Green houses: what Europe is asking for, what Italy can do
[ad_1]
Today, 9 February, the first vote is scheduled in the Industry, Research and Energy Commission (Itre) of the European Parliament, on the new EU directive for the energy efficiency of buildings. A theme that has generated a heated national debate in recent weeks. However, many arguments used are based on data and confusing and inaccurate information, let’s clarify.
Two premises. First, the directive Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) it is included in the “Fit For 55” package. Instrument created with the aim of aligning European climate and energy legislation with the reduction of net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels) and the need to accelerate the transition process to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. Secondly, during the March 2023 plenary session, the European Parliament will vote on its final position on the EPBDand from that moment the “trilogue” will begin, i.e. the negotiations between the three institutions (Commission, Council and Parliament) to arrive at the final version to be approved and published in the Official Journal.
The general layout of the text is now defined, but there is still ample room for starting a debate that enters into the merits of an issue – the energy redevelopment of buildings – of absolute political, economic, social, as well as climatic importance.
Italy, an inefficient country
As has been widely reported in recent days, the Italian building stock is particularly inefficient and old, with over 65% of buildings built without any energy saving criteria. This weighs on energy needs of homes – 2.5 times higher than those built with greater requirements on energy efficiency in the period 2016-2021 – and consequently on the final demand of the sector, which is responsible for almost half of final energy consumption and 19% of emissions direct. Not counting thehigh dependence on natural gas in home heatingwhich strongly exposes Italian households to risks related to the volatility of fossil fuel prices, as we saw in 2022 with the increase in energy costs.
Energy saving
Seven out of 10 families have turned down their thermostats against high bills
With properties in these conditions, a typical Italian family spent over 1,420 euros more than in 2021 – an increase of 65% for the gas bill and 108% for the electricity bill. To these figures we can also add the over 60 billion non-selectively allocated by the government as a response to the gas cost crisis. Public money that has managed to only partially mitigate the costs of bills. According to Enea’s estimates, having a class F home would lead to an improvement in energy performance of around 35% compared to class G, and lower demand for energy, primarily gas, translates into greater energy security for families.
The European proposal
Among the main elements of debate is the introduction of minimum energy performance thresholds to be applied starting from the worst performing buildings. The European Commission proposes the achievement of specific energy classes, indicating a trajectory for the redevelopment of the existing building stock: for public buildings at least the class F by 2027 and the class E by 2030; three more years for residential buildings, by 2030 and 2033. All accompanied by a reclassification of energy classes: la G class will correspond to the 15% of the worst performing buildings and the new category “A0” to zero-emission buildings. The remaining classes will have to be recalculated and recalibrated by the individual Member States on the basis of the characteristics of the national building stock, ensuring a uniform and balanced distribution of the size of the individual bands.
Power
Investing in renewables is good for the environment but also for employment
by Luca Fraioli
Contrary to what is reported by the national media, Europe is not asking to renovate 60-75% of the more than 12 million buildings in the next ten years, but, according to preliminary estimates, only 25-30%. Furthermore, there are no penalties or limitations in case of non-renewal. Any decision is left to the individual States, which are left with a wide margin of discretion also in the choice of excluding certain building typologies from the requirements in question, such as historic or listed buildings.
Opportunities for Italy
Talking about support measures for building construction, Italy represents an advanced example at European level, albeit with mechanisms that are still ineffective and of uncertain economic sustainability, which need to be reviewed. Although Italy has been encouraging redevelopment for over a decade – we will spend around 18 billion a year of public resources in bonuses over the next three years – the current trend of reducing emissions is not sufficient to achieve the 2030 objectives, according to Ispra estimates which include the impacts of Superbonus he was born in Pnrr.
Even the Superbonus, which at the end of 2022 financed interventions for 62 billion, has generated too poor results in terms of reducing emissions, especially when compared to the impact on public spending. Until now, most of the savings have been achieved thanks to technological efficiency – more efficient appliances and boilers, LED lighting – now we need to go deeper.
The green tax
Energy saving: how to use the furniture bonus to cut consumption
by Antonella Donati
Measures not addressing energy efficiency, such as the House Bonus, which in 2023 will weigh on the public budget for over 9 billion, work to revive a sector in crisis and fight tax evasion and “black” work, but do not contribute significantly to the reduction of consumption. The objectives, tools and criteria proposed at European level can therefore be discussed, but not the need to define a medium-long term trajectory. It constitutes an essential requirement for restoring order to a heterogeneous incentive system which suffers from temporal instability, regulatory multiplication and fragmentation and weak effectiveness. And it is precisely this simplicity, stability and regulatory security that citizens, businesses and investors need to make building conversion an opportunity for growth and energy security. Consumption in the civil sector decreased too slowly, as did emissions (-2% in the period 1990-2020). The debate should focus on how to improve these mechanisms, making them more accessible to low-income households, sustainable for public finances and effective in reducing emissions.
Already today, without the EPBD, low energy performance has a significant impact on the market value of the property, and the energy prices of 2022 have only accentuated this devaluation process. A multi-year public incentive plan, which includes a specific fund for public social housing – using, for example, the resources intended for urban regeneration of the Pnrr (3.3 billion) – is a guarantee against energy poverty and the exacerbation of inequalities social. Without clear and shared objectives, only the richest classes will have the economic capacity to invest in building redevelopment, ensuring energy security and enhancing their real estate assets.
(source: Here)
[ad_2]
Source link
