Advertisement

Incentive Policies for Residential Buildings Energy Retrofit: An Analysis of Tax Rebate Programs in Italy

  • Pietro Bonifaci
  • Sergio Copiello
Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)

Abstract

Starting from the oil crisis that occurred in the early 1970s, the issue of energy efficiency has occupied an ever more prominent place in the economic, political, and academic debate. In this context, the construction industry has been considered among the sectors that have the greatest potential for the reduction of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as for the use of energy from renewable sources. With regard to the European situation that is the focus of this research, the first regulations on building energy performances date back to the mid-seventies. These regulations, which had a significant spread until the 1980s, have focused on the definition of minimum requirements for the building elements. Over the years, the introduction of new regulations has established a series of economic instruments for the promotion of energy-saving technologies. During the last decade, the use of incentive programs has strengthened. Meanwhile, what has been gradually better recognized is the role played by the refurbishment of existing buildings in reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, as stressed by the most recent Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings. Under this framework, the incentive policies intended to achieve energy improvements in buildings face a twofold challenge. On the one hand, they have to stimulate the increase of the rate of building renovation; on the other, they should ensure the achievement of minimum performance standards, according to the EU’s goals. Given these premises, this research aims to verify, using a Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the suitability of the tax rebates currently in force in Italy to stimulate private investments and to be an effective tool to reduce the EU’s energy consumption. The investment costs of 14 refurbishment alternatives, applied to seven single-family houses located in Italy, are estimated. The cost appraisal considers the retrofit expenses and all the ancillary costs that affect the decision-making process of a private investor, as well as the effect of the tax rebates. The results we achieve underline that the analyzed programs are not completely able to stimulate the enhancement of minimum energy standards in buildings. Indeed, the maximum amount of works eligible for the deduction is too high, if linked to an actual increase in global energy performance. This mechanism makes more profitable the exploitation of incentives related to the adoption of specific technologies, which, however, do not guarantee the overall increase of the buildings’ performances.

Keywords

Energy policy Buildings energy efficiency Tax rebates Decision making process Retrofit investment costs 

References

  1. Antoniucci, V., D’Alpaos, C., & Marella, G. (2015). Energy saving in tall buildings: from urban planning regulation to smart grid building solutions. International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications, 39(2), 101–110.Google Scholar
  2. Berardi, U. (2013). Stakeholders’ influence on the adoption of energy-saving technologies in Italian homes. Energy Policy, 60, 520–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonifaci, P., & Copiello, S. (2015a). Price premium for buildings energy efficiency: Empirical findings from a hedonic model. Valori e Valutazioni, 14, 5–15.Google Scholar
  4. Bonifaci, P., & Copiello, S. (2015b). Real estate market and building energy performance: Data for a mass appraisal approach. Data in Brief, 5, 1060–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonifaci, P., Copiello, S., & Stanghellini, S. (2016). Assessing policy measures on building energy efficiency through a multi-actor multi-criteria analysis. In CESB 2016—Central Europe towards Sustainable Building 2016: Innovations for sustainable future (pp. 1343–1350).Google Scholar
  6. Copiello, S. (2016). A discounted cash flow variant to detect the optimal amount of additional burdens in Public-Private Partnership transactions. MethodsX, 3, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Copiello, S., & Bonifaci, P. (2015). Green housing: Toward a new energy efficiency paradox? Cities, 49, 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corrado, V., Ballarini, I., & Corgnati, S. P. (2014). Bulding Typology Brochure—Italy: fascicolo sulla tipologia edilizia italiana. Politecnico di Torino—Dipartimento Energia—Gruppo di ricerca TEBE.Google Scholar
  9. Lee, W. L., & Yik, F. W. H. (2004). Regulatory and voluntary approaches for enhancing building energy efficiency. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 30(5), 477–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moroni, S., Antoniucci, V., & Bisello, A. (2016). Energy sprawl, land taking and distributed generation: towards a multi-layered density. Energy Policy, 98, 266–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Murphy, L., Meijer, F., & Visscher, H. (2012). A qualitative evaluation of policy instruments used to improve energy performance of existing private dwellings in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 45, 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Myers, G., Reed, R., & Robinson, J. (2005). Sustainable property—the future of the New Zealand. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 14(3), 298–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wong, S., & Abe, N. (2014). Stakeholders’ perspectives of a building environmental assessment method: The case of CASBEE. Building and Environment, 82, 502–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Design and PlanningIUAV University of VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations