The new Green Directive has sparked a strong debate in Italy due to a series of provisions deemed harmful to the Italian building stock. We asked the engineer Mauro Cappello, university professor and expert on European funds, what this Directive provides for.
“The Directive concerns the energy efficiency of buildings and provides that at least 15% of buildings that are currently in class G (the lowest class and which corresponds to the highest energy consumption overall) pass into class E by 2030 and that by energy class D will even be reached by 2033. The purpose of the Directive is to reduce the energy consumption of buildings and the consequent emissions into the atmosphere considering that around 40% of the European energy bill derives from the consumption of buildings”.
The purpose seems more than acceptable, so why all this resistance?
“The Italian building stock is old and most of it was built before the entry into force of the first law on energy saving, Law 10/1991. According to the data provided by ENEA following a monitoring of the energy performance certificates (Ape) issued in 2020, 75.4% of the certificates refer to properties falling into classes E, F, G or particularly energy-intensive buildings which to about 11 million units. Class G, the poorest one, accounts for over a third (35.3%)”.
So?
“As an engineer I tell you right away that to pass at least two energy classes it is necessary to act simultaneously on three fronts: opaque surfaces (walls and roofs). through the installation of a coat, the transparent surfaces (windows) installing high thermal performance windows and finally on the systems through the replacement of boilers and heating bodies. The costs that citizens would have to face would be very high, for example: to date, the supply and installation of a 10 cm thick expanded polystyrene coat, according to the Lazio Region 2022 price list, is equal to 144 euros per square meter while a PVC window with high thermal performance costs over 500 euros per square meter and finally a heating system exceeds 4,000 euros. Let’s consider a small independent house of about 100 square meters, we could spend around 26,000 euros on work alone, add the costs for scaffolding and safety in general, then the design and construction management costs, apply VAT and you could easily reach the sum of around 40,000 euros”.
In fact, your calculation returns a sum that would not be within everyone’s reach. What consequences do you imagine for those buildings which, for economic reasons, cannot be adapted?
“Apart from the issue of sanctions, which is the subject of an ongoing debate, there would be a devaluation of those who have not been retrained. Let’s imagine that you have to buy a house and you have to choose between two twin buildings (for example two terraced houses), of which only one has been improved in terms of energy. Although they are twins, would you be willing to recognize the same market value?”.
In your opinion, how many buildings would be affected in the first tranche, the one that sees 2030 as the horizon.
“Ance has already made the calculations on the occasion of the hearing in the European Policies Commission of the Chamber of Deputies, quantifying the buildings concerned at over 2 million, of which 230,000 public non-residential and 1.8 million private and residential. With these numbers it is easy to calculate that, to meet the 2030 deadline, Italy should be able to complete around 286,000 interventions a year. The experience of the 110% SuperBonus where interventions were driven by a very strong incentive tells us that the maximum peak was around 260,000 interventions in 2022, i.e. a good 20,000 below what would be needed to comply with the new Directive. I am sure that, if Europe does not create a strong incentive, the goal will never be reached”.
What suggestions would you make to Commissioner Timmermans to improve the Directive?
“I want to mention a project, funded by the European Union within the 7th Framework Program for research and innovation, called “SHARE – Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe”.
What did it foresee?
“Scholars have shown that more than half of Europe is classified as medium-high seismic risk areas. At this point I wonder, especially in the light of the ongoing tragedy in Turkey and Syria where photovoltaic panels tower over piles of rubble, if it really is the energy consumption of buildings that is the priority European emergency. There are 8 capital cities and as many as 73 million European citizens in high-risk areas, furthermore an important part of the European building heritage is vulnerable to the earthquake, therefore it would be right and appropriate to include the European Fund for Prevention proposed in Brussels by the MEP Antonio Maria Rinaldi and Councilor Sergio Pirozzi. A Safe and Green Directive would save lives and avoid losing costly energy improvements in the event of an earthquake.”