Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that the energy performance certificate currently has a low impact on home purchase decisions in Germany, primarily because it fails to provide clear information on ancillary costs, is rarely available during the final selection process, and energy efficiency is viewed as a secondary property feature. However, the author argues that the implementation of the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) by 2013, which mandates the publication of energy data in property advertisements, could significantly increase the instrument's visibility and relevance.

The report categorizes German residential building policies into financial instruments, information tools, and performance standards. It argues that these tools are complementary; for example, financial incentives require information tools to be effective. Key financial mechanisms include KfW loans and the Heating Cost Ordinance, while information tools range from energy audits to mass media. Performance standards like the EnEV primarily target new constructions, with the report noting significant non-compliance rates for new buildings, estimated between 25% and 35%.

The report evaluates information tools used to encourage residential energy retrofits, categorizing them by the stage of the decision-making process they target: creating awareness, assisting in planning, and supporting professional implementation. It finds that while individual tools like detailed billing or energy audits can trigger savings, their effectiveness often depends on implementation design, such as 'opt-out' participation and the communication skills of professionals. The document highlights that in Germany, the government aims to reduce buildings' primary energy demand for thermal use by 80% by 2050, requiring a significant increase in the annual retrofit rate.

The report analyzes a survey of 2,000 German homeowners, categorizing them into non-planning, planning, and action households. It finds that motivations shift during the process, with building appearance being a primary initial trigger, while thermal comfort and energy savings become more important for those who have already implemented retrofits. High up-front costs and reluctance to take loans are major barriers, and the study highlights the critical role of the Internet, construction professionals, and personal networks as information sources. Financial support, specifically through KfW programmes, is shown to increase the likelihood of comprehensive retrofits and reduce the tendency to drop planned measures.

The report identifies three categories of information tools to support residential thermal retrofits: those that raise awareness of benefits, those that assist in planning and investment, and those that train professionals. It finds that while individual tools like detailed billing or in-home displays can reduce energy consumption by 1-10% or more, their effectiveness depends on implementation factors such as 'opt-out' participation, user education, and the quality of professional certification. The document emphasizes that information tools are generally cost-effective and can significantly catalyze energy efficiency investments when tailored to consumer needs.

The briefing examines the feasibility of Germany's goal to reduce building primary energy requirements by 80% by 2050. It finds that deep thermal retrofits for multi-family houses are economically viable for owners who capture full energy savings, especially when supported by KfW loans and grants. To achieve a 2% annual retrofit rate, public support would need to increase to between 2 billion and 8 billion EUR per year, depending on the energy standard targeted. If these targets are met, Germany could save 110 TWh and 7.5 billion EUR in energy bills annually by 2020.

The report identifies that the Leeds City Region must reduce housing-related CO2e emissions by 38 million tonnes by 2026 to align with national 2050 targets. The most impactful measure is the major retrofit of existing homes, which could provide 53.2% of the required reduction. Other essential measures include behavioural change (22%), low and zero carbon technologies (12.4%), and stricter new build standards (9%). The study concludes that a combination of these measures, supplemented by either external wall insulation, additional LZC installations, or selective demolition and rebuild of inefficient properties, is necessary to meet the target.

Buildings account for 40% of total annual U.S. energy consumption and 48% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. federal government operates over 500,000 buildings, which used 1.7 quads of energy in 2004, though the Federal Energy Management Program predicts a funding shortfall of over $2 billion for energy-efficiency projects. The document also highlights several high-performance buildings in the U.S. and Europe that achieved significant energy and water savings through sustainable technologies.

The report estimates that ensuring climate-resilient infrastructure in Uganda will cost between US$52-66 million (2015-2020) and US$638-1,157 million (2045-2050), with total costs by 2050 reaching up to US$3 billion under the RCP 8.5 scenario. Residential buildings are identified as the most affected sector, accounting for approximately half of all resilience costs. Regarding extreme events, the report projects that a doubling of event frequency every 25 years could lead to damages of US$738-3,294 million by 2050, representing 0.1-0.3% of GDP. Key adaptation priorities include climate-proofing public buildings and integrating resilient standards into infrastructure planning and risk assessment guidelines.

The study of ten apartment complexes in Bengaluru found that rooftop solar could meet the entire annual electricity demand for common services in 80% of the sites. Water pumping assets represent the largest electricity load, accounting for 45% of the total connected common area load across the studied complexes. Despite this potential, adoption is hindered by low incentives due to subsidized domestic tariffs in Karnataka, a lack of maintained energy data, and a priority on other budgetary items like waste management over energy efficiency.