BPIE: Europe's buildings under the microscope - PU Europe
BPIE: Europe's buildings under the microscope - PU Europe
BPIE: Europe's buildings under the microscope - PU Europe
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Impact of Financial Programmes<br />
The key concern is <strong>the</strong> level of ambition that can be attained from financial programmes to motivate<br />
consumers to invest in deep renovation. Some of <strong>the</strong> schemes identified with <strong>the</strong> most ambitious objectives<br />
in terms of potential energy savings achieved were:<br />
1. In Austria, <strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> ‘Federal Promotion of Very High Efficiency Buildings’, an initial standard of 65 kWh/m 2<br />
in 2007, going to 25 kWh/m 2 in 2010 was required in order to qualify for state funding.<br />
2. In <strong>the</strong> Flemish region of Belgium, <strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> energy savings investments in dwellings rented by social renting<br />
companies, 100% of <strong>the</strong> costs are reimbursed for roof insulation, high efficiency windows and condensing<br />
boilers.<br />
3. The Czech Republic’s PANEL programme provides for total retrofitting (insulating <strong>buildings</strong>, improving<br />
heating systems, distribution pipes and sources of heat and hot water and use of renewable energy).<br />
4. In Estonia, <strong>the</strong> Green Investment Scheme requires at least 20% energy savings. The Renovation Loan for<br />
apartment <strong>buildings</strong> also requires at least 20% energy savings.<br />
5. In France subsidies are available for low consumption <strong>buildings</strong> and retrofits (AAP PREBAT).<br />
6. In Germany, in its ‘Housing Modernisation Scheme’, investors receive a long-term low-interest loan of up<br />
to €100,000 with a fixed interest rate for 5 to 10 years and redemption-free grace years. While <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />
target, <strong>the</strong> amount available should lead to very ambitious improvements.<br />
7. In Romania, <strong>the</strong> ‘Multiannual National Programme’ for increasing <strong>the</strong> energy performance of apartment<br />
blocks/houses requires a decrease in energy consumption from 180-240 kWh/m 2 to below 100 kWh/m 2 .<br />
8. In Spain, <strong>the</strong> ‘Support for Energy Efficiency in Buildings’, encourages <strong>buildings</strong> to attain a high energy rating<br />
of A or B. Separately, PLAN 2000 ESE, which promotes energy service contracts, requires energy savings of<br />
at least 20%. The Activation Plan, using ESCOs, also requires a reduction of 20% for state <strong>buildings</strong>.<br />
The results of <strong>the</strong> selected measures described above are encouraging, but many of <strong>the</strong>m are only modest in <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
ambition. Achieving a 20% reduction may sound impressive, but much more is needed and possible.A study<br />
published by EuroACE in 2010 illustrated <strong>the</strong> cost effectiveness 38 of such programmes to governments which has<br />
been estimated to be around €20-25/tonne of mitigated carbon emissions, a figure which is lower than virtually<br />
all alternative non-traded carbon abatement measures. However, being cost effective does not reflect <strong>the</strong> level<br />
of ambition. The schemes identified above show a reasonable level of ambition to save energy but a 20% energy<br />
savings is not enough if <strong>Europe</strong> is to achieve an 80-95 % reduction in GHG emissions reductions by 2050.<br />
One major concern is that <strong>the</strong> use of financial instruments today is only achieving <strong>the</strong> business-as-usual<br />
case in <strong>Europe</strong> with very few financial instruments providing enough funding for deep renovations. If <strong>the</strong><br />
goal is to significantly increase <strong>the</strong> number of deep renovations to meet 2050 aspirations, it will require<br />
more innovative approaches than what is seen today. There are steps <strong>under</strong>way to improve <strong>the</strong> availability<br />
of new financing instruments. Innovative approaches include Energy Supplier Obligations, energy service<br />
companies, <strong>the</strong> use of EU structural funds more effectively and possible targets to renovate specific building<br />
sub-sectors (e.g. <strong>the</strong> proposal in <strong>the</strong> draft Energy Efficiency Directive to Member States to renovate a certain<br />
percentage of public <strong>buildings</strong> annually) which will require Member States to “unlock” funding for such<br />
renovations.<br />
The recast of <strong>the</strong> EPBD requires Member States to outline <strong>the</strong> current and proposed financial instruments<br />
for <strong>the</strong> <strong>buildings</strong> sector. Most Member States are doing this through <strong>the</strong>ir submission of National Energy<br />
Efficiency Action Plans due June 2011. 39 That provides an opportunity for Member States to reflect on how<br />
financial instruments can be used more ambitiously and an opportunity for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Commission to<br />
monitor whe<strong>the</strong>r Member States are taking ambitious enough steps.<br />
38<br />
Klinckenberg Consultants, Making Money Work for Buildings, Financial and Fiscal Instruments for Energy Efficiency in Buildings, EuroACE, September<br />
2010. Cost-effectiveness was calculated on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> cost of <strong>the</strong> programme (typically to government) per ton of CO 2<br />
emission avoided,<br />
over an impact period of up to 30 years (and shorter for investments with a shorter lifespan) For more information, go to: http://www.euroace.org/<br />
MediaPublications/PublicationsReports.aspx<br />
39<br />
Updates of <strong>the</strong> national submissions are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/end-use_en.htm. As of August 26, 19 Member States<br />
had submitted <strong>the</strong>ir plans.<br />
94 | <strong>Europe</strong>’s <strong>buildings</strong> <strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>microscope</strong>