Ownership and energy efficiency in multi-dwelling buildings A Swedish case study

Transcription

1 Ownership and energy efficiency in multi-dwelling buildings A Swedish case study Thomas Broberg and Alejandro Egüez Swedish Association for Energy Economics Conference Luleå

2 Contents Overview Energy audits and energy efficiency in Sweden Motivation Energy efficiency gap Split incentives Dataset Hypotheses Method Results Policy implications / Discussion 1

3 Energy audits and energy effciency in Sweden EU directive 2002/91/EC on the energy performance of buildings Implemented in Sweden with Law 2006:985 and Ordinance 2006:1592 Energy audits carried on across Sweden. An energy performance certificate typically includes: A temperature adjusted estimate of the building s energy performance (kwh per m 2 ) An energy performance labeling Related energy statistics (energy source, heating, ventilation systems, etc ) Suggestions on how to cost-effectively improve the building s energy performance. 2

4 Motivation Energy efficiency gap Why costeffective technologies are not taking place? Do the type of ownership (public or private) have an impact on energy efficiency? Markets may fail We focus on: Split incentives Deviations from profit maximization interests 3

5 Split incentives In Sweden heat is most often included in the apartment s rent. Tenants have no economic incentives to rationalize their indoor temperature and save energy. What can landlords do to offset such inneficiency? Improve weatherization. Consequence: unnecessarily higher rents on tenants / lower profits for landlord Temperature control. Consequence: lower comfort on tenants Rent control? 4

6 Dataset Unique dataset that combines data from energy efficiency certificates (audits) with ownership data on residential units. Consistent data: 90% of residential multi dwelling buildings in Sweden energy performance certificates Energy audits Energy consumption Energy use intensity (Energy consumption / m 2 ) Higher energy efficiency: lower energy use intensity (Performance measure) Building characteristics (year, heating and ventilation systems, energy sources, etc.) Property Public rental companies Private rental companies Private persons Condominiums 5

7 Hypotheses We investigate the energy efficiency of multi dwelling buildings in Sweden to find out whether the type of ownership matters. The hypotheses tested are whether buildings with rental apartments are less efficient than condominium buildings and if public ownership have a negative impact on energy efficiency. Rental Public / Private vs. Condominiums Private Public Rental vs. Private BRF / Rental / Persons 6

8 Method Descriptive statistics Population data Regression analysis to establish link between energy efficiency and type of property Regression analysis Energy efficiency and property Control for variables Technology (Energy sources, Heating and ventilation systems) + Other Characteristics (size, year, garage, floors, location, etc.) Conclude on the role of ownership on energy efficiency How the initial relations between energy efficiency and ownership change after controlling for variables? 7

9 Descriptive statistics Mean energy use intensity (kwh/m2) by type of ownership 153,24 145,24 148,00 136,95 138,24 PRIVATE PERSON PRIVATE RENTAL COMPANY CONDOMINIUM (BRF) PUBLIC RENTAL COMPANY OTHER 8

10 Descriptive statistics Mean energy use intensity by type of ownership and climate zone Climate zone Ownership type Private person Private rental company Condominium (BRF) Public rental company Other Condominiums on climate zone 2 have similar energy use intensity than public rental companies in climate zone 4. Similarly, condominiums in zone 1 have similar energy use intensity than public rental companies in climate zone 3. 9

11 Regression analysis - Selected Models Model 1 Energy intensity regressed on type of property Description 2 Model 1 plus control variables related to buildings characteristics, ventilation systems, and municipality 3 (Main model) Model 2 plus controlling for main sources of heating and certification year Restricted models 4 Model 3 if district heating is main use 5 Model 4 (if district heating is main use) plus if climate zone = 3 6 Model 5 (if district heating is main use and climate zone = 3) plus only buildings built earlier than Model 4 with district heating prices 8 Model 5 with district heating prices 9 Model 6 with district heating prices Models for main cities 10 Model 3 for Stockholm 11 Model 4 for Stockholm 12 Model 6 (but without climate zone) for Stockholm 13 Model 3 for Gothenburg 14 Model 4 for Gothenburg 15 Model 6 (but without climate zone) for Gothenburg 16 Model 3 for Malmö 17 Model 4 for Malmö 18 Model 6 (but without climate zone) for Malmö 13

12 Results Model (Main model) N R 2 Adjusted* Coefficients (Reference: Public rental) Private person Private rental Condominium (BRF) Other * Evaluated considering the average number of apartments 14

13 Results Model N R 2 Adjusted* Coefficients (Reference: Public rental) Private person Private rental Condominium (BRF) Other Stockholm Gothenburg Malmö * Evaluated considering the average number of apartments 15

14 Results Variable Coefficient (St.d.) Construction year ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Heated area (Log of m 2 ) ( ) Apartments ( ) Avg. apartment s size (m 2 ) ( ) Floors 2 floors ( ) 3 to 11 floors ( ) 11 or more floors ( ) Basement Heated garage ( ) Size of owner Size BRF owners ( ) Size Private person owners ( ) Size Private rental owners ( ) Size other owners ( ) Variable Coefficient (St.d.) Part of building Middle ( ) Side ( ) Ventilation system F ( ) FT ( ) FTX ( ) FX ( ) Heating system (main) Combustion ( ) Eletric heating (direct) ( ) Heat pump (water pipes) ( ) Secondary: heat pump ( ) Complex buiding ( ) Residence share (%) ( ) Heated Area measured ( ) Certificate year ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 16

15 Main findings Rental versus condominiums We find evidence pointing at inefficient management of both privately and publicly owned residential rental buildings. Public rental companies may reduce their energy use with AT LEAST 9 kwh per m 2 (or 6 %). In total this annual inefficiency amounts to approximately 0,6 TWh. In the case of private rental companies, the potential is 7 kwh per m 2 (or 5 %). Public versus private Condominiums perform better since they are occupied by the owners, so principal agent problems are mitigated. Private rental companies may gain profits from energy efficiency measures, while public rental companies may prefer the comfort of their tenants (voters) in detriment of potential increase on returns. 17

16 Policy implications and discussion Energy efficiency objectives on the public sector (EU Directive) Coordination efforts There are municipalities that own energy utilities and rental companies. In the one hand, energy utilities would benefit from increased energy consumption, whereas public rental companies would benefit from energy efficiency. Individual metering and debiting of heat, water, and electricity use Information and social norms Rent controls and energy efficiency? 18

17 Ownership and energy efficiency in multi-dwelling buildings A Swedish case study Thomas Broberg and Alejandro Egüez Swedish Association for Energy Economics Conference Luleå