Suchergebnisse

There is great potential to improve energy efficiency in existing Swedish residential buildings. However, the successful implementation of efficiency measures depends on economical and technical factors, as well as on the attitudes and perceptions of the relevant actors. A better understanding of their attitudes and perceptions may influence the design of suitable policy measures that increase the adoption of energy efficiency measures. In this context, we conducted mail-in surveys completed by owners of detached houses, chairmen of co-operative housing associations (bostadsrättsförening) and municipality energy advisers in Sweden. We also interviewed window sellers/installers in Jämtland. Results show that it was important for the majority of homeowners to reduce their household energy use, with most undertaking no-cost measures (e.g., switching off lights). However, 70–90% of the responding homeowners had no intention of adopting building envelope measures over the next 10 years. The main reason for non-adoption was that homeowners were satisfied with the physical condition and thermal performance of their existing building envelope components. Homeowners who thought their energy cost was high were more likely to adopt an investment measure compared to those who thought their energy cost was low. Investment costs and annual energy cost savings were the most important factors in adoption of energy efficient building envelope measures. Therefore, economic incentives may induce homeowners to adopt energy efficiency investment measures. However, a large percentage (64%) of homeowners was unaware of the existence of government support for reducing household energy use. Information campaigns announcing the availability of economic incentives and the cost advantages of energy efficiency measures may be helpful in the adoption decision. Homeowners' considered interpersonal sources, builders, installers and energy advisers as important sources of information for their adoption of energy efficiency measures. Though a large percentage of respondents considered energy advisers as an important source of information, only 14% of homeowners had contacted an energy adviser in the past. Our findings suggest that the energy advice service is important for homeowners, but more efforts are needed to increase homeowners' awareness of and satisfaction with such services. The majority of municipal energy advisers were of the opinion that more training in technical aspects of energy issues and increased financial support could improve their performance. Installers and material suppliers are important actors in homeowners' adoption of energy efficiency measures. For example, approximately 53% of responding homeowners to a survey in Jämtland/Västernorrland stated that the window seller/installer from whom they had bought windows had recommended a particular type of window, and 97% had ii installed the windows that were recommended. The window sellers/installers in Jämtland prefer a window that is ―reasonably‖ energy efficient. They believe that windows with a U-value of 1.2 W/m 2K are good and there is no reason to further improve the energy efficiency. The majority did not recommend windows with U-value <1.2 W/m2K. They were concerned about the condensation issues and high prices of such windows. This may influence the diffusion of very energy efficient windows in Swedish detached houses. About 80-95% of chairmen in co-operative housing associations who responded to our survey had no intention of adopting building envelope measures over the next 10 years. They were satisfied with the existing building envelope components, which may be one of the reasons for this lack of intention. As in the case of owners of detached houses, economic factors, like annual energy cost savings and investment costs, guide the implementation of energy efficiency investment measures in co-operative housing associations. However, about 66% of the responding chairmen did not consider financial constraint as a barrier to implementing investment intensive energy efficiency measures. For 54% of the respondents limited in-house competency to evaluate the benefits of energy efficiency measures was the main barrier. The majority of owners of detached houses (80%) and chairmen of co-operative housing associations (70%) perceived that economic policy instruments, such as investment subsidies and tax deductions, would encourage them to implement energy efficiency measures. Other policy instruments, especially information instruments, were perceived as less effective. Among various information policies, increasing the frequency of meter reading received the highest approval with 38% of homeowners, whereas approximately 41% of housing association chairmen thought that individual metering of heating and hot water use could be effective. Approximately 30% of homeowners and housing association chairmen thought that energy declaration was effective.

This report focuses on the different actors in the marketplace which offer products or services connected to renovation of houses. Which abilities do the different actors have for contribution to establish a one stop shop which offers a holistic renovation concept? Also complementary businesses such as for example banks are included in the analysis. Further, opportunities and threats are identified for different clusters of one stop shop. The structure and how the actors in the market act are quite similar in the Nordic countries. Therefore we believe that the development of strategies for the different countries may be similar to a great extent. The various types of actors in the renovation business occur at different stages in the value chain. The traditional first line services such as carpenters, retail stores, heat pump agents, plumbers, electrician, etc. come in direct contact with the customer when the house owner needs assistance in solving a specific "problem" or need. This is a golden moment for the SuccesFamilies project to address through these actors a more holistic energy efficient renovation to the house owner; to present the one-stop-shop solution. To do so SuccessFamilies has focused on the "time window": which opportunities could be used to communicate more energy efficient renovation? What type of renovation is needed? Based on this SuccesFamilies has singled out both the different opportunities which seem to be the best situations to stimulate energy efficient renovation as well as the characteristics of the house owner influencing the ability and willingness to carry out an energy efficient renovation. The building stock analyses from the Nordic countries show that the segments with the biggest potential for high ambition renovation is Houses built in the 1960 and 70s, Houses built before 1940 pre-war (except in Finland) and houses from the post-war period in Finland. With some minor exceptions the different governmental regulations and voluntary standards are quite similar in the Nordic countries. They represent a common opportunity in stimulation of energy efficient renovation. The one-stop-shop should offer tailor made services for sustainable renovation of a single family house. This should include the building envelope, insulation, window, materials, heating and ventilation system, and even financing. The one-stop-shop should have the knowhow about competent firms who can offer the additional services, price knowledge and how to organize the work in a cost-effective way, in the right order and to the wanted quality. These complete service packages, which represent the one-stop-shop solution, might differ depending on which industry has the leading part in the different pilot studios. In addition to a range of common strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, all the different service package models have their own unique characteristics regarding strengths and weaknesses, in addition to facing different opportunities and threats. Nevertheless the most important factor seems to be that no actor alone possesses an overall competence to supply a holistic solution. Trustworthiness of the actors is another important factor to take into consideration when developing a one-stop-shop solution. The overall threat is the fact that a simple cost focus leads to limited renovation and reduce interest for high ambition renovation. The strategies and actions chosen to introduce and sell energy efficient renovation to single-family house owners should present all non-economic benefits as well as the economic benefits, which have been proven equally important to the house owners which carried out an energy efficient renovation.

There are significant potentials to improve energy efficiency of single-family houses in the Nordic countries. Technical solutions exist, but there are market and financial barriers to implementation of such measures. The aim of this report is to identify financial barriers to implement energy efficiency measures in Nordic single family houses and to discuss options to address those barriers. In the initial phase of a market formation, the targeted potential customers (the "innovators" who are few in numbers) usually have capacity to invest in energy-efficient measures. However, such measures, though cost effective in a life-cycle perspective, often incur high investment cost and majority of the consumers tend to stick to the least efficient products. Moreover, a lack of awareness about the possible energy efficiency measures, including their benefits, and the uncertainty regarding the level of energy savings due to a lack of standardised measurements and verifications protocol may not encourage, both the customers and financiers, to go for energy efficiency investments. Financiers perceive energy efficiency projects as risky investments maybe because of their small size, difficulty to control energy use behaviour of the occupants and the difficulty to predict future energy prices. The options to finance energy efficiency renovations include homeowners' own resources, mortgage refinancing, flex loan, personal loan, financing by service providers, preferential loan, subsidies/grants, credit cards, and financing supported by guarantee on energy savings. Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages. It is less likely that the one-stop-shop service providers in Nordic countries, at present, will give any guarantee on actual savings in energy use or cost. But, such a concept is emerging in some European countries and could be an option in future. The best option to finance energy efficiency improvements in Nordic countries seems to be that onestop- shop service providers collaborate with commercial banks to offer mortgage refinancing. Such a mechanism is convenient for the homeowners, and banks will have a less risky asset in their portfolio. In situations where homeowners cannot avail additional mortgage financing, e.g. those who recently purchased a house and used the limit to such loans, banks may consider an energy efficient renovation plan prepared by an entrepreneur and pre-evaluate the post-renovation value of the house. This pre-renovation valuation could form the basis for the bank to confirm the homeowner and the service provider that certain amount of investment cost would be available from mortgage refinancing. To cover the cost that exceeds the amount available from mortgage financing (or base loan), national governments may consider to provide soft loans or subsidies. In countries where tax deduction on home renovation is available, amendments should be made to such programs to incorporate specific requirements regarding energy efficiency of implemented measures. Also, higher tax deduction could be offered for energy efficiency improvement than for other renovation. Moreover, a simple tool to inform the homeowners about the cost-efficiency of energy renovation investment would be that banks and utilities collaborate to send a joint invoice which contains the monthly cost of mortgage loan and the energy cost.

A recent paper by Searchinger highlighted that Annex-1 nations do not count CO2 emissions due to combustion of biomass in their commitments. This is because it is assumed that emissions from use of biomass are accounted for in the land use sector, where they should appear as reductions in carbon stocks. However, if the biomass comes from a non-Annex 1 country, these reductions are not counted within the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, even Annex 1 countries do not necessarily fully account for carbon stock losses associated with bioenergy. This results in overestimating the mitigation benefits of bioenergy. - The problem can be rectified by modifying the accounting system, adopting new policy measures or a combination of both. In the paper, we describe possible options and policy measures to improve the accounting of emissions from bioenergy. The pros and cons of the identified solutions are also discussed.