Estimating a threshold price for CO2 emissions of buildings to improve their energy performance level. Case study of a new Spanish home

Energy consumption in homes produces CO2. In many countries, building regulations are being set to enable energy efficiency performance levels to be issued. In Spain, there is a regulated procedure to certify the energy performance of buildings according to their CO2 emissions. Consequently, some software tools have been design to simulate buildings and to obtain their energy consumption and CO2 emissions. In this paper the investment, maintenance and energy consumption costs are calculated for different energy performance levels and for various climatic zones, in a single-family home. According to the results, more energy efficient buildings imply higher construction and maintenance costs, which are not compensated by lower energy costs. Therefore, under current conditions, economic criteria do not support the improvement of the energy efficiency of a dwelling. Among the possible measures to promote energy efficiency, a price on CO2 emissions is to be suggested, including the social cost in the analysis. For this purpose, the cost-optimal methodology is used. In different scenarios for the discount rate y energy prices, various prices for CO2 are obtained, depending on the climatic zone and energy performance level.Ruá Aguilar, MJ.; Guadalajara Olmeda, MN. (2015). Estimating a threshold price for CO2 emissions of buildings to improve their energy performance level. Case study of a new Spanish home. Energy Efficiency. 8(2):183-203. doi:10.1007/s12053-014-9286-2S18320382AICIA. (2009). Escala de calificación energética. Edificios de nueva construcción. Madrid: Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía, Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio.Al-Homoud, M. S. (2005). Performance characteristics and practical applications of common building thermal insulation materials. Building and Environment, 40(3), 353–360.Amecke, H. (2012). The impact of energy performances certificates: a survey of German home owners. Energy Policy, 46, 4–14.Andaloro, A., Salomone, R., Ioppolo, G., & Andaloro, L. (2010). Energy certification of buildings: a comparative analysis of progress towards implementation in European countries. Energy Policy, 38(10), 5840–5866.Annunziata, E., Frey, M., & Rizzi, F. (2013). Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: the state-of-art of national regulations in Europe. Energy, 57, 125–133. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.11.049 .Audenaert, A., De Boeck, L., & Roelants, K. (2010). Economic analysis of the profitability of energy-saving architectural measures for the achievement of the EPBD-standard. Energy, 35(7), 2965–2971.Bertrán, A. (2009). Las mediciones en las obras adaptadas al CTE (4th ed.). Granada: Editorial Jorge Loring S.I.Brathal, D., & Langemo, M. (2004). Facilities management: a guide for total workplace design and management. Grand Forks: Knight Printing.Brown, D. W. (1996). Facility maintenance: the manager’s practical guide and handbook. New York: AMACOM American Management Association. New York, NY 10019.Concerted Action EPBD (2008). Implementation of the energy performance of buildings directive. Country reports 2008. Brussels: Directorate General for Energy and Transport, European Commission (available at www.epbd.ca.eu and www.buildup.eu ).Concerted Action EPBD (2011). Implementing the energy performance of buildings directive. Country reports 2011. Brussels: European Union (available at www.epbd.ca.eu and www.buildup.eu ).Davies, H., & Wyatt, D. (2004). Appropriate use or method for durability and service life prediction. Building Research and Information, 32(6), 552–553.Dresner, S., & Ekins, P. (2006). Economic instruments to improve UK home energy efficiency without negative social impacts. Fiscal Studies, 27(1), 47–74.Drury, C. (2008). Management and cost accounting, 7th ed. London.Eurostat European Comission, Instituto de Diversificación y Ahorro de Energía (IDAE), Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo (2011). Proyecto SECH-SPAHOUSEC. Análisis del consumo energético del sector residencial en España. Informe Final. Madrid.Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI (Germany) (2012). Financing the energy efficient transformation of the building sector in the EU. Lessons from the ODYSSEE-MURE project.Garrido, N., Almecija, J. C., Folch, C., Martínez, I. (2011). Certificación energética de edificios. Grupo de Estudios de Energía para la Sostenibilidad (CEES). Cátedra Unesco Sostenibilidad, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. (Available at: upcommons.upc.edu/e-prints/bitstream/2117/11820/1/GAS Natural_090406.pdf).Gómez, J. M., & Esteban, M. A. (2010). Sostenibilidad en la edificación. Comparación de dos tipologías constructivas. Rendimiento de los recursos. Ingeniería de Edificación Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. (Available at: upcommons.upc.edu/pfc/bitstream/2099.1/…/1/PFG_Completo.pdf).Gram-Hanssen, K., Bartiaux, F., Michael Jensen, O., & Cantaert, M. (2007). Do homeowners use energy labels? A comparison between Denmark and Belgium. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2879–2888.Institut de Tecnologia de la Construcció de Catalunya (ITEC) (1991a). Manual de uso y conservación de la vivienda. COAAT Principado de Asturias. Simancas Ediciones S.A. Valladolid.Institut de Tecnologia de la Construcció de Catalunya (ITEC). (1991b). Manteniment de l’edifici. Fitxes (1st ed.). Badalona: Gràfiques Pacífic.Institut de Tecnologia de la Construcció de Catalunya (ITEC). (1991c). Manteniment instal.lacions. Fitxes (1st ed.). Badalona: Gràfiques Pacífic.Institut de Tecnologia de la Construcció de Catalunya (ITEC). (1991d). Manteniment urbanització. Fitxes (1st ed.). Badalona: Gràfiques Pacífic.Institut de Tecnologia de la Construcció de Catalunya (ITEC). (1994). L’actualitat i el cost del manteniment en edificis d’habitatge. Guia pràctic (1st ed.). Barcelona: Gama S.L. Servicios editoriales.Institut de Tecnologia de la Construcció de Catalunya (ITEC). (1996). Ús i manteniment de l’habitatge. Quadern de l’usuari (1st ed.). Zaragoza: Gràfiques Cometa.Institut de Tecnologia de la Construcció de Catalunya (ITEC) (1997). La vivienda: Manual de uso y mantenimient, COAAT de Cantabria. 1ª ed.Institut de Tecnologia de la Construcció de Catalunya (ITEC) (1999). La vivienda: Manual de uso y mantenimiento, COAAT Principado de Asturias. 2ª ed. Simancas Edicionas S.A. Valladolid.Instituto de Diversificación y Ahorro de Energía (IDAE), Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio (MITYC) (2010). Guía Técnica: Condiciones climáticas exteriores de proyecto, (available at: http://www.minetur.gob.es/energia/desarrollo/eficienciaenergetica/rite/reconocidos/reconocidos/condicionesclimaticas.pdf ).Instituto Eduardo Torroja de Ciencias de la Construcción (IETCC) (2010). Catálogo de Elementos Constructivos del Código Técnico, versión CAT-EC-v06.3-MARZO10. Madrid.Jáber-López, J. T., Valencia-Salazar, I., Peñalvo-López, E., Álvarez-Bel, C., Rivera-López, R., Merino-Hernández, E. (2011). Are energy certification tools for buildings effective? A Spanish case study, Proceedings of the 2011 3rd International Youth Conference on Energetics. Leiria, July 7–9.Johnstone, I. M. (2001a). Energy and mass flows of housing: a model and example. Building and Environment, 36, 27–41.Johnstone, I. M. (2001b). Energy and mass flows of housing: estimating mortality. Building and Environment, 36, 43–51.Kaiser, H. H. (2001). The facilities audit. A process for improving facilities conditions. Arlington: Kirby Lithographic. APPA. The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers.Kjaerbye, V. H. (2008). Does energy label on residential housing cause energy savings? AKF, Danish Institute of Governmental Research.La Roche, P. (2010). Calculating green house emissions for houses: analysis of the performance of several carbon counting tools in different climates. Informes de la Construcción, 62(517), 61–80.Larsen, B. M., & Nebakken, R. (1997). Norwegian emissions of CO2 1987–1994. Environmental and Resource Economics, 9, 275–290.Laustsen, J. (2008). Energy efficiency requirements in building codes, energy efficiency policies for new buildings. Paris: International Energy Agency information paper.Linares, P., & Labandeira, X. (2010). Energy efficiency: economics and policy. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24(3), 573–592.Liska, R. W. (2000). Means facilities maintenance standards. Kingston: R.S. Means Company, Inc. Construction Publishers & Consultants.Majcen, D., Itard, H., & Visscher, H. (2013). Theoretical vs. actual energy consumption of labelled dwellings in the Netherlands: discrepancies and policy implications. Energy Policy, 54, 125–136.Mercader, M. P., Olivares, M., & Ramírez de Arellano, A. (2012). Modelo de cuantificación del consumo energético en edificación. Informes de la Construcción, 62(308), 567–582.Ministry of Development of Spain. Directorate for Architecture, Housing and Planning. Report on cost optimal calculations and comparison with the current and future energy performance requirements of buildings in Spain. Version 1.1, 7th June 2013.Pérez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., & González, R. (2009). A review of benmarching, rating and labelling concepts within the framework of building energy certification schemes. Energy and Buildings, 41(3), 272–278.Piper, J. E. (1995). Handbook of facility management: tools and techniques, formulas and tables. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Inc.Popescu, D., Bienert, S., Schützenhofer, C., & Boazu, R. (2012). Impact of energy efficiency measures on the economic value of buildings. Applied Energy, 89(1), 454–463.Ramírez de Arellano, A. (2004). Presupuestación de obras. 3ª ed. Universidad de Sevilla. Secretariado de Publicaciones. Colección Manuales Universitarios, 37.Rodríguez-González, A. B., Vinagre-Díaz, J. J., Caañamo, A. J., & Wilby, M. R. (2011). Energy and buildings, 43(4), 980–987.Ruá, M. J., & Guadalajara, N. (2013). Application of compromise programming to a semi-detached housing development in order to balance economic and environmental criteria. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64, 459–468.Ruá, M. J., & Guadalajara, N. (2014). Using the building energy rating software for mathematically modelling operation costs in a simulated home. International Journal of Computer Mathematics. doi: 10.1080/00207160.2014.892588 .Ruá, M. J., & López-Mesa, B. (2012). Certificación energética de edificios en España y sus implicaciones económicas. Informes de la Construcción, 64(527), 307–318.Rudbeck, C. (2002). Service life of building envelope components: making it operational in economical assessment. Construction and Building Materials, 16(2), 83–89.Ruiz, M. C., & Romero, E. (2011). Energy saving in the conventional design of a Spanish house using thermal simulation. Energy and Building, 43(11), 3226–3235.Sanstad, A. H., Blumstein, C., & Stoff, S. E. (1995). How high are option values in energy-efficiency investments? Energy Policy, 23(9), 739–743.Sumner, J., Bird, L., Smith, H. (2009). Carbon taxes: a review of experience and policy design consideration. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A2-47312. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. US Department of Energy.Tuominen, P., Forsström, J., & Honkatukia, J. (2013). Economic effects of energy efficiency improvements in the Finnish building stock. Energy Policy, 52, 181–189.Ucar, A., & Balo, F. (2009). Effect of fuel type on the optimum thickness of selected insulation materials for the four different climatic regions of Turkey. Applied Energy, 86(5), 730–736.Universidad Politécnica De Madrid. Departamento de Construcción y Vías Rurales (2009). Evaluación de los costes constructivos y consumos energéticos derivados de la calificación energética de viviendas. Precost&E. Fase1.Uzsilaityte, L., & Martinaitis, V. (2010). Search for optimal solution of public building renovation in terms of life cycle. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 18(2), 102–110.Verbruggen, A. (2012). Financial appraisal of efficiency investments: why the good may be the worst enemy of the best. Energy Efficiency, 5, 571–582

Exploring the relationship between planning and procurement in western U.S. electric utilities

Integrated resource planning is an important regulatory process used in many U.S. states to formulate and evaluate least-cost and risk-assessed portfolios to meet future load requirements for electric utilities. In principle, effective implementation of integrated resource planning seeks to assure regulators and the public that utility investment decisions, given uncertainty, are as cost-effective as possible. However, there is no empirical assessment on the effectiveness of integrated resource planning and its implementation. This paper compares planning outcomes and actual decisions for twelve utilities across the Western U. S. from 2003 to 2014. The authors find that subsequent plans differ significantly due to changes in the planning environment, which limited amount of information produced during planning is ultimately used during the procurement process, and that the latter process relies extensively on the most recent information available for decision making. These findings suggest that states' integrated resource planning rules and regulations mandating long-term planning horizons with the same analytical complexity throughout the planning period may not create useful information for the procurement process. The social value of a long-term planning process that departs from procurement and the balance between transparency and complexity of the planning and procurement processes is an open question

Exploring the relationship between planning and procurement in western U.S. electric utilities

Integrated resource planning is an important regulatory process used in many U.S. states to formulate and evaluate least-cost and risk-assessed portfolios to meet future load requirements for electric utilities. In principle, effective implementation of integrated resource planning seeks to assure regulators and the public that utility investment decisions, given uncertainty, are as cost-effective as possible. However, there is no empirical assessment on the effectiveness of integrated resource planning and its implementation. This paper compares planning outcomes and actual decisions for twelve utilities across the Western U. S. from 2003 to 2014. The authors find that subsequent plans differ significantly due to changes in the planning environment, which limited amount of information produced during planning is ultimately used during the procurement process, and that the latter process relies extensively on the most recent information available for decision making. These findings suggest that states' integrated resource planning rules and regulations mandating long-term planning horizons with the same analytical complexity throughout the planning period may not create useful information for the procurement process. The social value of a long-term planning process that departs from procurement and the balance between transparency and complexity of the planning and procurement processes is an open question

Long term load forecasting accuracy in electric utility integrated resource planning

Forecasts of electricity consumption and peak demand over time horizons of one or two decades are a key element in electric utilities’ meeting their core objective and obligation to ensure reliable and affordable electricity supplies for their customers while complying with a range of energy and environmental regulations and policies. These forecasts are an important input to integrated resource planning (IRP) processes involving utilities, regulators, and other stake-holders. Despite their importance, however, there has been little analysis of long term utility load forecasting accuracy. We conduct a retrospective analysis of long term load forecasts on twelve Western U. S. electric utilities in the mid-2000s to find that most overestimated both energy consumption and peak demand growth. A key reason for this was the use of assumptions that led to an overestimation of economic growth. We find that the complexity of forecast methods and the accuracy of these forecasts are mildly correlated. In addition, sensitivity and risk analysis of load growth and its implications for capacity expansion were not well integrated with subsequent implementation. We review changes in the utilities load forecasting methods over the subsequent decade, and discuss the policy implications of long term load forecast inaccuracy and its underlying causes

A hybrid approach to estimating the economic value of power system resilience

The costs that power interruptions impose on customers and society have emerged as essential considerations for decision-making about power system reliability and resilience. While the direct costs of localized and relatively short-duration power interruptions are well-understood, little is known about the full impact of widespread and long-duration power interruptions, especially the indirect costs and related economy-wide impacts of these events. As a result, the costs of widespread and long-duration power interruptions are generally not or only incompletely considered in utility planning activities. This paper describes a new approach for estimating the economic costs of widespread and long-duration power interruptions. This method involves using survey responses from utility customers to calibrate a regional economic model that can estimate both the direct and indirect costs of these events. Including better estimates of these costs will enhance both the comprehensiveness and completeness of the considerations relied on to support utility planning decisions, especially on grid-hardening strategies and other capital-intensive investments in electricity sector resilience

Optimizing the Life Cycle Costs of Building Components with Regard to Energy Renovation

Considering the high share of residential buildings in the total energy use in Sweden, having the ambitious national energy and climate goals in mind, the real estate sector and its issues have been under a lot of attention during the past few decades. The Swedish real estate sector has often been identified with its ambitious public housing program during the record years (1960–1974). This was at the time the largest housing program per capita in the world where more than a million apartments were built in a nation with a population of 8 million. These apartments once being the pride of a nation, are facing a lot of problems today, ranging from vacancy and unacceptable physical condition to very poor energy performance. These buildings at the verge of their service/economic life are in need of extensive maintenance and renovation measures. Considering the technological development today, the problem with maintenance and renovation remains to be the financial constraints. These are what makes planning for maintenance and renovation complicated and cost inefficient. Although there are tools that can help property managers with maintenance and renovation planning, they all fail to address the complexity of the decision-making process in a multi-objective criteria under financial and time constraints. In this study, the focus is on the life cycle economy of the building components subject to energy performance improvements during renovation. A systematic approach has been proposed that can be used to budget and plan renovation with regard to energy efficiency under budget constraints. This approach utilizes a modified condition/deterioration model of the method Schroeder to simulate the maintenance effect on the condition state of building components in order to obtain the cost-optimal maintenance regime under given restrictions. This methodology can be used to compare the cost effectiveness of different energy-renovation scenarios and determine the optimal renovation plan for a single or a combination of buildings with regard to owners’ objectives and existing constraints. The results from this study illustrates how prioritizing action plans can affect the life cycle costs of building components

Estimating the cost of saving electricity through U.S. utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs

The program administrator and total cost of saved energy allow comparison of the cost of efficiency across utilities, states, and program types, and can identify potential performance improvements. Comparing program administrator cost with the total cost of saved energy can indicate the degree to which programs leverage investment by participants. Based on reported total costs and savings information for U.S. utility efficiency programs from 2009 to 2013, we estimate the savings-weighted average total cost of saved electricity across 20 states at 0.046 per kilowatt-hour (kW h), comparing favorably with energy supply costs and retail rates. Programs targeted on the residential market averaged 0.030 per kW h compared to 0.053 per kW h for non-residential programs. Lighting programs, with an average total cost of 0.018 per kW h, drove lower savings costs in the residential market. We provide estimates for the most common program types and find that program administrators and participants on average are splitting the costs of efficiency in half. More consistent, standardized and complete reporting on efficiency programs is needed. Differing definitions and quantification of costs, savings and savings lifetimes pose challenges for comparing program results. Reducing these uncertainties could increase confidence in efficiency as a resource among planners and policymakers

Estimating the cost of saving electricity through U.S. utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs

The program administrator and total cost of saved energy allow comparison of the cost of efficiency across utilities, states, and program types, and can identify potential performance improvements. Comparing program administrator cost with the total cost of saved energy can indicate the degree to which programs leverage investment by participants. Based on reported total costs and savings information for U.S. utility efficiency programs from 2009 to 2013, we estimate the savings-weighted average total cost of saved electricity across 20 states at 0.046 per kilowatt-hour (kW h), comparing favorably with energy supply costs and retail rates. Programs targeted on the residential market averaged 0.030 per kW h compared to 0.053 per kW h for non-residential programs. Lighting programs, with an average total cost of 0.018 per kW h, drove lower savings costs in the residential market. We provide estimates for the most common program types and find that program administrators and participants on average are splitting the costs of efficiency in half. More consistent, standardized and complete reporting on efficiency programs is needed. Differing definitions and quantification of costs, savings and savings lifetimes pose challenges for comparing program results. Reducing these uncertainties could increase confidence in efficiency as a resource among planners and policymakers

Moving from outsider to insider: Peer status and partnerships between electricity utilities and residential consumers

An electricity demand reduction project based on comprehensive residential consumer engagement was established within an Australian community in 2008. By 2011, both the peak demand and grid supplied electricity consumption had decreased to below pre-intervention levels. This case study research explored the relationship developed between the utility, community and individual consumer from the residential customer perspective through qualitative research of 22 residential households. It is proposed that an energy utility can be highly successful at peak demand reduction by becoming a community member and a peer to residential consumers and developing the necessary trust, access, influence and partnership required to create the responsive environment to change. A peer-community approach could provide policymakers with a pathway for implementing pro-environmental behaviour for low carbon communities, as well as peak demand reduction, thereby addressing government emission targets while limiting the cost of living increases from infrastructure expenditure