SEC model before and after the retrofitting works

for each representative building and for each scenario

Heated area+ Sanitary water heating Buildings

family Initial Data

Scenario 1

(technical minimum)

Scenario 2

(energy optimum)

Scenario 3

(+economic optimum)

KWh / m2 kg CO2/m

2 KWh / m

2 kg CO2/m

2 KWh / m

2 kg CO2/m

2 KWh / m

2 kg CO2/m

2

Thonier BCD 253 60 190 45 96 23 140 33

Thonier AEFG 264 63 198 47 99 24 152 36

Champins HIK 312 74 180 42 113 27 200 47

Champins AB 386 91 284 67 119 28 136 32

Champins FG 311 74 212 50 113 27 145 34

Nomazy KGJ 278 66 208 49 105 25 146 35

Nomazy BDF 260 62 195 46 106 25 148 35

Nomazy EIH 300 71 209 50 114 27 168 40

Champmilan A 242 57 181 43 94 22 185 44

Champmilan R 243 58 189 45 91 22 188 44

Le Plessis 231 49 184 39 88 19 127 27

Total PRU 263 61 193 45 100 23 160 37

Source Crdd La Calade

The energy analysis results could be set out with the same type of graph as used before in the chapter

I.1., and it has been done for the scenarii 1 et 3 in the two following graphs.

Forecasted results (energy consumption and GEG emissions) with the retrofitting programme or scenario 1

Consommation d'énergie et émission de CO2 - Scenario 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400


We can see that with the scenario 1 the “C” label could not be reached and that the results for one of the

building family are really bad.


20


With the optimised third (sustainable) scenario (stemming from an iterative process), we get the

following results:

Forecasted results with the optimised retrofitting programme or sustainable scenario 3

(energy consumption and GEG or CO2 emissions)

Consommation d'énergie et émission de CO2 - Scenario 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Source La Calade for Factor 4

Finally, the scenario 1 is corresponding to a factor 1.3 for the building stock being retrofitted, whereas

the second scenario is reaching a factor 2.6 and whereas the 3rd scenario is reaching a factor … 1.7. We

are still very far from reaching the factor 4… (This is because the energy source is gas within a district

heating which is not expensive at all).

However, if we were taking into account grants from public authorities (Region, the French National

Agency for Environment and Energy Management “Ademe”, ANRU etc.), we would probably reach

with the optimised scenario a factor 2 or even 2.5.

It could be possible too to calculate the necessary amount of the public financial support for reaching a factor 4.

The energy performance or labelling for the buildings

The buildings family’s energy performances labelling are set out in the following table:

Buildings family Initial label

Scenario 1 (technical

minimum)

Scenario 2 (energy optimum)

Scenario 3 (economic

optimum)

Thonier BCD E D C C

Thonier AEFG E D C D

Champins HIK E D C D

Champins AB F E C C

Champins FG E D C C

Nomazy KGJ E D C C

Nomazy BDF E D C C

Nomazy EIH E D C D

Champmilan type A E D C D

Champmilan type R E D B D

Le Plessis E D B C



21


The GEG emissions labelling

The buildings family’s Greenhouse Effect Gas (GEG) emissions labelling are set out in the following

table:

Buildings family Initial

label

Scenario 1

factor CO2 = 1,3

Scenario 2

factor CO2 = 2,6

Scenario 3

factor CO2 = 1,7

Thonier BCD F E D D

Thonier AEFG F E D E

Champins HIK F E D E

Champins AB G F D D

Champins FG F E D D

Nomazy KGJ F E D D

Nomazy BDF F E D D

Nomazy EIH F E D E

Champmilan type A F E D E

Champmilan type R F E D E

Le Plessis E E C D


We can first notice (as established already before), that the whole building stock produce greenhouse

effect gas emissions in great quantity.

Moreover, we would like to point the fact that the scenario 2 doesn’t enable to reach the “C” label,

apart for one type of building.

Finally, we would like to underline how the 3rd

optimised scenario enables a marked improvement of

GEG emissions for an investment cost quite similar to the needed one for the 1st scenario and greatly

under the needed one for the 2nd scenario. This shows the utility of the approach and of the SEC model.

I.3.4. The results of the Life Cycle Energy Cost analysis

- The investment costs

They are calculated by dwelling for each building and for each scenario (in €):

Investment costs for each dwelling for each building family

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Thonier BCD 5 377 11 086 6 439

Thonier AEFG 5 480 11 298 6 562

Champins HIK 6 335 10 517 5 228

Champins AB 4 736 10 025 8 426

Champins FG 4 736 10 025 7 319

Nomazy KGJ 5 296 10 971 6 558

Nomazy BDF 5 377 12 961 7 747

Nomazy EIH 6 457 13 376 7 995

Champmilan type A 5 451 11 238 3 499

Champmilan type R 4 710 11 742 3 499

Le Plessis 3 086 10 992 7 392

Investment cost average 5 052 11 579 6 085



22


- The results of the Life Cycle Energy Cost analysis (in € by m2/year)

The following table underlines the important influence of energy price evolution on the calculation of the

retrofitting works (or programme) equilibrium or profitability. The importance of this influence differs

from a building type to another.

When the balance is positive, this means that the investment cost is greater than the forecasted savings.

The profitable retrofitting programmes (with a negative balance) are shaded in green in the following

table.

Life Cycle Energy Costing of the different retrofitting programmes

or scenarii analysed in discounted euro / m2 – year


Buildings Invest-

ment

Energy

saving at

fixed price

Energy

price

impact

Net

balance

Invest-

ment

Energy

saving at

fixed price

Energy

price

impact

Net

balance

Invest-

ment

Energy

saving at

fixed price

Energy

price

impact

Net

balance

Thonier BCD 3,88 -1,74 -1,10 1,04 7,80 -4,36 -2,74 0,70 3,97 -3,14 -1,97 -1,14

Thonier AEFG 3,88 -1,85 -1,16 0,87 7,80 -4,58 -2,88 0,34 3,97 -3,11 -1,95 -1,09

Champins HIK 4,83 -3,68 -2,31 -1,16 8,04 -5,52 -3,47 -0,95 3,50 -3,12 -1,96 -1,58

Champins AB 3,27 -2,82 -1,77 -1,32 7,55 -7,42 -4,66 -4,53 6,00 -6,95 -4,37 -5,32

Champins FG 3,27 -2,74 -1,72 -1,19 7,55 -5,50 -3,45 -1,40 4,92 -4,60 -2,89 -2,57

Nomazy KGJ 3,84 -1,93 -1,21 0,70 8,21 -4,79 -3,01 0,41 4,39 -3,66 -2,30 -1,57

Nomazy BDF 3,84 -1,79 -1,13 0,96 8,21 -5,21 -3,27 -0,27 4,39 -4,03 -2,53 -2,17

Nomazy EIH 3,84 -2,52 -1,58 -0,26 8,21 -5,18 -3,25 -0,22 4,39 -3,66 -2,30 -1,57

Champmilan A 3,84 -1,68 -1,06 1,14 7,80 -4,10 -2,58 1,12 2,04 -1,58 -0,99 -0,53

Champmilan R 3,37 -1,50 -0,94 0,93 8,14 -4,24 -2,66 1,34 2,04 -1,54 -0,97 -0,47

Le Plessis 2,51 -1,87 -1,17 -0,53 8,04 -5,67 -3,56 -1,19 4,68 -4,15 -2,60 -2,07

Together 3,62 -2,02 -1,27 0,33 8,03 -4,94 -3,10 - 0,00 3,70 -3,17 -1,99 -1,46


This table points out that the only one scenario allowing savings is the 3rd

one (which is consistent with

the optimisation process), whereas the voluntary scenario 2 doesn’t allow in fact any savings (even if it is

corresponding with a strong focus on energy saving!).

And the voluntary scenario 2 is for some retrofitting programmes not profitable at all…

This table underlines the added value of the SEC model and the utility of having, beyond a traditional

technical approach, a Life Cycle Energy Costing approach.

Finally, an analysis of the using cost would enable to complete the analysis of costs versus benefits (in

absence of a “shared” life cycle cost analysis).12

12

This approach has been developed by La Calade for ANRU in 2007 : « Méthode RECOBAT d’analyse et

d’évaluation coûts / bénéfices de bâtiments résidentiels et de programmes de réhabilitation pour une

REhabilitation Cohérente des BATiments ». (RECOBAT method for a cost/benefice analysis of housings and of

building retrofitting programmes for a coherent building retrofitting)


23


Then we looked for the needed amount of subsidies which should help the retrofitting programme in

reaching profitability:

Funding rates necessary to reach the economic balance (negative life cycle costing))

for each retrofitting programme


Building

families

Benefits

or Losses

% of

funding

necessary

with a fixed

energy

price.

% of

funding

when the

energy

prices are

raising

Benefits

or Losses

% of

funding

necessary

with a

fixed

energy

price.

% of

funding

when the

energy

prices are

raising

Benefits

or Losses

% of

funding

necessary

with a

fixed

energy

price.

% of funding

when the energy

prices are

raising

Thonier BCD Loss 55% 27% Loss 44% 9% Benefit 21% 0%

Thonier AEFG Loss 52% 22% Loss 41% 4% Benefit 22% 0%

Champins

HIK Benefit 24% 0% Benefit 31% 0% Benefit 11% 0%

Champins AB Benefit 14% 0% Benefit 2% 0% Benefit 16% 0%

Champins FG Benefit 16% 0% Benefit 27% 0% Benefit 7% 0%

Nomazy KGJ Loss 50% 18% Loss 42% 5% Benefit 17% 0%

Nomazy BDF Loss 54% 25% Benefit 37% 0% Benefit 8% 0%

Nomazy EIH Benefit 34% 0% Benefit 37% 0% Benefit 17% 0%

Champmilan

type A Loss 57% 29% Loss 47% 14% Benefit 23% 0%

Champmilan

type R Loss 55% 28% Loss 49% 16% Benefit 25% 0%

Le Plessis Benefit 25% 0% Benefit 29% 0% Benefit 11% 0%

Together Loss 44% 9% Benefit 39% 0% Benefit 14% 0%


Remark : the hypothesis about the energy prices increase in the SEC model are of 3% per year for gas

and 1% for electricity.

This table underlines that several retrofitting programmes of the 1st scenario have a negative Life

Cycle Costing and that this scenario undergoes generally losses.

We can moreover notice that the retrofitting works or programmes of the greatest energy consuming

buildings (the three families of buildings Champins and Nomazy EIH) are profitable for the three

scenarii. Do we have to conclude that these buildings have to be retrofitted in priority?

This table shows that some retrofitting programmes of the 2nd “voluntary” scenario have a positive Life

Cycle Costing whereas other have a negative one. However up to now in France the criteria for funding

allocation is more about what is or would be delivered in terms of energy savings than on the project’s

Life Cycle Costing. A Life Cycle Costing analysis appears to be a fundamental pre-requirement before

granting any public funding…

Finally, this table underlines the importance of the hypothesis on the energy price increase and on its

influence on the real profitability of retrofitting programmes. So it focuses the interest of a consensus on

the model hypothesis…

These various results can be illustrated also by the figure 1 on the next page.


24

Crdd La Calade and SUDEN – Cenergia – Ricerca & Progetto – July 2007

The following graphs are another way of representing these results.

The first graph below is setting out the analysis results for the energy consumption of the different

buildings types, as well as the analysis results for the whole building stock concerned by the ANRU

programme (the neighbourhood regeneration programme) for each retrofitting scenario.

1. Energy consumption for each building type and each scenario

Scénario par groupe de bâtiments

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Thonier BCD Thonier

AEFG

Champins

HIK

Champins AB Champins FG Nomazy KGJ Nomazy BDF Nomazy EIH Champmilan

A

Champmilan

R

Yzeure PRU

initial

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scénario 3

Source Crdd La Calade for le projet Factor 4 cf www.suden.org

The economic equilibrium is set out below in this second figure:

2. Economic equilibrium for each building type and each scenario

Coût global énergétique par groupe de bâtiments

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

Thonier BCD Thonier AEFG Champins HIK Champins AB Champins FG Nomazy KGJ Nomazy BDF Nomazy EIH Champmilan A Champmilan R Yzeure PRU

S1

S2

S3

PERTE

GAIN

Source Crdd La Calade for Factor 4 cf. www.suden.org


25


The graph 2 above points out the building type for which the retrofitting works are the more profitable

according to the 3 optima used (energy consumption, GEG emissions and economic optimum). They

are the buildings A and B of the Champins area, whatever is the retrofitting scenario selected.

This figure underlines also that the retrofitting works have to be much greater than what they are

nowadays in the majority of regeneration works or programmes. Social owners have thus to be

supported when trying to reach the optimum with grants and fundings not focused only upon energy and GEG results; that is to say by encouraging them to set up optimised scenarii and by facilitating their funding.

The comparison of the 2 previous graphs indeed shows the central role of such an economic analysis

in retrofitting programmes, particularly of a Life Cycle Energy Cost analysis, which is not used in

France up to now.

Funding is indeed often rewarded in France on the basis of a theoretical “overcost” (by comparison

with the traditional way and techniques). It appears much more relevant to use the “shared Life Cycle

Energy Costing”, as the pay back return or profitability is not only for the investor and particularly as

the technical optimum or the energy saving optimum (scenario 2) does not always correspond with the

economic optimum (scenario 3), either for the society nor for the social owner.

The following tables indicate the techniques that have been selected for each scenario and the results of

the analysis obtained by the SEC model for all the “Moulins Habitat” buildings concerned by the

neighbourhood regeneration project supported by ANRU.


26


Building types initial data and energy analysis (before retrofitting works)


Elaboration of scenarii so as to work out a

building stock energy management

sustainable strategy : application to the

neigbourhood regeneration project of Moulins

La Calade, march 2007

City MOULINS MOULINS MOULINS MOULINS MOULINS MOULINS MOULINS MOULINS MOULINS MOULINS YZEURE

Neigbourhood THONIER THONIER CHAMPINS CHAMPINS CHAMPINS NOMAZY NOMAZY NOMAZY CHAMPMILAN CHAMPMILAN LE PLESSIS

Building BCD AEFG HIK AB FG KGJ BDF EIH type A type R

Construction date 1971-75 1971-75 1956-70 1956-70 1956-70 1976-83 1976-83 1976-83 1967 - 1975 1967 - 1975 1971-75

Number of buildings 3 4 5 2 2 3 3 3 6 16 16 63

Living area in m2 7236 8118 9717 2214 2952 10719 16536 13991 19246 18101 23270 132 100

Number of dwellings 109 120 158 36 48 170 222 182 286 269 362 1 962

Number of floors 6 6 4 5 7 5 7 7 4 4 4

Heating modeDistrict

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

Central

Collective

Heating with

gas

Sanitary Hot Water heating mode District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

Heating

District

HeatingGas

Heating + SHW consumption in kWh / m2 253 264 312 386 311 278 293 300 242 243 231 267

Energy Labelling E E E F E E E E E E E

Heating and SHW emission of CO2 in kg CO2 / m2

60 63 74 91 74 66 69 71 57 58 49 62

CO2 Labelling F F F G F F F F F F E

Energy expenses in €/ m2

11,3 11,6 13 15 12,9 12 12,5 12,6 11 11,1 13,5 12,2

Total consumption in primary kWh / m2

331 342 390 463 388 355 371 377 319 320 309 344

Total CO2 emission in kg / m2

61 64 75 93 75 67 71 72 59 59 50 63

TOTAL


27


Life Cycle Energy Cost (LCEC) analysis for the retrofitting programme with the minimum technical requirements scenario (1)


SCENARIO 1 THONIER THONIER CHAMPINS CHAMPINS CHAMPINS NOMAZY NOMAZY NOMAZY CHAMPMILAN CHAMPMILAN LE PLESSIS

BCD AEFG HIK AB FG KGJ BDF EIH type A type R

One flow Mechanically Controlled Ventilation

MCV with hygrometry regulation x x x x x x x

Double glasing Uw = 2,5 x x x x x x x x x x

Performing joinery Uw = 1,6

External wall insulation - 10 cm

Roof insulation x x x x x x x x x

Insulation of not used attic

Ground floor insulation x x x x x x x

Pipe insulation x x x x x

Solar water boiler

Replacing of water tank by semi instantaneous SHW

Heating + ECS consumption in kWh / m2 190 198 180 284 212 208 195 209 181 189 184 193

Energy Labelling D D D E D D D D D D D


45 47 42 67 50 49 46 50 43 45 39 45

CO2 Labelling E E E F E E E E E E E


9,6 9,8 9,3 12,2 10,2 10,1 9,7 10,1 9,3 9,6 11,6 10,1


268 275 257 362 290 286 273 287 258 266 261 271


46 48 44 69 52 51 48 51 44 46 40 48

Investment by dwelling in € 5 377 5 480 6 335 4 736 4 736 5 296 5 377 6 457 5 451 4 710 3 086 5052

Pay back return in years 5-29 5-27 6-17 8-17 8 - 17 6-27 5-28 4-20 5-30 2-29 7-16

LCEC in € / m2 / year

Investment solely on energy 0,75 0,75 1,70 1,70 1,70 0,71 0,75 0,71 0,75 0,24 0,95 0,81

Other investments with an enery impact 3,13 3,13 3,13 1,57 1,57 3,13 3,13 3,13 3,13 3,13 1,56 2,79

Energy saving with fixed price -1,74 -1,85 -3,68 -2,82 -2,74 -1,93 -1,79 -2,52 -1,68 -1,50 -1,87 -2,02

Energy price impact -1,10 -1,16 -2,31 -1,77 -1,72 -1,21 -1,13 -1,58 -1,06 -0,94 -1,17 -1,27

Net balance 1,04 0,87 -1,16 -1,32 -1,19 0,70 0,96 -0,26 1,14 0,93 -0,53 0,33

Benefit or Loss loss loss benefit benefit benefit loss loss benefit loss loss benefit loss

% grant necessary at fixed energy price 55% 52% 24% 14% 16% 50% 54% 34% 57% 55% 25% 44%

% grant with energy price increasee 27% 22% 0% 0% 0% 18% 25% 0% 29% 28% 0% 9%

CO2 factor 1,3 1,3 1,7 1,4 1,5 1,3 1,3 1,4 1,3 1,3 1,2 1,3


28


Life Cycle Energy Cost analysis for the retrofitting programme 2 (or « energy optimum » scenario)


THONIER THONIER CHAMPINS CHAMPINS CHAMPINS NOMAZY NOMAZY NOMAZY CHAMPMILAN CHAMPMILAN LE PLESSIS

SCENARIO 2 BCD AEFG HIK AB FG KGJ BDF EIH type A type R


MCV with hygrometry regulation x x x x x X x X x X X

Double glasing Uw = 2,5

Performing joinery Uw = 1,6 X X X X X X X X X X X

External wall insulation - 10 cm X X X X X X X X X X X

Roof insulation x x x x x x x x x

Insulation of not used attic X X

Ground floor insulation X X x x x x x x X X x

Pipe insulation x x x X X X x x

Solar water boiler X X X X X X X X X X X

Replacing of water tank by semi instantaneous SHW X X X X


Energy Labelling C C C C C C C C C B B


23 24 27 28 27 25 25 27 22 22 19 23

CO2 Labelling D D D D D D D D D D C

Energy expenses in €/ m27 7,1 7,4 7,6 7,4 7,2 7,2 7,5 6,9 6,8 7,8 7,2

Total consumption in primary kWh / m2174 177 191 196 190 183 183 191 171 168 166 177

Total CO2 emission in kg / m2 24 25 28 29 28 26 26 28 24 23 20 48


Pay back return in years 14-24 14-22 12-19 10-13 14-18 14-22 13-21 13-21 15-25 16-25 11-19






Net balance 0,70 0,34 -0,95 -4,53 -1,40 0,41 -0,27 -0,22 1,12 1,34 -1,19 0,00

Benefit or Loss loss loss benefit benefit benefit loss benefit benefit loss loss benefit benefit

% grant necessary at fixed energy price 44% 41% 31% 2% 27% 42% 37% 37% 47% 49% 29% 39%


CO2 factor 2,5 2,6 2,7 3,2 2,7 2,6 2,7 2,6 2,5 2,6 2,5 2,6


29


Life Cycle Energy Cost analysis for the optimised retrofitting programme or scenario 3


THONIER THONIER CHAMPINS CHAMPINS CHAMPINS NOMAZY NOMAZY NOMAZY CHAMPMILAN CHAMPMILAN LE PLESSIS

SCENARIO OPTIMUM BCD AEFG HIK AB FG KGJ BDF EIH type A type R


MCV with hygrometry regulation x x x x x X x X X

Double glasing Uw = 2,5

Performing joinery Uw = 1,6 X X X X X X X X X X X

External wall insulation - 10 cm X X X X X X X X

Roof insulation

Insulation of not used attic X

Ground floor insulation x x x x

Pipe insulation x x X X X

Solar water boiler

Replacing of water tank by semi instantaneous SHW X X X


Energy Labelling C D D C C C C D D D C


33 36 47 32 34 35 35 40 44 44 27 37

CO2 Labelling D E E D D D D E E E D


8,2 8,5 9,8 8,1 8,3 8,4 8,4 9 9,43 9,5 9,3 9,0


218 230 277 213 223 223 225 246 262 265 204 238


34 37 48 33 36 36 36 41 45 46 28 48


Pay back return in years 11-19 11-19 9-17 9-12 11-16 11-17 10-16 11-17 5-20 5-21 11-17






Net balance -1,14 -1,09 -1,58 -5,32 -2,57 -1,57 -2,17 -1,57 -0,53 -0,47 -2,07 -1,46

Benefit or Loss benefit benefit benefit benefit benefit benefit benefit benefit benefit benefit benefit benefit

% grant necessary at fixed energy price 21% 22% 11% -16% 7% 17% 8% 17% 23% 25% 11% 14%


CO2 factor 1,8 1,7 1,6 2,8 2,1 1,9 1,9 1,8 1,3 1,3 1,8 1,7


30

APDL (Ro), Cenergia (DK), La Calade and SUDEN (F), ABITA with Ricerca & Progetto (I) and Volskwohnung (D)

I.4. ANALYSIS CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION OF ACTIONS

We would like firstly to stress the fact that up to now (beginning of August 2007) charges and their

evolution have not yet been analysed, except for the “OPIHLM” case studies (cf. deliverable 9).

Then, this analysis shows that the scenario optimised on the basis of energy consultant’s

recommendations would need 11 Millions of Euro whereas in the ANRU neighbourhood regeneration

programme only 4 millions of Euro are allocated to the retrofitting works.

What can we do in such a situation ?

The energy analysis is only one side of a retrofitting programme analysis and assessment. The

analysis with the RECOBAT method (RECOBAT for in French: « REhabilitation Cohérente des

BATiments », that is to say « for a consistent buildings retrofitting »)13

should enable to complete or

improve the assessment.

The RECOBAT analysis concerns also the immediate surroundings of buildings (and thus a part of the

fitting and amenities made by « Moulins Habitat ») as well as the “residentialisation”14.

However, we could already preview that the analysis results would result in:

- modifying the arbitrations between the retrofitting works and the “residentialisation” (as regarding

the budget allowed to these 2 types of programmes),

- and perhaps increasing the budget allocated to both retrofitting works and “residentialisation”.

13

Cf. the buildings analysis of the OPIHLM of Arcueil – Gentilly buildings (in deliverable 9) and the report « La

méthode RECOBAT pour une REhabilitation COhérente des BATiments : analyse, évaluation et optimisation de

programmes de réhabilitation vers une transformation durable des bâtiments et des quartiers », La Calade for

ANRU, May 2007 (a method worked out by La calade for ANRU) 14

“residentialisation” is a retrofitting programme including works for a privatisation of the immediate surroundings

of the building


31


CHAPTER II. ELEMENTS FOR A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR

SOCIAL HOUSING

The French social building stock is amounting to 4.3 millions dwellings, with 3.8 millions managed by

members of the « Union Sociale de l’Habitat”(USH). 3 of these 4.3 millions dwellings should still be in

use in 2050. That makes the energy retrofitting a central stake in the fight against climate change.

The CO2 emissions of the whole French social building stock have been estimated at 13.5 Mt eq-CO2,

that is to say on average 3.1 tons by dwelling or 46 kg CO2 by m2, which corresponds to the EPBD

labelling for GEG emissions « E » (emissions between 36 and 56 kg CO2 by m2)

15.

The average energy consumption of this building stock has been estimated at 190 kWh/m² for heating

and sanitary hot water, that is to say a primary energy consumption of 230 kWh/m² (which corresponds

to a EPBD labelling as regarding energy between « D » and « E »).

Is a factor 4 strategy possible ? (that is to say to reduce the Greenhouse Effect Gas emissions by a

factor 4). Based on the building stock demolition hypothesis until 2050 (cf. deliverable 4), the reduction

of GEG emissions of social housings would reach 6.9 Mt eq-CO2 in 2050.

II.1. COULD AN OPTIMISED STRATEGY BE DEFINED SO AS TO REACH

THE FACTOR 4 IN A LONG TERM?

Is it possible to set out a national strategy when there are thousands of social owners with very different

situations, as well as very different building stocks with various size, age, residents, heating modes,

thermal insulations of the envelop…?

In order to answer this question, we have used a Life Cycle Energy Costing model, id est the SEC

(Sustainable Energy Cost) model integrating the Greenhouse Effect Gas emissions as an externality.

This SEC model suggests a range of technical measures available for retrofitting the existing building

stock and for calculating the pay back return and the profitability, it applied to real buildings whose

energy characteristics have been defined before.

It enables simulations on buildings or building stocks for which a typological analysis has been made

first. The simulation enables to view how far we can go as regarding energy saving and GEG emissions

reduction and for which investment cost.

The SEC model enables also to assess the economic optimum of an energy retrofitting programme.

This optimum is defined as the investment cost corresponding to the lowest possible Life Cycle Energy Costing of the building.

The Life Cycle Energy Cost analysis with the SEC model

For this analysis the following steps were set out:

1. – Identification of representative buildings or case studies

The starting point of this national building stock analysis is the selection of representative case studies

(as regarding the social housing buildings’ typology).

Based on the analysis of the 32 French case studies (corresponding to 170 buildings and 5 400

dwellings)16 already done for the Factor 4 project, we have set up a simplified typology of the national

social housing building stock according to:

15 Cf. deliverable 4 16

Cf. deliverable 9 in French or the synthesis in the deliverable 7 in English. These cases studies have been selected

by social owners themselves as best practices to day in France


32


- the building’s type (individual housing or collective building),

- the energy source for heating (individual or collective gas boilers, domestic fuel, district heating,

electricity, others),

- the climatic area (H1, H2 or H3),

- the construction date (before 1975, between 1975 and 1989, after 1990)

- and the existence or absence of previous retrofitting.

A statistical data analysis of this typology results shows that:

- 61 % of the social housing building stock have been built before 1975;

- 59 % of this building stock built before 1975 (that is to day 36 % of the whole stock) should have

never been yet energy retrofitted (source USH, HTC), which represents 1.4 million dwellings17;

- 800 000 dwellings built between 1975 and 1989 have never been retrofitted;

- the dwellings located in the H1 climatic area represent 70 % of the national stock, split up into

50 % never retrofitted and 20 % already retrofitted;

- 56 % of the dwellings are heated with gas, 13 % with electricity, 11 % through the district

heating, 10 % with domestic fuel and 10 % with another heating system: these numbers show the

central part of gas as regarding energy sources;

- this distribution by energy source depends greatly on the building’s construction date :

o gas is common in construction built after 1990 ; its wide use in buildings dating of

before 1975 stems from the massive substitutions from domestic fuel to gas;

o fuel and district heating are characteristics of buildings built before 1975;

o electricity characterises the social housings built between 1975 and 1989.

With these statistical data, we have defined representative building types or case studies giving an image

of the whole national stock. For each building type, we have looked for the optimal investment in

terms of Life Cycle Energy Costing.

This definition of representative case studies and of their energy consumption reference is based on our

32 real cases studies as well as on data provided by Factor 4 partners (mainly by HTC) or associated

partners (La Maison Girondine and CMH) who have given the energy consumption data of their whole

building stock with a collective heating system.

2. – Identification of the building stock to retrofit in priority and development of an optimised

retrofitting scenario

As for the typology worked out for the Factor 4 project, the buildings which should still be in use in 2050

have to be retrofitted in priority. And we must not take into account the buildings built since 1990.

- Dwellings to retrofit in priority

It would be difficult to retrofit (as regarding energy) in a short term the whole building stock. In a

prospect of time stretching to 2015, we can estimate that it is possible to retrofit between 100 to 150 000

dwellings by year.

Finally, in the existing building stock, the greatest energy-consuming stock or the most interesting stock

in terms of Life Cycle Energy Costing and GEG emissions reduction can be selected and we have chosen

the last selection way.

To sum up, there are next to 1 million of dwellings which should be energy retrofitted during the next 5

to 10 years, that is to say an average of 150 000 dwellings by year.

17

It’s for this building stock that “USH” has worked out a scenario of thermal improvement and GEG emissions

reduction by selecting a scenario for 500 000 of these dwellings.


33


- Assessment of energy performances of the building stock to retrofit in priority The energy analysis of these priority buildings gives the following results after retrofitting works:

Assessment of the energy performances of the social housing building stock to retrofit in priority (results after retrofitting works)

Buildings. Heating

system.

Clim

Area

Number

of

dwellings

Final

consump.

kWh/m²

Primary

Energy

kWhp/m

²

Energy

labelling18

CO2

emission

in kg/m²

CO2

labelling

Household

expenses

in €/m² -

year

Invest

€/dwelling

CB <

1975

Collective

gas H1 256 000 70 78 B 16,5 C 5,5 9 436

CB <

1975

Collective

gas H2 94 000 59 66 B 14 C 5 9508

CB <

1975

Collective

fuel H1 221 000 55 62 B 13 C 5,7 13786

CB <

1975

Individual

gas H1 95 000 73 82 B 17 C 6 9853

CB <

1975

Individual

gas H2 35 000 66 74 B 16 C 5,7 9253

CB <

1975

District

Heating H1 147 000 76 103 C 23 D 6,9 8628

CB <

1975 Electricity H1 39 000 51 132 C 5,2 A 9,3 5788

IH < 1989 Electricity H1 61 000 71 224 D 11,5 B 11,5 14605

CB: Collective Building, IH: Individual Housing

The energy optimisation of these 948 000 dwellings in terms of Life Cycle Costing gives the following

results:

Results of the retrofitting programme’s optimisation of the social housing building stock to be retrofitted in priority before 2015

Building stock in 2050

without any energy

retrofitting

Energy retrofitted

building stock

Benefits

after works

Benefits

in %

Building stock to be

concerned 948 000

Investment cost in thousand

million of € 0 10,0

Heating and sanitary hot water

in GWh / year 13 355 4 056 9 299 70 %

Primary energy in GWh/year 16 044 5 466 10 578 66 %

CO2 emissions in thousands of

tons / year 3 415 966 2 449 72 %

CO2 FACTOR 1 3,5

Electricity consumption in

GWh / year 1 846 1 093 753 41 %

Household savings in millions

€/year (apart from rents increase) 1 011 389 622 61 %


18

Building energy performance labelling


34


4. – Scenarii for various building cases types

The deliverable 10 in French gives more details upon the simulations done but in this English synthesis

we focus on the results.

5. Comparison of this optimisation with the SEC model with other scenarii so as to underline the

benefits of a Life Cycle Costing approach

We can compare these results with the results of other simulations or scenarii for 1 million of dwellings

built before 1975 and not yet retrofitted in coherency with the 32 cases studies given by the French social

owners and with a limitation of the investments under 6 400 € / dwelling.

Comparison between the scenario optimised thanks to a Life Cycle Energy Costing (SEC model) and the reference scenario (usual best practices)

(1)

Reference scenario in the same way as

those from the

French cases studies

(2) Optimised scenario with the SEC model

for the whole building stock

(using building cases)

(3) Optimised scenario with the SEC model

for the selected building stock (with

the higher energy

consumption)

Number of dwellings 1 000 000 1 000 000 948 000

Investment in thousand million

of euro 6,40 7,20 10,0

Investment by dwelling 6 400 € 7 850 € 10 500 €

Energy saving in GWh (heating

and sanitary hot water) 7 000 7 720 9 300

Energy saving in kWh/m² - year 106 118 150

Avoided GEG emissions in tons

of CO2 by year 1 300 000 1 534 000 2 449 000

Usual pay back return

(without energy prices increase) 19 years 21 years

CO2 FACTOR 1,9 2,1 3,5

Comments

In the columns 1 and 2, we manage as French social owners (in coherency with the 32 cases studies

selected).

In the column 3 we select the dwellings able to reach a factor 4 over 2,5 in the optimisation done with the

SEC model.

The investment cost is greater in the simulation minimising the Life Cycle Energy Costing (column 3):

10 500 € by dwelling versus 6 400 € for the reference scenario and 7 850 € for the whole building stock

scenario.

However, the result of the optimised scenario with the SEC model is proportionally better, which could

be explained by the fact that there is usually an average assessment in the reference scenario whereas the

Life Cycle Energy Costing or Factor 4 simulation (with the SEC model) is working on successive

iterations so as to select the best economically scenario.

For Greenhouse Effect Gas emissions: for an investment 56 % higher, the CO2 saving are almost 2 times

greater (the CO2 factor being on average of 3.5 with the Factor 4 simulation versus 1.9 in the reference

scenario). The CO2emissions average of this retrofitted stock would be up to 16 kg CO2 by m² of living

surface (B labelling) versus 55 as an average before retrofitting works (F labelling) ; the reference


35


scenario keeps these CO2 emissions near 30 kg CO2 / m² (D labelling), which is not good enough for an

efficient “fight against GEG emissions” strategy.

For energy consumption: in the reference scenario, the heating and sanitary hot water savings are

estimated up to 100 kWh/m2 versus 150 kWh/m² in the Factor 4 simulation with an evolution from an

average of 230 kWh/m² (“D” Labelling) to 80 kWh/m² (“B” Labelling).

This very important multiplying effect is particularly linked to the hypothesis selected in the Life Cycle

Energy Costing analysis. We have indeed favoured techniques heavy to implement but with important

energy consequences, such as the quasi-systematisation of external wall insulation.

So, even if the Factor 4 scenario investment costs have to be increased in certain cases (city centre,

region around Paris, coating’s quality), we could estimate that altogether an investment of 10 000 to

12000 € by dwelling could bring the buildings next to the “B” energy labelling (with a primary energy consumption under or equal to 90 kWh) whereas an investment in the range of 6 000 € leaves the buildings between the “C” and the “D” labelling (with 150 kWh/m² for primary energy consumption).

A life cycle cost analysis such as the analysis done with the SEC model enables to evaluate the optimised investment and so to set up an incitative (efficient) policy as regarding the types of

retrofitting works or equipments for which subsidies would be necessary and is also an important

decision aid tool.

It enables too to identify the economic sectors we have to support in order to make the local enterprises

able to answer the needs as regarding products or equipments but also their setting out and their

maintenance.

At least these comparisons shows the interest of a life cycle cost analysis.

II.2. MUST WE ALWAYS TRY TO REACH A FACTOR 4 WHEN

RETROFITTING ?

To answer this question, we have worked out a factor 4 scenario (that is to say a scenario that aims at

reaching a factor 4 reduction of GEG emissions, as we did in the deliverable 7): external wall insulation

has to be more performing, the boiler have to be condensation boilers and the Mechanically Controlled

Ventilation (MCV) has to be with double flow and energy reusing.

Then, we have compared 4 various scenario:

- a scenario to the results from a « business as usual » scenario, an optimised scenario in using the

SEC model (SEC optimum),

- a scenario aiming at reaching the factor 4 (factor 4 Min),

- a scenario going beyond the factor 4 if possible (factor 4 Max) which could be named

“demonstration scenario” and for which we cannot keep the existing heating system and have to

invest in another one.

We have made this comparison with several building types.

We illustrate this work with the table below with the example of a collective building built before 1975,

located in the H1 climatic area and heated with natural gas (collective central heating), and thus

representative of 36 % of the social building stock to be retrofitted (shadowed cases correspond to the

technologies to be used).


36


Comparison of various retrofitting scenarii for a collective building (area H1, built before 1975)

Scenarii

“factor 4”

Scenarii comparison

Initial

situation « business

as usual »

SEC

Optimum Min Max

TECHNIQUES

Heating MCV with hygroregulation type B Double flow MCV with energy reusing (R=75%) Double glasing Uw = 2,5 Double glasing Uw = 1,6 Roof insulation Gound floor insulation above not heated parts Individual meters Condensation boilers Tenants attending External wall insulation (e = 10 cm) External wall insulation (e = 20 cm)

Sanitary Hot Water Installations calorific insulation Instantaneous Sanitary hot water Individual meters Solar water heating

Electricity Common areas lighting Tenant’s behaviour White goods grade A or A+ Audiovisual equipment Low-consumption bulbs

TECHNO-ECONOMIC RESULTS Investment in € / dwelling - 5 494 9 436 11 176 14 956 Final Energy consumption (heating and sanitary hot water) in

kWh/m² 240 128 70 58 46

Primary energy consumption (heating and sanitary hot water)

in kWh /m² 267 142 78 65 51

Energy labelling E C B B A CO2 emissions in kg /m² 56,2 30 16,5 13,6 10,7 CO2 factor - 1,8 3,3 4,0 5,0 CO2 labelling F D C C B Pay back return of investments (in years) - 12 12 13 17

(1) Net present value of investments in € / m2 / year 4.5 7.5 9.2 12.0

(2) Energy saving in € / m2 / year - 4.9 - 8.9 - 9.4 - 9.9

(3) Life cycle energy cost in discount € / m2 / year = (1) + (2) - 0.4 - 1.4 - 0.2 + 2.1

(4) Energy price effect in € / m2 / year - 3.0 - 4.5 - 4.8 - 5.1

Life cycle energy cost (including the price effect)

in € / m2 / year = (3) + (4)

- 3.4 - 5.9 - 5.0 - 3.0

(Source La Calade for Factor 4)

We can see that the necessary investments can increase from 20 to 50 % and reach an amount between

12 and 15 000 € by dwelling.

Profitability is measured with the life cycle energy cost which can be calculated either in running €

either in discount €.


37


In the extent that the SEC model enables to analyse the profitability of operations by integrating the price energy evolution19, we can notice that, without public funding (as public funding modifies the

economic equilibrium), the SEC model optimised scenario or “SEC optimum” is the best scenario in

optimising the pay back return or the profitability and in taking into account uncertainty as regarding the

evolution of energy prices, as the following figure shows it.

Comparison of the Life Cycle Energy Costing (CGE in this graph) of various retrofitting scenarii for a collective building built before 1975 including the energy price effect

(in H1 climatic area and with collective gas central heating)

Invest. / dwel 5500 9400 11 200 15 000 €

CO2 factor 1,8 3,3 4 5 Source La Calade

19

Cf. scheme at the end of this report

Coût Global Energétique du projet de réhabilitation

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

Business as usual Optimum SEC Facteur 4 MIN facteur 4 MAX

Co

ût

glo

ba

l e

n €

/ m

² -

an

CGE

CGE avec effet prix


38


In the following figure, we imagine that it is possible for the social owner to increase the rent with the

value of the present value reached in the “business as usual” scenario whatever are the investments level.

This figure shows the benefit for each type of actor, especially for the social owner and the renter,

without taking into account the energy price increase.

Results for the renter and the social owner (with a constant increase of the rent)

Répartition loyer et charges pour le locataire et le bailleur à hausse de

loyer constante

-8

-4

0

4

8

12

"business as

usual"

optimum SEC facteur 4 "démonstration"

Augmentation de loyer

Baisse de charges

Bénéfice locataire

Coût bailleur

Source Crdd La Calade pour Factor 4

(Legend: in blue the rent increase, in red the charges reduction, in yellow the benefit for the renter and

in sky blue the cost for the social owner)

As the energy prices are supposed to be increasing, important energy retrofitting works should bring high

benefits for renters. So we could imagine that, if the rents cannot increase in France as they do in

Denmark for example, a solidarity cabon fund could pay for the necessary investments and take the

money back when the charges are reduced. Such a fund should help to take care of the risk as regarding

the increase of energy prices which is always uncertain.

So, the optimal retrofitting strategy is thus not to aim at systemically reaching a factor 4, or to look

for the excellence in terms of energy savings and greenhouse effect gas reduction, but to optimise the

retrofitting programmes as the SEC model enables to do it.


39


II.3. CONCLUSION

II.3.1. The economic analysis and more particularly the Life Cycle Cost analysis is necessary for an optimal investment (and a fortiori for an optimal public funding use)

These simulations show that (beyond the calculations’ uncertainties) it is necessary to think more in

economic than in technical terms for setting win – win energy policies (win for the users and win for

the society).

The Life Cycle Cost analysis integrating externalities20

(named in France “enlarged life cycle global

costing”) is well spread out in North European or Anglo-Saxon countries but its development in France

stays limited in spite of the dissatisfaction (for example of the French Agency for Environment and

Energy Management, Ademe)21

with the grant’s calculation, which is based on the “overcost” given by

the grant candidates themselves.

These simulations show also that the aim in retrofitting projects is not to reach absolutely a factor 4, and

that a factor 3 can be sufficient in the present state of techniques and market (the construction of new

buildings balancing the difference22).

This analysis shows conversely that a limited energy retrofitting (a frequent practice in France nowadays)

with a GEG reduction of only 30% for example (e.g. Factor 1.4) doesn’t enable to reach the economic

optimum. Of course this effort towards the optimum is difficult because of the calculation rules for the

level of the rents or because of the financial capacities of the social owners… but, in case of public

financial support, it should be indisputable to manage such analyses in order to allow the best potential

use of public funds.

II.3.2. Technology choice

To reach a factor 4 requires also the development of some technologies, among them some are already on

the market or others not yet. Some professionals have already understood it.

Condensation boilers, heat pumps, solar water boilers, roof insulation techniques, floor insulation

techniques (ground floor under non heated spaces), individual meters, thermal insulation pipes, low

emissive double glazing windows with argon are available on the market and raise no real problems (we

have however to distinguish between great agglomerations and certain French regions where the

techniques are known or used competently by professionals and other regions and cities which don’t

gather companies with enough qualified staff). It’s thus often the cost that constitute a barrier to the

development of these techniques.

Techniques as external wall insulation, double flow mechanically controlled ventilation with energy

recuperation and passive solar heating are not well known except in some demonstration projects.

There is thus a need to put the emphasis on awareness awakening and professionals ‘training to these

techniques used widely in the other parts of Europe.

We can also notice that requirements for thermal insulation or windows performance are not the same in

France than in Germany or in Austria, but that is not a reason for avoiding to develop more performing

techniques and particularly the external wall insulation.

20 Such as greenhouse effect gas emissions 21

« Potentiel de développement de la monétarisation des externalités environnementales », Marine Grémont, Junior

entreprise Paris-Dauphine, May 2007 for the Ademe

A great number of Life Cycle Cost analysis give the same value to an euro spend nowadays than to an euro spent in

20 years, that is to say that a building’s running costs correspond to 80 % of its cost… 22

Cf. « Le coût global partagé d’un projet de construction : le modèle d’aide à la décision CoParCo », La Calade

for « l’AR Habitat du Nord Pas de Calais » and the « DRE Picardie »


40


Finally, these case studies and simulations enable to get some useful indications of prices range in

France:

- a retrofitting reducing from 25 to 30 % energy consumption and CO2 emissions (CO2 factor 1.4)

requires an investment of 5 000 to 6 000 € by dwelling.

- a retrofitting reducing from 60 to 65 % energy consumption and CO2 emissions (CO2 factor 2.7)


- a retrofitting reducing from 75 to 80 % energy consumption and CO2 emissions (CO2 factor 4 to 5)


II.3.3. Household electricity consumption

Social owners never deal with the household electricity consumption, whereas the tenants’ expenses for

electricity are far to be insignificant. Electricity saving actions in residential units and common parts

(which consumption could reach 2 to 12 kWh /m² of the living area) can reduce these expenses by more

than 40%.

Energy efficiency policies in social housings have to take into account this, a fortiori in priority urban

areas, even if it’s not in the social owners province.

II.3.4. The importance of strategies for retrofitting both at a territorial scale and at a building stock level

Finally, this analysis requires more precision in the definition of retrofitting strategies at a territorial scale

(poor neighbourhood project’s or agglomeration’s strategies, or strategies at the county or regional scale)

on the one hand and at the building stock level (social owner’s building stock strategy for example) on

the other hand, particularly through the taking into account of the buildings components lifespan or of the

local particularities.

These strategies are differing according to several parameters difficult to comprehend which could be

discussed prospectively between a Life Cycle Costing approach users.

CHAPTER III. EUROPEAN SYNTHESIS

III.1. DENMARK

There are 514.000 social housing in Denmark and it corresponds to 20% of all houses. 70 % of the social

housing stock is multi-dwelling houses. The constructions of social houses were highest during the

period from 1950 to 1995 with approximately 8.000 new dwellings per year and during the last 10 years

the construction has only been 3500 dwellings per years. The demolition of the existing social housing

stock has been insignificant and therefore there is a need for retrofitting the existing housing stock to

comply the needs for energy efficiency in the future.

The major part of the social housing stock is heated by district heating. The contribution of renewable

energy into the district heating supply system has been increasing during the last 10 years and that means

the CO2 emission is decreasing. To achieve the F4 target of 75 % reduction of CO2 emission 1/4 of the

reduction is obtained by the district heating it self. That means only 55 % reduction in the dwellings is

needed by introducing energy efficiency in the dwellings.

An energy saving of 55 % in the social housing stock can be achieved by extra insulation of the building

envelope, new windows with 3-layer of low energy pane, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery and

improved air tightness of the building envelope and solar energy for domestic hot water and electricity by

using building integrated photovoltaic.

A calculation tool (ASCOT) has been developed to optimise the economical costs of a building

renovation project in relation to sustainable development issues. The calculation shows that in investment


41


of 3.200 million Euros is needed to match the objective of F4. It corresponds to the costs of 1.600.000 m2

new build or 5 % of the whole social housing stock in Denmark.

Energy savings in the social housing sector mentioned above will be possible to carry out if there is an

economic profit for the tenants. An additional investment in energy related initiatives should be financed

by a higher rent, but this is not possible with the current legislation on investments in the social housing

sector. In the legal area the lawful rise of a rent is limited, and often the rise in question is used for other

purposes e.g. glassed balconies or similar initiatives related to the dwellings.

An amendment to an Act is required in order to make it possible to estimate the total housing expenses. If

such an amendment is passes it will be possible to finance an energy project with a rise of rents, and this

rise will be compensated for by lower operating costs. Consequently when an energy project is carried

out the total housing costs will be reduced and with further increase of the international oil prise it will

become more crucial.

III.2. FRANCE

Elements of a strategy are suggested in the French version of the deliverable 10 and a short synthesis is

disseminated by USH.

It is important now to use the LCEC approach in national call for tenders such as PREBAT and some

first tests are ongoing now.

But the major barrier is the focus on energy or on ecological and environmental issues forgetting the

socioeconomic aspects. So the best thing to do is to explain the interest of a LCEC approach…

III.3. GERMANY

1. Statistical considerations

As discussed in del 3, the age-distribution of buildings in Germany – both private-owned and rented –

has a significant peak in the construction period after WW II. Considering the age distribution of VoWo,

though there are differences in other construction periods, the same peak in the period after WW II can

be seen (seen fig. 1 and 2).

Fig. 1: Age distribution of the existing buildings in Germany

Age Structure of Buildings in Germany (2004)

Left: all Buildings; Right: only Buildings with rented Dwellings

0

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

until 1900 1901 -

1918

1919 -

1948

1949 -

1978

1979 -

1986

1987 -

1990

1991 and

later

nu

mb

er

(*1.0

00

)


42


Fig. 2: Age distribution of the 452 buildings of VoWo

This is a significant fact, because these buildings have been built with low energy standard and thus

relatively high energy demand, and their age requires refurbishment and modernization now, if not

already started.

Generalizing, about 22 % of the existing buildings have been built before WW II; 41 % after WW II until

1972 (before the first energy crisis) and 37 % in 1972 and thereafter. (For VoWo’s building stock, the

figures are 31, 57 and 12 %, respectively; the need for a refurbishment program is even larger here and

has in fact already been launched in the 90’s.).

According to the “TECHEM-Report” made yearly to present the results of energy billing, the

consumption of end energy for heating and DHW has decreased since the 70’s by about 40 %. The main

reason for this was

- energy carrier switch (heating oil has been reduced as an energy carrier, gas and district heating has

increased)

- and user behavior: during the 80’s, housing companies have been legally obliged to introduce “heat

meters” ( in most cases evaporation meters) and to bill the energy consumption according to the

measured individual consumption.

The decrease since the middle of the 90’s can essentially be assigned to energy retrofit effects, counting

for half of the total energy saving measured by TECHEM.

Fig. 3: Decrease of energy consumption in rented buildings since 1976

452 Buildings of VoWo: Construction Periods

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

until

1900

1901-

1918

1919-

1948

1949-

1978

1979-

1986

1987-

1990

1991-

1994

1995-

2002

2002

and

later

End energy demand (heating&DHW) in rented dwellings, Germany 1976

- 2004 (TECHEM report) -

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

kW

h/m

2


43


There is also a size effect illustrating that large buildings – due to a better degree of compactness – have

less energy demand than smaller ones, as shown below.

Fig. 4: Size and energy demand

The increase of energy demand of very large buildings in fig. 4 is caused by the fact that buildings with

many dwellings have a larger portion of high-rise buildings with less compactness and increased air

exchange rates.

In German social housing companies, buildings with 1.000 – 2.000 m2 living area dominate, resulting in

relatively low energy consumption in this sector.

Another significant result of the TECHEM figures is the average efficiency of boilers of 75 %,

indicating a major improvement potential for energy supply. The average of DHW demand in the

buildings billed by TECHEM was 15 kWh/m2. Combining these figures, one can conclude that the mean

heating demand in these buildings – representing the sector of rented flats – is currently in the range of

100 - 110 kWh/m2.

The figures mentioned above comprise a mixture of buildings already retrofitted (27 % of the building in

the social housing sector23), partly retrofitted (24 %) and un-retrofitted (49 %). Under the assumption that

multi-family buildings, which are completely refurbished, will have a remaining heating demand of

50 kWh/m2 and partially refurbished buildings 75 kWh/m

2, for the remaining un-retrofitted buildings

there results a heating demand of 150 kWh/m2. These buildings (about half of the building stock of the

housing sector) must be one focus of a “sustainability strategy” for the dwelling sector as whole (the

other focus being the private dwelling buildings with different frame conditions and strategy).

2. Main results of case studies

The results of the Case Studies made for different buildings of VoWo’s buildings stock with sizes

between 700 and 9.000 m2 have shown that with the currently high end energy price (gas about

70 €/MWh due to the increased heating oil price of over 75 €/MWh) a micro-economic optimum of

building retrofit, using a life-cycle calculation, is a building with a heating demand which is in the range

of 45 kWh per m2 living area. The combinations leading to this cost optimum are different from building

to building, but there are some generalizable results from the Case Studies:

- insulation (λ = 0,035 W/m.K) of walls, attic ceiling (or flat roof) and basement ceiling should be in

the range s of 8 – 13 cm , 15 -20 cm and 8 – 11 cm, respectively

- since the cost-minimum of insulation is generally flat, the higher values of insulation thickness

should be preferred, if technically possible

23

GdW, Stellungnahme zur Klimaschutzpolitik an die Bundesregierung (Berlin, 2007)

Mean end energy consumption in renetd buildings

(heating& DHW) by buildings size (TECHEM 2007)

0

50

100

150

200

250

< 200

m2

< 300

m2

< 400

m2

< 500

m2

< 700

m2

< 1000

m2

< 1500

m2

< 2000

m2

< 3000

m2

> 3000

m2

kW

h/m

3


44


- cold bridges should be removed, whenever technically possible

- hygro-controlled mechanical ventilation with high-efficiency electric motors is necessary in

combination with tight building

- because of the latter point, new windows with improved U-value (1,1 W/m2.K) should be installed;

these may be not part of the combination of measures with least-cost, but due to the tightness

requirement new tight windows (and doors) are in general necessary

- condensating boilers should be preferred to conventional boilers

- so-called “passive house windows” with U-value below 0,8 W/m2.K are at present in general too

expensive

- mechanical ventilation with two channels using heat recovery from the output air allows for

additional energy savings, but is in general also too expensive.

The feasible measures mentioned above lead to total refurbishment costs in a range of 150 – 210 €/m2 or,

with a mean size of about 70 m2, investment costs of 10.000 – 15.000 € per dwelling.

With an additional demand of 20 kWh/m2 for domestic hot water (DHW), the end energy for heating and

DHW, including electricity demand for pumps, heating central, ventilation ca. 5 kWhel/m2) ends up with

about 80 kWh/m2. Compared to the average end energy consumption before retrofit of about 230

kWh/m2, this corresponds to an improvement factor of almost 3 compared with a “factor 4”, which is the

target of this project. Using cogeneration or renewable energy for the supply of heating energy instead of

boilers, this value of 80 kWh/m2 can further be reduced to about 45 kWh/m2 (cogeneration) to below 25

kWh/m2 wood pellets, for instance). Both of these measures are often economically feasible today in

Germany. Including these alternatives, a factor 5 to 10 for the supply of heating and DHW is possible

and economically feasible.

The electricity demand in social buildings is, according to VoWo’s experiences, in the range of 35 – 50

kWhel/m2. Using a mean efficiency for electricity generation of 0,37, this corresponds to a primary

energy consumption for household electricity of 95 – 135 kWh/m2, which can be reduced using best

available appliances, including also energy- conscious user behavior, by a factor of 2.

Using “passive-house-components” to further reduce heating energy demand and solar energy to reduce

DHW end energy demand would be a technical option for further improvements, but both measures are

at present too expensive for multi-family buildings in the social housing sector. Only in the long-term,

provided further cost reductions for these technologies and increase of energy prices beyond 100

€/MWh, this may become an option.

Considering both heating / DHW and household electricity, assuming a 50 % electricity reduction, an

overall primary energy reduction factor of 2,5 s possible, which is increased to 3,5 and even 4,3 using

either cogeneration (primary energy factor of 0,5) or wood-pellets as energy source for heating/DHW. At

current price and cost structures, using a life-cycle consideration these improvements are economically

feasible. The question is if these measures can be realized by investors and households in practice and

how would a generalizable strategy look like, which would enable an energy supply transition of this

extent for the social housing sector as a whole.

3. Sustainability strategy for social housing energy retrofitting

The fundamental conclusion of the considerations on the economics of building retrofit in the existing

building stock of the social housing sector made in the factor 4 – project is that this “factor 4” is

achievable for individual existing buildings in all participating countries, assuming that

- an economically optimized combination of refurbishment measures is achieved(leading to a heating

demand below 50 kWh/m2 at German climate and causing cretriofit cost of about 70 €/m2 or 12.000 €

per flat),

- the remaining end energy demand for heating and DHW is covered either by “low exergy”

technologies such as combined heat and power or heat pumps or by renewable energies such as

biomass

- the household electricity demand can be reduced by a factor of 2 from the average household

electricity demand of some 3.000 kWhel/a to 1.500 kWhel/a (which is technically and economically


45


feasible, but requires major changes in user behavior, achieved by increased energy consciousness of

the users through rising energy prices and intelligent communication by utilities and housing

providers).

For a typical multi-family building of Volkswohnung, constructed in the period of 1955 – 1965, with

average flat size of 70 m2 living area, the following characteristic figures may hold:

before measures

after refurbishment

heating energy demand kWh/m2 140 45

DHW consumption kWh/m2 25 15

165 60

primary energy (PE) 236 30

electricity consumption kWhel/m2 43 21,5

primary energy for electricity

116 58,1

total PE 352 88,1

CO2-emission kg CO2/m2 85 18,9

For the calculation of primary energy demand and CO2-emission caused by electricity consumption a

performance of ηel = 37 % and a CO2-emission factor of 0,60 kg CO2/kWhel have been assumed (both

figures may vary if another country with different power plant structure is considered). It has further

been assumed that before retrofit the heating supply is covered by an existing gas heating plant

(performance 0,70 kWhth/kWhPE) and after retrofit it is switched to cogeneration district heating with

an energy performance characterized by 2 kWhth/kWhPE, which would be a normal decision in

Karlsruhe and many other German cities (in other situations, a change to biomass as an energy carrier

could be possible).

It has also been assumed that due to a successful tenants motivation program the DHW consumption can

be reduced by 20 % and the household electricity consumption by 50 %.

The results shown in the table above and in the following chart show that a factor 4 is possible as a result

of joint efforts of housing provider and tenants, considering one existing building.

Fig. 5: Specific Primary Energy Consumption (PE) and CO2-emission before and after Building Refurbishment

Improvements in PE Consumption and GHG Emissions

achieved by integrated building refurbishment including

household electricity

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

PE before measures after measures

kW

hP

E/m

2;

kg

CO

2/m

2

kWhPE/m2 kg CO2/m2


46


The question remains, how this result can be achieved not only for several individual buildings, but for

the existing building stock of a social housing provider as a whole. This requires the development of a

long-term strategy of the building stock, which has to include more than economic optimization alone.

Considerations that are focused on one individual existing rental building evaluate economic efficiency,

energy performance and GHG reduction, thus including economic and ecologic aspects of sustainability,

and in parts also social aspects, because economic optimization of energy supply – at energy prices of

today - is an important factor to be able to provide affordable social housing. Another social dimension

is the supply of housing structures that meet the requirements of tenants as close as possible. These

requirements, however, are at present undergoing dynamic changes, as aging, migration, local job offers,

new family structures will strongly influence the future housing needs and must be considered

thoroughly when a long-term investment strategy of the housing company is developed.

A decision to refurbish one existing building, which after refurbishment will have a lifetime of (at least)

another 40 years, requires a sufficient security for the investor that at the specific location of this building

there will be an equally long-term demand by tenants. If this security is not there, a life cycle analysis as

a basis of investment decisions is not justified. The real question for the housing company in this

situation is, how the risk of an eventual investment in this specific building can be estimated, or, more

generally, be actively influenced by the housing provider. At this point, urban policy and the role of the

housing provider as a main influencing actor on the neighborhood level are coming into the game.

Developing a long-term sustainability strategy for its individual buildings requires from the housing

company to consider the social development and the resulting needs of people living in the

neighborhoods of its buildings rather than of the tenants of one single building alone. Based on this

information, the housing company must play a key role in developing the neighborhood quality (in terms

of supply infrastructure, medical infrastructure, educational supply, traffic and transportation, leisure

quality, social structures) on a long-term basis in cooperation with urban policy and with other actors that

are of local importance.

A really sustainable approach requires such an increased perspective, and this is also a prerequisite of a

long-term investment strategy for the individual buildings of a housing company since it provides the

necessary security for very large and long-lasting investment decisions (or, on the contrary, for decisions

not to invest).

Concluding, the following steps for the development of a long-term sustainability (and “factor 4”)

strategy are necessary (and are at present under development by Volkswohnung for its buildings stock):

(1) develop individual refurbishment profiles for the various building types (using the models and

results presented by the “factor 4 project”, for example), including local energy supply perspectives

(such as district heating or other developments)

(2) develop a long-term portfolio strategy for the whole building stock including aspects of

neighborhood quality and future social changes

(3) establish a priority list of refurbishments

(4) develop a financing strategy and an implementation plan, including available support programs

(energy, environmental or urban development programs)

(5) evaluate all measures and projects carried out and provide feed-back and communication for the

tenants and other actors on the urban scale

(6) adjust the strategy continuously according to the evaluation results.

As mentioned, a long-term portfolio strategy is under development by Volkswohnung at present, based

on neighborhood analysis and planning, using the existing experiences on building refurbishment

collected over the last decade. In a first estimate, the perspective until 2020 in terms of energy

conservation for the whole building stock could be as shown in fig. 6. As a result of the ongoing portfolio

analysis of Volkswohnung, this result will be refined in much more detail and then be the basis of a mid-

term investment plan that is under development.


47


Fig. 6: First estimate of end energy demand development of Volkswohnung’s building stock until 2020, based on the retrofit program of the last 10 years (detailed strategy is under development at present)

III.4. ITALY

In Italy 80% of the population are living in own property house, while only 20% of population live in a

rented house. Of the 4,5 million rented houses, only 925.000 belongs to Social Housing.

It has been estimated that the average cost for energy in a household is 1.344 €/year (2004), of which

70% is for heating, 15% for electricity, 10% for domestic hot water and 5% for cooking. An increment

rate of 200 €/year per household due to the increasing energy prices has been estimated for 2007 and

2008.

Due to the Factor 4 work (shown in deliverables 7 and 9) it has been concluded that, in order to set win

to win policies, it is necessary to think more to economical than to technical aspects. The availability of

financial incentives and the costs of realization, together with the economical value of energy savings,

define the optimum retrofitting level in terms of LCCA.

In Deliverable 11, major barriers to energy retrofitting have been researched. Economical barriers play a

major role between the other ones.

A national strategy to improve the energy efficiency of existing building stock must necessary take into

consideration which solutions can bring to a reduction of the investment costs, and how these solutions

can be made available for the majority of building stock owners. The different households' associations

must elaborate strategies to promote energy retrofitting in accordance with the peculiarities of the sectors

they do represent. In Part II of this deliverable has been researched which are the available financial

incentives for energy retrofitting and how they can be exploited in Social Housing sector. At present,

approximately 30% of ANCAB rental stock has been renovated, and renewable energies have been

introduced in about 10% of new dwellings. An estimated 200.000 ANCAB dwellings are in need of

renovation. To meet this goal, a total investment of approximately 5.000.000.000 € is required, which

utilizing the available incentive schemes would be of 2.300.000.000 €. This would allow a reduction of

CO2 emissions to 40 kg/m2.year and would have a strong impact on residents' expenditures, reducing

energy bill of an estimated overall 160.000.000 €/year.

III.5. ROMANIA

The total number of the existing dwellings at the end of 2005 was 8 201 508 units, out of which around

54% are situated in urban area.

The great majority of the existing dwellings is represented by the private ownership (over 97%) and this

rate will remain at the high level in the near future in spite of the increasing tendency of the state

ownership

Estimate of endenergy demand 1980 - 2020, building stock of

Volksw ohnung

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

1980 2005 2020

MW

hP

E/a

decentral gas-boilers central gas-plant district heatingcentral oil-plant coal stoves biomass


48


More than 50% of the existing residential buildings are over 40 years age (see the chart below), being

obsolete, with a poor thermal insulation and a low comfort degree. Under these circumstances it is

estimated a number of 2.5 millions of dwellings (almost 1/3 out of the total number) which need

interventions in order to improve their energetic performance.

The social dwellings sector represents less than 2,4% from the total dwelling stock comprising some old

buildings with rental dwellings and some new dwellings built by the auspices of the National Agency of

Dwellings (NAD) since 1997. These new dwellings were designed according to some high standards

with respect to the energetic performances and comfort level. Most of them are destinated to the young

people; they are not high (maximum P+3E +M) being usually of 1-2 rooms. The structure of this

category in 2005 is described in the table below

The completed social dwellings and the land are the public ownership of the local authorities who are responsible for their administration (the category of “social owners” like USH in France, or KAB

in Denmark, does not exist in Romania). Besides, the statistical reports are decentralized, so it’s

difficult to have a complete and detailed picture of the social housing sector in Romania.

The residential sector represents around 40% of the total energy consumption while the energy losses

rich 30-40%. The energy used in the dwellings sector for the heating and for the warm water represents

over 75% (see the chart below) but its efficiency is only 43% at the national level (63% in Bucharest).

The improving of the energetic performance of the buildings in Romania was a pre-accession condition

and the specific EU regulations in the field were transposed in the national framework such as 91/2002/

EC Directive on the energetic performance of the buildings which is the core of the Law 372/2005

focused on the same aspect.

The Action Plan on Energetic Efficiency adopted by Romanian authorities following the Directive

32/2006/EC stipulates that the program of thermal rehabilitation of the multi-stories buildings will

provide a diminishing of the energy consumption of 25% as against the present level, representing

around 36,000 MWh/year for the period 2008-2010 (about 3,000 tones oil equivalent).

In this context the necessity of a specific strategy at the national and local levels is obvious. Some

European models regarding the estimation of the energy and financial efforts need, like SEC, ASCOT,

BREA which facilitate the elaboration of these documents could become the current instruments of the

Romanian decisions makers.

At least, as we could see with the Romanian best practice analyses with the French model SEC as well as

with Romanian experts, theoretical analyses are still far of reality because of the lack of know how and

quality control in the Romanian building sector on the one hand and the need of tenants awareness on the

other hand. So training is the most important thing to manage in Romania for reaching quality and then

the factor 4… and LCC (including LCEC) analysis is part of this needed training.

III.6. OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

In all the European countries and for each public financial support a LCC analysis showing the interest

for each category of actors should be done in order to be sure that there is an interest either for the

society either for social reasons…

So European agencies such as the EACI, European companies or associations such as Cecodhas should

promote and use the LCC analysis.

The Factor 4 partners don’t sell their Factor 4 models because they want to promote the LCC analysis for

the benefit of the whole society and because they are engaged in and towards urban sustainability. But

we still need an interface in order to avoid errors in adding the data in the models for any simulation and

various Clubs of users will be set up in our countries in order to capitalise the results of the LCEC

analysis.

Let us see if this way of working towards sustainability can be implemented or if energy agencies and

research centres will go on in promoting only energy issues…


49


PART 2

NATIONAL FINANCING SCHEMES AND INCENTIVES

FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY RETROFITTING PROGRAMMES

TOWARDS A FACTOR 4

OR FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY STRATEGIES

FOR SOCIAL HOUSING


50


NATIONAL FINANCING SCHEMES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR

SOCIAL OWNERS ILLUSTRATED BY EXAMPLES IN ITALY

As it has been underlined by previous deliverables, costs of investment represent a major barrier to

energy retrofitting of existing buildings towards a factor 4 of greenhouse gas emissions.24

In Italy, in the last ten years have been developed a number of incentive schemes to provide economical

support for those subjects interested in energy retrofitting of existing buildings. After a first phase, some

of those programs are now mature and can be successfully exploited. Technical norms concerning

building energy requirements, energy certification, installation and connection to the grid of renewable

energy plants, are quickly developing prompted also by UE Directives, offering now better and clearer

opportunities for those who put into practice energy efficiency measures.

Chapter I describes the national energy efficiency incentive schemes as a relevant resource for a national

strategy towards a Factor 4 CO2 emission target, pointing out critical aspects and opportunities for Social

Housing providers. Chapter II evaluates the effectiveness of available incentive schemes, with an

application to a study case.

I. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING NATIONAL FINANCING SCHEMES

1.1. THE WHITE CERTIFICATE SYSTEM

1.1.1. Description of the scheme

Overview

The White Certificates System has been introduced in Italy in 2001, but the scheme became operative

after the publication of Ministry Decrees 20 April 2004. The main purpose of the scheme is to contribute

achiving the targets imposed by the Kyoto Protocol for Italy, through the improvement of final uses

energy efficiency.

For each year between 2005 and 2009 have been fixed targets of reduction of electricity and natural gas

consumption, coming from the improvement of energy efficiency in the final uses (thermal insulation,

use of more efficient devices, use of renewable energies sources etc.). These targets are expressed in

equivalent ton of oil (toe), in Italian “tep” Tonnellata Equivalente di Petrolio; the following table reports

the original reduction targets:

Table I: Energy saving targets stated in MD 20 April 2004.

Year Electricity [toe] Natural Gas [toe]

2005 100 100

2006 200 200

2007 400 400

2008 800 700

2009 1600 1300

24

See also the deliverable 11 on barriers


51


The Ministry Decree 21 December 2007 has increased the targets for 2008 and 2009, and fixed targets

for 2010, 2011 and 2012:

Table II: Energy saving targets as increased by MD 21 December 2007.

Year Electricity [toe] Natural Gas [toe]

2005 100 100

2006 200 200

2007 400 400

2008 1200 1000

2009 1800 1400

2010 2400 1900

2011 3100 2200

2012 3500 2500

MD 20 April 2004 imposed that the subjects which must achieve the above targets are the companies

providers of electricity and natural gas, having a minimal size of 100.000 clients at 31 December 2001.

The MD 21 December 2007 has extended the system at all the company having a minimum of 50.000

clients at 31 December of 2 years before the targeted year (for 2008 target, at the 31 December 2006).

Those companies are called “soggetti obbligati”, obliged subjects. The quota of energy reduction for both

electricity and natural gas companies, is proportional to the share of electricity (or natural gas) distributed

by each company. The companies can reach the result carrying out directly energy efficiency projects, or

through projects conducted by ESCO companies (Energy Service Companies). The output of a project in

terms of achieved energy savings is measured in TEE, “Titoli di Efficienza Energetica”, or Energy

Efficiency Certificates, or White Certificates.

In order to control the system, it is vital to quantify correctly the value in terms of TEE of each project,

and the MD 20 April 2004 have conferred this responsibility to the Italian Authority for Electricity and

Gas (AEEG - http://www.autorita.energia.it/inglese/index.htm). There are 3 types of project which

can be submitted to the AEEG for TEE authentication: standard projects, analytic projects, survey

projects. In absolute the more common typology is the standard project one, at 31 May 2007 80% of

project accepted belong to this category, which will be described in detail in the next chapter; for those

the AEEG has produced simplified evaluation methods (“schede di valutazione”) which allows to have a

fast, objective and almost inexpensive TEE-authentication procedure. Other typology won't be discussed

in this paper because they are less suitable for projects of energy retrofitting of existing buildings.

As has been mentioned above, the measurement unit is the TEE, which correspond to 1 toe of saved

primary energy. There are 3 types of TEE, depending on the type of energy vector which has been saved:

Type I – Electricity;

Type II – Natural Gas;

Type III – Other fossil fuels.

Once the energy efficiency project realized has been authenticated in terms of TEE by AEEG, the

Gestore del Mercato Elettrico (GME – www.mercatoelettrico.org ) confers an equal quantity of TEE to

the responsible of the project. GME is the institution which organize and manage electricity transactions

in Italy, and also the transaction of TEE (TEE Market), Green certificates and Emissions Allowances.

Distribution companies which must get a certain number of TEE per year, in order to achieve their

energy consumption reduction share, can purchase it through the TEE market, acquiring TEE from those

subjects which have been entitled of TEE because of their energy efficiency projects. The trade of TEE

is based on a auction system which take place on a weekly base, every Tuesday between 9:00 and 12:00

Italian time. The participation is possible only via web, registering at the address


52


http://www.mercatoelettrico.org/En/Mercati/AccessoTEE.aspx ; during the trade sections, is

possible to access the web market also as a guest, just following the given instructions.

The TEE exchanged will be paid back in ten semester rates. The value of TEE depends on type (I, II or

III) and on the ratio request-offer. The fluctuation of TEE value can vary significantly and is strongly

influenced my modification of the regulation system. For example, on the transaction section of 8 April

2008 the reference values for TEE was as follow:

TEE type I – 69,31 €

TEE type II – 74,50 €

TEE type III – 20,75 €

Picture I: Screen shot of the market section web page

Picture I: Screen shot of the market section web page at https://www.mercatotee.it/Mercato.aspx

Standard projects

The rational energy use projects which can be evaluated through a simplified evaluation procedure are

the one reported in the table below. This table takes includes the modification introduced by the

Authority of Energy with Deliberation EEN04/2008 (31 March 2008). For each project type is specified

if it can be implemented in new constructions, and if is combinable to Finance Low 2007 incentives.


53


Table III: The identification codes are the same adopted by AEEG for standard projects.

Missing typology don't apply to residential buildings

ID Description New

building

s?

Combinable with

55% tax

reduction?

1bi

s

Substitution of incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs Yes No

2 Substitution of electrical water heater with natural gas water heater with

close chamber and piezoelectric start

No No

3 Installation of natural gas boiler with at least 4 star efficiency No Yes

4 Substitution of natural gas, open chamber water heater with natural gas

water heater with close chamber and piezoelectric start

No No

5 Substitution of single glazed windows with double glazed No Yes

6 Thermal insulation of walls and roofs No Yes

7 Installation of photovoltaic systems with nominal power up tu 20 kW Yes No

8 Installation of solar thermal collectors for hot water production Yes Yes

13a

-bis

Installation of water saving kits, consisting of air mixing tap emitters and

low flux appliance for shower

Yes No

15 Installation of electrical heat pumps (external air) for ambient heating Yes Yes

19 Installation of air conditioning (external air) with cooling max. load up to

12 kW

Yes Yes

20 Thermal insulation of walls and roofs for preventing overheating No Yes

.

Each project can be evaluated with a simplified procedure. Each procedure identifies:

-Physical reference unit UFR, for example the number of compact fluorescent bulbs installed

-The Gross Specific Saving of energy RSL, expressed in tep/year/UFR

-Correction factor “a” and “b”, when applicable

-The Useful Life Time of the project, TVU, expressed in years, generally equal to 5, 8 in case of

thermal insulation projects

-Type of TEE (I, II or III).

The Net Saving RN is equal to RSL x a x b x TVU and is expressed in tep. RSL can be different

depending on geographical location and other parameters, so also the RN. An extra value of 5% is added

when the projects are accompanied with an information campaign of the final user. The following table

reports the economical values for the standard projects, evaluated with reference to TEE as exchanged on

8 April 2008 market section, considering also the extra value of +5% for projects accompanied with an

information campaign. The value, expressed in € per unit, has been calculated for 3 representative Italian

location.


54


Table IV: Unitary value of standard projects in 3 different Italian location.

Project Unit Milan Roma Palermo

1-bis Substitution of incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent

(example: E27, P<=15W, f>=874 lumen)

[€/piece]

0,90 0,90 0,90

2 Substitution of electrical water heater with natural gas water

heater with close chamber and piezoelectric start

[€/piece]

38,93 38,93 38,93

3 Installation of natural gas boiler with at least 4 star efficiency for

single flats or houses (example: for space heating and domestic hot

water)

[€/piece]

32,46 23,47 14,47

4 Substitution of natural gas, open chamber water heater with

natural gas water heater with close chamber and piezoelectric start

[€/piece]

24,64 24,64 24,64

5 Substitution of single glazed windows with double glazed [€/m2] 9,39 5,63 1,25

6 Thermal insulation of walls and roofs (example: transmittance of

the wall before insulation U 1,3 – 1,6 W/m2.K)

[€/m2]

3,00 1,75 0,44

7 Installation of photovoltaic systems with nominal power up tu 20

kW

[€/kWp]

102,63 125,44 148,26

8 Installation of solar thermal collectors for hot water production

(example: flat collectors, hot water electrical heater before

installation)

[€/m2]

44,39 65,86 89,88

13a-bis Installation of water saving kits, consisting of 3 air mixing

tap emitters and flux reductor for shower

[€/piece]

1,90 1,90 1,90

15 Installation of electrical heat pumps (external air) for ambient

heating (example: building S/V >= 0,9 and heat pump COP = 4)

[€/appartme

nt]

-

84,48 34,42

19 Installation of air conditioning (external air) with cooling max.

power 12 kW

[€/kWf]

0,75 1,16 1,6

20 Thermal insulation of walls and roofs for preventing

overheating (example: transmittance of the wall before insulation

U 1,3 – 1,6 W/m2.K)

[€/m2]

0,35 0,35 0,35

To be aloud to present a rational energy use standard type project for authentication to AEEG, the project

must correspond to a minimum value of at least 25 toe per year. This minimal value can be reached by

adding the energy reduction from different standard projects in the same building (for example, installing

an energy efficiency boiler, insulating walls and roof, installing solar panels for domestic hot water), or

adding the energy reduction reached with the same measure in different buildings (for example, installing

solar panels for domestic hot water).

1.1.2. Opportunities for the SH providers

This inactivation scheme is certainly suitable for exploitation by the SH providers which are interested

in increasing the performance of their buildings, or the buildings which have been sold but are still

directly administrated by SH providers. Projects related to the energy retrofitting of existing buildings are

a central objective of the the incentive scheme, specially after the reinforcement of it with the MD 21

December 2007 which has fixed higher target for 2008 and 2009 and has fixed targets up to 2012. The

MD has also imposed a significant reduction of the value of the standard projects related to the

installation of fluorescent light bulbs and water low-flow appliances, which in the period 1 June 2006 –

31 May 2007 accounted all together for 55% of total energy savings projects certified; in this way, more

space is available for projects regarding retrofitting of existing buildings.

For the single SH provider is difficult to participate to the scheme, because of the relatively low value

of the incentives (generally lower then 10% of the investment costs), but also because of the length of

TEE authentication procedure and sell of the TEE on the market. The minimum size of the projects


55


requires would easily put off most of the SH providers from access the incentive scheme. To exploit this

incentive scheme successfully, it could be useful a Centralized Service with the following assignment:

inform the providers about the most profitable projects, encourage and facilitate the providers to take

action, collect the essential information of the projects realized by the providers and transform them into

incentives through the TEE authentication and exchemnge on the market (this operation must be done

through an Energy Service Company). Most of the standard projects are compatible with other kind of

incentives, for example the Financing Low 2007 incentive scheme described in the following section, so

when promoting the energy retrofitting of buildings the centralized service can help the cooperative

getting also those incentives, while most of the incomes from the White Certificate System could be used

to finance the centralized service.

1.2.THE FINANCING LOW 2007

1.2.1. Description of the scheme

The Financing Low 1998 (Low 449 27 December 1997) introduced for the first time in Italy the

possibility to get a tax refund for the retrofitting of buildings. This norm has been proposed for several

years, introducing tax refund also for increasing the energy performance of the buildings. For this kind of

works, the owner of the building pay a reduced VAT (10% instead of 20%) and a tax refund of 36- 41%

of costs can be obtained (numbers have changed through the years). This incentive scheme is intended

only for individual subjects, and hence is not suitable for SH providers. At the base of the norm there was

also the intent of reducing the works which are not regularly declared to the tax offices, a practice which

in Italy is still diffuse, specially in construction and retrofitting sectors.

In 2006, the Financing Low 2007 (Low 296 27 December 2006) introduced a number of measures to

support financially the energy retrofitting of existing buildings completed in 2007. The Financing Low

2008 (Low 244 24 December 2007), extended the validity of the norms to the works done within 31

December 2010, and reinforced the system introducing new energy efficiency measures and simplifying

the procedures.

In brief, the system allows for a deduction from taxes of 55% of costs for energy retrofitting works,

including technical costs. The amount of money will be deduct from taxes in a period of 3-10 years,

depending on the wish of the subject entitled of the deduction. For each energy retrofitting measure has

been indicated a maximum amount of money which can be claimed per living unit. The energy

retrofitting measures are:

- Overall building energy retrofitting. All the measure that contribute to achieve a reduction of the

primary energy need of the building to a level which is at least 20% smaller then what required by

newest energy requirements for new buildings. For each building, a maximum of 100.000 € can be

deducted, corresponding to an expense of 181.181 €. Installation of biomass boilers is included in this

measure when minimum requirements are satisfied. To be eligible for a tax reduction for this

measure, it is necessary to obtain an energy certification of the building.

- Thermal insulation of building components such as walls, floors, ceilings and windows. For each

apartment, a maximum of 60.000 € can be deducted, corresponding to an expense of 109.090 €. After

the retrofitting, the building components must have a maximum thermal transmittance U value

expressed in W/m2.K not higher then what reported in the following tables:


56


Table V: U values applicable up to 31 December 2009 – MD 11 March 2008.

Climatic Zone Wall Ceiling Floor Window

A (<600 DD) 0,62 0,38 0,65 4,6

B (<900 DD) 0,48 0,38 0,49 3,0

C (<1400 DD) 0,40 0,38 0,42 2,6

D (<2100 DD) 0,36 0,32 0,36 2,4

E (<3000 DD) 0,34 0,30 0,33 2,2

F (>3000 DD) 0,33 0,29 0,32 2,0

Tab. VI U values applicable from 01 January 2010 – MD 11 March 2008.

Climatic Zone Wall Ceiling Floor Window

A (<600 DD) 0,56 0,34 0,59 3,9

B (<900 DD) 0,43 0,34 0,44 2,6

C (<1400 DD) 0,36 0,34 0,38 2,1

D (<2100 DD) 0,30 0,28 0,30 2,0

E (<3000 DD) 0,28 0,24 0,27 1,6

F (>3000 DD) 0,27 0,23 0,26 1,4

To be eligible for a tax deduction for this measures, with the exception of substitution of windows in

one single apartment, it is necessary to obtain an energy certification of the building.

- Installation of solar collectors for production of domestic hot water. The maximum tax deduction is

60.000 €, corresponding to an expense of 109.090 € per apartment. Solar collectors must be conform

to UNI norm 12975 with a warranty of at least 5 years. This measure does not require the energy

certification of the building.

- Installation of gas condensation boiler and installation of thermostatic valves. The maximum tax

deduction is 30.000 €, corresponding to an expense of 54.545 € per apartment. The thermal efficiency

must be higher then 93+3*log(Pn) %, where Pn is the nominal max power of the boiler. For this

measure is required the energy certification of the building. Since 2008, this measure is applicable also

to installation of high efficiency heat pumps and geothermal systems.

ENEA, the Italian Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment, is responsible of:

monitoring the program, providing information on the available technologies, providing information on

the procedure to claim the tax deduction. In order to be allowed for claiming the tax deduction, the

energy certification of the building and a summary of the measure adopted must be submitted to ENEA

through its IT portal. The receipt of the transmitted documentation, the invoices of the retrofitting works

and the asseveration of a qualified technician are enough to claim for the tax reduction. For 2007, ENEA

calculated that users of the incentive scheme have implemented measures which reduce energy

consumption of 542.585,33 MWh/year (the data is not yet the final one), which roughly correspond to

the consumption for space heating of about 35.000 scarcely insulated homes (homes of 80 m2 consuming

200 kWh/m2.year for space heating). For the works done in 2008, ENEA started to receive new

documentation from 30 April 2008.


57


Picture II: A snapshot from ENEA web portal

Picture II: A snapshot from ENEA web portal http://efficienzaenergetica.acs.enea.it/


This incentive scheme appear extremely profitable for those who are interested in improving the energy

efficiency retrofitting of a building or an apartment, as it covers all the major technological measures

currently available. Mechanical ventilation systems with heat recovery is not included directly, but can

be financed with the measure concerning the overall retrofitting of the building.

With the exception of the measure concerning the overall retrofitting of the building, all the maximum

costs are referred to one living unit. That means that in case of a multi apartment building, the maximum

costs for each measure are to be multiplied by the total number of apartments interested by the

retrofitting. The scheme is open also to companies and then also to SH providers which can exploit it to

retrofit owned buildings, but also buildings which they only administrate; in this last case, the tax

deductions could be applied directly to the families owning the apartments (if they support directly the

costs of retrofitting), or to the SH cooperative which administrate the building (if it support the cost,

being paid back by inhabitants afterword).

The benefits from this incentive scheme can be summed to the ones from the White Certificate System,

while in case in the building is installed a solar photovoltaic plant, the augmentation of the energy

efficiency of the building brings to an augment of the photovoltaic feed-in tariff.

The requirement of the energy certification of the building to be eligible of the tax deduction is also

intended to accelerate the process of energy certification of existing buildings, which by July 2009 will

be compulsory for all buildings or living unit which will be rented or sold; the cost for energy

certification can also be deducted from taxes for 55% of its cost.


58


3. THE FEED-IN TARIFF FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC PLANTS

3.1. Description of the scheme

Brief history of photovoltaic incentive schemes in Italy

The first incentive scheme for grid connected photovoltaic systems belongs to year 2000 and was named

“Programma tetti fotovoltaici”, photovoltaic roofs program. The program provided a contribution up to

75% of investment cost. The program was open to public and private subjects intending to realize a grid

connected PV plant with a power of maximum 20 kW. The program was managed by the Ministry of the

Environment, together with Regional Local Authorities; the program has been refunded several times,

with the intent of promoting PV systems in specific fields as for example SME, schools or buildings with

a particular architectural value. Since the beginning has been clear that the requests for founds were

much bigger then the available funds. Between the positive sides of the program could be mentioned:

-creation of an interest between public and private subjects towards PV systems;

-diffusion of technical knowledge in all the different actors involved with the installation of PV

systems: designers, retailers, installers, electricity grid management companies, electricity suppliers

companies, authorities in charge of release authorisations;

-update of the norms regulating the connection to the electrical grid of small power generation systems.

The PV plants, with a maximum power of 20 kW, were connected to the grid through a net metering

contract and that requires that the owner of the plant have a contract of electricity supply with an

electricity supplier; in this circumstances, the owner of the PV system is qualifies as “auto-producer”.

The auto-producer is aloud to exchange with the electricity supplier an amount of electricity produced by

the PV system not grater then the amount consumed in situ by the auto-producer in a year time

(production can't be bigger then consumption in a year time). The electricity is exchanged at the same

price of retail and with no taxes. The surplus energy could be accounted for the following 3 years, and

otherwise is “donated” to the public grid.

This incentive scheme failed in providing a constant and reliable framework for operators interested in

investing in PV technology, slowing down the uptake of the technology in a moment in which there was

a strong request.

The big change came in 2005 with the publication of the Ministry Decree 28 July 2005 which introduced

a scheme known as “Conto Energia”. The incentive scheme, based on the feed-in tariff mechanism,

abolished the contribution on investment costs, providing in change a feed-in tariff for the electricity

produced by PV plants for a period of 20 years. The value of the tariff is greater then the retail price of

electricity, and it varies depending on type and size of plant. In addition, the auto-producer (for plants up

to 20 kW) can sign a net metering contract with the electricity supplier or alternatively (for all plant

sizes) can sell the electricity produced and not directly consumed at a fixed price which is decided at

national level (smaller then retail price). The net metering option is economically more favourable to the

small auto producer, and the maximum size of 20 kW can provide all the energy necessary to a family

(usually 2 kW are enough), and most of the buildings common uses (lighting, lifts, pumps, etc.). Another

advantage of the net metering is that once the contract is signed, for the auto-producer there is no other

paper work to do, it will be the electricity supply company which will detract from energy bill the

amount of electricity poured into the grid. The feed-in tariff benefit is paid directly to the auto-producer

by the National Company of Electrical Services (GSE).

The MD 28 July 2005, lately integrated by MD 6 February 2006, is called “Old Conto Energia”, to

distinguish it from the system introduced by the MD 19 February 2007 known as “New Conto Energia”,

which solved some of the problems of the Old Conto Energia, first of all the the long paper work which

was compulsory to obtain the feed in tariff.

Between the best values of the Conto Energia program there is the strict correlation between good

operation of the plant and economical benefit for the auto producer, securing that the public money

supporting the system is spent for the actual production of electricity from renewable energy sources.


59


With the Conto Energia, the management of the incentive scheme has been entrusted to GSE, from which

web portal is possible to access to all the information related to PV technology and to transmit the

necessary documentation to access the incentive scheme.

The SGE Web

Picture III: Snapshot of GSE web portal www.grtn.it

From the web site is also possible to get an updated figure of the plants which are currently operating

under the Conto Energia scheme.

The New Conto Energia

The MD 19 February 2007 has introduced the New Conto Energia, the system which currently defines

the rules to access the feed in tariff. The main news respect the previous system concern the time line to

obtain the incentive: first the plant is constructed, then is connected to the electricity grid and put into

operation, and at this point a communication to GSE is enough to obtain the feed in tariff.

The first 100 MW of installed and operating PV power been reached on 15 March 2008, under the old

and new Conto Energia scheme, where the national target is of 3.000 MW installed by 2016. The trend of

new installed plants is increasingly quickly, as it can be evinced from Picture IV where is reported the

development of installed power in the last year time. The quota of plants financed under the old Conto

Energia represents at the moment 2/3 of operating plants, and installations under this scheme will end in

the first months of 2009. The new Conto Energia accounts now for about 1/3 of operating plants, but the

installed power is growing fast and bigger plants have not been registered yet: at the beginning of April

2008 only 2% of plants constructed under the new Conto Energia have a power greater then 20 kW, due

to the fact that bigger plants have longer authorization and installation times.


60


Photovoltaïc plants currently operating in Italy under the Conto Energia scheme

Picture IV: Photovoltaic plants currently operating in Italy under the Conto Energia scheme.

For the plants which will be fully operating before 31 December 2008, MD 19 February 2007 assign the

following feed in tariffs expressed in € per kWh of generated electricity:

Table VII: Feed-in tariff for photovoltaic plant untill 31 December 2008.

Pick power [kW] No architectural

integration

Architectural semi-

integration

Architectural total

integration

P<=3 0,40 0,44 0,49

3<P<=20 0,38 0,42 0,46

P>20 0,36 0,40 0,44

For the plants connected which will be fully operating after 31 December 2008, the initial value of the

feed in tariff will be reduced of 2% for each year. The feed in tariff assigned at the moment of the

registration of the photovoltaic plant tariff is paid for 20 years without modification, unless energy

efficiency measures are implemented in the building: for each 10% reduction of total primary energy

demand, a bonus of 5% increase is acknowledged to the tariff, up to a maximum bonus of 30%.

In most cases, existing buildings can be retrofitted with a semi-architectural integration, with plants of

max. 3 kW pick power in case of plants for a single home or apartment, and with a power between 3 and

20 kW in case of plants serving the shared uses of the building. The feed in tariff would be then of 0,42-

0,44 €/kWh. In case of energy retrofitting of the building, the feed in tariff would be increased up to

0,55-0,57 €/kWh.

When the owner of a photovoltaic plant is SH Cooperative, it has to pay a 4% tax contribution on the

incomes from the feed in tariff.


The critical points to bear in mind when a photovoltaic plant is part of a retrofitting project are the

following:

- identification of the available space for installation of photovoltaic collectors, with a good orientation

and without significant shading. The area should be easily accessible and the roof in good condition.

The area should be enough for the production of electricity in a quantity which is significant compared

the annual need.

05/0

7

06/0

7

07/0

7

08/0

7

08/0

7

10/0

7

10/0

7

11/0

7

12/0

7

01/0

8

03/0

8

03/0

8

05/0

8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

PV PLANTS OPERATING IN ITALYSOURCE: GSE

Total

Old Conto Energia

New Conto Energia

DATA

INS

TA

LLE

D P

OW

ER

[M

W]


61


- Possibility to realize plant with small investment costs, in the order of 6.000 €/kWp.

- Identification of the best agreement with the inhabitants of the building for what concern cost and

benefits allocation.

The Conto Energia scheme has set favourable conditions for the installation of photovoltaic systems,

paving the way for a diffusion of the technology both into new and existing buildings. Depending on

fastness of technology development and grow of oil price, the grid parity (balance between cost of

conventional electricity and electricity generated by photovoltaic systems) in a country with a good solar

radiation as Italy could be reached in the near future. Up to then, the Conto Energia will cover the

difference photovoltaic and traditional energy, actually allowing for a significant profit as the simple pay

back time is of about 10 years against the life time of 25 years and the validity of the feed-in tariff od 20

years.

At these conditions, SH providers have a good option to reduce CO2 emissions from the buildings

producing in loco part of the electricity which is consumed.

4. POSSIBILITY OF USE OF MULTIPLE FOUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

In the following table have been reported the measures identified in BREA procedure25

of calculation of

the Life Cycle Energy Cost, with the specification of the available incentive scheme.

25

For a thorough description of the measures, refer to Deliverable 6


62


Tab XIII: BREA measures and available founding schemes

BREA Available incentive scheme

Code Description White Certificates

System

Finance Low 2007 Conto Energia

H1 Passive solar heat design

H2 Controlled mechanical ventilation

with heat recovery

H3 Air tightness

H4 Energy savings through water savings Y

H5 Energy savings/ tenants behaviour Y

H6 Windows Y Y

H7 Individual meters Y

H8 Cold bridges reduction Y Y

H9 Additional thermal insulation of walls Y Y

H10 Additional thermal insulation of roof Y Y

H11 Additional thermal insulation of floor Y Y

H12 Pipes insulation Y

H13 Balance between distribution Y

H14 Building energy management systems Y

H15 Heat pumps Y Y

H16 Thermostatic valves Y

H17 New heating systems (including CHP) Y Y

W1 Individual meters Y

W2 Solar thermal collectors for domestic

hot water

Y Y

W3 Hot water distribution lagging

W4 New hot water tank with semi-

instantaneous system

Y

E1 Energy efficient lighting Y

E2 Electricity savings through ventilation

E3 Electricity savings/ tenant behaviour Y

E4 Hard white goods – Grade A or better

E5 Roofed clothes drying yards

E6 Daylight optimization

E7 PV panels Y Y

E8 Regulation of circulation pumps of

individual boilers

Y

E9 Closing audiovisual and electric

equipment

E10 Collective laundry


63


The importance of the incentive schemes on determining the Energy Life Cycle Cost of an energy retrofit

will be evaluated in the next chapter through a study case. Some observations on this table are:

- for the most important measures of energy retrofitting, finance schemes are currently available.

- White Certificate System and Finance Low 2007 can be applied to the same retrofitting project.

- White Certificate System and Conto Energia can not be applied to the same retrofitting project; being

the Conto Energia economically more profitable, WCS is generally not used to support PV

installations.

- When the installation of a photovoltaic system is accompanied with some other energy retrofitting of

the building, this can lead to an incrementation of the feed in tariff up to 30% of its initial value.

- The improvement of tenant behaviour is partially founded by the WCS, which allow a plus 5% of

incentive value when the implemented measure are accompanied by an information campaign toward

the final user.

- Energy certification of buildings is founded within the Finance Low 2007 scheme (55% of its cost).

II. EVALUATION OF THE AVAILABLE INCENTIVE SCHEMES

POTENTIAL THROUGH A STUDY CASE

Deliverable 14 analyses the cost and benefits of implementing different energy retrofitting measure to

an existing building of 24 flats in Bologna, which was constructed in 1975. A detailed description of the

energy retrofitting measures can be found in Deliverable 14, while in this chapter the same study case is

utilized to assess the potential of the available founding schemes.

2.1. THE FINANCING LOW 2007

In the following table are reported the energy retrofitting measures which have been taken in

consideration in Deliverable 14 for the study case. For each measure is indicated the BREA code, a short

description, the cost of the measure, the value of the incentive and the simple pay back time of each

measure without and with the incentive

Table IX: Financing Low incentives.

BREA Description Unit

Quantity

Unitary cost Total cost

Simple pay

back

time

55% tax deduction

Total cost with

incentive

Simple pay

back

time

H6

Installation of new energy

efficient windows Uw = 1,2

W/m2K

m2 345 € 400,00 €

138.000,00 27

€

75.900,00

€

62.100,00 12

H8, H9

Wall external insulation and

thermal bridges reduction

with EPS boards 80 mm thick

m2 1.125 € 160,00 €

180.000,00 23

€

99.000,00

€

81.000,00 10

H10 Roof thermal insulation with

EPS boards 120 mm thick m2 690 € 110,00

€

75.900,00 17

€

41.745,00

€

34.155,00 8

H12,

H17

Installation of a new energy

efficient boiler and pipes

thermal insulation

- 1

€

79.000,0

0

€

79.000,00 10

€

43.450,00

€

35.550,00 4

W2 Solar thermal collectors for

domestic hot water m2 25

€

1.600,00

€

40.000,00 17

€

22.000,00

€

18.000,00 8


64


The pay back time has been calculated on the bases of energy savings from each action estimated with

BREA procedure. The unitary costs which have been used for calculation can change significantly from

case to case, the ones reported in the above table can be considered as maximum costs while they would

be generally lower; even in this particular case, it seems that that this incentive scheme can help

overcoming any economical barrier. Finally, in case a retrofitting is already scheduled, the unitary cost

for each action in the calculation should be reduced of the value for retrofitting without energy efficiency

enhancement, with a consequent further reduction of pay back time.

2.2. THE NEW CONTO ENERGIA FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS

In the following table is calculated the simple pay back time of a photovoltaic plant, considering a typical

electricity production for the area of 1100 kWh/year per each kW of nominal installed power. It has been

considered a price of electricity of 15 €cents/kWh and a feed-in tariff of 42 €cents/kWh corresponding to

the base feed-in tariff for semi architectural integrated plants with nominal power of 3-20 kW.

Table X: Conto Energia incentive.

BRE

A Description Unit

Quanti

ty

Unitary

cost

Total

cost

Annual

saving

Simple

pay back

time

Annual

cash flow

Conto

Energia

Simple

pay

back

time

E7 Solar photovoltaic system kWp 12 €

6.000,00

€

72.000,0

0

€

1.980,00 36

€

5.544,00 10

In case the installation of the photovoltaic plant is accompanied with energy retrofitting measures which

can provide a reduction of total primary energy consumption of at least 60%, like in this case, the feed-

in tariff would be increased of a 30%. In the following table is calculated the pay back time considering a

feed-in tariff increased of 30%.

Table XI: Conto Energia incentive combined with energy retrofitting.

BRE

A Description

Uni

t

Quanti

ty

Unitary

cost

Total

cost

Annual

saving

Simple

pay back

time

Annual

cash flow Conto

Energia

Simple

pay back

time

E7 Solar photovoltaic system kW

p 12

€

6.000,00

€

72.000,0

0

€

1.980,00 36

€

7.207,20 8

From the above tables appear that the pay back time of a photovoltaic system with Conto Energia

incentive is of the same entity of most energy retrofitting measures, specially if the bonus for energy

retrofitting is obtained.

2.3.THE WHITE CERTIFICATES SYSTEM

All the measures described above can access the incentives provided by the White Certificates System

scheme. While the Finance Low 2007 incentive is combinable with the White Certificate System,

allowing a double incentive, the Conto Energia is not combinable. Being the Conto Energia economically

more profitable, it is usually preferred to support installation of photovoltaic systems.


65


Table XII: White Certificate Systems incentives.

BRE

A Description Unit

Quantit

y

Unitary

cost Total cost

Standard evaluation

procedure

Total value of

the EET

Percentage of

total cost

H6

Installation of new energy

efficient windows Uw = 1,2

W/m2K

m2 345 € 400,00 € 138.000,00 5 € 3.238,52 2,35%

H8,

H9

Wall external insulation and

thermal bridges reduction with

EPS boards 80 mm thick

m2 1.125 € 160,00 € 180.000,00 6 and 20 € 3.772,31 2,10%

H10 Roof thermal insulation with

EPS boards 120 mm thick m2 690 € 110,00 € 75.900,00 6 and 20 € 1.499,28 1,98%

H12,

H17

Installation of a new energy

efficient boiler and pipes

thermal insulation

- 1

€

79.000,0

0

€ 79.000,00 3 € 779,12 0,99%

W2 Solar thermal collectors for

domestic hot water m

2 25

€

1.600,00 € 40.000,00 8 € 801,81 2,00%

E7 Solar photovoltaic system kWp 12 €

6.000,00 € 72.000,00 7 € 1.367,95 1,90%

From the above table appears clearly that the White Certificate System offers a scarcely significant

economical support to the energy retrofitting. The correspondent amount of white certificates is smaller

the 25, which means that this project won't bring to an economical incentive unless is presented together

with other similar projects. The economical value of the white certificates which can be obtained by this

project is about 10.000 €, without including the photovoltaic system. This money could be used to

finance the activity of a Centralised Service, which in turns can promote the adoption of energy

retrofitting measures within the SH providers, give advice on how to get the incentives, facilitate the

implementation of energy retrofitting measures for example signing conventions with major energy

efficient systems suppliers or organizing exchange of information between the providers.

III. CONCLUSIONS FOR ITALY

The analysis conducted in this Deliverable has underlined the importance of finance incentive schemes to

support the retrofitting of building stock toward a factor 4 of CO2 emissions reduction. All the 3 schemes

which are currently available in Italy can be successfully exploited by SH providers, with the

specification concerning the White Certificates System which need the intermediation of an external

subject in order to overcame the requirement of minimal size of the projects. A strategy at national level,

however, can't rely only on the initiative of single providers, but needs to be supported by a common

initiative to promote and support most of the providers taking action toward energy retrofitting of

existent buildings. A significant result will be achieved only if many providers will take concrete actions.

ANCAb, the National Association of Inhabitants Cooperative26

, has decided to invest in this directions:

at the national work shop of Factor 4 project held in Milan on 14th and 15th May 2008 will be presented a

new web site through which single providers will have the opportunity to ask information about the

available technologies and the relative founding schemes, and to present their winning projects in this

field. The web site will work as a forum, allowing participants to post questions and answer to other

questions. Technically qualified moderators will be entitled of giving critical contributions to the

cooperatives' questions and to stimulate the discussion with new information. The intent is to keep track

of the activity of single cooperatives in this field, in order to be able to present common achievements

and exploit the White Certificate System. The intent is also to use the experience of the most virtuosi

26

ANCAb is part of CECODHAS, the European Liaison Committee for Social Housing.


66


cooperatives to stimulate all the others, being able to put in touch who has a question with the one who

has an answer. Through this network, joint action on energy efficiency will be promoted, for example

signing agreements with major energy efficiency systems suppliers with the objective of offering best

quality solutions at a better price.

A national strategy for a reduction of CO2 emissions from residential buildings must take into

consideration that 80% of existing building are directly owned by inhabitants. Also in Social Housing

sector many buildings have been sold to the inhabitants, some immediately after construction and some

other after a period of time, even decades; SH providers which don't own any more buildings, but which

are still responsible for their administration, must extend the energy retrofitting policy also to these part

of the building stock. All the scheme which have been presented in this Deliverable can be used to found

energy retrofitting also of inhabitants owned building.

At national level, ANCAb has opened a collaboration on energy efficiency with the others main

operators of SH sector, Federcasa and Federabitazione: a national platform which will promote energy

efficiency in buildings will be constructed and animated, enlarging the participation to different

stakeholders.

At European level, ANCAb participate at CEEN, the Energy Expert Network of CECODHAS which

study and promote initiatives concerning energy efficiency and fuel poverty in the SH sector.

All these actions are elements of a necessary common strategy to help the transition toward a Factor 4

reduction of CO2 emissions in the building sector.

IV OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

IV.1. FRANCE

In France a great change should have involve the whole social housing sector due to the “Grenelle de

l’Environnement” and the new law which should be voted soon in 2008 is under all the expected rules

and will manage mainly public buildings.

But we still hope that a lot of social owners and local authorities will understand how they can improve

their retrofitting programmes and energy and CO2 performance due to the LCEC approach… Many clubs

of SEC model users are created everywhere in France and they should bring a lot of energy and CO2

savings and changes in financial measures for energy retrofitting programmes both for social housing and

private housing…

IV.2. ROMANIA

The optimization of the energy retrofitting program of the social dwellings sector is not an actual concern

because:

1) There is not a national strategy exclusively focused on the social dwellings which represent less

than 2,5% of the total dwelling stock

2) The optimization need is related rather to the implementation instruments than to the existing

programmes

The present structure of the sector includes some old units and for this category a set of administration

rules existed before 1989. After that, the increasing share of the private property to over 97%, induced

the minimization of the previous system role and consequently of the interest for the adapted rules

As regards the new social dwellings their number steadily increased since 1999 and their share is

expected to increase in the future, due to the high demand –both as quantity and as quality- , but also due

to the reducing of the affordability capacity of the people, taking into consideration the poor

income/price rate.

In the present there are deficient rules regarding the social dwellings management and this could produce

in time a deterioration of their conditions and a higher level of energy consumptions.


67


The described analysis obviously showed the conclusive need of a specific strategic vision on the short,

medium and long term beginning with a better definition of the social dwellings category and a

corresponding data base.


68


CONCLUSION ON LCEC AND ON NECESSARY INCENTIVES FOR

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY RETROFITTING STRATEGIES IN SOCIAL

HOUSING

C.1. LCEC: AN INDISPUTABLE COMPLEMENT FOR THE EPDB

TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY

The economic analysis with a Life Cycle Costing analysis is necessary for an optimised investment’s as

it should be too for any public founding’s use.

These simulations show that (beyond the calculations’ uncertainties) it is necessary to think more in

economic than in technical terms for setting win – win energy policies (win for the users and win for the

society).

The Life Cycle Costing analysis integrating externalities (named in France “enlarged life cycle global

costing”) is well spread out in North European or Anglo-Saxon countries but its development in France

stays limited in spite of the dissatisfaction (for example of the French Agency for Environment and the

Energy Management Ademe)27 with the grant’s calculation, which is based on the “overcost” given by

the grant candidates themselves.

These simulations show also that the aim in retrofitting projects is not to reach absolutely a factor 4, and

that a factor 3 can be sufficient in the present state of techniques and market (the construction of new

buildings balancing the difference28).

This analysis shows conversely that a limited energy retrofitting (a frequent practice in France for

example nowadays) with a GEG reduction of only 30% for example (e.g. CO2 factor 1.4) doesn’t enable

to reach the economic optimum. Of course this effort towards the optimum is difficult because of the

calculation rules for the level of the rents or because of the financial capacities of the social owners…

but, in case of public financial support, it should be indisputable to manage such analyses in order to

allow the best potential use of public funds.

And we hope that the new ISO-DIS 10586 standard will help us to make understandable that a LCC

approach (and a LCEC approach) is really indisputable for reaching sustainability by all the decision

makers (including the EACI) at the European level and at each national level…

C.2. LCEC: A DECISION AID TOOL FOR STRATEGIES

The main interest of the LCEC analysis and of our Factor 4 model is to be a decision aid tool for setting

up strategies, building stock strategies for social owners or territorial strategies for local authorities.

It can be useful too for industrial and building companies strategies because it can show which

equipments and which technologies are the most energy efficient and so will be developed at the local

and at the national level.

C.3. A DECISION AID TOOL FOR THE CHOICE OF TECHNOLOGIES

To reach a factor 4 requires also the development of some technologies, among them some are already on

the market or others not yet. Some professionals have already understood it.

27

« Potentiel de développement de la monétarisation des externalités environnementales », Marine Grémont, Junior

entreprise Paris-Dauphine, May 2007 for Ademe

A great number of Life Cycle Costing analysis give the same value to an euro spend nowadays than to an euro

spent in 20 years, that is to say that a building’s running costs correspond to 80 % of its cost… 28

Cf. the SET SHE model for new buildings, a life cycle cost model which is a SHE European project result

www.shecoop


69


Condensation boilers, heat pumps, solar water boilers, roof insulation techniques, floor insulation

techniques (ground floor under non heated spaces), individual meters, thermal insulation pipes, low

emissive double glazing windows with argon are available on the market and raise no real problems (we

have however to distinguish between great agglomerations and certain French regions where the

techniques are known or used competently by professionals and other regions and cities which don’t

gather companies with enough qualified staff). It’s thus often the cost that constitute a barrier to the

development of these techniques.

Techniques as external wall insulation, double flow mechanically controlled ventilation with energy

recuperation and passive solar heating are not well known except in some demonstration projects.

There is thus a need to put the emphasis on awareness awakening and professionals ‘training to these

techniques used widely in the other parts of Europe.

The database worked out for the Factor 4 project (cf. deliverable 6) can thus be translated in national

language and regularly updated with the economic data as well as with the new innovative techniques.

C.4. LCEC: A TOOL FOR REDUCING HOUSEHOLD ENERGY

CONSUMPTION AND ENERGY PRECARIOUSNESS

Social owners never deal with the household electricity consumption, whereas the tenants’ expenses for

electricity are far to be insignificant (200 to 250 € by year and dwelling). Electricity saving actions in

residential units and common parts (which consumption could reach 2 to 12 kWh /m² of the living area)

can reduce these expenses by more than 40%29

Energy efficiency policies in social housings have to take into account this, a fortiori in the priority urban

areas or very poor areas, even if it’s not in the social owners province.

C.5. LCEC: A DECISION AID TOOL FOR SOCIAL OWNERS BUT ALSO

FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND FINANCIAL ACTORS (BANKS)

Finally, this analysis requires more precision in the definitions of retrofitting strategies at a territorial

scale (neighbourhood regeneration projects or conurbation’s strategies, or strategies at the county and

regional level) and at the building stock level (social owner’s building stock strategy for example),

particularly through the taking into account of the buildings components lifespan or of the local

particularities.

These strategies are differing according to several parameters difficult to comprehend which could be

discussed prospectively between some Life Cycle Costing approach users.

29

Our estimations are consistent with those from Olivier Sidler


70


Appendix : The Factor 4 model and the life cycle energy cost analysis

(integrating greenhouse gas effect emissions as an externality)

for optimising energy retrofitting programmes for social housing

Reminder on definitions of life cycle cost analysis30

- LCC (Life Cycle Cost) is the total cost of a building or its parts throughout its life, including the costs

of planning design, acquisition, operations, maintenance and disposal, less any residual value

- LCC (Life Cycle Costing) is thus the technique which enables comparative cost assessments to be made

over a specified period of time, taking into account all relevant economic factors both in terms of initial

capital costs and future operational costs

- LCA (Life Cycle Analysis or Assesment) assesses the environmental impact of a product or an

equipment, from its manufacturing to its life end. It does not take into account any economic nor social

issue but it gives the environmental indicators. Among LCA tools we can mention: BEAT 2000, Eco-

Quantum, Envest, Green-Calc, Okoprofil…

Definition of a Life Cycle Energy Costing approach

The Life Cycle Energy Costing (LCEC) is in the model the sum of the following items :

- the net present value of equipments and works, taking into account the life span of each

equipment or component (= NPV),

- the evolution of maintenance and cleaning costs (=δM),

- the impact in terms of energy saving (= CE),

- the effect of energy price, the consequences of the hypothesis on the energy price increase (= δP)

The net present value (NPV) and the effect of energy price depends on the discount rate chosen and on

the analysis time span. Following several debates with different social owners involved in the model’s

validation and use, we have set for France an horizon T of 35 years and a discount rate equal to the real

borrowing interest rate for the social owners (1.8 %, that is to say the interest rate minus the inflation

rate).

We have consequently the Factor 4 model following fundamental equation:

LCEC = NPV(a,T) + δM – CE – δP(a,T)

Reminder upon the Factor 4 model

The Factor 4 model can be illustrated thanks to a graph setting out the four dimensions of the analysis:

- investment costs,

- energy savings,

- the greenhouse gas effect emissions reduction (which will result in an avoided carbon benefit),

- the charges’ savings.

The Life Cycle Energy Cost approach takes into account these different monetized items31

.

The economic optimum of an energy retrofitting building programme is the programme for which the

Life Cycle Energy Costing is minimised, integrating the hypothesis on the investments depreciation

linked to components’ life span and to the energy price increase.

30

Source ISO 158686, ISO 14040 and final report from the « task Group 4 » on the life cycle cost analysis in the

building sector, November 2005 31

This “moneytisation” or their value in Euro takes into account inflation or the decrease value of the money. This

is not done in most of the analyses in France up to now.


71


The energy optimisation of a retrofitting programme with the Factor 4 model


Documents

Deliverable 10 Factor4 - European Commission · 2014-08-11 · The Factor 4 main hypothesis ... Deliverable 10 6 Crdd La Calade and SUDEN – Cenergia – Ricerca & Progetto – APDL